In Believe Me, Fea explores Donald Trump's popularity among American evangelicals--81% of them anyway. Along the way, he addresses the inconsistencies that many conservative religious leaders have demonstrated over time in their responses to different presidents, Clinton and Trump, for example, giving an unlimited pass to one while wanting to burn the other at the stake. Fea shared this example from a 1998 letter from James Dobson (a Trump supporter) questioning Clinton's morality: "As it turns out character DOES matter. You can't run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don't respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the book of James, the question is posed 'Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?' (James 3:11, NIV). The answer is no." In my opinion, those who fail to see the hypocrisy in this statement are blind.
When Fea wrote of "the evangelical politics of fear," I resonated with the phrase. I think he is right when he suggests that fear drives many of the political viewpoints and voting practices among evangelicals. We place our hope not in God, the All-Sovereign, but in compromised earthly powers, especially those who tell us what to be afraid of and how they are the only ones who can fix it. The fear-mongering is reminiscent of Richard Dreyfuss's Senator Rumson in 1995's The American President. I was grateful that Fea is a historian; he was able to trace the roots of these fears to the 17th century up into the 21st century, with particular attention to the civil rights movement.
His thoughts on Trump's slogan, "Make America Great Again," were also beneficial. He commented that as a historian, he was less interested in the definition of great than what Trump means by the word again. To what era is Trump referring? And from whose perspective? It remains nebulous. Fea rightly draws the distinction between history and nostalgia, noting that "nostalgia is closely related to fear." Fea writes, "Sometimes evangelicals will seek refuge from change in a Christian past that never existed in the first place. At other times they will try to travel back to a Christian past that did exist--but, like the present, was compromised by sin."
In his conclusion, Fea calls evangelicals to three things: hope, not fear; humilty, not power; and history, not nostaligia.
I found Believe Me to be an insightful, timely book and I cannot recommend it highly enough. Unfortunately, I suspect most of the 81% will not even consider reading it; it's something that Trump would quickly dismiss as "fake news." As Americans, we tend to prefer political propaganda propagated by Twitter, Facebook, and our preferred news networks than actually digging in, with humility, to consider what might be true. As Christians, whose primary citizenship is in an eternal kingdom, we cannot afford to do this any longer.
I cannot think of a better way to conclude this book than with the quote that first intrigued me: "The Court Evangelicals have decided that what Donald Trump can give them is more valuable than the damage their Christian witness will suffer because of their association with the president."
This is a really important book. Believe me.
