Here is January 2022 (woops). And here is how the NTJ will operate in a post-USPS environment (from the current issue with a little help from Scribd):
The new iteration of the NTJ comes with fewer strings and but a couple wrinkles. The journal will be available as a PDF attachment at Oldlife.org and Nicotinetheologicaljournal.org. It will be free initially and then move to a subscription basis through the latter of the two websites (for now that’s the plan but technology being what it is and editors being the age they are, who knows?). The reason for subscriptions is mainly to cover expenses of websites and the small print runs of the journal we will produce for the sake of publicity. This means that readers who want a print copy will need to produce their own.
Old Life 
If the Harts didn’t expect Nixon to be a nice guy then why did they bring Clinton in for such scrutinizing moral critique, then revert to common 2k sense with Trump? This has been the problem missed by so much of the Old Life commentary the last few years. How does it not smack of political favoritism? How does a group go from high octane political moralizing (Clinton) to low key yawning, and when the respective immoralities are arguably disproportionate to boot? Is it not because the particular politics associated with one admin are more conflated with faith than the other?
So your point would obtain much better had there not been that grand hiccup in the 90s where everything turned on Oval Office cigars and stained dresses, if the Harts hadn’t hyperventilated about shady business deals and infidelities (and even dispy-suggested Clinton was the Man of Sin). Cut them slack for overlooking Trump? What about all the moral slamming of Clinton? That’s the point. It’s not to indict evangelicals for not being sufficiently morally outraged over Trump, it’s to wonder what gives with the wildly disproportionate moral outrage? And some of us are pretty sure it owes to the selective conflation of faith and particular politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve: The Harts may have learned the lesson they were taught, which was that sex is out-of-bounds – even when it is lied about under oath during a deposition, accompanied by suborning perjury in order to deprive a citizen of the US her constitutional rights. Perhaps, having learned that lesson, as they were supposed to, they acted accordingly and decided upon the best candidate for the job, ignoring all his sins. Why should they not have done? After all, if sex is irrelevant to job performance, why should not mean tweets, among other things? The only two alternatives were: (i) Trump’s competitor and (ii) not to vote. The selection of either involves the employment of relative scales of value. It’s not like his competitor was herself a paragon of Christian virtue. (Note: The Harts, like many others, likely had a much different view of Nixon after the Watergate affair was revealed, in the same way that many evangelicals’ opinion of Clinton changed after his sexual indiscretions were revealed.)
LikeLike
Thanks Dr. Hart for the new NTJ. Nothing better than paper between the finger tips sans the glow face routine. Blogging has desirously fun moments but who remembers anything of it or cares in the long run. People need time to understand and appreciate the issues raised before blabbing. Gadget glow is an ever rolling freight train of competing pho-consciousness that inherently limits intellect. The NTJ provides an important and timely alternative. The humor of the old NTJ never translated well in a blog forum. As an old Berryite, I prefer postal delivery but printing the PDF file will be a very worthwhile effort. My kids, (17 and 18) have enjoyed the copies of the old editions I have printed and handed to them..
LikeLike
Nox, the point is that evangelicals repurposed Clinton’s tagline and said “it’s character, stupid.” But creating a moral test for public office like they did boomeranged on them with Trump. Turned out it was just a cover for political disagreement. Some may have decided to show consistency and reject Trump on moral grounds, but being a consistent moralizer is still bad form. What on balance they seemed unable to do was show the kind of discernment that sees the problem with Trump being an old-fashioned, thorough-going charlatan. But when you descend from a tradition which lauds showmanship, celebrity, and machismo (among other things), you’re set up for the kind of gullibility that embraces the gold-plated shyster. Trump has all the traits their religious celebrities have always had. Many scratched their heads over the love-fest, but if you know anything about evangelicals and their gullibility for shiny things, it makes perfect sense.
LikeLike
Steve,
Or our choices were between Hillary and Trump, thus the character test was a wash in matters of marriage. In matters of grifting, the choice was between Trump, Inc. and The Clinton Foundation. Clearly you chose your poison according to your values.
Try reading some Mencken and American history.
Darryl,
Great review of Gorski and Perry’s continuation of Perry and Whitehead’s abysmal midwit sociology. I don’t always agree with you, but you’re careful and consistent and always worth reading.
LikeLike
With a champion like Walt, who needs MVDM, Rabbi Bret, and the BBs?
LikeLike
@Steve: Why not view the evangelical infatuation with Trump as fear-based: “Libs are coming for you”? He even had a campaign poster to that effect: https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/images/2019/trump_inthe_way_meme.jpg
That would explain the number of evangelical leaders that said “hold your nose and vote.”
That doesn’t exonerate them for doing so, but it makes for a more realistic explanation IMO.
LikeLike
Jeff, fear-based reasoning is surely in the mix, but it takes more than a rhetorical line to hook an entire voting block. There has to be something to tap into and work with. Evangelicals have been groomed for a long time for this fisherman, who figured out how to give them what their itching ears wanted to hear. In which case, there wasn’t much nose holding at all.
LikeLike