How a Conservative, Evangelical Denomination Handles Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Church Leaders

They gripe about how much money the legal fees are costing them.  They hide behind their denominational "polity," one in which they claim there is no central ecclesiastical connection or authority that allows the denominational leadership, which consists of an elected President, two vice-presidents and a recording secretary, along with an executive board made up of representatives from the various state bodies of the denomination, to have authority over any individual church, because the churches are all independent, and autonomous, and affiliate voluntarily with the denomination.  

I'm talking about the largest Evangelical denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention.  An expose done by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News several years ago, led to an uproar at the annual meeting, or convention, where representatives known as "messengers" elected by the 45,000 independent, autonomous churches affiliated with the denomination, conduct their annual business.  

The expose was prompted by complaints from victims advocates, including a group led by former abuse victim Christa Brown, known as Stop Baptist Predators, that in spite of hearing multiple reports of sexual abuse by Southern Baptist clergy, the denomination was either burying the evidence, or hiding behind "local church autonomy" as a way of refusing to acknowledge an deal with the problem. The messengers over-rode vote thresholds design to protect a very narrow and elite group of hand-picked leaders and demanded a full investigation be conducted.  

Though the investigation by the two newspapers covered just cases of sexual abuse by pastors, youth ministers and some denominational employees, like missionaries and seminary professors, that had already been adjudicated, and was limited to some 700 such cases in just a few states, there was an outpouring of reports of cases across the denomination, including discovery of a file of reports being kept secret by one of the executive board members, on the grounds that the denomination has no control over what happens in its independent, and autonomous congregations.  

However, though they claim no ecclesiastical connection or control exists, the denomination's elitist group of leaders, known as the "conservative resurgence," from a movement to gain control of its officers and executive board dating back to 1979, have exercised extremely tight control over the theological and doctrinal beliefs of those independent, autonomous churches, demanding almost lock-step agreement with every point of a statement known as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.  Most recently, they have kicked churches out of the denomination for giving a position with the title of "pastor" to women.  

So it is both deceitfully inconsistent and shamefully deceptive to claim that there is nothing the denominational leadership can do about sexual abuse in its churches.  The messengers, representing those churches, demanded a list of things and the response from the leadership, predictably, was every possible way of resistance, and offering up every thinkable excuse for why it could not be done.  The whole process had to be taken out of the hands of the elitists in the leadership cult, and actions forced on them by the messengers, and by hiring outside counsel, rather than allowing the insiders to pick their own lawyers to conduct the investigation.  

Predictably, there has been all kinds of hollering, complaining, whining, fussing and bucking against any action taken to investigate sexual abuse in the denomination.  And also predictably, these power-brokers, mostly white men, have launched verbal attacks and abuse and made accusations against the victims in the cases that became known publicly.  

It would be consistent, in a denomination that claims it is among the more righteous, and theologically and doctrinally correct of all Christians, because of their view of the Bible, to spend resources on helping victims recover, on their comfort and on their emotional, spiritual and physical well-being.  But those kinds of gracious acts of ministry, which are consistent with the beliefs and teachings of Christianity, have been the one thing in this whole mess that has been deliberately and carefully avoided.  Those who moved to use denominational resources for this kind of ministry after all of this was revealed have been hounded, criticized and driven out of the denomination.  

That tells you just how Christian, or not Christian, is the leadership of this denomination.  

What's the big issue?  The money that has been spent on legal fees as a result of opening up an investigation and finding, predictably, a denomination whose leadership did everything it could to cover up and hide the abuse that was going on and to protect some of the abusers who were found among prominent leaders. The headlines in denominational publications, and from their own Baptist Press are complaints about the costs of the investigation that the messengers "wrongly" pushed on the denomination.  

Well, they're the ones paying the bills.  They have the right to decide where they are going to spend it.  

And during all of the time that this investigation was going on, and messengers were facing decisions about how to go about getting it done, a faction within the denomination was planning to pass an amendment to its constitution that would exclude churches with women serving in any capacity as a "pastor."  So women in this denomination not only need to fear for their physical safety, but they are also not welcome to share in the leadership of churches that, if it were not for their work and support, would likely no longer exist. 

This Goes Hand in Hand With Evangelical Acceptance of Right Wing Extremism as Doctrine

The Southern Baptist Convention's membership and attendance peaked at 16.2 million in 2006, and plateaued for several years, before beginning a sharp decline in 2015.  Since then, the annual membership losses have frequently exceeded 400,000, and the total membership has now gone below the 13 million mark for the first time since the early 1960's.  The number of people showing up for worship in the churches, which has always lagged behind membership, has dropped from its peak of 6 million in 2006 to a post-Covid recovery of just under 4 million.  

As the denomination and its leadership have become more deeply engaged and involved in right wing extremism, more members have walked out the door, to worship in churches that don't have a political mission and purpose.  There are even some Southern Baptists, along with some other Evangelicals, who are also experiencing a numerical membership crash, who are starting to recognize that since Trumpism is not compatible with Christianity, churches where the former is the primary focus are seeing their members leave in droves. 

Sexual abuse is a symptom of this intrusion of right wing extremism.  No religious convictions are capable of overcoming temptations to exercise a level of power over others who are more vulnerable.  Sexual scandals abound in American churches, where the Catholics have paid dearly for a decades-long sexual abuse scandal by their clergy.  The incidents in the Southern Baptist denomination, per-capita, are approaching the numbers the Catholic church has had to deal with.  Both groups have had a problem finding ways to minister to the victims. 

The Christian gospel is not compatible with any of the precepts of Trumpism, especially now that it has incorporated the draconian, unAmerican, anti-Christian Project 2025 as its agenda.  

How Much Time Do We Have?

 Holding Out for a Hero: Democrats Need Bold, Fearless, Risk Taking Leadership Now

The last four years have been a political roller-coaster ride.  I'm a loyal Democrat, I'm active in politics and my educational background includes American history, civics, economics and political science.  So I am informed and stay informed and can discern the truth.  

And I'm going to emphasize the fact that I'm a loyal Democrat once again, because I want to drive home the point that what I'm saying here isn't idle bashing or criticism based on candidate preference.  It's the reality that we are facing in what is now well beyond a constitutional crisis.  The Democratic party is left without unified, solid leadership and that's not intended to sound critical, it's just the way it is, and any other evaluation of the situation is an attempt to put a happy spin on crazy. 

We've had some articulate, forward-thinking, sharp and polished Democrats in the House and Senate who have made some angry speeches, pointing out, accurately and succinctly, the illegal, immoral, crusade of lies that Trump and Musk are using as pretexts to cut the government according to Project 2025 plans, and also pointing out that they have found absolutely no proof for any of their pretexts at all.  The reaction to it, mainly through the judicial branch, is holding back most of the damage for now, though the media keeps clamoring about it as if they know what they are talking about.  There are a lot of reporters and commentators who would get a flat out F minus in my civics class, if what they've reported is based on what they know.  

But there's not been much in the way of resistance or opposition that has formed and is looking for an effective way to stop Trump.  The Democrats are having trouble getting the approval of many of their own supporters and party members, because they aren't unified, and what leadership we have, especially in the Senate, is either too interested in protecting their own interests, power, and influence, or too caught up in playing old politics, long after the Republicans have abandoned civility and compromise as a means of getting things done.  When have we ever heard of members of our party voting to allow a piece of legislation through Congress in which not one single Democrat had input in developing?  

That's not leadership.  

Look Who's Resonating With Democrats, Disaffected Republicans and Independents

The hero of the moment, for the Stop Trump movement, is the 83 year old independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.  Senator Sanders ran for the Democratic party nomination for President twice, and his message hasn't changed.  A year after Trump was elected the first time, he was addressing the opioid crisis in front of packed houses in deep red counties.  He's a truthful populist, and his resilience and the fact that the people of his state have repeatedly placed their trust in him is affirmation of his belief in the American people and his desire, as a politician, to benefit them, not himself.  

I'm going to say something that will make a lot of people angry, but it needs to be said.  If Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic nominee in 2020, and had been in the White House, Donald Trump would now be in prison for the crimes he committed during his first term, especially for inciting an insurrection against the United States.  

That's why he's the one who, along with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, are drawing the kind of crowds and interest that are surpassing the size of campaign rallies, and is building the kind of popular support, and pressure, that it will take to stop Trump.  That is a big job, given the failure of the GOP to stand up for itself, and their spineless support, which is based on what they are getting out of it.  Democrats in Congress, especially in the Senate, are stuck in their old way of thinking, and a few of them have sold themselves out.  So there's no credibility for a resistance there.  Sanders isn't a Democrat, and AOC is on the House side, where there appears to be a bit more in the way of unity.  

I'm almost convinced that if Bernie had been the nominee in 2016, Trump would never have been elected.  He brings working class support and credibility in his message that, united with moderate to liberal Democrats, would have swamped Trump and maybe even picked up a couple of red states, in addition to solidifying the blue wall.  

Among the resistance to Trump, they are getting attention.  We know the other groups are out there, and organizing, but they sure don't show the kind of momentum Sanders and AOC are showing.  The only question, really, is whether they will be able to rally the kind of public pressure that will be necessary to break the tiny Republican house majority into enough pieces to put a stop to Trump, toss Musk on the trash heap and perhaps, over time, allow Democracy enough time to hang on until the mid-terms, if that's where the hope now lies in making a change. 

So How Long Do We Really Have? 

I still spend some time watching MSNBC, and a few of their commentators I can still trust.  But even they are prone to put a happier spin on things than the reality which exists.  Attempts to mess with Social Security are going to awaken a sleeping giant and the blowback from that is going to be quite a surprise smash in the face to Trump and Musk, and to the GOP.  Democrats don't seem to have put a lot of effort into helping their candidates, facing special elections to take away GOP seats in Congress, so I don't know if we can count on that.  I sure hope they pull it out but if they do, it will be in spite of the DNC and the party, not because of it.  Too much of that old style politics as usual again.  

Something has to neutralize Trump before the mid-terms roll around, otherwise, the damage might be too big to fix quickly.  My biggest fear is foreign intervention at the point when our enemies think we will be weakest, and they'll know that because Trump or Musk will tell them.  

So I don't know, and won't venture to guess how long we really have before our democracy and Constitution can't be saved.  I know that we need to take every possible step we can now, to try and save it.  

And let's not forget, we had four years to get this job done, including two years up front when we had full control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.  Four years, to prosecute a criminal for his crimes in a country that claims to be based on the rule of law.  But interminable delays, because of allowances and concessions made to the rich and powerful, in the justice system are not characteristics of a country that respects the rule of law, and taking more than two years to hand down indictments in a crime where the overwhelming evidence was made public within a year of the crimes being committed is unacceptable.  

Had Bernie Sanders been President of the United States in 2020, the Senate filibuster and Democratic party seniority traditions would have fallen by the wayside.  He'd have pushed to pack the court, had five or six liberal justices on the court, there would have been no immunity ruling and they would have taken the insurrection case and brought it to its rightful conclusion before the mid-term elections were held.  And the budget would be balanced, and a good portion of our government debt paid off by now on the 'fair share' of taxes he would have led Congress to levy on the 1% who have 99% of the money.  

Maybe that's AOC's plan.  If it is, she has my vote. 

Risk and Boldness, Not Politics as Usual, Are Required to Stop Trump an Save American Democracy

Ben Rhodes, New York Times: There is a Way for Democrats to Stop Trump and Save America

It was not long after the 2020 election, still very early in Biden's term, that a discussion on a message board caught my eye.  It started with the suggestion that if Trump was screaming so loud, and hollering so long about the 2020 election being "stolen" from him, including the illegal lengths he was willing to go, and the millions he was willing to spend--of other people's money of course--on legal fees to try and turn it his direction, that he might be laying plans to steal the next election.  There was little doubt he was going to make a run for the White House again.  And all of the caterwauling he did, describing exactly how he believed the election was stolen, was a road map to what he and his allies in every single red county in the United States were planning to do to steal the next election.  

But, no worries, said the Democratic party's Washington establishment.  "We're keeping an eye on it."  

We had slim majorities in both houses of Congress, and the Presidency.  Our politicians, including the finally-elected President Biden, declared that Trump was an existential threat to democracy, and set about to assure us that he would be brought to justice, especially for planning and inciting an insurrection, a brutal and potentially fatal and disastrous attack on the United States Capitol, an unprecedented rebellion, based on an outrageous lie.  

In the long standing tradition of making politics move glacially slow, in order to avoid controversy and make it look like government is being productive, Congress was obligated to organize and conduct an investigation into the insurrection.  I'm no lawyer, but I've done a massive amount of reading from multiple legal experts on this particular subject, and there is no explanation forthcoming from the Justice Department as to why it dropped the ball and failed from the outset to do what should have been routine procedure for such a crime, even as Congress was conducting its own investigation.  

President Biden complained to critics who were demanding action that to take such steps against a former political opponent would have "appeared to be politically motivated."  Those were his words.  

And he would have been right.  But he was supposed to be a transitional President, right?  That's what he said, and alluded to on multiple occasions, when he was running.  And he had already declared that Trump was "an existential threat to American democracy."  He was absolutely right about that.  So what if this appeared to be politically motivated?  Doing the right thing would involve ignoring those implications and making sure Trump was removed as an existential threat to American democracy.  

Of course, we know now that Congress was acting virtually alone in conducting a relatively slow-moving investigation into Trump's seditious activities.  The justice department, by the attorney general's own admission, was slow-walking its own investigation, precisely to avoid the appearances of political motivation.  

Frankly, I don't give a damn about appearances.  If they believed Trump was an existential threat to American democracy, they failed to defend that democracy, and the Constitution they took an oath swearing to protect, by the whole manner in which they handled the investigation, the indictments and the monumentally significant failure to get Trump in a court room, in front of a judge and jury, and convicted before the next election rolled around.  That was what they needed to achieve and we know how that turned out.  

Let's be completely honest here.  If Trump succeeds in demolishing American democracy, and he's well on his way to achieving just that, the irresolute inaction and almost complete collapse of will among Democrats will be what enabled this to occur.  It wasn't the "system," it was the willingness of our politicians to let its interminable delays and flaws, mainly built-in to it to protect the privileged from justice, be the factors to blame for their failure to protect American democracy.  

"Well, But, There Wasn't Really Anything We Could Do, You Know, With His Supreme Court Supporting Him and His Judicial Appointees Protecting Him.  

If you believe that, then I have a beach house to sell you in New Mexico, cheap.  

There were voices, among younger, more aggressive Democrats, who exhibited an extensive knowledge of the Constitution, in providing a course of action for the Democratic party to take to end this charade, and prove they really believed Trump was an existential threat to democracy.  Though we had narrow majorities in both houses, the ability existed to break the Senate filibuster, a huge obstacle to democratic action in a republic, and then amend the judiciary act to allow President Biden to appoint enough justices to the Supreme Court to over-ride the conservative majority, neutralize the pig-headed Roberts, and prevent the ridiculous immunity ruling they issued on Trump's behalf.  

That would have been a bold move, but looking at where Trump is headed and what is happening, it was a necessary move.  But Biden didn't want to give up the filibuster, on long standing tradition and principle.  And in hindsight, a majority leader like Schumer wouldn't have gone along with doing it.  They were right in claiming that Trump was an existential threat to American democracy, but they were wrong, dead wrong, in the manner that they chose to deal with that.  I wonder if they really cared.  They have the resources to protect their own interests and cover their rear.  The rest of us are the ones who will suffer under this.  

And that might explain why there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiastic support from voters in November of 2024.  They might have seen Trump as a threat to democracy, but they didn't see Democrats as the best way to deal with it. 

Had the court been packed, the interminable delays brought by Trump's attorneys, and the slow moving, slow walking attorney general involved in prosecuting him for insurrection would have had to move their rear ends.  The motions would have been wiped out in a day, and the trial date would have been set two years before the 2024 Presidential election.  A two year delay in prosecution should be absolutely rejected as gross judicial inefficiency by the American people.  If we ever get control of government again, progressives need to blow up the justice system and start over.  

So what the Biden administration will become known for will not be the string of legislative accomplishments it achieved during those first two years.  It will be for the failure to bring the nation's most notorious, dangerous, criminal and enemy to justice, and for facilitating and setting up his re-election to the White House.

A Paper Tiger

In the post from the New York Times, by Ben Rhodes, that I linked above, he interviewed several immigrants from countries where democracy had failed, and had been set up for oligarchy.  One of them, from Turkey, said this, which really captured my attention: 

"As a citizen, you feel like this country was a paper tiger.  All those institutions we believed would stop this sense of insanity didn't even exist.  There is shame that comes from the defeat of a system you've been living in."  

A congressional investigation that dumped mountains of criminal evidence which proved, beyond the shadow of any doubt that Trump organized, planned and helped conduct the insurrection on January 6th was left sitting there, after its completion.  The major part of the hearings, televised to multiple millions of Americans, were damning.  But after it was all over, and the hype ended, and it went out of the news cycle, the justice department remained disconnected.  The case was essentially made for the attorney general and handed to him on a silver platter, and the response was, "no, thank you.  We'll do it our own slow, traditional, non-political way."  

The risks of busting the filibuster, packing the court and getting Trump legally adjudicated as a felonious insurrectionist don't seem to great now, do they?  

An what about the "we're keeping an eye on the election" claims, as the alarm bells rang and the reality of Trump making an attempt to steal the election, which was pretty much right out in the open, told to us by his own supporters who outlined all of their own theories about how 2020 was stolen from them.  They knew where they could go and what they could do, and had systematically made sure that enough of their people were in place to guarantee Trump got just what he needed.  

When the election results came in, and states like North Carolina, Georgia and Pennsylvania began showing almost orchestrated differences in the votes Trump was getting in red counties, just enough to overcome what he didn't get in 2020, I knew that they had stolen the election, and that in spite of the Democratic party rhetoric, about making sure that they were keeping an eye on it, and "Mark Elias will take care of it," they weren't really doing anything about it.  Greg Palast showed us evidence that they tossed enough mail-in ballots on technicalities, which was at the core of their plan, to achieve their narrow victory.  

And what did Democrats do, before this when the warnings were shrill and frequent, and afterward when the evidence was in hand?  

Not what we should have done.  Or what we could have done.

Can the Democrats Protect American Democracy Now? 

"The hard truth is that the Democratic party, in its current form, cannot lead the opposition that is required."  

That's the evaluation of Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security advisor under the Obama Administration, and a contributing editor to the New York Times.  I've read some of his work before, and he's in a position to know, and be honest about it.  Simple observation shows him to be correct.  Our senate minority didn't have the stomach to do the right thing about the CR.  How in the world are they going to confront the big stuff we know is coming? 

I'm not running through all of these past errors and mistakes to point fingers or be critical.  But we need to learn from them.  The Republicans have the distinct advantage.  They were willing to step outside the boundaries of morality, the rule of law, and the principles that make up American democracy to grab and hold power for their own agenda.  They organized and conducted a destructive, damaging, dangerous insurrection.  We, on the other hand, weren't willing to do the obvious, when we had the chance, and those things that Democrats were being pushed to do were within the law, the boundaries of morality and American idealism.  The founders didn't want a partisan court, and wrote the judiciary act to provide Congress with ways to prevent it.  The court has been both disloyal to the constitution and deliberately immoral and corrupt.  

We had a chance, a real chance, with the special elections occurring on April 1.  But it appears that the action on those has been faltering and irresolute.  So I can see Rhodes' point.  

I'm getting up there in years, dependent on Social Security now, worried about health issues that are starting to catch up with me, and about surviving.  But I'm all in on protecting our democracy and standing up for the values on which this country was founded.  Marching and protesting are fine, making calls and writing emails are fine, too, but if those who have been given public trust by serving in office are more interested in protecting their own interests than they are in protecting democracy and more critically, our freedom of conscience, then I don't need them and I'm not voting for them or supporting them.  

I'm going to end here with one of the best quotes in the piece from Rhodes: 

How are you going to reform how politics works in this country if you won't reform how it works inside your own party?  

You can't build movements without breaking things.  That entails risk.  You will lose some donors, antagonize some interest groups and even alienate some voters.  

But nothing could be riskier than our current course.  This country is being destroyed from within, and what are we talking about?  We don't need a detailed new policy agenda from Democrats that they can't implement now and that most people will never read.  We don't need politicians fanning out as awkward guests on podcasts about sports or conspiracy theories. 

We need authenticity.  We need to know that the party is willing to fight for the things that matter most to people in this country and is unafraid to take on the special interests that are destroying it.  Don't just tell us what program or policy you are for; tell us why you are for it.  Show leadership by letting a new generation ascend.  Look for people like Andy Kim who are showing courage and creativity in communities.  Amplify those voices so there is a resistance that doesn't feel manufactured.  

"How Can You Maintain Your Christian Faith When American Christians Capitulate to the Evil of Trumpism?"

Eugene Schlesinger: 'Therefore God Gave Them Over to the Desires of Their Hearts'

Read the Bible as Subversive Speech Against Empire, Wendell Griffin and Allen Boesak

Baptist News Global: Did Jesus Really Say That?  Lovett Weems

"You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times.  For people will love only themselves and their money.  They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful.  They will consider nothing sacred.  They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control.  They will be cruel and hate what is good.  They will betray their friends, be reckless, be filled with pride, and love pleasure rather than God.  They will act religious but they will reject the power that could make them godly.  Stay away from people like that! [2 Timothy 3:1-5] 

I get asked, a lot, to explain how it is possible to maintain my Christian faith when so much of conservative, Evangelicalism in the United States has abandoned the core principles of the Christian gospel, to embrace an evil demagogue like Trump.  Can I not see the hypocrisy, the abandonment of core theology and doctrine, the shift in practice?  

Yes, I can.  I saw a lot of that before Trump came along.  The political corruption of American Evangelicals started with their rejection of Jimmy Carter, and embrace of Reagan during the 1980 election campaign.  There were flaws in their theology, doctrine, church polity and practice long before that which made them susceptible to being hijacked.  There's a measure of insecurity, which manifests itself in arrogance and condescension, that blinds them to their own hypocrisy and they have been, as the apostle Paul describes, been sent a "powerful delusion."  

It was my college experience that taught me how to systematically "deconstruct"--for lack of a better term--the mythology and mysticism of conservative Evangelicalism and see Christianity for what it really was, a religion based primarily on the philosophy and teachings of an itinerant Jewish rabbi named Jesus, who happened to be in the lineage of the ancient Israelite King David, and who directly connected his "gospel" to the Jewish theological idea of Messiah, or savior.  His disciples credited him with being the divine son of God, the Messiah himself, and the Christian gospel that he developed and taught out of the remnants of Jewish theology and monotheism as a lifestyle testifying to this spiritual salvation.

"The wisdom of Jesus' teaching is in stark contrast to some current religious language about who and what it is that constitute evil, enemies and demonic powers currently at work in the United States," says Lovett Weems, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Church Leadership at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC.  "That stark contrast has led to a conclusion that the way of Jesus 'doesn't work today,' as some put it.  Tragic but true," he adds.  

Dr. Russell Moore, editor of Christianity Today, has encountered conservative, Evangelical church members who identify the teachings of Jesus in the Bible as "liberal talking points."  

"Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching--turn the other cheek--and have someone come up after to say, 'where did you get those liberal talking points," Moore said, quoted in an interview published in Newsweek magazine.  

"When the pastor would say, 'I'm literally quoting Jesus,' the response would be 'yes, but that doesn't work any more, that's weak'.  When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we're in a crisis," Moore concluded.  

We have been in a crisis for quite some time, if that is the case.  The politics and religious beliefs have become indistinguishable, and that is never a good combination.  It was enough, in fact, for Jesus to address it directly, and for two of his apostles, Peter and Paul, to make definitive statements on how Christians were to approach the civil government, to prevent either persecution and intended destruction, or worse, being corrupted.  

Christian Theology is Simple, Evangelicalism is a Legalistic Complication of It

With very little exception, the core of the Christian gospel can be found in two chapters of the gospel account of Matthew.  Chapters 5, 6 and 7 record Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount," which most theological experts believe is a compilation of all of what Jesus preached and taught during the three years he spent, mostly in Galilee, in what is referred to has his public ministry.  Aside from some specific events associated with particular places and times, beginning with the Beatitudes, a description of characteristics defining the practice of a life of faith, along with the blessings they produce, and including careful re-interpretations (You have heard that it was said...but I say to you) of Jewish faith practice, he covers the whole scope of a religious practice based on grace, exercised by faith.  

So, Christianity is a lifestyle, not a set of rules that one must obey in order to achieve conversion or salvation, but a set of virtues and values, recognizing the ancient Jewish creation narrative that humanity is created in the image of God.  At the very core of Jesus' teaching is his declaration that "all of the law and the prophets hang on these two greatest commandments," to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  

Multiple interpretations, traditions and practices have developed over the 2,000 year history of the Christian church, that have affected what it looks like, dragged it into error and apostasy, used it for political advantage or monetary gain, by emphasizing the fear of hell and punishment over the aspects of God's image being reflected in all human beings.  

Evangelicalism, a more recent development, dating back to the revival movements of the mid to late 1800's mostly in the United States, has developed a system of measuring true Christianity by intellectual assent to a set of specific theological interpretations based on a literal rendering of the biblical text, rather than any consideration of its historical, cultural and social context.  The emphasis is placed on gettting people to engage in a specific theological confession as a means of entering through a spiritual portal into conversion or salvation, and then learning the list of doctrinal acknowledgements that one must believe in order to be Christian.  It's a very legalistic approach, almost completely backward from what Jesus preached and taught.  There is no accountability beyond the local church, and it places a huge amount of authority in the hands of each church pastor.  

Characteristically, some of its congregations are personality cults built around the preaching and teaching of one man, and grow into mega churches, because they are dependent on the preaching style and personality of that pastor, who becomes "the only one" who can lead the church.  And though the role of pastor is supposed to follow the servant leadership model that Jesus said, most Evangelical pastors have authority given to them by the church they lead, and authority that they take for themselves based on the overall theological and doctrinal ignorance of their church members.  

That's what Lovett Weems and Russell Moore have discovered, and pointed out.  The way of Jesus doesn't work, because it undermines the pastor's ability to control what his congregation believes and how it thinks.  The Sermon on the Mount sounds like a bunch of "liberal talking points" to those who aren't able to distinguish between the Christian gospel and the right ring extremism of Trump politics.  It's even more disgusting and disturbing to realize that any of these pastors who have studied in a theological seminary know exactly how the core principles of Jesus, and the basic principles of "wokeness" are completely compatible.  

Maintaining my Faith is a Matter of Keeping it Centered in the Christian Gospel

Whenever this subject comes up, I offer those who can't seem to get away from their ideology a challenge.  Read through Matthew's gospel, chapters 5, 6 and 7.  And then, after reading through them, give a thought to the public words and demeanor of Donald Trump, or one of his MAGA cult followers.  I'll take them out to dinner if they can, legitimately, fine just one similarity which can be proven.  Trump supporters will say anything favorable about Trump whether they see it or not, because he tells so many lies, they can't see them for what they are.  But, being completely honest, the contrast is stark, condemning and accurate.  

The Christian gospel, and the Christian church, are a way of life that is so diametrically opposite the worldliness of Trump, as to make it impossible for them to be compatible.  Several years ago, I dropped using the word "Christian" as a noun, modified by the adjective "Evangelical" and simply call those who have merged their faith with their politics as "Evangelicals," and let that be the noun, because they are not, by definition, Christian.  They are pseudo-Christian in that they have adopted the appearance of Christian faith and practice, but their doctrine makes them a dangerous cult.  And while I'm not in a position to determine the sincerity of anyone's Christian faith, I can point out the clear and stark contrast between genuine Christianity and sincere MAGA Trumpism.  

It isn't possible to be both of those at the same time. 

Christian Nationalism is Rooted in Evangelical Heresies

It's pretty clear that the view of human life and existence expressed by forty different authors of various books of the Bible evolved over the thousands of years of history that is covered by the text.  The Apostles who wrote the New Testament go to great lengths to make it very clear that "love your enemies" meant that genocide, which was a common practice of the time period of its writing, and considered acceptable in the Old Testament, was sin, along with the ethnic and racial hatreds that were also common.  The words of Jesus recorded in the gospels are the criterion by which all Christian doctrine and theology, along with the text of the works of the Apostles in the canon, are interpreted.  

Jesus answers the question of "who is my neighbor," after proclaiming that loving your neighbor as you love yourself is part two of what he considered the "greatest" commandment.  He tells the parable of the good Samaritan, making a positive example out of a member of an ethnic group that was at the top of the Jew's list of most despised and hated people, next to the Romans, of course.  The Apostle Peter has several experiences, each prompted by what he describes as a "spiritual vision," a prompting from God, to cross ethnic and racial barriers and bring the ministry of the Christian gospel to people he had been taught were inferior, and to despise and hate.  

These examples, along with the words of Jesus, are quite different, intentionally, than the examples and practices of the Israelites, recorded in the Old Testament, who believed themselves to be ritually unclean if they came into direct physical contact with a gentile.  And it's one of the grave doctrinal errors made by Evangelicals, who claim belief in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament Protestant Canon as "inerrant and infallible."  The fact of the matter is that Jesus clearly replaced the much lower view of humanity found especially in the Old Testament historical record with a much higher one.  And yet, much of what is found in Christian nationalist philosophy is a reference to Old Testament genocide and practice against the pagan populations who lived around Israel.  

It is on this particular point, in fact, where American Evangelicalism parts company from orthodox Christian faith and practice.  Christian nationalists have used "It was God's will" as justification for the annihilation of the native populations of North America, who they condemn because they were "godless heathens" as well as justification for the enslavement of African Americans, claiming that black skin was the mark God put on Cain, Adam's son who murdered his own brother, a story from myth, not history.  

Evangelicals, as Christian nationalists, believe that whatever was necessary to allow white people to take over North American land, and consider it a gift from God for their Christian faithfulness, to be able to exploit the resources of a virgin planet. is justified because it is being done for God, whether that's displacement of the rightful owners of the land, or conquest and destruction of those who get in their way, including eliminating political enemies.  

This is the way that they are leading America.  So if you haven't caught on, and aren't awake to this yet, you need to get there quickly. 

Observations About the Democrats in the Senate Minority

The political playbook that was once the standard modus operandi for making bi-partisan legislation happen in the Senate is still the political "bible" for some Democrats who are part of the Senate minority.  The Republicans threw that playbook out a long time ago, after McConnell's years of majority leadership where it got used when it benefitted Republicans and ignored when it didn't.  But after Schumer came into the Senate leadership and the Republicans were already working to undermine government and make it fail, he somehow thought that he could bring back the "give and take" compromise methodology that hasn't really worked effectively since before Bush was in the White House.  

But I sense there's a new factor involved that is finding its way into the Democratic minority during this Trump administration, and that's self-preservation.  It seems there are a few Senators who, after winning their seat on the backs of moderate to liberal Democratic party supporters with strong rhetoric and appealing characteristics, have now decided to preserve their power and their seat, not by compromise, but by being conciliatory.  There were several of those who didn't have to run for re-election in 2024 with Trump on the ballot, who won a decisive race in the 2022 mid-terms, and who are now sitting back thinking that they may somehow achieve the "king's" favor by kissing his ass or his ring. 

There are others who are taking the "Poor, poor, pitiful us" route, throwing up their hands, declaring that there is nothing they can do, in spite of evidence to the contrary, and deciding that if they can't do anything, they are not going to take any risks or be bold, either.  

Most of them still believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy,  and we saw that in the votes they cast against cloture which, if there had been just a couple more, we would have actually had the beginnings of a true resistance in Congress.  Democrats in the House had both the spine and the fortitude to take risks to vote against Trump's CR bill, and stood as a party united.  That helps me have a lot of confidence in Hakeem Jeffries' leadership and in what the members believe.  

Can We Hold On to the Party's Values and Still Offer Effective Resistance? 

Trump's faction of the Republican party has no values.  They have demonstrated a willingness to break the law in order to remain in power.  After getting over the initial shock of the Trump Insurrection on January 6, 2021, the Republican members of the Congress, with few exceptions, put up no objections or criticism of the Insurrection and refused to follow through with consequences for Trump, who instigated it.  

The Democrats had a chance, with control of both houses of Congress and the White House, to protect the country from having this happen to us once again.  And yet, here we are, because when that chance presented itself, the Democratic party leadership was unwilling to step outside of the boundaries they set for themselves, because they were still thinking that the old rules of bi-partisan give and take compromise, were somehow still in effect.  So, in the old line partisan thinking, they gave away their Democratic party majoity and sold us out to the GOP.  And yet, everything we would have done would have been within the law.

Granted, it would have taken some really politically risky moves.  But anything worth achieving is worth the risk.  There were Democrats who were farsighted and visionary enough to see what needed to occur in order to prevent Trump from being the existential threat to democracy that Democrats said he was.  And if we really believed he was such a threat, real action could have accompanied the rhetoric, and we would have succeeded in making sure Trump was never able to walk the halls of the White House again. 

There were plenty of Democrats who appeared willing to take the risks, and they said so.  Yes, they were big risks.  Breaking the Senate filibuster, something that the current partisan rancor we see in American politics has made irrelevant and ridiculous, would have required some brain power to figure out how to frustrate the other party's ambitions when Democrats didn't have a senate majority.  The exact intricacies of how to pack the Supreme Court for maximum, long term effectiveness, in order to achieve the goals of preserving Roe, stopping the ridiculous ruling on Presidential immunity and making sure Trump's trial for Insurrection got moved to the fast track would have required some deep thinking.  Democrats were capable of figuring out how to make that work, and also, to take the necessary protective steps needed in the aftermath to keep the other party from taking advantage of it without a lot of work.  

If the Republicans had ever felt any of those steps were necessary to advance their agenda, when they had the power to do them, they would beyond any shadow of doubt.  They're already there, they've done the impossible, and they have looked as political as it is possible to look during the process.  What do Democrats think they have to lose? 

The fact that this old line, old style, left-over political practice is still providing the script for Democratic party leadership is, frankly, disgusting.  Do they not see that we are now on the side of a line that, had we drawn it, and carried out our convictions, would not exist today?  

And specifically, what values are we holding that prevents us from doing the right thing simply because of appearances?  

Schumer was wrong when he claimed that shutting down the government would be worse for democracy, and an advantage for Trump.  That is not true.  Both outcomes were bad, as far as our side is concerned, but a vote for cloture to allow the Republicans to pass a bill, rather than shut down the government and let them figure it out was caving into pressure.  Schumer could only muster nine other Democrats to vote with him, while 37 Democrats in the Senate voted no on cloture.  There's where our next senate minority leader needs to come from.  

When We Have a Chance, Take It! 

We won't beat this guy by not taking the risks.  When something needs to be done to protect democracy, do it!  They are already way out in front on this, because they no longer are restrained by the rule of law.  So anything that throws up obstacles, roadblocks or would lead to his being pushed out the exit, we need to facilitate, support and get it done.  And it will take bold action and taking risks to unite all of the elements who want to see Trump just go ahead and resign, or be impeached and removed, or be taken out by the 25th Amendment.  

Move with boldness.  Take a few risks.  Preserve our democracy and save the country.

The Only Peace Deal America Should Support Between Ukraine and Russia

Several years ago, during a discussion with a neighbor, I made the mistake of identifying her nationality as Russian.  Her last name sounded very much Russian, her physical appearance and accent looked and sounded Russian, and I was not familiar at all with the distinctions between Russians and Ukranians to know the difference.  She very politely, but firmly, helped to set me straight.  

"I am not Russian," she said, "I am Ukrainian."  

And she proceeded to point out the differences, including the language, the culture, and a sense of national pride that Ukraine, which had been adversely affected by multiple wars, including both World War 1 and 2, and because of geography and economics, had "suffered" (her term) under Russian domination and control under both the Czars and the Communists, had won its sovereignty and independence.  She noted that the difference in both national pride, and in the culture was quite visible upon crossing the border from Ukraine into Russia, which she said was "run down and bleak," the people are not happy and the cities are dirty.  

Of course, the long history of being part of both the Czar's empire and the Communist Soviet Union led to a lot of shared history as well.  The large Russian speaking population that is almost predominant in the Eastern provinces of the Donbas is the result of the migration of Russian workers for the mines and industries, and the Crimea, which Russia used for military and naval bases to protect its only year-round, ice-free ports, is of strategic importance to Russia which, without Ukraine's black sea coast, and the peninsula, is bottled up along the eastern shore of the Black Sea.  

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and gaining independence, Ukrainians have enjoyed a measure of economic prosperity along with the independence of their sovereign country.  Because of its location, and the flat, fertile plain on which most of it sits, it was the most productive farmland in the Soviet Union.  To the north, the climate is too cold for a long growing season so Ukraine has been an abundant producer of food for itself and for Russia.  The mineral wealth underneath the Donbas region, led to its development as an industrial region.  

Defined by language and culture, though many Russians migrated to the Donbas because of the economic prosperity, mainly the jobs, that existed there, the current boundaries of Ukraine were defined when it was made into one of the Soviet Union's "socialist republics."  At that point, Russian speakers living there had to decide whether to return to Russia or become a Ukrainian citizen, and most chose the latter.  

This particular war actually had a previous stage, in 2014, when Russia invaded and occupied the Crimea and the Kerch Peninsula.  Whether the current war could have been forseen or not, the fact that Russia sees some of its strategic needs as being met by Ukraine more or less made an eventual attack inevitable.  It's kind of an old fashioned style European war, where one large and more powerful country sees raw materials or industrial production for which they are already the single largest customer as easy prey.  

A Fair and Equitable Peace That Demonstrates Morality

There is no question that Russia was the aggressor in this war, and that the pretenses that came blubbering out of the Russian government about Ukraine being "Nazis" and about the war being conducted on behalf of the Russian speaking citizens who live in Eastern Ukraine who were being "oppressed" by the Ukrainians is ridiculous garbage.  What really happened is that after throwing out a corrupt, pro-Russian President, who had allowed himself to be bribed and manipulated by Trump, and electing Zelenskyy, the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO grew exponentially larger.  That, perceived as a threat to Russia, was the reason behind the attack. 

Russia certainly has security interests involving the Crimea.  The main base for their Black Sea Fleet, which is the only ice-free sea access Russia has in the west, is at Sevastopol.  Having the Crimea as part of Ukraine's sovereign territory is something the Russians consider enough of a threat that they moved most of the fleet.  But that's something both countries could have worked out through diplomacy.  

I don't see any reason why a fair and equitable peace, in a war Russia started and for which they are responsible, would include anything but the restoration of all sovereign Ukrainian territory to Ukraine, including the Crimea and the Donbas.  It should also include reparations for all of the property the Russians destroyed.  

NATO is a defensively postured organization.  Ukraine's belonging to it should not be considered a threat to Russian security.  

The Ukrainian government, elected before the war, should remain in power until there are elections.  And the Ukrainian military should be armed and trained by NATO.  

Anything less than that, and Putin will succeed in demonstrating to the world that Trump is, indeed, both a sucker, and a Russian asset.

 

The Weak Link in Democratic Party Defense Against Trump Corruption and Power Grabbing is Its Senate Minority

Michael Steele, former Republican National Committee Chair, did an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in the Democratic party's resistance to Trump's attempted turning of America into a fascist dictatorship on his program this weekend.  Steele pointed to polling data from NBC showing that the favorability rating of Democrats in Congress has fallen to 27%, which would be a crisis if Republican numbers weren't free falling at the same time, and especially if there were an election right around the corner. That means a lot of Democrats aren't happy with their representation in Congress and I'd bet the Senate is at the top of that list.

Of course, there are three special elections for Congressional seats coming up April 1, and the manner in which the DNC leadership, and Congressional leadership, has handled those makes me scratch my head and wonder how seriously they take the threat of Trump.  Most of what I get now from the DNC is asks for money.  I've contributed, individually, to each of the candidates and I just hope they're getting the help they will need to win these elections. 

In addition to the favorability rating for Democrats falling to 27%, there's the very bleak statistic from the 2024 election, in which 69 million Americans, eligible to register and vote, decided to sit it out and stay at home, including a significant number of people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020.  Considering all of that, there were 10 members of the Democratic Senate minority who chose to go ahead and vote for cloture on a continuing resolution giving Trump pretty much what he wanted.  It's semantics that they can vote for cloture, then vote against the bill and say they weren't for it.  As soon as the filibuster ends, they know the Republicans can pass the bill.  

Perhaps the best explanations for why they voted for cloture came from Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, and Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto.  They did a good job making their perspective the "lesser of two evils," especially as it pertained to their own constituents.  But the fear that Democrats would get blamed for a government shutdown was way overblown.  No Democrat had any input or part in negotiations of the terms of this bill, so it cannot be expected that they would have a reason to vote for it.  The house, 214 of 215 Democrats, got that, credit to Hakeem Jeffries.  The Republicans are in charge, Trump is putting his name, and that of Elon Musk, on everything.  Democrats wouldn't be blamed for a government shutdown, given that's what Trump has already set out to do.  

The fact that 37 Democratic Senators did not follow their leadership, and instead voted "No!" on cloture is a sign that the leadership is weak, and that there are Senators who perceive it that way.  That's the kind of weakness that has led, at least in part, to a 27% approval rating.  We cannot afford to come away from the 2026 mid-term elections empty handed.  Trump's jumping into attempted rule by executive order has, in a relatively short time, opened a lot of eyes of marginal supporters who weren't paying attention but who know that this isn't what they wanted or believed would happen.  

I wrote to my Senator, Dick Durbin, first encouraging him to vote no on cloture, and then, expressing my disappointment when he voted, in essence to give the GOP their bill.  I got no reply either time, though I requested one.  He was a great Senator in his better days, but I wonder if he really comprehends the danger we are in from Trump, or just considers it all political rhetoric that will go away when the mid-terms come around again.  

Maybe I'm too hard to please, but it appears that the Democratic party is headless right now, and as much as it pains me to say it, is a party in disarray.  I had high hopes for the new leadership at the DNC, but so far, other than asking over and over again for money, I'm disappointed in not seeing what I expected. There are a few Democrats who get that the GOP now needs to get the blame for the things which are happening that are wildly unpopular, and Bernie Sanders is out there making sure that happens, along with AOC and Jasmine Crockett. 

There are an awful lot of Democrats, myself included, who genuinely believe Trump is an existential threat to Democracy who has effectively found a rich sycophant willing to buy the United States government for him.  He is a demented, insane, pathological liar, an evil man who is bent on vengeance, whose lies betray his phony worldview, totally unqualified to lead the United States and very likely a huge threat to world peace with his finger on our nuclear trigger.  

Whether it's by the 25th amendment, an impeachement and removal, or his resignation due to public pressure, the Democrats need to figure out how to end his term in office before he destroys this country.