One of Southern Baptist's Most Influential, Prominent Pastors is Suing the Denomination, a Source of Much of His Personal Income

 Settlement Talks Between Johnny Hunt, SBC, Fail

Johnny Hunt is Head of a Family Empire That Feeds Off the Southern Baptist Convention

A Long Standing, Good-Ole-Boy Practice Brought to you by Southern Baptists

The Southern Baptist Convention bills itself as America's largest Protestant, Evangelical denomination.  Over the past decade, it has shrunk from a peak membership of 16.2 million, down to 12.8 million, caused, from its own perspective by "we don't really know," from outside perspectives, by a long drought in evangelistic activity caused by too much engagement in secular politics, and too much infighting among the big dawgs in the house over who gets to be the chief, and who must remain the rest of the tribe.  

The structure of the denomination itself rests on the principle of local church autonomy.  This is the idea that a denominational organization is not a biblically sanctioned structure, and therefore does not have any ecclesiastical authority, but is a voluntary structure based on the cooperation of its member congregations together, each of which is independent and autonomous with regard to its doctrine and theology, and who it calls to serve as its pastor.  The "convention" is actually an annual, two day meeting where elected delegates from the individual churches, called "messengers," meet to handle the business matters of the denomination.  An executive director with a small staff actually conducts the business, mainly financial coordination, which supports two mission boards, a publishing house, six theological seminaries and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, all supported by a funding mechanism known as the "Cooperative Program."  It is based in a small headquarters building on the corner of Ninth Avenue and Commerce Street in downtown Nashville. 

It has a democratic convention structure to facilitate business, which is the cooperation of its 45,000 or so local churches contributing funds to operate its entities, including supporting missionaries both overseas and in North America.  But it is really a fief of a small group of individuals, mostly mega-church pastors sprinkled with some high powered business people and those who have the time, inclination and ability to be "influencers," or the more old fashioned term, "king-makers," facilitating the climb of some well-connected friends or relatives into high dollar, big salary denominational executive positions.  It's a large denomination, but the group that runs the business, the messengers who attend the meetings, is small.  A convention meeting rarely gathers more than 10,000, most run about 8,000 and 75% of them are the same people who come every year.  

What winds up happening is that someone who works at it and finds a way to have their voice heard in the cliquish Baptist media, a collection of news journals operated by state-level denominational groups, can put themselves in position to gather, and use, a lot of power, focused on advancing their own career within the denomination, and resulting in a well-enhanced checkbook. 

In the denomination's most recent history, two men, Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler, managed to turn themselves into denominational royalty and pillaged the convention to use it for their own ends.  Patterson, to elevate himself from the administrator position at broken down Criswell College to become president of both Southeastern and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminaries, two of the six operated by the convention.  The late Paul Pressler, a former Texas appeals court judge and Republican mover and shaker, to bring the denomination straight into the world of right wing extremist politics.  Both were successful in achieving their goal.  Both have since been disgraced and put out to pasture, Patterson for not handling sexual abuse accusations at both seminaries in a professional and Christian manner, Pressler for accusations of having been a gay sexual predator.  

Having the Right Friends and Being in the Right Place at the Right Time

Being pastor of a megachurch is always a good launching pad for being an "influencer," i.e. a "good-ole-boy" in the Southern Baptist Convention.  For some reason, there's a small group of these big shots in this Christian denomination who seem to love getting themselves on denominational boards and committees, where they can network to further their advantage.  They're on so many different boards and committees, they have little time to actually pastor their own church.  

Johnny Hunt was pastor of one of the largest churches in a denomination intoxicated by numbers.  First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, grew into this mega congregation under his pastoral leadership.  After thirty-three years as pastor, and multiple terms of service in various places in the SBC, including being elected as its President twice, Hunt got a denominational job as a Senior Vice President at the North American Mission Board, which was convenient since he already lived in the Atlanta area, where it was located.  He had previously served as one of NAMB's trustees, which helped land him the job.  

As a result of his extensive contacts in the SBC, and his service as a pastor, Hunt had several side businesses, all connected to his pastorate and denominational service, that made him some money.  He created a "ministry" which packaged and sold his sermons, since he was a speaker in demand.  As a result of his speaking enterprise, he authored several books.  This is all part of his corporate ministry.  

His transition to NAMB came with more ties to his family businesses.  Although NAMB does have a conflict of interest policy, much of Hunt's family income occurred while he was Senior VP at NAMB, and directed NAMB business into several of the "ministry" businesses operated by himself and his family, this while also drawing a hefty salary and benefits from NAMB.  If you read the second linked article, you can see all of the complicated ties between Hunt's businesses, his family's businesses, to which he directed NAMB business.  

So Why Sue the SBC? 

Hunt became one of the names included in the Guidepost investigation and report into sexual abuse by pastors and church staff in the Southern Baptist Convention, released in May of 2022.  The investigation, ordered by the messengers of a Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in 2019 as the result of an expose into multiple cases of sexual abuse by pastors and church staff members of Southern Baptist churches published by the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News.  

Initially, Hunt denied the accusations against him, but eventually admitted to them, and expressed sorrow and repentance.  He organized a restoration process for himself, with four pastors who were close friends, and though he had resigned from his position at NAMB, returned to his speaking ministry and family businesses.  The church he had pastored for 33 years, and where he was serving at the time the alleged sexual incident occurred, was not included in his restoration process.  

Hunt eventually sued the Southern Baptist Convention in 2023, a denomination largely responsible for the prosperity of his personal business enterprises and his family's businesses.  He charged the convention with defamation, for revealing information included in the Guidepost investigation.  

Lawsuits against the convention related to the Guidepost investigation have resulted in the executive committee's decision to sell their office building in Nashville.  I guess there's still a few more dollars left to squeeze out of the SBC for Hunt, and for a few others who have done the same as a result of the investigation.  

The Apostle Paul makes it quite clear, in his first epistle to the church in Corinth, that lawsuits among Christians are ill-advised, because they set a poor example for the church, and he closes out that part of his narrative by saying, "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?"  

What Does This Lawsuit, and Sexual Abuse Scandal, Say About the Southern Baptist Convention? 

I don't know whether Johnny Hunt is guilty of the sexual "abuse" he was accused of, or whether his version of events is more accurate than that of his accuser. Megan Basham did not do him any favors by weighing in and "outing" the pastor's wife who was the alleged victim.  Basham's total lack of credibility, and her butting into something that's none of her business gives a lot of weight to the honesty and credibility of the victim's version.  

Southern Baptists are, indeed, independent and autonomous.  However, for one of their big shots accused of a specific incident of sexual misconduct, supported by the evidence produced by a credible investigator, the "restoration process," prescribed in the Bible would have been much better served, and much more credible itself, if he had allowed his former church, where he was still pastor when the alleged abuse occurred, to conduct the process.  Going out and picking four of his good friend, pastors whom he had mentored in the ministry, and getting them to affirm his restoration doesn't quite follow that Biblical process, and unfortunately, in a denomination where such connections commonly bypass protocols and processes designed to be fair, it failed to achieve its desired result, at least as far as I am concerned. 

Clearly, there are instructional parts of the New Testament that are being deliberately ignored.  This is not a good look for someone in a denomination that claims belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is a major doctrine required for correct interpretation of scripture, and for fellowship with the denomination.  When the literal reading and application insisted upon as an interpretive standard by Southern Baptists is applied, I Corinthians 6:1-9 clearly forbids church members to settle differences by the use of lawsuits in the secular courts.  And it comes just after the Apostle Paul also addresses sexual immorality and how the church is to handle that.  

There's some real inconsistency here in the messaging.  The denomination has found multiple ways to force churches to closely follow their inerrancy and infallibility doctrine, and more recently, it has included specific, literal interpretations of that doctrine to enforce a ban on women serving in churches in pastoral ministry roles.  But it seems powerless to stop a lawsuit brought by a prominent, prestigious pastor who ignored their rules and charted his own course to resolve a sexual abuse allegation and a restoration process.  

The rules don't apply equally to all.  

  

 

 

"False Prophets" Mixing With Far Right Wing Extremist Politics is a Volatile Combination

"Million Woman" Event in D.C. Draws Far Fewer Than Expected

For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness."  --the Apostle Paul, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, NIV

Just because a group calls itself a church and labels itself as "Christian" doesn't necessarily mean that it is.  Christians believe that Jesus Christ established the church, as a divine savior, revealing God to humanity through the Christian gospel, a very simple set of principles and values recorded by the four gospel writers recognized by the early church as authoritative.  The Apostle Paul, who led an evangelistic movement that won many converts to Christianity, mostly in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor and Greece, is, in this passage from a letter written to the Christian church in the Greek city of Corinth, helping distinguish between the authentic Christian gospel, and multiple fraudulent ones, which, even at this point early in church history were becoming a major problem for many churches.  

How to Recognize Fraudulent Deceit in Christianity 

In spite of popularly held opinion about Christianity, what is authentically or genuinely Christian can be found in a relatively small part of the New Testament, in the first four books, called the "gospels."  These are accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and they record what he said that defines the Christian gospel, the theology of Christianity which includes the divine nature of Jesus, its doctrine and its practice.  It's a 2,000 year old document, steeped in the culture and history of the time and place it was written, so varied interpretations are not only possible, but must be taken into consideration.  

Still, when the teachings of Jesus himself are used as the criteria for interpreting all of the rest of the apostles instructions, Christianity becomes the clear, simple faith that Jesus intended, a life committed to belief in and worship of one God, lived according to a set of shared principles and values that are visible evidence of Christian faith.  

The primary core of doctrine, related to lifestyle, is laid out by Jesus in what is known as the "Sermon on the Mount," recorded fully in Matthew 5, believed to be the common theme of his teaching, preached in many locations, but recorded here in one place.  The first part of that narrative, known as "The Beatitudes," is a list of honorable qualities, blessings included, that form the core emphasis of the Christian gospel's message of love, humility and compassion.  Each one contains two elements, a condition and a result.  Jesus is making the point that Christian conversion doesn't result in doctrinal conformity, but in a lifestyle that is actively engaged in uplifting and encouraging the people around each convert, exhibiting the highest ideals of Jesus' teaching on spirituality and compassion.  Christians are called to make a difference in the world, not by running it politically, but by exhibiting this high, idealistic practice of virtues and values. 

The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in his letters of guidance to churches he visited and encouraged, powerful epistles that the church recognized as valuable in fulfilling the commission given to them by Jesus, to go, preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations.  Perhaps the most well known such encouragement, written to an unidentified congregation somewhere in the Roman province of Galatia, is called the "Fruit of the Spirit."  He contends that people, living in a very pagan society, who converted to Christianity through that particular spiritual experience would exhibit characteristics in their life that would set them apart from their pagan neighbors, and open the door to conversations about what caused the life change.  

These values include love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  "There is no law against such things," said Paul, in this passage found in Galatians 5:22-23.  

When I look at the rhetoric of some of the leaders recognized by Christian sects that fall on the Pentecostal and Charismatic end of the spectrum, like Lou Engle and Lance Wallnau, among others who were behind the "million woman" gathering in Washington, D.C., I don't see much that encourages the practices of the beatitudes or the fruit of the spirit.  I see a faith that seems to delight in the torture and trouble of those they consider their enemies, one that exacts punishment for disobedience and consigns those who do not agree with their list of doctrinal requirements or political ambitions to hell.  

That's the kind of attitude this "million woman" gathering exhibited in its call to prayer, answered, not by a million women, but by perhaps 40,000 or so, praying for God to deliver control of this country over to a rapist, a fraud, an insurrectionist, a grifter, thief and a pathological liar who openly denies the very core doctrine of Christian salvation by turning aside spiritual conviction and claiming that he has not committed any sin that requires God's forgiveness, because this man is going to bring revival.  

That is deceitful and fraudulent, and elevating one that the Apostle John calls "anti-Christ," to a position of authority and leadership over themselves, exchanging the truth of the Christian gospel for yet another lie.  This observation is not making a judgment.  It is simply pointing out that what the Christian gospel says, and what Jesus and his Apostles taught, is contradictory to what these men are saying when it comes to whom they are giving political support, and the politics with which they are polluting and corrupting it.  

Who Gets the Power in a Christian Nationalist America

The fact that these people accept Christian Nationalism as a legitimate and biblical objective of the Christian church is evidence of their heresy, and their fraudulent deceit.  Their interpretation of the Bible, which is literal, and leaves out consideration of its history and context, along with the clear principle that any interpretation of any part of the Bible must be filtered through the criterion of Jesus Christ and his revelation of the Christian gospel, incorporates a theology, doctrine and practice of Christianity that is inconsistent with biblical truth in many of its applications.  

The means by which Jesus commissioned his apostles and his church at the time of his departure from the world is also found in Matthew's gospel, 28:18-20.  It is consistent with the spiritual practice of virtues and values that he taught, rather than authoritarian, delivered by the testimony of his followers, not corrupted by political power that uses force and exaction to make converts.  That doesn't actually make converts, it only frightens people into some kind of intellectual assent.  How can anyone be confident in a "disciple" who isn't spiritually guided and motivated? 

Calling the power of God down on the heads of one's enemies is not loving them, as Jesus commanded.  In fact, there's no room for hatred anywhere in the Christian gospel, and God never intended his church to convert anyone by force.  We've been through this before, almost 15 centuries of an oppressive church, run by clergy that cowered to the monarchial rule of the provinces and used their influence to ensure lock step obedience to the civil government.  

In addressing the problem of satanic intrusion into the church going unrecognized, one of the other Apostles, Jude, who may have actually been the son of Mary and Joseph and thus, Jesus' half brother, wrote an short epistle to the church addressing the problem. 

"For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ."  The Epistle of Jude, the Apostle, verse 4, NRSV

Although this epistle was written to a church in the early first century, it is a prophetic word for the church today, since the same problem with intruders who hijack congregations and carry them off into heresy, like Christian nationalism.  Or, who attempt to convince Christians that they should vote for a worldly, sexually deviant, adulterous, rapist, sexual assaulting, insurrectionist and liar who openly denies ever having a conversion experience as the democratic leader of their country.  There are a few times in the Old Testament where a story is related that seems to indicate God used an evil person to accomplish his purpose with a rebellious, disobedient, theocratic Israel.  But he never tells his people to follow or give loyalty to an evil ruler.  

The leaders of this movement are opportunists looking to get political power in their hands because of the fawning they've done over a political candidate, if he wins.  Any Christian who isn't lined up with their aberrant theology and false gospel, including mainline Protestants and Catholics, as well as those who profess no religion are already the enemies they will be waiting to take out, and they've already justified doing so.

Matthew Taylor, author of The Violent Take it by Force: The Christian Movement That is Threatening our Democracy, says "The danger is that these folks can easily be converted over into Capitol rioters if the right circumstances come about and if their leaders give them that guidance."  

Many of them already have done so.  

Considering the teachings of Christ, and the Christian gospel, such action would clearly be a demonstration of the spirit of anti-Christ, [I John 4:2-3], and clear evidence that these people are not Christian, but are a dangerous cult denying both the Christian gospel and the vision of America's founding fathers, and its people, since it became a nation.  

 

 

How Many Americans Can't Connect Fascist National Socialist Statements to Trump, Because They Don't Recognize Fascist National Socialism?

The answer to that question is far too many.  

Several decades ago, I read a couple of novels set before and during the Second World War that really helped open my eyes to the whole scope of history of that time period.  The two novels, The Winds of War and War and Remembrance, by Herman Wouk, wove the personal stories of the characters into the times, places and events of the Second World War.  As a secondary history and government teacher, I knew the chronology of events, the philosophies, the economics, all of the facts that are studied about the war and its causes, but reading these two novels really helped to clarify and bring home how a war based on conflicting worldviews literally put most of humanity in mortal danger for seven years, and longer than that for the Jews and any progressive, freedom loving Germans.  

When I taught an honors U.S. History class, the novels were made required reading for the second semester, during the period when we discussed World War 2.  The author, Herman Wouk, was born in the Bronx to parents who were Jewish immigrants from Minsk, in what was then Czarist Russia.  He grew up studying the Talmud with his Russian grandfather, but lived a fairly secular life until returning to the practice of Judaism when it was more essential to his work.  He gives his Jewish grandfather, and the United States Navy credit for being the primary influences in his life and the main characters of his novels, a Navy captain, and a Jewish college professor and author who is an immigrant from Poland, along with his niece, reflect his perspective through the interactions of their characters in the story.  

Every week, we had a class discussion on the section of the novel that was required reading for the students.  The novels are written chronologically, starting in 1939, just prior to the German invasion of Poland.  As we read through, we studied the background information on each event, using the novel's timeline.  Any information which was needed to supplement the novel's narrative was provided by students doing research and was the subject of class discussion.  We worked our way through the entire Second World War in a semester, something that textbooks normally cover in about two weeks, and gave students a full perspective on National Socialist Germany and the fascist philosophy that brought the country to ruin.  

The novel helped keep things interesting.  By actually having characters interact with international events, in a creative way, including Wouk's Navy captain, in diplomatic settings, actually meeting and interacting with Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, students had a point of reference when it came to historical events.  I taught that course that way for eight years, and I had students who always came back to let me know how helpful it had been to them, especially in college.  

The lack of knowledge of this period of time is so very apparent in so much of the rhetoric surrounding this election, that I can't help but think of the statement, "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it," made by Winston Churchill in a 1948 speech to the House of Commons.  

He would certainly know.  

We Are Seeing a Complete Lack of Recognition of the Similarities Between Trump and Fascist National Socialism 

Early in his first campaign for President, Trump said "I could shoot someone standing in the middle of Fifth avenue and I wouldn't lose any voters."  That's one of the few truths he's uttered since that moment.  People are appallingly ignorant of this man's approach to politics.  Whether he's a puppet being fed by a fascist elements somewhere else, who have figured out how easily Trump is manipulated by flattery, or money offers, the fact that he has been so openly anti-American, anti-Patriotic, anti-Democracy, anti-Constitution in his public speeches, which get cheers from his rally-goers, is deadly serious.  

He's been the single most divisive politician in modern American history, and equally as bad as the slavery advocates.  He is using tools available to him, found in the corners and crannies of various conservative interests, such as far right wing Evangelicalism, primarily the Charismatic and Pentecostal branches of it that are hard liners when it comes to their belief that God has set them aside, chosen them and ordained them to bring righteousness back to America, just like he once did for the ancient Jews, and the ongoing theme of white supremacy, which not only hasn't been eliminated from American ideology by education, but is being radicalized in right wing political alliances that now make up most of the Republican party.  

The belief that what happened in Germany in the twelve nightmare years of National Socialist rule, which stretched the rules of the existing, fledgling democratic government to seize power, could not happen in the United States is a myth.  We have already elected this ideology to the Presidency once, and were extremely lucky in the fact that it failed when it attacked the Constitution, and the legal guardrails held.  But in the aftermath, we discovered there were members of Congress in both chambers who were planning on cooperating to help Trump bring it down, had there been any signs of weakness or openings to do so.  

Wouk, in his novels, uses his characters to discuss, and affirm, that the United States is not immune to this kind of political upheaval, and that the right mix of cultural elements like the anti-Semitism that was prevalent in Germany, which he compared to the white supremacy prevalent in the United States, along with a natural, built in sense of selfishness over who controls the economy and the distribution of wealth, and who benefits from it, could create the same circumstances.  We dodged a bullet in 1939, though the elements that overwhelmed Germany's democracy were active and working in the United States, too.  

Trump's claim that there was massive voter fraud and that the 2020 election was "stolen from him," for which not even some of his most ardent and active defenders could find a shred of evidence, even among the people they planted all through the system, and the subsequent insurrection he instigated against the Capitol on January 6th should have ended his personal ability to walk free in our society.  We have laws against it, but what he did was not met with a resolute defense of democracy, Congress and the Constitution, but with dithering, delaying, foot dragging and obfuscation, even after a Congressional investigation laid down a mountain of evidence against him.  There, in a nutshell, is Trump's shot on Fifth Avenue.  He was right about that.  

Then, in the middle of a Presidential debate, after being triggered by a truthful comment made by the Vice President about people leaving his rallies in droves, and the outlandish things he says in his rallies, he claimed that Haitian immigrants, in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people's pets.  Now that's a racist characterization of an ethnicity if I've ever heard one.  That should have been the end of his chances to win the Presidency, and I'm not convinced it still won't be.  But the lack of a genuine uproar among the American people is very troubling, and indicative of the kind of ignorance and lack of being informed that I'm pointing out here.  

I think we have to go back to the Civil War and Reconstruction to find politicians making those kinds of insulting, bigoted, racist remarks about a group of people living in the United States without much in the way of accountability.  And if this is a sign of how far we haven't come, of the level of ignorance that exists in our culture, and especially in our electorate, and that does not get brought to account, then our country really is in major danger.  

The fact that Trump is the Republican nominee, and is running for President of the United States, is the result of a massive failure of our government, of, by and for the people, to act when it needed to act, and bring justice to an insurrectionist in a timely manner, as it has been able to do to almost 1,000 of the people who listened to his words and stormed the Capitol.  

It is Now Up to We, The People 

We are about to see if our nation's society and culture is capable of saving itself from a fascist dictatorship that a significant portion of the electorate is not capable of recognizing.  It's not been a failure of just the government, or only the justice department.  Our educational system has failed to produce the kind of informed electorate which its founders and visionaries created and established it to do.  It has declined for decades, for which there is more than ample evidence to prove, and seems incapable of producing critical thinkers, especially when it comes to civics, politics and the social order.  

The fact that we now have a convicted felon, rapist, and indicted insurrectionist on the ballot with polling numbers that would be frightening enough if they were barely in the double digits, is evidence of the failure of multiple cultural and social guardrails, and it also tells our enemies exactly how and where we are vulnerable.  

Our first priority is winning this election, at all levels.  One of the reasons Republicans have managed to keep things close and stay in power is that Democrats let their guard down in too many mid-term elections, and now the majority of our states have gerrymandered the GOP into almost permanent power.  We've let ourselves be manipulated, because we play politics by the rules when they are no longer willing to compromise.  So here we are, letting the media control the narrative once again, convincing people this is a real, neck and neck horserace, to try and tilt the advantages all in the direction of Trump, and his billionaire friends who are orchestrating it all with the power of their dollars.  

Beyond what we need to do, once Harris is elected and has a Democratic controlled Congress, is some major social and cultural overhaul.  Fixing our broken education system should be the top priority.  It has been starved by Republican austerity since Reagan's days in office, in some Republican dominated states, longer than that.  Project 2025's proposal to eliminate the Department of Education did seem to ring some alarm bells at last, as far as this was concerned.  If we're going to keep the DOE, then we need to give it some authority and resources to bring the United States out of the doldrums of test scores, not only in science, math and technology, but in history and civics, and in helping students develop critical thinking skills, in order to avoid panics in the future over subversive demagogues getting elected President.  

Americans ought to recognize the kind of inhumanity that led to the establishment of slavery, and then made it so absolutely difficult to stamp it out.  It's the same kind of inhumanity that fed the anti-Semitism of Europe for centuries, eventually erupting into the Holocaust.  The opposite of "American idealism" is this anti-immigrant hatred that seems to be the only thing Trump can talk about on the campaign trail.  It consumes him, it's a psychotic obsession and it should be enough proof to disqualify his candidacy.  

How can someone be so lacking in intelligence, information and conviction, to still be debating over insignificant political issues, while being completely unable to see the complete and total lack of character and ability to lead that is Trump.  And J. D. Vance, a slimy opportunist who will take any position and say anything that benefits himself, is worse.  

Get it together, people.  Take time out for a history lesson.  We need to win this overwhelmingly and decisively.  

"Evangelicals for Harris" Claim Franklin Graham Wants to Sue Them For Pointing Out the Contrast Between the Christian Gospel and Trumpism

Franklin Graham Threatens to Sue Evangelicals for Harris

"Franklin knows he cannot use the words of Jesus Christ to defend or justify Trump--a strongman whose words and deeds reject truth, endorse violence, and advocate a worldview in opposition to the Fruits of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).  Indeed, his character is more reflective of the spirits characterized as anti-Christ (I John 4:2-3, 6-21).  Followers of Jesus should study closely which spirits they walk in step with (Galatians 5:16-26)--Evangelicals for Harris

Following the Vice-President's appearance on 60 Minutes on Monday, with Trump not making an appearance, a story about the war between Republican factions in Maricopa County, Arizona was aired.  In that piece, 60 Minutes, "The Arizona Republican election officials working to restore confidence in results, worth watching by the way, the vice-chair of the Maricopa County Republican Party makes an appearance that characterizes the entire Trump Republican attitude toward politics, toward any of their neighbors who dare challenge or disagree with their opinions or beliefs, and demonstrates the attitude with which they approach politics.  

And the woman who represented that perspective in such a grotesque, vitriolic, evil way, Shelby Busch, made a point to claim she was doing it in the name of Jesus.  

I was raised in an Evangelical church, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, and I got a good liberal arts education at one of their universities, along with a masters' degree in education at another one of their universities along with a reasonable dose of theology at both.  Add to that long life experience in more progressive, "liberal" if you will, churches which understand that the Christian gospel is interpreted through the words of Jesus in the gospels, and I am able to recognize what I saw in that woman on 60 minutes.  

It was not Christianity.  It was evil, and it sent a shudder down my spine, listening to her words and watching her facial expressions.  

"Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate their brothers or sisters are liars," says the Apostle John, I John 4:20.  The hatred in the vitriol this woman was spewing out, in front of those cameras, on national television, was a testimony to her spirit, and I'm not resorting to judgment when I identify that spirit as evil.  

How Did Franklin Graham Get Caught Up in this Hate-filled, Licentious, Immoral, Worldly Spirit of Antichrist?  

The Evangelical version of the Christian gospel, of which Franklin's father Billy was the most well known evangelist and preacher, focuses heavily on behavior that demonstrates obedience to specific "rules" or practices, found in the Christian gospel, that are a demonstration of one's "salvation experience," or their conversion.  The practice of these values are indicators of a life committed to God, an unbreakable bond created by the Holy Spirit with the soul of a redeemed human being.  And while Evangelical doctrine has used a much more literal interpretation of the Bible, blended with a lot of cultural influences to determine their list of "do's and don'ts" when it comes to what constitutes faithful Christian practice, there isn't anything in their interpretation that opens the door to the kind of licentiousness--an old fashioned Biblical term meaning uncontrolled, socially unacceptable behavior which lacks any legal or moral restraint, including sexual behavior--that Trump and Trumpism brings into society.  

Their defense of Trump himself is, of course, the "magic wand" of a conversion experience, rooted in the belief that the worst sinner who comes to God convicted of sin and repentant, desiring forgiveness, can receive it unconditionally.  The only problem with that is that Trump has never exhibited any kind of repentant attitude publicly, and is open and free with his claim of denying he has ever committed any kind of sin requiring God's forgiveness.  He has, with that statement, which he has made to Franklin Graham himself, along with several other Evangelical leaders who have tried to pin him down and get him to admit he's been converted to Christianity, openly denied any belief or faith in Jesus or the Christian gospel.  

Most Evangelical Christians in this country don't pay much attention to that, because they are ignorant of the theology behind Christian conversion and can't explain the Evangelical path to redemption in Evangelical terms.  Why someone like Franklin Graham ignores it, and tries to downplay it, makes me suspicious of the true motivation behind his involvement with Trump.  There's no question that Franklin is no Billy Graham, not even close to it.  What is clear, very clear, is that by standing with Trump and giving his endorsement, Franklin Graham is completely denying the core principles of the Christian gospel, and of Jesus Christ.  

The Apostle Paul, who wrote a lot about how to live according to the virtues and values of the Christian gospel in the middle of a pagan society, compares and contrasts the difference between what he defines as spiritual depravity, as opposed to the values and virtues that are spiritually generated in the life of someone living according to Christian practice of the faith, which he calls the "fruit" of the spirit.  

By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.  There is no law against such things.  And those who belong to Jesus Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.  If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another."  [Galatians 5:22-26, NRSV] 

I'm not in any position to judge the spiritual condition of anyone, including Franklin Graham.  I have, out of personal conviction, determined not to provide any support for his ministry, including for his leadership over the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which I once did support.  But I'm not making a personal judgment about Trump.  He's making known, in a very public way, his denial of the Evangelical version of Christian conversion, and everything he does indicates that he not only does not live by the principles of the Christian gospel, but that he openly denies its truthfulness, relying on the worldly image he has created for himself, with his public, adulterous affairs, including sleeping with porn stars while his wife was pregnant with his son, his pathological lying, his dishonesty in his political posture, undermining core supporters by changing his position when he things that will give him an advantage with voters, and disregarding their support.  

If we lay the characteristics the Apostle Paul describes, just before he gets to the fruit of the spirit, which include fornication, impurity, licentiousness, and idolatry, strife, jealousy, lying, setting people against each other, and throwing in a dose of drunkeness and and carousing, and make a fair comparison to what is seen in the attitude, vision and politics of Trump and Trumpism, it's pretty clear that no one who understands the Christian gospel clearly, and practices it by conviction, could be associated with something like that.  

Now, a group of Evangelical Christians wants to hold Trump's own words and actions up to the "light of scripture," in their description, which includes Biblical warnings against leaders who exhibit the exact same characteristics of evil as Trump, and run ads pointing out the discrepancies between the Christian gospel and Trumpism.  

And Franklin Graham wants to sue them to stop it.  

"Franklin knows he cannot use the words of Jesus Christ to defend or justify Trump, a strongman whose words and deeds reject truth, endorse violence, and advocate a worldview in opposition to the fruits of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23," says the Evangelicals for Harris group.  "Indeed his character is more reflective of the spirits characterized as anti-Christ (I John 4:2-3, 6-21).  Followers of Jesus should study closely which spirits with whom they are walking in step (Galatians 5:16-26).  

The Evangelicals for Harris group said Graham is putting his hope "in a man and a darkness we saw manifested when police lines were overrun at our Capitol January 6th, in Springfield [Ohio] this past month and in the spirit of fear and anger fed at every Trump rally Franklin attends."  

Good luck with that lawsuit.  [I Corinthians 6:1-11]  

Trump Flips on His Evangelical Constituency, Betraying Their Trust on Abortion Rights. Will They Still Sacrifice Their Credibility With Their Public Support and Their Votes?

Let's go all the way back to 1980, when Ronald Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter.  Carter, whose "born again" Southern Baptist faith was widely known and had been widely discussed, was arguably the most genuine, sincere, and committed Evangelical Christian to ever occupy the White House.  And yet, in his 1980 re-election campaign, a group of Evangelical Christians, previously not nearly as engaged in secular politics as they would become, led by a couple of "televangelists" Jerry Falwell, of the Old Time Gospel Hour, James Robison, a Texas-based "evangelist" known for his screaming, foot-stomping sermonizing, and Pat Robertson, a Charismatic television host, decided to endorse Reagan rather than Carter.  

Why?  

The Fight Against Abortion Rights is at the Core of Evangelical Support for the GOP

Ostensibly, over the partisan difference between the two candidates over the issue of a woman's right to abortion, recently codified as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, just seven years earlier.  

Carter, a Democrat, was openly opposed to abortion, except in those cases where it was deemed a medical necessity.  His views were clear, and were based on his Christian faith and conviction.  However, because of his belief, rooted in the historic Baptist principle of complete separation of church and state, he refused to use impose the influence and power of the Presidency on something he considered to be a matter of individual conscience and religious liberty.  Restrictions on the use of abortion as a method of birth control was based solely on religious conviction, according to the way Carter saw it.  It was not the opinion of secular science that an abortion constituted taking a human life until at a later point in the pregnancy, most often the point of fetal viability, and therefore to impose a restriction solely based on religious doctrine would be a violation of the Constitution's first amendment establishment clause.  That was Carter's belief

It was not until after his Presidency, and the support he got from a certain group of self-appointed Evangelical political leaders, that any of Reagan's biographers or apologists make room for any discussion of Reagan's "Christian" faith and practice.  That's because there never was any.  Reagan was a secular politician, an actor who, as it turned out and was discovered post-Presidency, was more into what Evangelicals define as "New Age Religion," more of a blend of several forms of mysticism and spiritualism, influenced by his second wife Nancy, than any resemblance it bore to any kind of Christian faith, and even that was far removed from any kind of Evangelical expression.  

But, as a politician, Reagan's campaign managers saw an opportunity to diminish a constituency his opponent had relied on to win in 1976.  And they saw, in the issue of abortion rights, a way to separate the Evangelical branch of American Protestantism from more liberal mainline denominations on this issue, and form a coalition with conservative, politically involved Catholics, to create a new voting constituency among the GOP.  

Even Reagan's own children have said their father never really had any convictions at all about abortion until it became an election issue for the GOP.  Even during the campaign, his awkwardness in using vocabulary that Evangelicals understood and related to was visible, and he tried to limit discussions about the theological support given by the religious right to this issue, and stick simply to the party's acceptance of overturning Roe as a platform issue.  

But, politics being what it is, it was apparent that opposition to abortion rights was a single political issue capable of drawing in millions of Evangelical voters to the Republican party.  These were mostly white, mostly from the more conservative branches of Evangelicalism, which tended to be those whose Christian faith was more of the kind of frontier folk religion that developed during the westward expansion on the frontier following the Second Great Awakening, characterized by a literal reading and interpretation of a Biblical text they believe to be without error and infallible in its theological and doctrinal authority.  

Overturning Roe Was Always the Goal, So They Said, Anyway

It took politically engaged Evangelicals a long time to get to the table, and then a long time to get their primary issue, which they claimed was the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the national ban on any kind of abortion procedure.  There's not been much variation on the theme, nor has there been much in the way of consideration of the complications of placing some kind of ban on a medical procedure which crosses the boundary line into protected right to personal privacy.  But they have been relentess in pursuing it and succeeded, when Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court who eventually formed an anti-abortion majority with three other conservatives already on the court, and overturned Roe.  

That was the first step toward the Evangelical goal of a strict ban on virtually any kind of abortion, except in what they define as the most "extreme" cases.  It seems that, in looking at a lot of the rhetoric, not only do they want to be the ones who make this call for every woman, they also want to be the ones who decide whether the life of the fetus, or the life of the mother, is more important when that decision must be made.  Don't take my word for that, some of the most ardent anti-abortion advocates, who are also hard line Evangelicals, have made it clear that if the fetus can be saved, it should be, whether the mother's life can be or not, and that choice should be reserved for their moral view, not that of either the mother or any of her family members. That's easily proven from the record these people have made on this subject.  

The next step, after overturning Roe, which did not outlaw abortion, as many of them thought would be the case, is getting Congress to pass a nationwide ban on all abortion, taking any medical choice involved completely out of the hands of either the woman making it, or her doctor advising it.

Trump is Now in Favor of "States Making This Decision" and He's "Ok With That" Which is a Betrayal of His Evangelical Constituency  

And that is where they part company with Trump.  

The usual response of Evangelicals to every single thing Trump does that flies in the face of their religious beliefs and practice, including his complete denial of ever having need for a conversion experience from the perspective by which they define conversion, and his immoral, depraved, licentious, lifestyle, that includes pathological lying and utter dishonesty, is to ignore it, deny he said it or that it happened, and then, in the face of a mountain of evidence proving it, find some way to twist an obscure passage from the Old Testament out of context to excuse it.  

But Trump's new found support for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, which he put forth in his debate with Vice-President Harris, and has since underlined and clarified, which is the reason most Evangelicals have held their nose and voted for him the past two times, or so some of their self-appointed leaders claim, is now diametrically opposed to the Evangelical view.  

The response from the political religious right so far has been silence.  They're either coming up with some kind of convoluted version of an explanation of why Trump doesn't really mean what he says and that what he says isn't really support for a woman's right to choose.  What Trump has expressed, as loudly and with as much clarity as anything he has expressed over the past year and a half, is that he is 100% in favor of the voters in each state deciding whether abortion can be legal, safe, and readily available in their state.  

"It's giving it to the states," he said during the debate, "Everyone wanted this to go to the states, and that's what I did by getting Roe overturned," were his exact words.  He even acknowledged that the states which have voted on this so far, overwhelmingly in favor of a woman's right to choose, all very conservative politically, might indicate that abortion would be legal in all 50 states, if that's the way the voters want it.  He seems to be perfectly OK with that.  

This is a complete betrayal of his right wing, conservative, white, Evangelical constituency who has believed implicitly in both his opposition to abortion rights, and his personal Christian conversion experience.  They've been duped on both things.  

And As If To Underline This Flip-Flop on Abortion Rights...Enter Melania Trump 

I don't think that it is a coincidence that the eternally silent former First Lady, whose few previous moments of speaking out on issues have earned her a reputation as an uncaring, unfeeling, disconnected, gold-digging princess, has chosen this moment to make a rare public statement in full support of the right of American women to control their own reproductive rights, including to have an abortion if the choose, or if it is a medical necessity.  In the whole time she's been in the public spotlight, since her husband first descended the escalator and decided to run for President, she has not ever expressed her feelings on an issue as passionately and as strongly as she did on this one.  

Of course, she's come along at a time when her husband thinks perhaps his third wife speaking up in support of his flip-flop will help him get votes from pro-choice advocates.  Does he really think this would cause a single voter who supports women's rights to their own choices in health care would trust him for a second, and think he would be the better choice on this issue than Vice-President Harris would be?  

A Huge Dilemma for Conservative Evangelicals

So, here is the question for conservative, Evangelical Christian voters, who have lost their reputation, testimony and witness because of their political support for Trump and the fraud, immorality, worldly lifestyle, pathological lying and anti-Democracy positions he represents so well.  Now that the one reason they claim has earned him their support has disintegrated before their very eyes, will they continue to vote for him after being betrayed, sold out, and lied to once again?  

Or is it, as many political pundits, commentators and editors have claimed, that this constituency is willing to completely step away from biblical Christianity, into the apostate, heretical error of white, Christian nationalism, attracted there by the simmering hatred against any people who are not white, Caucasian descendants of the Europeans who took America from its native population and settled it, believing it was a gift from God to bless them and punish the heathens and pagans who lived here.  

Trumpism has already helped to severely deplete the ranks of conservative, Evangelical Christians in the United States.  They have lost whatever credibility they had before Trump by supporting a politician with a lifestyle that was opposed to their convictions and beliefs in every way, on every level.  Accusations of hypocrisy as a result are legitimate.  Churches with pastors that jumped on the Trump bandwagon have seen their membership and attendance drop considerably.  The largest Evangelical denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, has had a 20% decline in membership and attendance since 2016.  

I've already seen a few social media posts from Evangelicals, now looking like geese lost in a snowstorm, questioning whether their political inamorata has actually betrayed them, or if this is some kind of government plot, to throw them off course.  In spite of the fact that he articulated this position clearly, during his debate with the Vice-President, and has since clarified what he means by letting the states make the decision in several interviews with the news media, there are some who can't seem to come to grips with the reality that most of us have known long before this man ever chose to run.  Trump is a liar, and a duplicitous demagogue who cannot be trusted with anything."  

What I'm wondering is if anyone among this group has the integrity, and holds the sincerity of beliefs and convictions of the Christian gospel as a life priority, to point this duplicity out, and publicly tell Evangelicals that Trump is actually the greater of two evils, from their perspective, based on his duplicity, which should be considered a much greater evil, and danger, than anything the Vice-President has said or done. 

I grew up in an Evangelical church, and there are some good people who do indeed put their faith in the Christian gospel ahead of their politics.  There are a lot of others who have been duped and deceived for decades by this charlatan, Trump.  He's proven he doesn't care about you, or God, he cares about himself.  If you want to have any hope of reclaiming your testimony of faith, you need to stop supporting, and voting, for him and for his enablers in the Republican party.  Otherwise, God is about to remove your lampstand. 

The Best Use of Jack Smith's January 6th Trial Filing is in the Court of Public Opinion

MSNBC on Jack Smith's new filing with Judge Chutkin

PBS: Read Jack Smith's Unsealed Court Filing Claiming Trump Resorted to Crimes After 2020 Election

When a bipartisan Congressional committee that included Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger laid out their investigation into what occurred that caused the January 6th Trump insurrection against Congress and the Capitol building, I honestly thought that the mountain of evidence they had, which concluded that Trump incited the insurrection and was guilty of multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors" that qualified him not only for impeachment, but for disqualification from public office and for a prison sentence.  As a former high school history and government teacher, I really thought this investigation would have led to the Justice Department taking action, firming up the details, adding anything they discovered in their own investigation, and bringing charges immediately.  

The delay that occurred was explained away by various information sources as typical of such kinds of cases that come to the Justice Department.  

"Be patient." they said.  "Things like this take time."  Well, of course they do, though the investigation laid out evidence, categorized, filed, cross referenced and made public in televised hearings.  What more needed to be done?  

Well, apparently convincing the Attorney General to move forward with this was one of those things that "took time."  I was not expecting that, and I would guess that also came as a huge surprise, and a big disappointment, to many others who were expecting something quite different than dithering from an attorney general appointed by this President.  And I was even more surprised that the dithering, about 12 months worth of it, if news reports are accurate, included whether or not to appoint a special counsel and bring the case to trial.  

Without a Trial in a Court of Law, Voters Must Now Take Responsibility For Administering Justice

I cannot understand a system of justice that seems to be so out of balance when it comes to arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing of defendants.  More than 1,400 people were eventually arrested and charged for the assault on the Capitol, and about 900 have been sentenced and are serving their sentence. I can certainly understand the sheer volume of defendants clogging up the courts and having the trials and sentencing hearings take time.  What I cannot understand is why it took almost three years from the time of the incident to the time of the indictment of the instigator, and why that trial has been delayed for so long.  That's an inexplicable inequality in our justice system, it's a bad look, it makes it appear that not all Americans are equal when it comes to the application of justice, that some, those wealthy and influential individuals who can afford legal help to avert justice, are not held accountable to the same laws the rest of us must follow.  

So, while the justice system has prosecuted more than 900 Americans for committing the crimes that occurred on January 6th, it has failed to prosecute the one American who committed the crime of inciting those other Americans to commit those crimes, and who instigated the effort to overturn a legitimate, fair, accurate election and subvert the Constitution's peaceful transfer of power.  I'm not the only American who is genuinely disappointed in the Justice Department for its failure to bring Donald Trump to justice.  

Jack Smith's filing won't get immediate justice in the form of a trial, but it will get a hearing in the court of public opinion, and Americans who have been disappointed in the lack of action taken by the justice department against the former President who tried to overthrow the government, will have the opportunity to make their voices heard.  This is coming at exactly the right time. 

Those of Us Who Want to See Justice Must Work to Make It Happen

There are a lot of Americans who simply think this is just politics as usual, or they just haven't been paying attention.  The news media has not been a friend to the people, hiding information, refusing to broadcast it, and Trump supporters aren't tuned in anyway.  This information is damning.  Unless someone has a cult blockade in their conscience, what Trump did to attempt to steal the 2020 election should horrify any sincere American voter, regardless of their partisan preference.  And that's a clear majority of the American people.  

Lack of information causes people to be apathetic.  They don't see anything within the limited scope of their own vision, so they don't think it really exists.  I used to tell the high school students in my class who sometimes would express a disinterest in the political side of civics, that I would appreciate it if their apathy carried over to their participating in elections, because I am a baby boomer, and if their generation is going to get apathetic about government, and about voting, then mine is going to elect politicians who will steal them blind and give it all to us.  That, at least, got their attention. 

I don't believe a majority of Americans want to see another Trump term, especially after what happened on January 6th.  And if we can't make the news media replay scenes from the Capitol on that day as part of their election coverage now, then we need to do it everywhere we can, including our own social media, and by knocking on doors in our own neighborhood.  I live in a condo complex with over 104 units and I plan to visit with every single neighbor I have before the weekend is over.  I've volunteered for two weekends in October to canvass and help any way I can with the get out the vote effort in Southeastern Wisconsin, in counties where Democrats can once again get a majority if enough voters turn out.  

For many Americans, this is the thing that will determine how they will vote.  It ought to be disqualifying and it should be decisive.  We need to do everything we can to make that happen and get Kamala Harris in the White House.  

Gloom and Doom is Almost as Big a Lie as the Stolen Election, But This One is Told by an Evangelical

Baptist News Global: At 88, James Dobson Still Warning of Doom if a Democrat is Elected

Democratic party Presidencies have been characterized by economic prosperity, including job growth and low unemployment, wage growth, expansion of the GDP and the stock market.  The last three, as a matter of fact, account for 95% of all jobs that the economy has created since the cold war, and that is an established, well-reported, fact.  

Crime rates also seem to fall when there's a Democrat in the White House.  During President Biden's term in office, it is also a documented fact that violent crime has reached a record 50-year low.  That's right.  In spite of all of the bluster from his predecessor, the crime rate fell under Joe Biden, and let's also look at why.  It's called, providing resources for law enforcement.  That's at all levels, by the way, not just funding police departments, but just about everything else benefits from what the federal government kicks in, because Democratic party Presidents tend to be more about using America's resources instead of trying to cut services that it is constitutionally obligated to provide.  

Violent crime actually increased during all four years of the Trump administration, after a relatively steep decline under Obama's Presidency.  The crime rate dropped significantly every year President Obama was in office, and reached an eight year low during the last year of his Presidency.  It started up again when, well, you know what the rest of the story is.  It went up again under Trump.  

And in all of the categories of multiple social issues that more conservative Americans, including those who are Evangelical in their religious practice seem to think are the constitutional responsibility of the President of the United States, but which that office actually has almost nothing to do with, it's really a matter of opinion as to how Americans have fared.  After a lot of talk, and more talk, about how we should have exited Afghanistan when we discovered that Osama Bin Laden was actually in Pakistan, it was a Democratic President who actually took the steps to get us out, and then engineered and negotiated an air lift that removed over 100,000 people from the country, and stopped the wasteful spending on a failed "nation building" project initiated by President Clinton's Republican successor.  

Democratic party Presidents have been very good for America, very good indeed.  That's because they tend to see government as being more "of, by and for the people" than Republicans do.  And hey, nobody is perfect, regardless of their party affiliation.  Democrats tend to run on the issues and look to resolve problems.  Republicans tend to avoid issues, which is why they must create these doom and gloom, us versus them, divisive, negative campaigns to try and convince enough voters that Democrats are taking the country to hell in a handbasket because they themselves have nothing beneficial to offer them.  

And one of those doom and gloom, negative, hateful naysayers is Dr. James Dobson.  

Dobson Still Warning of Doom if a Democrat is Elected

Dobson is an Evangelical author, psychologist, and far right wing social reformer.  He founded a ministry called "Focus on the Family," off which he prospered very well, and through which he marketed his books and media materials and became one of the most influential spokesmen for conservative social positions among the conservative Evangelical community in America.  Focus on the Family included a daily radio program with a large, worldwide audience, with some television coverage as well. 

Dobson was a strong advocate for what he termed "family values," which included an Evangelical Christian perspective on social issues like homosexuality, traditional gender roles, and marriage that is singular and heterosexual, based on his interpretation of the Bible.  He was the most influential culture warrior among conservative Evangelicals for many years, managing resources to create large networks of lobbying organizations and groups that influenced politicians and in many cases, identified, supported and ran candidates for public office.  

But he was no prophet.  

He wound up coming into the period of his greatest prosperity during the Reagan and Bush years, and started hollering about what would happen when Democrats were elected President just before Bill Clinton entered the White House.  None of Dobson's gloom and doom prognostications has ever come to pass.  

There's an Old Testament verse that addresses this, which I will include here for those who use the Bible as support for any idea that fits their particular worldview. 

You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?"  If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.  That prophet has spoken presumptuously.  Do not be alarmed.  Deuteronomy 18:21-22, NIV  

I would say that Dr. Dobson's political prognostications, appearing in his October newsletter, deliberately political in their intent, are more conspiracy theories than they are accurate predictions.  They represent no known reality and bear no factual support.  Dobson has given himself over to hearsay and rumors, in the true spirit of conservative Evangelicalism.  

Here's the Load of Bull

According to Dobson, if a Democrat is elected President, be warned:  

• Tens of thousands of churches will have nowhere to meet after public schools ban them. 
• Christian schools and adoption agencies will shut down.  
• Secular bookstores will ban books from evangelical publishers.
• Christian stations won't be able to preach the Bible, and conservative talk stations will go belly up, or switch to country or gospel music. 
• Homeschooling would be outlawed, public school students will receive mandatory gender identity training in first grade, the Boy Scouts will no longer exist, citizens will lose their guns, Christian non-profits will be threatened, gas will cost $7 a gallon, public school teachers will no longer lead students in the pledge of allegiance, and Russia will hit Israel with a nuclear bomb. 

We've had three Democrats in the White House since the last cluster of these complaints hit the schedule.  None of what is in Dobson's doom and gloom list has ever come to pass.  And here's why.  None of these things are under the control of the executive branch of government.  It would take Congress, passing legislation through both houses, to get to the President's desk to sign, for any government policy to bring about any of these things.  Dobson, who has a doctorate, should be smart enough in American civics to know better.  This is just another in a long line of whining dog whistles to keep conservatives angry, to keep them motivated to vote against Democrats, and to keep them behaving like pagans instead of Christians when it comes to their public testimony.  

Gas is currently less than $3 a gallon and going down.  Our very experienced, economically savvy President, a Democrat by the way, has not only opened up the tap so that we are producing more oil and natural gas as a nation than we have ever produced, and you can look that up. he recently sold off a percentage of our strategic oil reserves at a price of over $80 a barrel, and refilled the reserves with oil at around $70 a barrel, literally saving both the government, and the consumers in this country who buy gasoline, a fortune.  

Most of the rest of this is the same old "poor, poor, pitiful me" stuff we see from conservative Evangelicals all the time.  Being under a constant barrage of attack from worldly evil helps raise a lot of money and it motivates a lot of support.  And claiming to be under constant attack from "the world" is a really good excuse for most of these people to ignore the words of Jesus when he said, "Love your enemies, and pray for those that spitefully use you."  

We have a Democrat in the White House now.  If there are any Christian adoption agencies that have shut down, it's not because the government, which has a constitution that limits its powers and protects freedom of religion, has instigated it, it's because their own practices may have put them out of business.  Several years ago, my wife and I pursued an adoption through a Christian agency and discovered their philosophy was one that only placed children in the homes of white people who had the kind of money necessary to pay their exorbitant fee.  That, and their lack of any means to help families pay the expenses, made it clear what kind of parents they were seeking to adopt the children that came their way.  So if any of them go out of business, it's because of things like that, not because there's a Democrat in the White House.  

Religious liberty is a constitutionally protected individual right, including the separation of church and state.  Democrats respect the Constitution as the cornerstone of our Democracy, Republicans nowadays are the enemies of it, threatening civil unrest and even violence if they don't get their way and are not allowed to impose tyranny on those who disagree with their social agenda.  Neither the Democrat in the White House now or the one who is the party's nominee have ever expressed any desire to do anything that would lead to a Christian school closing, to shut down a Christian radio or television ministry or station, or regulate, control and eliminate home education.  Bookstores choose their own stock based on what sells and what doesn't and no book distributor will turn down the profit margin made off selling Christian-themed books.  

In fact, as far as freedom of conscience and religious practice goes, the current President is a devout Catholic who attends Mass virtually every week, or has it performed at the White House, and the Democratic party nominee is a member of a Baptist congregation in San Francisco.  Both have expressed the importance of their faith practice to themselves, and their desire to protect freedom of conscience as a basic, constitutional right.  

Aren't We Getting Tired of This Negative, Anti-Patriotic Putting Down of Our Country by Religious and Political Conservatives Who Have no Answers or Solutions for Resolving our Problems? 

I don't see anything in Dobson's diatribe that resembles the Christianity described in the biblical text, or that was taught and lived by Jesus Christ.  Christianity, including the conservative, Evangelical version of it, has just as much access to the marketplace of ideas as any other ideology or philosophy or religion.  So I tend to interpret Dobson's shrillness and criticism as an attempt to blame Democrats for the failures of American Christianity, especially the conservative brand of it, to reach people with its evangelistic message and win converts without using the power of the state as a means of coercion. 

I was raised in a conservative, Evangelical church myself, and though I no longer use those terms to identify my own faith, I expect more from people who go out of their way to underline their own righteousness and compare it to that of other Christians who they think of as inferior to themselves because they have a slightly different theological and doctrinal expression of their Christian faith and it doesn't match up to their own.  And this us vs. them creation of enemies out of people Jesus identified for us as our neighbor, and then commanded us to love them as we love ourselves, is unacceptable and ungodly.  

Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.  For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.  And he has given us this command.  Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.  I John 4:20-21