Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sprinkled With Propaganda
Numerous self-appointed Christian spokespersons found themselves appalled and enraged by the election of Donald Trump in 2016. What they were appalled by, if we go by Russell Moore’s incessant complaints and accusations, was the way that conservative Christians were willing, in large numbers, to vote for a candidate who had a history of public moral failings, and who sometimes said mean things about his opponents.
Not content to sit idly by and see Trump elected again in 2020, several of these Progressive-leaning Christian influencers mounted a concerted effort, during the months leading up to that election, to diminish Christian enthusiasm for voting Republican by providing a rationalization to help mute Christian consciences in the voting booth. Muting their consciences was something Christians would certainly need to do, if they were going to bring themselves to vote for abortion advocates. It isn’t easy to convince committed Christians to vote for candidates who favor the dismemberment of unborn children, but the aforementioned Christian influencers found Trump so abhorrent that they were willing to step up to such a challenge.
Right on schedule now, in 2024, some of those same influencers are beginning to churn out material that bears the hallmarks of the election year propaganda they produced in the past. (One could be forgiven for imagining they are auditioning for the role of Mark Studdock within the current regime.) Some of the more dyspeptic influencers are even allegedly taking money from outspoken enemies of Christianity to produce materials designed to help conservative Christian voters rethink the moral rationale for how they vote. In open forums, these influencers are actually telling pastors that, by using such prepared materials with their congregants, the pastors can maintain “plausible deniability” about their own political leanings. The euphemism, “maintain plausible deniability”, sounds ever so much more pleasant than “put one over on your church”.
This past week, the video I have embedded below popped up on my news feed. It features a man named Preston Sprinkle. I should have referred to him as Dr. Preston Sprinkle. He makes sure you know his proper appellation right up front in his bio. I haven’t known much about Dr. Sprinkle or followed his work. I knew vaguely that some conservative Christians have taken exception to various and sundry of his LGBTQ ideas. He says in his bio that he encourages people to hold “their predetermined beliefs loosely”, so that’s probably a clue as to which particular direction he’s nudging historically Christian ideas regarding all things LGBTQ. I don’t know enough about Dr. Sprinkle to have particularly strong opinions regarding his views on homosexuality, but his enthusiasm for the rock band U2, which he also openly reveals in his bio, is by itself sufficient to disqualify him on any number of subjects. (That’s sort of a joke. If you can’t take a joke about U2, then you might consider the possibility that you yourself are a part of the problem.)
Conspicuously absent from Dr. Sprinkle’s bio are the words “Christian” or “church”. His church associations, if any, are not apparent in his bio. Though his site is peppered with strong views regarding what it means to be a proper Christian. Thus, I infer from his web site that Dr. Sprinkle fancies himself as a sort of Christian leader at-large, though it’s kind of hard to tell.
In the very short video, Dr. Sprinkle begins by sounding the alarm for all of us regarding his belief in the widespread prevalence and imminent danger posed by “political idolatry”. No evidence is offered for the existence of such widespread “political idolatry”. We are expected to just take Dr. Sprinkle’s word for it. “Idolatry” certainly sounds bad. Who, after all, wants to be an idolator? But what exactly, we might ask, are these apparently ubiquitous political idolators actually doing?
Well, Dr. Sprinkle says they are exhibiting political allegiance to a <shudder> political party. One wonders whether, if they alternated their votes willy nilly between the parties, would that be sufficient for Dr. Sprinkle let them out of the idolatry box? And why an allegiance to a political party constitutes idolatry, Dr. Sprinkle declines to explain. What form such nefarious allegiance takes, Dr. Sprinkle also declines to specify. We are left only with our imaginations if we hope to conjure up what such an improper political allegiance might look like. Given the fact that, for the vast majority of Christians, casting a vote during infrequent elections constitutes the sum total of their actual political activity, I conclude that what Dr. Sprinkle is almost certainly trying to do is plant seeds of doubt in our minds regarding the moral criteria that has resulted in so many Christians voting for Republicans. He doesn’t come right out and say that, but we are left with few other options.
Dr. Sprinkle does say, however, that such allegiances inevitably dilute a Christian’s allegiance to King Jesus. Just why that is necessarily the case, Dr. Sprinkle yet again doesn’t reveal. We are simply to take his word for it. The fact that, for millennia, Christians have been able to successfully maintain both temporal and eternal allegiances, is something Dr. Sprinkle is curiously silent about. Has every Christian who ever pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, been ipso facto guilty by this standard, of political idolatry? Apparently Dr. Sprinkle thinks so. Does loyalty (another word for “allegiance”, by the way) toward a family, or a community, or an employer, also constitute idolatry? What if a Christian has a single-minded preference for, say, representative democracy over communist dictatorship? Would that too be idolatrous? If not, then why is Dr. Sprinkle singling out political allegiances as being unique among temporal affiliations in their ability to dilute our allegiance to King Jesus? Once again, the video doesn’t say.
What Dr. Sprinkle seems to be doing with this video is raising the specter that commitment to voting for a specific political party constitutes personal moral failure on the part of Christian voters. As I write this, I recall that many of the very same people now suggesting that loyalty to a political party constitutes a moral failure, are those who, during the pandemic, told us that vaccine hesitancy, or failure to wear a mask, also constituted a lack of love for our neighbors. Let’s just say they haven’t covered themselves with glory with their lengthening track record of guilt-mongering accusations. I write this, by the way, as someone who is no particular admirer of Republicans. I find them to be comically hapless and often uninspiring. Republican aspirations often seem to run no higher than being the Washington Generals to the Democrats’ Harlem Globetrotters. So it is not out of love for Republicans that I take exception to the accusations of guilt merchants like Sprinkle and Moore.
The ultimate goal of their histrionics, I suspect, is to manufacture a narrative in the minds of non-Progressive Christians that puts them on a defensive footing from a moral point of view. They are less concerned with actual analysis than with forming an intuition in our minds. That intuition is something along the lines of “political enthusiasm for a particular party, even if motivated by conscience, represents a failure of loyalty toward Jesus.” It is not important for us think too critically about this narrative. In fact, for Dr. Sprinkle’s purposes, I suspect it’s important for us not to think too critically at all.
Unfortunately, I myself like to think at least a wee bit critically about how Dr. Sprinkle is nudging me to conceive of Christian voting. Would that be all right? I hope that doesn’t put me in there with all those sweaty idolators.
Let me start by observing that if Christians are to be precluded from ever voting for morally flawed candidates, we shall be forced to give up voting altogether. Voting is a prudential judgment rooted in what the voter believes a candidate is likely to do while in office. If a party’s policies openly advocate, say, the dismemberment of unborn children, or their sexual mutilation later into their childhoods, I’ll go out on a limb and say that it is not particularly “idolatrous” to consistently vote against a political party in pursuit of such policies. It is therefore probably safe to say that showing “allegiance” to a political party is not inevitably a form of idolatry. In the real world, depending on the circumstances, political loyalties may actually reflect wisdom born out of faith.
The elephant in the room during this election year is, of course, Donald Trump. The Donald enjoys being the elephant in every room as it happens. I myself am, in many ways, not a fan of Mr. Trump. But alas, all of my own favored candidates routinely go down in flames during the primaries. In 2016 I was hoping for Scott Walker. For 2024 I was cautiously optimistic about Ron DeSantis. So if you are looking for a politically savvy prognosticator who unfailingly picks a winner, I am not your man. Happily though, we are in possession of four years of existence proofs which do tell us something about how Trump would probably govern if he ends up being elected. He has shown himself to be notoriously determined to keep many (though not all) of his promises. And for all of his faults, he does seem to actually love his country. Perhaps not as much as he loves himself, but we can’t always have George Washington for president. Joe Biden, on the other hand, to the extent he still even knows what day it is, seems to view his country the way a pimp views a prostitute — as something to be exploited for his own personal gain.
Conservative Christians are often lectured by Russell Moore, David French et al for having voted for Donald Trump. But Moore and company, who are so exercised by Trump’s personal failings, are notably silent regarding the moral failures of Trump’s opponents. It isn’t as if the Democrats are fielding Mother Teresa as their candidate for president. Honestly, to pretend that Joe Biden is a paragon of relative virtue and moral fastidiousness, by comparison to Donald Trump, would be laughably absurd if it wasn’t so revealing of the pathetic political self-dealing of Russell Moore’s accusations. Notwithstanding my own preference for someone other than Trump, I would crawl over broken glass to vote for him against Joe Biden. Far better to vote for a flawed man who wants to build up his country than an equally flawed man who wants to plunder it.
Whoever each of us votes for, it is always wise to remember that there are no ultimate and final answers that will ever be found in temporal politics. It is unfortunately the case, especially in the soft totalitarian environment we are now living in, that government policies can have a large effect on the well-being of our neighbors, for either good or ill. Were the government more limited and less intrusive, politics and politicians would be far less consequential. I myself very much prefer limited government with its inconsequential politics. But as things now stand, the duty of love we owe our families and neighbors seems hard to decouple from advocating for temporal politics that reflect a Christian understanding of justice, and of human flourishing.
Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that no matter how beneficial this or that conservative policy might be, public policy is itself not the Christian gospel. For Christians, this world has a shelf life beyond which temporal politics will cease to matter at all.
What I really suspect is going on with Dr. Sprinkle’s video, and with the work of other similar influencers, is an effort to weaken the general inclination among many Christians to vote for Republican policies as a matter of conscience. But as Progressives everywhere are wont to do when trying to justify their goals, Sprinkle and the other influencers are occupying themselves by saying very silly things. Until they start to make more forthright and cogent arguments, we should feel free to disregard all their manipulative histrionics.
Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 25 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Pick one…
Dr. Sprinkle…
Would make a great clown name,
Is a new franchised lawn service you can get for under $20,000
Is the name of my Urologist
Idiots often tell people how they should vote – it’s the American way.
Idiots telling people how to Christian is new.
They’re not shy nor lacking in self esteem.
“Christian influencer:”
Yeah, I’m out.
It’s not like Biden, or the Democrat party leadership, is Christian or has a Christian agenda. Sometimes Christians need to choose among non-Christian alternatives. Also, Carter, while a sincere Christian, was a very poor President.
Perfect!
I have found in my experience that non-Christians have always been quick to point the finger and yell “hypocrite” whenever a Christian stumbles.
My pastor has always said that if they can’t get the life issue right, they can’t be trusted with anything else.
As for me, when confronted with one who is almost always against my values and says so and one who seems to be in agreement with most of what I believe, it seems logical to go with the one who might do something with which I am in agreement as imperfect a choice as he might be.
My mother learned her lesson on how to vote for a President after that election. She brings it up every time someone goes down the path these folks are trying to take us.
Same here.
Well said. The U2 gag is brilliant.
Has anyone here encountered a pastor or priest admonishing the State regarding FBI Surveillance (Latin Mass), so called FACE Act Prosecutions, Tranny Madness or school board/parental surveillance?
They should be ringing the warning bells and I’m not seeing much of any indication that they recognize the imminent threat.
I keep wondering what outcome such people expect or want. I can’t imagine a life with such a tenuous connection to real world consequences. I know not all of them live the lives of protected ultra wealthy snobs. So – what do they expect will happen to their own actual lives?
What bothers me about the anti-Trump fervor among Republicans is that it is so focused on one person (Donald Trump). I think the reason we do this, lose all sense of proportion, is that the Democratic Party and its mass media operation is forcing us to look only in that direction.
Some of the Democratic Party appointments should be enough to drive people to vote for Republicans (the present transgender Health and Human Services secretary comes to mind).
The president is the head of a huge organization: the federal government agencies from the IRS to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and everything in between. He’s the commander-in-chief of the largest military in the world. The budget that the president is responsible for is astounding. We need to have Republicans in Washington. Lots of them.
There are so many smart Republicans to choose from for leadership positions in the federal government. I was listening to Fox News the other day, and the host interviewed Marco Rubio. He was so sharp. I’d forgotten how much I liked him. Every time I hear a Republican interviewed in the news, I’m always impressed by how practical the person is. We’ve got quite the talent pool right now. Very impressive people.
Christians would get a more Christian government than they have now simply by voting for Republicans across the board.
Remember all those videos of entertainers pledging allegiance to Barack Obama? Of young school children singing hymns of praise to Obama? Did anyone ever hear liberals express disapproval of such fascist-adjacent propaganda? Seems unlikely that this Sprinkle person felt any discomfort either.
We are being flooded by content from David French and Russell Moore. I guess they get to party with the cool kids.
Any relation to Annie?
The Christo-religious
You cannot serve God and mammon.
I have reread Moore’s article and as far as I understand it, I agree with it in word and in spirit.
The Bible fairly explicitly says that Christianity is not a religion, but the Truth. And it’s supernatural; it is truly otherworldly. But looking through a glass darkly, and with rebellious thinking coming from within and without, and with the absence of Christ standing visibly over our shoulders and giving visible example and audible guidance, it is easy to live our lives as if on two planes; one spiritual and the other, most of it, secular: shopping for food, shuttling kids, and working and paying the mortgage and trying to make ends meet, and maybe entertaining ourselves in our free hours.
I have often here mentioned that old quote (half-remembered) of the various ways Rome, France, England and America have reinterpreted Christianity, but I’ll further reduce it: Christianity has largely and intractably become composed of sinecures and entrepreneurs.
I know, I know, “the workman is worthy of his wage,” but that was meant to pay people (who may have had a wife and children left behind) for travelling thousands of miles at 20 miles a day, for months at a time, delivering and collecting letters, and when arriving at a place living there for a time, and sitting with elders and observing the community and explaining the Gospel. They were on a genuine mission on behalf of others. And by any understanding, Paul, who said these words, was a deliberate example of one who worked to pay for both his keep and his life’s mission.
I think there’s a great disconnect today between being a Christian human being who is ordinarily commanded by Christ to do exemplary good works of love, even as far as laying down his life, and one who is of the same body but is paid to do exemplary good works of love, and who turns it into a paying profession. I think most people have experienced the tension between continuing to earn money and following your conscience. Money not all too rarely wins.
And to give just one example, I once heard our new young pastor say, ironically, that in seminary a fellow student said that he had chosen to become a pastor to get rich. I said “ironically” because our new pastor did not actually say he disagreed with this sentiment. And sure enough within a year he had put up a Costco-sized building on adjoining land, and following the popular Christian business teaching of the time, to maintain a degree of spiritual anonymity this church did not use “Church” or “Christian” in its name or display a cross.
My point is “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
And all too often in Christian circles, popularity, name recognition, and novelty are seen as the path to get rich.
The best ever!!! Bono and Bob Geldolf have done so much damage in Africa…..
The entire comment is appreciated as very interesting perspective .
This is the spiritual conundrum. Popularity brings money which brings micro and macro temptations. Now our guru has to be perfect in abstinence – right after newfound abilities to indulge in anything and everything.
People become famous will have many more opportunities to be tempted than some shrub on the internet who is professing how pious he is in being faithful or abstinent. He hasn’t really been serially presented with the choice, overweight over-educated and underperforming as he is. It is so easy for this dweeb to condemn some Hollywood heartthrob’s moral failings.
Sooner or later our Jerry Springer, our Bhagwan Sri Rasneesh, Joseph Smith, or the current Pope, indulge somehow.
They must lie to protect their vice. Pretending, acting ‘as if’, has psychological consequences. They will tweek the religion to accommodate their preferences. This cascades into more failures of ethics and morality.
The money is the ability to indulge in whatever predilection the guru is thus inclined. Sex drugs, power, ego, vanity, risk and combinations thereof. wait, were those the 7 deadly sins?
My fundamental issue with people like David French is pride (is that the seventh?) in this case pride of superior morality a stronger ability to resist temptation. Well we haven’t seen the version of David French the billionaire, the hot actor or sports star, with women waiting mounds of cocaine and you don’t have to perform, play or have a meeting until 4PM tomorrow. Who knows maybe he’d pass the test with flying colors if he was one of these things, the first time. I question his de facto bragging in this department.
My sense of Christ was that he did not judge people. That’s very consistent with every story I ever heard about him. But French – and this general type – is arrogantly judging people.
On their own ‘side’. You see, they hold themselves to a higher standard than Democrats, who they have a hard time identifying with for understandable reasons. They identify as ‘pious’ first, you see. They are moral. Then they are political.
This has the downside of losing elections serially. Game theory 101 – and never achieving this moral utopia these people seem to crave – an ever elusive goal. Iteratively going backward in a ratchet cycle into debauchercy that Frenchies fear but are enabling through their ignorance.
You say a lot here, and I’d have to think a lot about it to respond coherently. I agree with everything you say, but I’d like to make two points off the top of my head. Firstly, the world is supernatural and more than just the four dimensions that scientists perceive. And secondly, I don’t mean my criticisms to be in any way criticism of Christianity, Christ, God or Christians, but in the world’s inevitable pervasive septic dilution of the Christian community and Christian thought. I believe in the inherent goodness, even greatness, of God, Christ and the Congregation of the Saints, which means all Christians everywhere.
Jerry Springer = Jimmy Swaggart lol
Bono is the definition of pretentious, but Geldof is a good guy.
I read his autobiography and it was fascinating. Excellent interesting writing about a strange upbringing in England. The end of the book chronicles the whole Do they Know it’s Christmas (sounds so stupid now) which became We Are the World. There are great tidbits on bands vying to get into Live Aid and people trying to virtue signal their way into the line-up. His chapter on the difficulties in feeding hungry people far away is a masterclass on how and why these famines exist. Maybe he should have known all that before, but he was young and idealistic. He knows now and I learned a lot myself reading his book.
There’s a story about Bono (may be apocryphal – don’t know) where, at one of his concerts, he silenced the crowd and in the complete silence of the stadium, he began to very slowly clap his hands.
Bono: <CLAP>…<CLAP>Every time I do this<CLAP>…a child in Africa dies.
Anonymous person in the audience (shouting): Well stop doing it then!
The urologist in El Paso who did my vasectomy (many years ago) was Dr. Dickey.
I knew a urologist named Dr. Wasserman. His vanity tag read 2PCME.