LXVI. The Gospel of Trump

Having grown up in the church, I can recall numerous events my father was a part of. He did weddings, funerals, hospital visits, and everything in between. He carried out prison ministry in two states when it was not a common thing. He was certainly conservative, though he had a knack for getting along with anyone and was in no way confrontational. He was steadfastly pro-death penalty and as far as I know, always voted Republican.

I wish he was around today as I’ve read and followed all the explanations of Donald Trump's relationship with evangelical Christians and conservative religious voters. It has been one of the most striking departures of what I was taught as Christian values that I have seen in my lifetime.

Trump has skillfully positioned himself as a champion and protector of Christianity in America, even while taking actions that many would consider the exact opposite to Christian teachings. It reminds me of the biblical examples, many times in parables, of understanding the differences between words and actions, faith and foolishness, and leaders and followers. The use of parables must have been a purposeful tool as it left scripture open to interpretation and a huge reliance on the use of wisdom and discernment. Without getting to that deeper understanding, it leaves room for swindlers and gifted public speakers to co-opt scripture as a tool.

Trump understands the power of this and courted religious-leaning voters early by appointing conservative judges, focusing on Roe vs. Wade, declaring Christianity under attack (it isn’t), and using religious language and imagery in speeches and public appearances. In Donald Trump’s relationship with Christians, he is treating them as a "mark" to exploit for political gain. He appeals to specific values, such as opposing abortion or promoting religious freedom, not out of genuine belief but to secure their loyalty. When he compares himself to biblical figures or quotes a scripture, those are manipulative tactics to maintain support.

While I follow the spiritual message of Christianity, I have long recognized the danger of looking for prophetic signs of confirmation, or a King-type individual to offer guidance. It opens Christians up to easy and downright embarrassing manipulation. Trump's conduct and many of his policies are about as contradictory to core Christian principles as one can get:

Acceptance of these apparent contradictions creates what psychology calls cognitive dissonance for many Christian supporters of Trump. They must constantly work to reconcile their religious values with their political allegiance to a leader who often violates those same values, or take the easy road and conclude such hypocrisy as “the unseen hand of God”.

To so readily give up responsibility for one’s own beliefs, I was curious about some of the psychological factors to help explain this.

Confirmation Bias: People tend to seek out other people or information that confirms their existing beliefs and make it easier to discount contradictory evidence. It’s a reason why Fox News has become the highest-rated network in certain populations. If the same message is repeated, Trump supporters become more focused on his pro-Christian rhetoric and judicial appointments while downplaying or rationalizing his factual un-Christian behavior and outcomes.

Tribalism: Humans have a strong tendency to align with their perceived in-group and oppose out-groups. Across the world, this has been a problem for eternity and used by leaders for control. Hitler did it with the Thousand Year Reich. Segregationists did it for Southern Whites. Putin does it to claim lands outside Russia are actually a part of a greater Slavic kingdom. For many conservative Christians, Trump represents their "team" against liberals, even within the same church, a master stroke to pit Americans against Americans for political and personal gain.

Motivated Reasoning: When people have a strong emotional investment in a belief, they use their cognitive abilities to defend that belief rather than to seek the truth objectively. No one wants to be proved wrong and our culture runs on admitting wrong as a weakness. Trump supporters may go to great lengths to justify their support rather than admit they might be wrong. Trump himself keeps to an edict to never admit wrong, and uses an offense-driven playbook to accuse others of the exact acts he’s done himself. Motivated reasoning is very strong and hard to overcome, as we all know the adage of “pride goeth before the fall.”

Cognitive Dissonance Reduction: When faced with conflicting beliefs or actions, people often change their attitudes to reduce the psychological discomfort. Some Christians may convince themselves that Trump's behavior is not actually un-Christian or that his policies outweigh his personal failings. We’ve all seen the mental gymnastics of this up close. While the United States has advanced in areas of immigration, science, and education, the psychology of human advancement is a whole different issue. Why? Because we are not rational beings.

The Cognitive Illusion: This concept describes how our brains create a mental image or narrative to reconcile contradictory information. Trump supporters may construct an idealized version of Trump that aligns with their values, even if it doesn't match reality. So, while we don’t see many of the un-Christian type acts with our own eyes, what we do see is a carefully orchestrated image of being the great white patriarch; tough, always correct, under siege, and a stable genius. In biblical terms, this could be Moses and King David rolled together.

Trump's co-opting of religion for political purposes is nothing new in the annals of mankind. Most of history shows a blend of government and religion to control the masses. For centuries, European monarchs, Russian Tsars, and Asian emperors claimed that their right to rule came directly from God. This doctrine allowed them to justify absolute power and suppress dissent. While not exactly parallel to Trump's situation, it demonstrates how political leaders have long used religious justification to maintain their authority.

Today, with the exception of the Middle East, most of the world has made advances in keeping religious belief and government separated, which is why Trump's relationship with evangelical voters is deeply problematic. It risks corrupting both true spiritual journeys and democracy.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who resisted the Nazi regime, warned against the dangers of a politicized church. He argued that when the church aligns itself too closely with political power, it loses its ability to speak prophetically and hold leaders accountable. Bonhoeffer wrote: "The church has only one altar, the altar of the Almighty... before which all creatures must kneel. Whoever seeks something other than this must keep away; he cannot join us in the house of God."

In the case of Trump and his Christian supporters, we see a clear example of what Bonhoeffer feared. By tying their faith so closely to a political figure, many Christians have compromised their ability to critique that leader's actions from a moral standpoint. They have, in effect, created a false idol out of political power. Another more pointed way that Bonhoeffer said it, “the power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.”

Jesus himself resisted attempts to co-opt his message for political purposes. When asked about paying taxes to Caesar, he famously replied, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Mark 12:17). This could be interpreted that while Christians may participate in political systems, their ultimate allegiance should be to God's kingdom, not earthly power structures.

The politicization of religion also risks driving people away from the pursuit of faith altogether. When Christianity becomes associated with partisan politics and hypocrisy, it loses credibility in the eyes of many observers. It becomes a “professional endeavor” more than a spiritual one. This can particularly be seen in surveys of younger generations, who are increasingly turned off by the perceived alliance between conservative Christianity and right-wing politics.

I can honestly say I don’t know where my father would abide in these politics if he were alive today, but I think he would believe that ministers and faith leaders have a responsibility to speak out against the misuse of religion for political gain. I recall a time that he did a funeral service for someone he was not personally familiar with but a relative of a church member. He treated the deceased with dignity but said he “would not preach the person into heaven.”

There is no political leader, party, minister, or person who has a monopoly on Christian values or belief. Without encouraging critical thinking and moral discernment among believers, the result is blind allegiance to any charismatic figure that comes along. It’s the only way to explain the loss of core biblical principles of justice, compassion, and care for the vulnerable.

While it's natural for people of faith to engage in the political process and to support leaders who they believe will advance their values (not only natural, but it is a must for our form of government) we must be vigilant against the dangers of spirituality trapped by political profiteers. The example of Trump and his evangelical supporters serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us of the importance of maintaining a critical distance between faith and politics. As Bonhoeffer and other theologians have warned, when the church becomes too closely aligned with political power, it risks losing its soul – and its ability to truly serve as the conscience of society.

The Good Samaritan was a character in a parable told by Jesus to illustrate the true meaning of what we would ultimately term Christianity. In the story, a man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. A priest and a Levite, both respected religious figures in society of the time, pass by without helping. However, a Samaritan, who belonged to a group despised by the Jews, stops to help the injured man. The Samaritan's significance lies in his actions, which stand in stark contrast to those of the priest and Levite. By making the Samaritan the hero of the story, Jesus challenges his audience's prejudices and demonstrates that true neighborly love transcends ethnic, religious, political, and social boundaries. The parable emphasizes that compassion and mercy are more important than social status or religious affiliation, and that anyone can be a "neighbor" by showing kindness to those in need.

That’s it. Full stop. Agape.

Ironically, the only time we see an angry Jesus in the bible is in a visit to a temple surrounded by money changers, yet another paradox of modern Christians supporting Trump.

Contemporary Christian political action should tread very lightly if it does not mirror the New Testament model of selfless service. Instead of aligning with political power or compromising moral values for partisan gain, the New Testament of Jesus portrayed a profound shift toward compassion, justice, and care for the vulnerable. By embodying the spirit of the Good Samaritan, Christians can reclaim their rightful role as a prophetic voice in society, advocating for righteousness and challenging injustice, thereby reflecting the true essence of their faith.

Christians have a long meandering history in the world of doing great works, but also enabling slavery, profit maximization, segregation, and war. We’re going to have to outgrow the casting of our shadows if democracy and true Christianity is to survive.

If there’s one thing I’m sure of, the serpent is now in the garden. We either see it, or we choose not to.

The new administration has done a marvelous job convincing people to vote against their best interests. This piece is by Lina Khan, the outgoing FCC leader, who has been an active voice and champion for the American consumer. This is a not-to-miss read that shows the dangers of giving too much leniency to one sector of the economy, and to not enforcing public protections. We have not heard the last of her as she is one of the young public servants who believe in the mission to ensure a level playing field and a free market that works for all American consumers. Here’s a great interview with her on 60 Minutes:

Full disclosure: I know good people on both sides of the utility aisle. What I see occurring with many of these political and public constructs is that the need to move rapidly toward reliable alternative energy sources runs smack dab against long-term vested interests. Mandating certain legislative policies “might” address some of the issues here, but I think a complete change in terms of source and distribution will be necessary in the long term to allow more new providers to provide energy resources.

While many public utility commissions (PUCs) face challenges in serving the public interest, some states have implemented promising practices to enhance transparency and accountability. Colorado's PUC, for example, has made efforts to improve public education and outreach, providing clearer online resources about their proceedings and decision-making processes. They have pushed for increased solar and wind generation. In California, the PUC has implemented an intervenor compensation program to fund public participation in regulatory proceedings, mandated battery storage deployment, and ended subsidies for gas lines to new homes. Michigan’s PUC has approved plans for more solar, wind, and batteries, while Minnesota's PUC has worked to increase data transparency between utilities and the public. Some states, like Georgia, are now 7th in the nation in utility-scale solar and have elected commissioners. Overall, PUCs prioritizing public education, stakeholder engagement, data transparency, and community input in developing equity policies tend to better serve the public interest.

Though this story is focused on Florida, I want all of you to pay attention to the resurgence of interest in nuclear power. The total costs associated with new nuclear power options are not being considered, simply because it is big profit via a centralized control of power options. When these come along, always pay attention to the true cost of the project, including who is footing the bill (public subsidy vs. private), how much land is used up, the problem with the waste product, and the security of one central source of power vs. a more distributed model of power (solar, wind, natural gas). Until this technology can be considered safe and secure with a smaller footprint, I do not see how it outcompete alternative approaches.

The total cost of a nuclear plant significantly exceeds that of wind and solar alternatives. Nuclear power plants are expensive to build, taking 5-17 years and costing billions of dollars. While operational costs are lower, the overall levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for nuclear is estimated at $141-221 per MWh, compared to $24-96 for utility-scale solar and $24-75 for onshore wind.

That’s a huge difference.

If we can get the storage issue figured out, alternative energies are going to be the long-term solution, and less costly.

Keep an eye on this issue.

This is a classic piece from Wired that has been a battle in every place I’ve worked. Every location has its own culture, whether from the type of work, the management, or the people employed. The most important leadership factor is to ensure you get a diversity of thought and leave room for mistakes. That’s where progress is made. Where you have a lack of diversity, you get comfort in familiar methods, a lack of awareness, and a purposeful stubbornness.

Here’s a key piece to reflect on:

But not every lab meeting was equally effective. Dunbar tells the story of two labs that both ran into the same experimental problem: The proteins they were trying to measure were sticking to a filter, making it impossible to analyze the data. "One of the labs was full of people from different backgrounds," Dunbar says. "They had biochemists and molecular biologists and geneticists and students in medical school." The other lab, in contrast, was made up of E. coli experts. "They knew more about E. coli than anyone else, but that was what they knew," he says. Dunbar watched how each of these labs dealt with their protein problem. The E. coli group took a brute-force approach, spending several weeks methodically testing various fixes. "It was extremely inefficient," Dunbar says. "They eventually solved it, but they wasted a lot of valuable time."

The diverse lab, in contrast, mulled the problem at a group meeting. None of the scientists were protein experts, so they began a wide-ranging discussion of possible solutions. At first, the conversation seemed rather useless. But then, as the chemists traded ideas with the biologists and the biologists bounced ideas off the med students, potential answers began to emerge. "After another 10 minutes of talking, the protein problem was solved," Dunbar says. "They made it look easy."

This is incredibly important because the rush to specialization from an early age can limit the broader thinking needed for discovery. If you don’t watch it, you can even train the wisdom out of people via singular pursuits. The best places to grow and thrive are places that know the value of diversity; a realization that one method is often the result of familiarity and history, not trial and error on the way to progress. The ability to evolve and innovate is at the heart of United States strength.

I’ve mentioned in previous issues that the greatest threat to the widespread use of AI is if it is used to get rid of jobs. Here are the facts. The private market does not provide comparable positions with benefits that many of these public service jobs do. For one thing, there’s no profit in protecting public goods. These jobs exist to protect the American way of life, and some people would rather have a job they enjoy, they are proud of, and they can make a living, and not worry about whether they are making a profit for themselves or on someone’s behalf.

The notion that Musk’s DOGE (and please remember that the government saved TESLA in the early days with funding and support) is a cost-saving measure is completely bogus. The real cost of these cuts will be distributed throughout communities where workers live with their families, in less protection for the most vulnerable populations, and less prevention against threats to come. Imagine how much worse the next 9/11, Covid, hurricane, wildfire, Ebola, Anthrax, or credit default swaps will be with Musk having left AI behind to handle things.

There will be no jobs in the age of AI that will replace these jobs, and more dependence on the whims of a private market that is providing less pay, less benefits, and less security than at anytime in history.

You may ask why is this necessary?

It isn’t, but it appeals to individuals who don’t comprehend that government and the rule of law is the great divider between the US and most nations. As these cuts to public services begin to trickle out beyond the belt, the tide will turn, slowly but surely, though it may be too late for many by that point. What is most likely to happen along the way is a mistake not contained in Washington wreaks havoc, and believers around the nation awaken to less security, more risk, and more fraud. I hate even to conceive that progress is to be made by such incidents, but that might be what it takes.

This week I finished reading The Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition. I would have never come across this without it being mentioned by a reader. It wasn’t what I thought it would be but it is as thought-provoking and intriguing today as when it was written thirty-something years ago. This book explores fringe science and the clever, sometimes weird, ideas of people who want to make the impossible possible. It's a wild ride through the minds of people who dream about immortality and populating other planets (remind you of anyone?).

This week I will be off to meet a first cousin I’ve never met before, a story stirred up with the help of AncestryDNA. I’ll share more in the future. Until then, thank you for reading. Keep your head up during the week, read something you’ve been putting off, and do at least one good deed. Above all, do your best to be a good human.

(This week’s song is dedicated to people everywhere embarrassed by this administration. It’s a reminder that they count on people to be passive. Make sure they counted wrong.)