Which Party's "Worldview" is Incompatible with Christianity?

For we are not peddlers of God's word like so many; but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence.  Paul, the Apostle in 2 Corinthians 2:17  NRSV

Many of the Christians I know who have embraced the Republican party, and in so doing have accepted all of its political positions without any real vetting of them when it comes to their consistency with Christian doctrine, theology or practice.  This is primarily based on their belief that all politicians associated with the party must adhere to its "platform" which includes opposition to abortion rights.  So, because of that single plank, a large number of white, Evangelical Christians have joined the GOP and become all-out supporters of everything it supports, and committed their loyalty to all candidates whose name is followed by an "R" for party affiliation.  

It's a Game of "Follow the Leader"

From my own experience of being raised in an Evangelical church and having attended one for the better part of thirty-five years, I'd say that there's probably not one church member in ten that can actually compare church doctrine and theology with Republican party positions and make a determination about their consistency or compatibility.  It may be anecdotal evidence from my perspective, but I haven't had very many conversations with someone along these lines who was able to reach into their own experience and knowledge of the Bible and come up with such a determination.  I've had a lot of these kinds of discussions, going back to my college days, and inevitably, the citations of support for their views came from some well-known Evangelical media personality, not from the Bible.  

The "National Affairs Briefing," a gathering in Dallas in August, 1980, gathered Evangelical pastors for the purpose of pulling them into a conservative, Republican-supporting political movement and a fellow by the name of Ed McAteer, of "Religious Roundtable" along with prominent Evangelical evangelist James Robison, organized the gathering.  They invited Reagan to address the gathering, which he gladly did, and where he said "I know that this is non-partisan and you can't endorse me, but I endorse you," a scripted remark which Robison suggested he make on the ride from the airport to Reunion Arena.  

Reagan's speech to the briefing endeared him to Evangelicals.  It was an intentional, and very well briefed, revivalist sermon and political campaign speech rolled into one, the irony being that his opponent, then-President Jimmy Carter, was a bona-fide, genuine, down-to-earth, theologically astute, articulate Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher. Reagan used the opportunity to ingratiate himself with several of the well known "televangelist" group in order to drive a wedge between them and Carter. Jerry Falwell's comments after Reagan's speech, that his Moral Majority would work to get conservative Christian voters to support Reagan's election "even if he has the devil running with him," has proven to be prophetic, literal and very accurate when it comes to their support for Republican candidates.  In this more recent time, they've voted for the devil when he was the one running for office. 

Politics has Changed Christian Doctrine and Theology

It's inconsistent for conservative Evangelical voters to let their politics bend their doctrinal position, which they insist is based on their belief in the "inerrant, infallible" Bible. But one of the things that I learned, subtly taught but openly practiced, is how to justify any personal belief, prejudice or bias with scripture.  No modern President of the United States was as thoroughly Evangelical Christian in his beliefs, which matched his behavior, as President Carter.  The media reporting during his candidacy, made that very clear.  But he was a Democrat, and Democrats supported abortion rights.  The diversity of opinion, which was and still is widely respected among Democrats, wasn't enough for this particular group of Evangelicals who already had one foot in the GOP anyway.  

Up to that particular time, no Republican President of the United States in the 20th century came close to Carter's Evangelical credentials.  Reagan was arguably one of the most "secular" individuals to run for President.  Any biographical information about him prior to his 1980 candidacy never mentions membership or association with any church, and what little is there now appears to have been inserted following his response to being questioned about whether or not he was "born again" in the same way Carter described.  He played the game that he needed to play, entertained those he perceived as influential in their ability to gather votes for him from among Evangelicals.  

Some of the core cultural perspectives practiced by Evangelicals had to be adjusted to make Reagan's lack of church involvement, or should I say complete absence of any evidence of church involvement, palatable to white, Evangelical voters.  Divorce is a big sticking point, but Reagan's highly publicized divorce from first wife, actress Jane Wyman, was never really addressed by the religious right, even though it was major news and involved accusations of "mental cruelty" on his part.  Nor did they ever comment much on his show business career, which included early work in nightclubs.   

It's only gone downhill for the relationship between the GOP and white Evangelicals since then.  Like every other historical relationship between the Christian church and the civil government, the church winds up compromising its faith and principles and corruptly curries the favor of the civil government which, in turn, abandons its democratic principles and the rule of law to make churches a privileged class exempt from the rules everyone else has to follow.  

Compatibility With the GOP Requires Compromise of Convictions

Turning their backs on the most credible Evangelical Christian to serve in the Presidency in the modern era is a clear demonstration of the GOP's incompatibility with Christianity, or even Evangelical Christianity, in its true form.  Jesus never intended for the church to be used as a political instrument or function as a government institution, which is exactly why that arrangement was doomed from the start.  Carter was the single most solid example we have of a person who was a true believer in the Christian gospel, and who was able to openly practice and express his faith while not imposing his convictions on anyone else, while serving as President.  

After Reagan, the GOP nominated George H. W. Bush who wasn't really happy about having to court the Evangelical vote.  As a practicing Episcopalian, which is the mainline church Evangelicals consider the "most liberal" and despise the most, he was right to be wary of them, and to hesitate to trust their support.  For the Evangelical part, it never really worked out for them to try and make both he and his son, George W., into Bible thumping fundamentalists from a religious perspective, but they were after political power, so religion got sidetracked and derailed.  That romance ended when George and Laura, both members of a liberal Methodist church in Dallas and regular attendees at St. John's Episcopal while in the White House, made friends with the first gay Episcopalian bishop, Rev. Gene Robinson.

With Mitt Romney, the reliance of the religious right solely on political power, and abandonment of what little bit of the Christian gospel was still intact for them up to that point was complete.  Romney  is not only a Mormon, a faith group that Evangelicals have branded as a cult so far away from the truth that there's actually a group of ex-Mormons and anti-Mormon propagandists who make a nice living off the sale of their books and media productions.  For the first time in support of a GOP candidate, Evangelical numbers levelled off.  But some of the big-name televangelists and mega-church pastors who had risen to the top of the leadership pile, among them Franklin Graham, dove right ahead with their support for Romney.  Jerry Falwell Jr. broke that religious barrier by inviting Glenn Beck, also a Mormon, to address Liberty University students in their chapel service, so that was a defacto endorsement of Mormon theology for political purposes.

The Sale of the Evangelical Soul with Trump 

Any pretense that the Evangelical involvement in politics still holds any Christian values or dependence on a higher power has evaporated with the sell-out support for Trump, whose character and person is the exact opposite of the ideal that Evangelicals hold as standard doctrine.  They're still hanging their hat on the abortion issue, which did pay off for them, but they had to abandon everything else, including their integrity, and pick up all of the baggage that came with the orange menace, including his pathological lying, and selfish ambition leading to his organizing and carrying out an insurrection against the government, and by extension, the American people.  

The Trump Organization has gone so far as to attempt to change the Christian gospel, being critical of core teachings of Jesus himself, because exhibiting those values and characteristics "don't get you anywhere in this world."  How much farther from the Christian gospel and teachings of Christ and the apostles do extremist right wing politics have to go before some of the mindless, power hungry, self-proclaimed "leaders" of evangelical Christianity realize how deep into apostasy they are, and the image they are now projecting, with extremist movements like Christian Nationalism gaining support and making a place for themselves at the ideological table.  

Christianity Isn't Intended to Advance a Political Agenda

Most criticism and rejection of Christianity is a rejection of the political movement.  In most cases, what gets rejected isn't even genuine Christian faith, at least, not the kind of faith that comes out of a contextual, historical interpretation of the Bible.  Evangelicals have a tendency to ignore history and context in favor of a fundamentalist brand of literalism, which distorts the message of the original authors of the Bible and which injects modern cultural bias into the practice of the faith.  There's also an arrogance that has developed among conservative Christians, based on their belief that they've got it all right, and that those who don't see it their way are hell-bound liberals who have it wrong.  They are blind to their presuppositions and incorrect assumptions. 

Two of the church's early apostles, recognized leaders in the founding years of Christian faith, both write about the relationship between the church and the civil government.  Recognizing that God is sovereign, they concluded that Christians are to recognize that all governments derive their power from God and obedience to the civil government, even if those involved did not share Christian beliefs, was an act of obedience to God.  What is also clear is that the Christian church was given a mission and purpose based on the Christian gospel, and while it acknowledged the authority of the civil government, it was not instructed to use that power to advance its own mission and purpose, but was to see God's sense of direction.  

Jefferson and Madison, noting that religion had been the cause behind centuries of European bloodshed and desiring that the kind of fighting Europe had endured would never find its way to American soil, took what I see as a Biblical model of the separation of church and state, and created a free church in a free state, so that both could thrive.  For Christians, from my perspective, that makes the preservation of democracy and the freedoms guaranteed by it the highest priority for the church.  Whether the church is empowered by the favor of the state, or persecuted by it, in neither situation is it free to be the church.