Ideology, Propaganda, and Power
Scott Coley's "Ministers of Propaganda"
I recently finished Scott Coley’s Ministers of Propaganda: Truth, Power, and the Religious Right, published by Eerdmans.1 Scott is a lecturer in philosophy at Mount St. Mary’s (and a fellow Purdue PhD!). So, this becomes my second philosophy post of the week.
This book is the kind of philosophy that attends to the structure of arguments: what are the truth claims offered, what evidence is marshaled, and what conclusions are proposed. His central thesis is that in many cases figures on the religious right adopt a form of argument that amounts to propaganda. In other words, it’s not real argument to engage others but an attempt to marshal support for the status quo that leaves those in power feeling good about their positions while ignoring (or demonizing) other perspectives.
In the book’s introduction, he argues: “that American evangelicalism’s social and intellectual infirmities are mutually reinforcing: social practices shape beliefs about what others deserve and which authorities are legitimate; those beliefs, in turn, shape social practices. (2)”
Ideology (his label for the feedback loop above), “is facilitated by propaganda that manipulates political, intellectual, or religious ideals in order to preempt dissent and silence perspectives that threaten an ideology’s legitimacy. (2)”
He shares this interesting insight: “I contend that much of what’s described as evangelical deconstruction is essentially an effort to decode propaganda that’s embedded in the ideology of the religious right. (3)”
With this as backdrop, he works through a wide variety of examples in the subsequent chapters. He tackles assumptions about Gender Hierarchies, Race Relations past and present, and Young Earth Creationism.
There is a common pattern to the arguments the propagandists make in these varied examples. One begins with an assertion of the authority of scripture (using selected Bible texts). Because they affirm that scriptural authority above all, the conclusion must be a matter of common sense plain to everyone. Anyone who doesn’t see the commonsensical nature of the argument clearly isn’t committed to scripture. Therefore, they can be dismissed rather than engaged. Moreover, demonizing the other becomes key to maintaining power.
This week the Southern Baptist messengers fell short of the two-thirds vote they needed to pass a resolution that women cannot be preachers. It did receive a healthy majority and will likely get adopted somewhere down the road. Just today I saw a tweet (a Post? an X?) from someone arguing that it’s not that women shouldn’t be preachers but that they cannot be preachers.
But that’s not simple common sense. It’s an argument made that discounts all views but those of the poster as being anti-biblical — even though there are very real women who are pastors and take the bible very seriously.
Furthermore, what is claimed as self-evident common sense for those “who truly believe the bible” can be changed due to life events. Scott tells the story of Jerry Falwell Sr.’s early segregationist days which got toned down as he explained that he was simply shaped by his cultural upbringing. But to admit the culture-bound nature of Falwell’s position is to deny the literalist application of scripture that was supposed to be common sense.
He explores the nature of the propagandistic argument in chapters on creation science. After reviewing the infamous Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate and the dubious history of the creation science movement, he explains how this propagandistic argument works and why.
The anti-intellectual impulse within American evangelicalism predates the creation science movement. But the creation science industry organized this impulse and channeled it into institutions that actively perpetuate the intellectual ghettoization of conservative evangelicals. I hasten to add that white evangelicals are not hapless victims of creation science propaganda. As we’ve established, the surge of evangelical enthusiasm for creation science in the 1960s and ‘70s is inseparable from the social anxieties that forged the politics of the modern religious right: women’s liberation, civil rights, and the desegregation of public schools. Thus it is no accident that the creation science industry trades in the very habits of mind that enable evangelicals to reject the consensus of experts whenever that consensus is in tension with the social, economic, or political objective of the religious right. (130-131)
Such experts aren’t just wrong but are seen as out to demolish what good Bible-believing folks hold on to. They don’t see things differently. They are malevolent anti-Christians (look at how Dr. Fauci gets treated).
The focus on “Christian Worldview” in Christian universities is not just apologetics in “our way of thinking” but depends on demonizing the marxists, evolutionists, and feminists in our culture. We must hold to Traditional Marriage because [parts of] the Bible say so while ignoring those LGBTQ+ Christians who are in fact faith affirming. We must uphold only Male Preaching because of Timothy in spite of the empirical reality of faithful female preachers.
Scott closes the book by describing what he calls “Cristo-Authoritarianism”. While I confess that I find that label a little clunky, he’s on to something important. If white evangelicals aren’t going to assert their position through classic argument given the cultural and demographic changes underway in society, then they must rely on political power. So passing restrictive abortion laws, requiring the Bible to be taught in schools, or inviting Prager U courses into elementary classrooms, this is acceptable because we couldn’t stop the bad forces without using this power. Beside, they’d do the same if they were in power.2
I’ll close this piece with a throwback to Monday’s newsletter about Rawls. He would remind us that all of our attempts to justify the advantages of status quo and the power dynamics they bestow only work to the extent that we are the “good guys” and They are the “bad guys”. If we return to the veil of ignorance exercise, in which we don’t know which group we’d be born into, we’d look for something approximating the Common Good. In such a context, evangelicals would have a great deal to offer through truly engaging the Other. Even if it meant giving up some perceptions of power.
We have the same project editor!
It’s worth repeating that shocking PRRI survey showing that 70% of evangelicals thought character was important in a leader, which drops to 30% after Trump came down the escalator.