Attention theologians and clergy: So obviously, US evangelicals of the Trumpist variety, with their exhortations to hate their neighbor and calling Christ “weak” and empathy a “sin”, cannot properly be called “Christian”. So what are they? What label should be applied to their belief-system?
For right now, I’m going to go with “Post-Christian”. But I don’t know if that’s really self-explanatory enough. The “prosperity gospel” is in this general grouping, but there are several other heretical movements which belong there too. I’d appreciate input on an umbrella term.
One positive thing which is also a bad thing about Christianity and the Jesus story of the New Testament is that it lends itself to much projection, often unconscious, of the intentions of those who follow it in various forms. These forms are basic evidence of this projection. There’s not a little justification too.
Hence, all of the movements over our memories and before. A new one is the “Tough Guy Jesus” which has been getting various play over the recent decades and a lot now as people try to reconcile supposedly Conservative politics with its conflicts in their Faith and its ways of life, or supposed ways of living.
There’s a really cool book, “Joshua, a Parable for Today,” which touches this topic very well.
Whether one is a believer or not, perhaps Jesus or the Christ comes in exactly the form a person needs and not what he or she expects or thinks is wanted or necessary.
To be “post-Christian,” American evangelicals and fundamentalists would need to have been actual followers of Christ to begin with. However, when you compare their actions and hidebound traditionalism to the words and deeds of Jesus, it seems more likely that he would have told them that he didn’t know them (Mt 7:21-23). And he had some choice words for such, like “hypocrites” and “Pharisees” just for starters. I’d prefer the term pseudo-Christian myself.
People keep saying stuff like this, which completely misses the point. The idea is to develop a useful term for a mass movement, not to express some individual opinion of it.
IMHO “pseudo-Christian” is a useful term for them. More useful, in that it emphasizes that they never embraced J.C.’s teachings to begin with.
No. You find me a single other mass movement which is referred to academically as “pseudo-“something and I’ll reconsider. These terms are always neutral because they are terms for dispassionate study, not attempts to apply judgment to the labeled movement.
Pseudoscience is a frequent term used by academics for all sorts of movements. On the other hand, the academic field of religious studies doesn’t like referring to any movement as “pseudo-” because of the pretense that religious groups should be allowed to label themselves whatever they want to be. So, in their view, a group claiming to be Christian but preaching ruthless accumulation of wealth and earthly power is “just a variation” of Christianity, not “post-” or “pseudo-” but maybe “neo-” …
None so blind as those who will not see. OK.
As a theologian (PhD) I think that post Christian is a good start, but because of the connection between the Evangelical Right and Opus Dei Roman Catholics via the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 it may be an inaccurate term. Considering that it was this same mindset that drove persecution of “others” from the Crusades to the inquisition to colonialism and slavery under the Doctrine of Discovery I suggest neo-Christian fundamentalism as an alternative. It is a mouthful, but it captures the zeitgeist.
Wasn’t it Bishop Spong who suggested that it was more helpful to think of Fundamentalism as a religion, and the various types (Christian, Islamic, feminist) as sects within the Fundamentalist religion rather than vice-versa?
Fundamentalism is a word that can be interpreted in different ways. To me I look for a term that the ordinary person will understand. If I say Islamist fundamentalists the image of Isis fighters and suicide bombers springs to mind. If I say Christian fundamentalists what springs to mind? The Inquisition? Witch trials and burnings? Fundamentalism is by definition inflexible. The Opus Dei Roman Catholic sect driving Project 2025 have rejected Vatican 2 and quite literally have women serving them in the same way as presented in the Handmaid’s Tale. And Evangelicals share the same values ie denying women the right to autonomy over their bodies (eg banning abortion even if it means that the mother dies) and of course their sexuality. The trick in communicating with lay people is to find an umbrella term that suits your audience. So for me at least, neo Christian Fundamentalist is a blanket term that captures the extreme, anti humanist ideology of this unholy alliance between Protestant and Catholic extremism.
This a related subject, but I agree with your point.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/19/2103351/-The-Biggest-Fallacy-About-Religion-and-Politics