An ill wind

The excruciation of virtue.

They say it takes 21 days to form a habit. They also say old habits are hard to break, so the first statement is surely a myth. American Christians have been in the habit of being at the center of our culture and political power for a very long time, and American Christianity has seen the rise of Evangelicals in the political realm for the last half century. So we have 50 years of Evangelical Christians used to pushing against the popular culture, with some mixed results, but in general, achieving many of their goals. As the political has taken up more and more of Evangelical life, there’s one area that has surely suffered, and that’s virtue.

Image: First Baptist Dallas, via firstdallas.org

There is no virtue in politics, because politics is about the pol, from the Greek word “polis” (πόλις), meaning a city-state, but more than that. A polis is an entity with its own population, government, laws, and citizens. In a democracy, even a well-engineered republican (small “r”) one with strong guardrails and bulwarks against the seizing of too much power by too few people, virtue has to come from outside the pol. What happens in politics is at best a reflection of the virtue of the people, and at worst, a check on the worst impulses of a virtueless population.

In his letter to Officers of the Massachusetts Militia, on October 11, 1798, John Adams warned what would happen if our nation should abandon virtue.

… should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World.

We would be miserable indeed. Adams continued:

Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Naturally, to answer Adams, we need to determine what is a “moral and religious people.” Doubtless, we can all find examples of morality and religion that don’t line up with virtue, at least as Adams meant it in context as a Christian in 1798, and certainly what would pass for it in the modern American Evangelical movement—at least in its public moments.

In the 19th century, Hindus practiced a particular religious rite called sati. It involved the widow of a deceased man burning herself on his funeral pyre. If the widow was not content to immolate herself, she was typically “talked into it” with all the implications that can be packed into that term. It was done in honor of the Hindu goddess of marital felicity, also called Sati, and to satisfy the mother goddess Shakti. In 1829, the British Raj banned the practice, which didn’t really end it at all.

Famously, General Sir Charles James Napier, Commander-in-Chief in India once responded to an Indian religious official’s protest that sati is a long honored national custom and a deeply religious and moral imperative. In response, Napier is quoted saying “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom … But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them … My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned … Let us all act according to national customs.” We all have our morals and customs. Christian virtue is simply one among many.

American government, if it were founded on some other morals and customs, would not look like the one we implemented. It would have been far easier to proclaim a sovereign, a king, and imbue that position with fairly unlimited power, only checked by a parliament representing the people, and submit the regional governors to that centralized power. It would have been easier to have a very European model, a constitutional monarchy, or what turned out to be the Canadian and other dominion government models, with a unicameral legislature and a prime minister. It would have indeed been easiest to simply turn power over to a dictator, albeit a benevolent one, who embodies virtue and kindness to all. It would have been easiest to make George Washington that king, or emperor. But Americans took the long view, realizing that people don’t live forever, and there’s no way to guarantee any one person will govern virtuously, and as long as power is concentrated, the result will always be tyranny.

The “moral and religious people” John Adams spoke of was a Christian people, and for a couple of centuries, and a few Great Revivals, a variety of people of varying religious backgrounds have supplied the pol with its virtue, or whatever version of that sufficed at the time. We must always take great care not to judge the past’s version of morals by our current standards, though concepts of “right” and “wrong” really shouldn’t vary through time. For example, chattel slavery is wrong at all times. The Old Testament had limitations on indentured servitude, so there was no such thing as generational slavery. The New Testament’s usage of “slave” generally aligned with the Roman Empire, meaning anyone who was not a citizen was a slave of the empire, and of the emperor, Caesar. In either case, the kind of slavery practiced by Americans in the south was neither right nor moral. Those who supported it did it without virtue, and we fought a war to restore virtue to our nation.

But many other practices, like sexual equality, took much longer to find their moral footing in terms of American Christianity. Some of those owed in great part to Evangelicals, who brought a more egalitarian Protestantism, when it wasn’t overrun with progressive ideals and Puritan judgement. But we should be able to define “virtue” in a Christian sense without resorting to denominational differences.

In short, virtue is a God-given, grace-enabled habit to choose and do good, moving closer to Godliness in all things. This goes beyond moral excellence and ethical behavior, though that is a foundation. Virtue is impossible without God, “for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.” (Philippians 2:13)

Christian virtue is a spiritual practice, and is inimitably tied to closeness with and knowledge of God. “His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life,” wrote Peter in 2 Peter 1:3. The New Testament teaches that without God, the habits of virtuous behavior cannot break the bonds of sin, which is the “old habit” of the fleshly, corrupted body with an unregenerate spirit, dead to God and divine things. This is basic orthodox Christian belief, on which there should be little variety among the stripes of doctrine and practice throughout Christendom.

These beliefs set the goal of Christian growth and sanctification as developing the fruit of the Spirit as delineated in Galatians 5:22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Peter encourages Christians to “make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love.”

By doctrine, Evangelicals are supposed to inform politics by infusing it with morality and virtue. That doesn’t mean a government based on Evangelical beliefs, or accepted Christian virtue, will make good decisions, from a political, or policy viewpoint. It doesn’t mean those decisions will be practical, either. But it does mean the government itself will be injected with humility, a commitment to knowledge and truth, self-control, and above all things, unconditional love. Seven centuries before Peter, the Hebrew prophet Micah wrote “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

In the context of humbly and lovingly advancing Christian virtue, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, established the Christian Life Commission in 1947, which was renamed the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) in 1997. The ERLC’s mandate is to advocate for religious liberty, engage the public square through the Gospel, and address ethical and social concerns from a Christian worldview. The commission’s predecessors were the Social Service Commission, which operated from 1913-1942, and the Commission on Temperance, from 1908-1913.

For many years, the ERLC operated in peaceful anonymity. But as politics became the lingua franca of moral discourse, and scandals like the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sexual trysts in the White House were used by Evangelicals seeking political power and even running for office, the ERLC publicly swung more politically and less theologically. You could see the swing start in the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter had a falling out with Jerry Falwell. “There is nothing a television evangelist can do to shake my faith,” Carter said to a UPI interviewer following his tremendous loss to Ronald Reagan and taunting by Falwell. “Jerry Falwell can—in a very Christian way—as far as I’m concerned, he can go to hell.”

Thus, Evangelicals abandoned one of their own to the winds of politics. But it took more time to erode the organs of the SBC, like the ERLC. Richard Land helmed the organization from 1988 through 2013, and continued his predecessors focus on racial reconciliation through peaceful and legal means. But as a conservative, appointed specifically based on his views on theological and political conservatism, Land broke with his predecessors, who were more liberal in their political views. Still, Land, who served 25 years, kept the organization from falling completely into the political realm.

In 2013, Russell Moore took over from Land, and served through the turbulent years of the first Trump election and administration. Moore was a critic of Trump, seeing the man as many (including myself) Christians do, as someone who does not embrace or reflect Christian virtue or ethics. In 2021, it was politics that forced Moore to leave the ERLC, and also the SBC. Further, Moore’s demands for greater accountability and transparency regarding the SBC’s own sexual abuse scandals soured many of the denomination’s leaders on him. Moore was right, and the political operators in the SBC were wrong; virtue is not found in politics, and power is not found in hiding or enabling sin.

After Moore, SBC leaders appointed Brent Leatherwood to head ERLC. On July 31 of this year, Leatherwood stepped down. His interim replacement is Miles Mullin, who, like Leatherwood, is a church deacon whose primary vocation is as a Republican Party staffer in Tennessee and Washington D.C. Leatherwood was, prior to his position at the ERLC, the executive director of the Tennessee Republican Party. Compare these curriculum vitae to Richard Land, an undergrad Princeton alum, who received his Masters of Theology from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and his doctorate from Oxford. Russell Moore also received his M.Div from NOBTS, and his Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Both Land and Moore served as pastors prior to their stint at the ERLC. Land became a professor of theology, and served as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, where he now holds the title of president emeritus. Land serves as executive editor of the Christian Post. Moore is the editor-in-chief of Christianity Today. Many political Baptists who embrace MAGA are very critical of CT, and still harbor animus toward Moore. The ERLC is solidly a political animal now, almost wholly divorced from its theological roots. Virtue has become an idol instead of a divine commandment.

Take Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, for instance. Johnson publicly wears his religion like a garment, quoting scripture and invoking God. But his public actions following January 6th, 2021, and his absolute flip-flops regarding President Donald Trump’s role in the Capitol riot, leave many Christians feeling like Johnson’s faith is lip-service. Former Member of Congress and part of the GOP leadership Liz Cheney takes particular umbrage at Johnson’s upending into the MAGA movement. In her book “Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning,” Cheney devoted a significant portion to documenting and chronicling what she saw as Johnson’s many betrayals, to his duty, and to his God.

Speaker Johnson and his family are proud members of Cypress Baptist Church in Benton, Louisiana. Other SBC leaders swooned with excitement at Johnson’s election as Speaker in 2023. “‘For Southern Baptists it’s like winning the lottery,’ said Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,” the New York Times reported. Johnson was also a trustee of the ERLC, notably under Land’s leadership.

The transformation of the SBC’s leadership from a theological platform seeking to infuse virtue into government through the public square, to an organization dedicated to claiming the public square as its own, “in the mainstream,” as Andrew Walker, a professor of Christian ethics at SBTS, told the NYT at the time, is notable. Walker is part of ERLC as a senior fellow, and also serves as a policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, which has become a MAGA stalwart.

The problem I see with all this confluence of politics and theology is not the same hair-on-fire “Handmaid’s Tale” theocracy touted by the progressive, liberal, secular folks—the ones Erick Erickson always grabs by the acronym “AWFULs”—Affluent White Female Urban Liberals. You know the stereotype: pink-haired, Subaru-driving women who carry vials full of vile bodily fluids to throw at prayer groups outside abortion clinics. Sky-screamers. Those are fringe people, unserious in their beliefs, and as political as the next cadre of crazies and lost people.

You can’t expect biblical virtue, or any kind of moral consistency from a Christian perspective, from people who are lost, don’t know or care for Christ, God, or the bible. Engaging with these people with any agenda other than grace and love is also not biblical, nor is it a reflection of what Christians know as the “Great Commission,” where Jesus said to be witnesses of His love, power, and God’s purpose, “to the ends of the earth,” and “until the end of the age.” Getting political with lost people is just foolish. But that’s what Evangelicals have done.

And that’s the problem I see. In fully engaging politically, the Evangelical church has harmed its witness, has excruciated its virtue, and exchanged it for political idolatry. No wonder the latest research shows more young men than women are going to church, and that non-denominations churches, and—of all things—Catholic churches, have gained more of a foothold among the young faithful. It’s not about engaging with the culture, it’s about the traditional Evangelical churches disengaging with the elements of the Gospel that compel love and grace, and throwing their lot in with power and politics. That turns young people off, because the young love to be part of something bigger than themselves; they are romantics and imaginers of better futures.

Without virtue, the young become incels, abused, or themselves become the abusers. They join with others like them, as in Lord of the Flies, and you get Turning Point USA and its ilk, who laugh at the misfortune of others and mock mercy as weakness. They are no better at virtue or morals than those who practiced sati in the 1840s. When the abandonment of virtue is their custom, then we who hold to God’s power also have a custom. They are to be cut off and consigned to whatever fire they kindled for themselves.

But the bigger problem is that without virtue in the public square, which is becoming more rare by the day, America’s government will descend into what Adams warned us about, “while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance,” yet also “rioting in rapine and insolence: this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world.” For many, the misery is tangible, but like an ill wind, they don’t know from where it comes.

Thank you for reading! Please subscribe and share if you like this post.

SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS: You can follow us on social media at several different locations. Official Racket News pages include:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRacket
Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewsRacket

Our personal accounts on the platform formerly known as Twitter:

David: https://x.com/captainkudzu
Steve: https://x.com/stevengberman
Jay: https://x.com/curmudgeon_NH