How the Doctrine and Theology of American Evangelicals Influences the GOP Platform

Male Hierarchy and Dominion Theology in the Southern Baptist Convention, Ellis Orozco, Baptist News Global

Texas Observer: The Fringe Theology That Could End Religious Freedom

The idea that the United States is destined to play some kind of prophetic role in the end times, or eschatology of right wing Evangelicals has been around almost as long as the United States has existed.  Much of the conquest and subjugation of native American populations was done with justification using distorted Christian theology, including the idea that white Europeans, because of their "faithfulness" in establishing a Christian nation on the North American continent, were blessed by God with prosperity, and were "chosen" to dominate the land and get rich off of its resources.  Decimating the native population was justified because they weren't white, they were mere "savages," did not believe in the one true God and had the land but had done nothing with it.  

This kind of thinking runs contrary to our democracy's values and ideals, which came from our founding fathers, some via the influences of the various branches of Christianity that existed in their time, which bore little resemblance to today's Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatics, but most of which were embedded into the culture by the Enlightenment.  

Read Ellis Orozco's piece that I linked above, and the piece from the Texas Observer which is one of the remaining honest media outlets, and that will give you a full understanding of the philosophical and cultural background of what we are dealing with in American politics today.  I won't repeat any of that, it's excellent and explains much of what we see happening on the political extreme right.  They are cultural interpretations of specific parts of the Bible that fail to take into consideration one of the primary interpretive standards of Christian theology, the fact that the words of Jesus are the interpretive standard for all of the rest of the Bible, and of the whole of Christianity.  

The Dangers of Dominion Theology

These pseudo-Christian perspectives of eschatology are dangerous because they lead those who believe and follow their tenets to think of themselves as being "chosen people" with a destiny to change the world and make it over on "God's terms."  They believe in an eschatology--an end-times view--in which they are chosen to set the stage for the return of Jesus to the earth and that "taking back" political, cultural and social institutions and claiming them for God must occur before Jesus will return (see the "Seven Mountains" and "Kingdom Now" movements among dominion theology).  

There was a time when it was not possible for a Catholic to get elected President of the United States because the predominance of Protestants in the electorate believed a Catholic would be more loyal to the pope than to the constitution.  But now there are conservative Evangelical Christians who are more loyal to a reconstructed republic under while, male Christian dominance than to the individual rights extended equally to all, at least theoretically, under the constitution.  Every branch of dominion theology among Fundamentalist Christians, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Charismatics, has the intention of turning the government of the United States into an autocracy ruled only by Christians who share their doctrine and theology and their so-called "worldview."  

But dominion theology, embedded into right wing politics, is also a danger to the Christian church itself.  It is completely contradictory to the gospel of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world," and on more than one occasion, dispelled what had become a common belief among the Jews of his day that the Messiah would be an earthly king like David, who would free the Jewish people from Roman rule.  Even as events led to his crucifixion, Jesus deliberately walked away from the use of political influence and power.  Both of the leading Apostles of the early church, Peter and Paul, acknowledge that God hasn't seceded any territory anywhere in the world to Satan, and is, in fact, the spiritual authority behind all governments, including the Roman Empire that was dominating them at the time.  

Our government has already been infiltrated by politicians who hold to the reconstructionist views of dominion theology, as well as the Seven Mountains and Kingdom Now perspectives.  They don't put those views up there as part of their campaign.  But in their alliance with the Republican party, a lot of what we have seen over the past thirty years, such as deliberate government gridlock, gerrymandering, the "Citizens United" court decision, the rollback of the voting rights act, are the result of their presence.  The Texas Observer points to those in the state government there who are well known reconstructionists and dominionists.  

This is Pseudo-Christianity, but what do we do with it?  

And what I do I will also continue to do , in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals in what they boast about.  For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of light.  And no wonder!  Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness.  Their end will match their deeds.--The Apostle Paul Second letter to the Corinthian church, 11:10-15

In the middle of his eschatological narrative to his disciples, just before he was crucified, Jesus makes this statement, recorded by Matthew:  

For false prophets and false messiahs will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.  

The period of time that Jesus is specifically referencing here took place during the period immediately after his crucifixion.  He begins the narrative by telling his disciples that the Temple buildings they are admiring will be brought down, not one stone left on another, and that this event will occur while at least some of those to whom he was speaking would still be alive.  Shortly after, the Jewish population in and around Jerusalem rebelled against Roman rule, instituted a provisional government that collapsed in short order and brought down the wrath of the emperor, who send Titus, a future emperor, at the head of an army which beseiged Jerusalem, breached the walls and destroyed the Temple in a bloodbath also predicted, and matched to an apocalyptic timeline laid out by Daniel and included in the Old Testament canon.  He calls this event, "the abomination of desolation," because of the desecration of the Temple's inner courts and Holy of Holies.  

That is the event which Jesus refers to as the "End of the Age," not the "end times of world history" which he never addresses.  But the narrative is also a prophetic description of multiple times when the Christian church has been deceived and led into apostasy by false prophets, those who hijack its influence and language for political purposes and who have imprisoned it as an institution of the state, something Jesus never intended for it when he established it and declared "My kingdom is not of this world."  

So dominion theology is contrary to the Bible, pushed by false prophets and promotes a false messianic view of eschatology.  It contradicts the Bible  according to its historical and spiritual context, using Jesus' words as the standard for interpretation.  It incorporates futurist eschatology which Jesus himself actually eliminates from consideration a few paragraphs beyond his statement about false prophets, proclaiming the end of the old covenant and its replacement with the new.  It is clear, from what he says in Matthew 24:30-35 that he never intended, then or at any other time in the course of history, to set up his church as a political state.  

We Are Traveling Down the Road to a Reconstructed Republic

In a graduate school class in 1981, we were assigned to read a book called The Reconstruction of the Republic, by Harold O. J. Brown.  I read it, and in the discussion that followed, in a class on "Social Studies Instructional Methods for High School Civics" at a large state university was focused on the impossibility of achieving the author's thesis.  The professor warned us that not only was the plan laid out not impossible, but that there were signs of it happening, "journalists" promoting it and it was infiltrating churches, pointing to several well-known televangelists among the Charismatic movement, and to Jerry Falwell.  No one at the time envisioned what might happen when its path crossed someone like Trump, with two sets of extremists willing to compromise and make deals to get their way.  

America's founding fathers, in separating all religious practice including Christianity, from its representative democracy, actually set the Christian church free to be exactly what Jesus intended it to be.  Now false apostles and prophets are putting on a veneer of Christianity with the intention of using it for their own purposes and for their own benefit.  The alliance between the Christian right and right wing Republican politics, which is the domain of the prosperous and exists to expand their prosperity, will eventually unravel and fall apart.  But not before this aberration of the Christian faith is used to its fullest extend to destroy a democratic government that is the only major obstacle to complete domination by the richest of the rich.  

Regardless of the social issues incorporated into that agenda and platform to lure Christian voters, the outcome of an election that puts that mixture of reconstructionist, "kingdom now" dominion theology and the wealthy oligarchy closer to control is far, far worse in the mind of this Christian voter than the outcome of an election in which a group of progressive politicians favor abortion rights, LGBTQ rights and minority rights that are still not equal with the white, Christian majority in this country.  White Christians are still the most privileged, least persecuted  and oppressed Americans.  The advance of the rights of ethnic and social minorities has not affected their rights or their status one bit.  

But, we are already a long way down the road toward a reconstructed republic.  Democrats have just a few months--do you get that??--a few months to get themselves together to stop this and reverse the trend.  

 

It's Time to Get Loud Now

It's June, so it's baseball season.  I'm not as much of a baseball fan as I am of football, especially at the college level.  On a nice day, I might enjoy an afternoon of baseball at Wrigley, which has a decent atmosphere most of the time. But it's harder to get a crowd riled up at a baseball park.  At a competitive college football game, however, its much different.  At an exciting moment, a third down play in a close game, the message board says, "Let's get loud" and everyone stands up and yells.  In some stadiums, like Notre Dame, the message board doesn't have to say anything and the roar will be deafening.  

For Democrats, it's time to get loud, not like at a baseball game, which is the way we usually do it, then quit when the music stops.  We need a much bigger, louder roar, in unison, to get the team motivated.  

What's at Stake? 

"We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy."

That's what's at stake, according to Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose opinion I respect and whose evaluation of the situation I completely trust.  I fully agree with that statement and it has prompted me to become involved in as many ways as I can, including here.   

"Look, the most important thing is to win the next election.  The alternative is so frightening that whatever does not help you win should not be a priority, she said, taken from a quote in an article in The Financial Times.  I'd put up a link but there's a paywall.  

Clinton's response was to a statement by her interviewer who said that Democrats seem to be going out of their way to lose elections by elevating activist causes which are relevant only to a small minority.  My response to the same statement is that those activist causes will be lost, along with everything else, and there will be no coming back if Democrats don't keep this Congressional majority, gain a couple of senate seats and pick off some state houses.  And we better be figuring out exactly how that is going to happen, because it is mid-June and primary season.  

What are the priorities?  There's a lot on which to put the focus but the party seems to be drifting here.  There's January 6th, that's a big one, there's the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, also a big one, and there's the gun control issue where a trickle of progress should indicate the power behind this political issue.  There's the war in Ukraine which, predictably, is fading out of the news cycle.  

It's time to get loud.  That's the motivation.  Democratic party leaders, get in the huddle and get the play sorted out to win the game.  Sorry for the sports analogy but it works.  

Those Who Do Not Learn From History are Doomed to Repeat it

The history of this country is one of learning from its mistakes and aspiring to improve. As a society and culture, America moved from a near-feudal servitude and colonialism to independence, democracy and abolishing slavery in about 200 years, which is a remarkably short period of time under the circumstances.  The initial concept of "religious liberty" was freedom for the adherents of the predominant faith group in a colony, but persecution for those of different denominations or who did not practice Christian faith.  But the constitutional version, influenced by some of those persecuted minority faith groups, was more of an enlightenment principle and doesn't contain a hint of the idea that Christianity is more favored by government than other religious groups. 

But we are moving backward here.

I believe that the GOP is headed in the same direction it has been going since the Reagan era, and that is toward an America controlled by the "one percenters" who are almost universally powerful because of their wealth.  In order to achieve this measure of control, they have had to build an odd, contradictory alliance with far right wing Christianity, by enticing their support through a social agenda that they could care less about, but which is useful in helping them subvert democratic government which is the only obstacle to their ability to pile up wealth by sucking it out of society.  

Gas prices are high because one percenters are profiteering from it, and using it to achieve their political goals.  Yes, I'm saying it.  Show me evidence of another reason for this.  Look at the profits oil companies are piling up.  If the GOP gets back in power, you'll pay $7.00 or more for a gallon of gasoline.  

So anyone who voted for Biden, and against Trump in 2020, needs to give full consideration to voting in 2022 and supporting the Democratic candidates on the ballot.  The message board is flashing "Get Loud!"  Get on social media, start a blog, post things on twitter, do whatever you can.  Contribute.  Go help register voters.  Make sure you vote, because we are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy.  

Evangelical Pastor Says the Church has Become "More Partisan Than Christian"

Tony Evans: The Church has Become More Partisan Than Christian 

"The point is today that the church has lost its uniqueness.  Rather than saving and representing the team in heaven, they have been mimicking the teams of the culture."  Tony Evans to the National African American Fellowship of the Southern Baptist Convention.  

Walking out of a church in the middle of a pastor's sermon was not something I ever expected to do.  But growing up in a small, Southern Baptist church that was a genuine Christian fellowship, and that was centered on things like worship, support for missionary outreach, ministry to members and to the community, education in doctrine and theology, and relationships and fellowship with each other.  Sermons focused the congregation on living according to the values of Christian faith, things like peace, a sense of community, integrity, the pursuit of righteousness in a humble way.  They were inspirational and encouraging.  

For most of the time I was growing up, we had the same pastor.  He was bi-vocational, a university professor who got a seminary education and served for sixteen years as a missionary in West Africa before returning, getting graduate and doctoral degrees in sociology and history.  He made himself available to local Southern Baptist congregations as an interim, and that's how he came to our church.  Once there, even though it was a fifty-mile commute one way, the church decided to make it permanent and he accepted the offer.  Teaching Christ's second great commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" rather than to indoctrinate your neighbor in right wing politics would get him labelled a liberal these days. 

In a church without formal ritual in its worship, the sermon is the focal point, the proclamation of the word of God and in a Baptist church, the content is always based on a biblical text.  Some pastors follow the Common Lectionary for their sermon texts, some are more expository and their sermons follow the order in one of the gospels.  A sermon interprets the biblical text, explaining its meaning and then makes it relevant by illustrations from experience.  A pastor has to know his congregation and be discerning of their spiritual needs when developing sermon themes and the church's worship has to be spiritually focused to help the congregation connect to God's presence.  Secular political infiltration is a distraction. 

It was not until just prior to the 1992 election that I really started to notice obvious right wing political content in a pastor's sermon. I actually sat down and had a conversation with the pastor about it at one point, a frustrating experience that didn't answer any direct questions.  One Sunday, what would have been unthinkable for my wife and I who were both raised in church, happened.  After a particularly partisan statement in the middle of a sermon, I reached around and gathered my things, leaned over to my wife and said "I'm leaving."  She didn't hesitate, and we both got up and walked out.  

The Intrusion of Right Wing Politics Neutralizes the Spirituality of the Church

There's a spiritual element in a church worship service that is genuine, inspirational and in the vernacular of "church talk" leads worshippers to an encounter with God's presence.  Even in the elements of worship that are symbolic or ritualistic, there's meaning and purpose attached to them.  When something else intrudes into that space, the life goes out of it, making it difficult to focus.  

Tony Evans, in the message cited above, uses texts from Matthew and Peter to describe a church as the "ecclesia", a body made up of those who have faith in Christ in common, and who come together for the specific purpose of being empowered by the spirit for "kingdom" purposes.  Noting that Jesus declared "My kingdom is not of this world," but is a spiritual domain, the intrusion of politics, any politics, removes the elements of the ecclesia.  Church, apart from its mission and purpose, is pointless. 

Maybe that's why so many people are leaving churches, especially Evangelical churches.  Conservative Christians, including Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Charismatics, have been harshly critical of mainline Protestant denominations for years, claiming that theological and social liberalism removed the spiritual elements, and led to declining attendance and membership.  But there is now research which shows that conservative churches are declining at a faster rate than mainline Protestants, to the point where the latter now actually outnumber the former for the first time in decades. 

Evangelicals are loathe to admit that their membership losses may be due to the infiltration of secular, right wing politics, but the declining attendance and membership correspond directly to the intensity of the involvement of churches and church leaders with the GOP.  And yes, the losses have increased since Trumpism became part of the equation.  Resting the right wing political agenda on a politician whose personal life is a total contradiction of the family and Christian values touted by the GOP and taught by the church has been an intolerable infiltration of churches for many Christians.  The Southern Baptist Convention has seen a loss of just under 3 million members since its peak in 2006, 2 million of those in the past six years, 409,000 just this past year.  Across the spectrum of conservative Evangelicalism, prior to COVID, the drop in church membership has been 8 million since 2010, almost 6 million since 2016.  

Apparently, there are still some Christians who don't want to own a politicians adulterous affairs, bribes to porn stars to buy their silence, their incessant lying, including cheating their way to business profiteering, their sexual abuse of women, and their lack of patriotic loyalty to the constitution.  

Nor do I think all Christians buy into the false presumption that the founding fathers intended to establish a "Christian" nation in which Christianity is the "most favored" faith by religious liberty and in which white Christians of European ancestry are chosen to be blessed by decimating native Americans, taking their land and prospering from its resources.  That's also a very popular theme among conservative Evangelicals and especially among the Pentecostal/Charismatic branch of the church.  

"We are actually a church that 's participating in cancel culture," says Evans.  "Because we lead churches and cancel out the word of God by the doctrine of secularism and deciding only when it's convenient to be Christian, not taking a stand with Jesus Christ because we've got these three legislative bodies.  That's why you can have slavery go on and racism and culturalism go on, and this and that and this and that, because its not the final word.  There are two answers to every question:   God's answer and everyone else."  

Amen to that.  And God help us.  

Violating the Third Commandment

This is What it Means to Take God's Name in Vain  Erin Hill, Baptist News Global

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.  Exodus 20:7 NRSV

My mother was big on the Ten Commandments.  She left a lot of the Bible instruction I got growing up to the Sunday School teacher at the Baptist church I attended every week, but what I got at home from her was a strong foundation in the 20th chapter of the book of Exodus.  So to me, "taking the Lord's name in vain" meant not using curse words with the terms "God" or "Christ" or "Jesus" in them.  She was particularly sensitive to the more casual references, like the occasional "Oh, my God," that my Aunt and Grandmother would use frequently.  She never corrected them but if she caught my eye after they'd said something like that, I could tell from her facial expression that I'd better never say that. 

But as I've grown older, I have seen that this commandment means far more than just avoiding using curse words.  It's a sign of respect for God as a person and presence in my life, and an acknowledgement that all things related to him, and to his triune nature which includes Christ and the Holy Spirit, are sacred. It is a guardrail on my conduct, since I claim to be a Christian, 

In this week's revisiting of the January 6th Trump Insurrection at the Capitol in Washington, I noticed, in the footage taken by a documentary writer who was actually embedded with the Proud Boys, a flagpole on which there was a Christian flag, a symbol I recognized immediately from my childhood Vacation Bible School days, during which we said a pledge to it, being carried by a rioter into the Capitol and then, at some point, either that flag or another one, was being used to stab at a police officer as the insurrectionists forced their way into the building for the purpose of disrupting Congress.  

There is no justification anywhere in any Christian doctrine or theology for the use of violence, either for the purpose of advancing the Christian gospel, or for a Christian to be involved in it for any reason.  I've come to accept conscientious objection to military service as a Christian directive, because of the very words of Christ himself.  And that includes being discerning in the event that I choose to become involved in a political protest, since I believe it would go against my faith convictions to be involved in anything advocating violence.  

The pledge to the Christian flag says, "I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the savior for whose Kingdom it stands."  If the flag is a symbol of the Kingdom of God, through Christ his son, and savior, then carrying it into a violent insurrection that has nothing to do with Christian faith at all, and then sharpening the bottom end of the pole on which it is being held for use as a means of stabbing another human being is most definitely wrongful use of the name of the Lord.  And the consequence for that, according to the commandment, is that the Lord will not acquit them of their guilt.  

I see many similarities between doing something like that, and the white supremacists who showed up in Idaho at the Pride Week event, to, in the words of Baylor student Erin Hill, who wrote the editorial in Baptist News Global that I referenced at the beginning of this piece, "cause hurt and violence, whether physical, emotional, spiritual or psychological" to the people who were there for the event.  Those protesters sang a verse from the hymn "How Great Thou Art" as their identifying mark.  Tacking a hymn on to what was otherwise a hateful attack doesn't convert it, or make it Christian.  

What Christian purpose is served by showing up to attack, protest, cause hurt and commit violence against those who were gathered in Idaho for Pride Week?  As Americans, they have the right to live as they choose, protected by freedom of conscience and religious liberty. And why drag the name of the Lord and the Christian faith through the mud with behavior that is inconsistent with biblical teaching?  It's almost as if an evangelism doesn't matter, that those who showed up to protest and attack aren't interest in the integrity of their own character and testimony.  

Christians Have Been Warned.  Do they Understand the Warning or are they Ignoring It? 

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 Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.  Jude 4

You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come.  For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power.  Avoid them!  2 Timothy 3: 1-5 NRSV

What Ideology is Infiltrating Some Churches?

Right wing politics is a secular ideology.  It has perverted the gospel of Christ by attempting to get church leaders, denominational leaders and televangelists to use the power of politics to achieve its mission and purpose, rather than relying on the spiritual power that was given to it on the day of Pentecost.  And the particular brand of it that is having influence among Evangelicals now is led by a man who proclaims his worldliness, opposite of godliness, as his trademark and as his means of making the gains he's made and acquiring the wealth he has acquired.  Bragging about adulterous affairs, paying off stars of the pornography industry, cheating and lying through business deals, is the m.o. of the leader of the latest right wing political faction.  And both Paul and Jude describe that kind of infiltration and the immorality that accompanies it.  

These two passages from the Bible are often worked into sermons these days to be critical of all of the "mess that is going on in the world today," meaning those who don't share the same political perspective or party affiliation of the one doing the preaching.  But I'm talking about the people who have infiltrated the church and who would participate in an insurrection aimed at subverting the constitution or overturning a legal, legitimate election.  I'm talking about the marriage of politics with some brands of Christian faith which has turned them into political warriors rather than peacemakers and who are trying to use political power to advance a pseudo-Christian religious agenda rather than rely on the spiritual power and strength of God himself to advance their faith. 

I'll leave it up to the readers to decide how similar are the descriptions of the infiltrators in Jude, to the influences of secular right wing politics on some branches of Christianity which have attempted to change church doctrine and deny it the use of its spiritual power.  Christians who don't get with the political agenda, and try to hang on to the spiritual nature of their faith are called "suckers" and "losers."  On more than one occasion, at rallies and gatherings pushing the Trump agenda, keynote speakers have said that "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies" may be nice things to do, but practicing those principles keeps Christians out of influential places in worldly institutions.  

But, there's this third commandment, against the wrongful use of the name of the Lord.  The Bible is very clear that the advancement of a secular political agenda is very much misusing the name of the Lord.  

So is carrying a Christian flag, a Bible, and wearing a Christian t-shirt into a mess like the Trump insurrection of January 6th.  

Southern Baptists Make Progress on Handling Sexual Abuse, Turn Back Far Right Takeover Attempt

Update on the Southern Baptist Convention Meeting in Anaheim, California 5:45 p.m. Central Time June 15

A far right conservative faction in the Southern Baptist Convention, known as the "Conservative Baptist Network, CBN" has failed in its attempt to gain control of the denomination's officer positions and its executive committee leadership, and in its attempt to defund and dissolve its Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.  

The effort to defund and dissolve the ERLC, which goes back to a feud between a former Executive committee president and the former ERLC executive, Russell Moore, over Moore's outspoken opposition to Trump's candidacy and presidency, failed by an "overwhelming" margin, according to an afternoon report by The Tennessean.  The CBN faction was also opposed to adopting the recommendations made by the Sexual Abuse Task Force, which was approved by the messengers to the convention on Tuesday by a 90% margin.  

During the executive committee meeting on Monday, the officer candidates supported by CBN were defeated by sizeable margins.  At the Pastor's Conference, also on Monday, the CBN candidate, a far right winger noted for his opposition to CRT, was defeated.  CBN nominees for President, Recording Secretary and First Vice President were all defeated by non-aligned opponents.  During the afternoon session on Wednesday, it appears that efforts to get a resolution putting the convention on record as supporting criminal penalties against women who get abortions will also fail to get to the floor.  

This is not an indication that the Southern Baptist Convention is moving in a more progressive, moderate direction, either in its theology, or in its position on social issues.  But what this may indicate is that the influence of Trumpism within the convention's churches may be waning.  And, as the Salon piece indicates, may be an indication of the same thing occurring within constituencies of the GOP across the country.  The SBC itself has succeeded in keeping the influences of Trumpism away from its entities and its operations, though many of its churches and members have been supportive of the far right agenda  

Southern Baptists Turn Back Far Right Takeover Attempt

Salon: Southern Baptist Battle Goes Full MAGA

In a long first day of business, delegates, known as "messengers", to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Anaheim, California overwhelmingly voted to accept two recommendations from its Sexual Abuse Task Force (SATF) aimed at improving the way the denomination's entities, including its two missionary boards and six theological seminaries, handle incidents of sexual abuse by personnel. The SATF report and recommendations passed overwhelmingly, by a margin of 90% to 10%.  

The convention also turned back efforts by a faction known as the Conservative Baptist Network to elect denominational officers sympathetic to their cause.  The network, known as CBN, is a group claiming that the denomination's leadership was becoming "woke" and "liberal" and needed a new "conservative resurgence" like the one which occurred in 1979 that established the current pattern of leadership, implemented a statement of faith that was more fundamentalist, and replaced seminary professors, missionaries and entity executives with those who agreed to the more conservative doctrinal position.  

The new network formed after the convention's messengers passed a resolution in opposition to Critical Race Theory three years ago which they claim did not go far enough in actually condemning it. They have labelled efforts at racial reconciliation, especially the appointment of an African American professor as Vice President for Kingdom Diversity Initiatives at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, as indications of "wokeness" within the denomination.  They were also highly critical of the executive director of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Dr. Russell Moore, who was an open and outspoken opponent of Trump's candidacy and presidency. 

In the peculiar way the denomination is structured, the president of the convention has the keys to control the selection of all of the members of the trustee boards that run the mission boards, seminaries, Lifeway Publishers, the ERLC and the executive committee through his appointment of members of a committee which nominates all of the other committees including the one that chooses trustees.  CBN has been organizing to get messengers to the convention meeting to elect an SBC president for at least two years now, and their candidate, Tom Ascol, a pastor from Florida, was soundly defeated yesterday by Texas pastor Bart Barber, who has been in the inner circle of SBC leadership for a couple of decades.  Initially, there was a field of four candidates, in which Barber did not quite get to the 50% threshold required to win the election, but won the runoff handily, by a 60-40 margin. 

Earlier in the week, both of the CBN-endorsed candidates for officer positions on the SBC executive committee were defeated, and their endorsed candidate for president of an auxiliary group known as the Pastor's Conference, was also defeated.  The CBN-endorsed candidate for Recording Secretary of the convention was also soundly defeated just prior to the end of yesterday's business session.  The convention will elect several more officers today, including first and second vice-presidents, and another clerical officer. Attendance usually dwindles on the second day, which allowed CBN's choice for first vice-president to be elected last year.  

What Does This Mean? 

While the denomination has turned back an effort at organized denominational politics, mainly aimed at pushing a closer alignment with secular, right wing political positions, and at punishing the ERLC and former executive director Dr Russell Moore for taking the initiative with victims of the sexual abuse scandal, and for his Never-Trump stance, these results are not an indication of "wokeness" or of any kind of liberal, progressive movement within the denomination.  

Whether or not this is an indication of a waning of the influence of Trump and the MAGA mob is something I'll leave up to the political experts.  What has happened in the SBC's last two meetings, and in the way that the influence of the CBN faction has actually declined since last year's Nashville meeting, may indicate some weariness and wariness of Trump's immorality, lack of ethics and his incessant lying, but not a waning of traditional, conservative Republicanism among Evangelicals.  They are also losing members at an alarming rate, both the SBC and the Evangelical movement as a whole, and even though they won't admit it is related to their association with right wing politics, and especially with Trump, they know that it is and are taking steps to reduce the impact. 

As a result of all of the shenanigans from conservatives, Dr Moore exited the ERLC and the SBC, landed solidly on his feet in a position at Christianity Today where he has far greater influence and a much larger profile among Evangelicals than he did at the ERLC.  That includes influence as a respected authority on religious liberty issues and with a growing group of Never-Trumpers among Evangelical Christians.  Moore's successor at the ERLC, and the staff he left behind, remain intact, headed in the direction in which he was leading them, and are well-supported by both convention messengers and their own board of trustees.  The executive committee, which posed somewhat of a threat two years ago, has turned away from its hostile stance, after multiple resignations and new appointments related to the SATF requirement that its members waive privilege, and is no longer controlled by CBN's agenda. 

The Southern Baptist Convention has finally taken steps that have been advocated for decades by victims of sexual abuse which occurred in its churches and entities.  It now has a permanent advisory board equipped to handle complaints and reports of abuse on behalf of victims.  And it will create an independent database, where credibly accused abusers are listed, to prevent their ability from simply moving on to another church.  Victims have been asking for this for decades.  

It doesn't appear that other big problems, mainly the denomination's shrinking membership, is on the convention agenda.  The pandemic had a major affect on church attendance across the board, in all denominations and churches, including those that bragged about ignoring protocols.  But the SBC has faced declining membership for a decade now, and the number of people who are leaving churches increases each year.  From a peak of 16,306,246 in 2006, membership has declined to 13,680,493 in the 2022 report.  It dropped by 409,000 in just this past year.  Attendance has been affected by the pandemic, and maybe some people used that as an opportunity to change their church membership, but that's an indication of other, serious problems.  That makes "the nation's largest Protestant denomination" also the "nation's fastest declining denomination," with statistics that show much deeper losses than mainline Protestants have seen over the past twenty years. 

But, mainline Protestant denominations have not allowed themselves to be infiltrated by and used by political operatives or by a political agenda.  In most cases, they don't allow secular politics to cross the threshold of their churches.  But among Evangelicals, like Southern Baptists, not only has right wing politics infiltrated the churches, including into the preaching, but there is a growing awareness that it is also changing theology and doctrine to suit its purposes.  That's not why people join a church or go to worship each week.  And Southern Baptists, along with other Evangelicals, all of whom are seeing membership and attendance losses on a similar scale, need to be honest in examining their actions. 

No Theology or Doctrine Justifies Christian Participation in an Insurrection Like January 6th

Christian flags and Jesus T-shirts are visible in the footage from the Trump Insurrection against the U.S. Capitol on January 5, 2021. One of the most disturbing images from the video presented by the committee this past week was of a flag pole on which there was a US flag and a Christian flag being used to jab a police officer trying to defend the Capitol.  Anyone in that mob who claims to be a Christian needs to be called out.  There's absolutely no justification whatsoever for a sincere follower of Jesus Christ to be involved in an insurrection of any kind, especially not a violent one.  The Bible's writers call that kind of behavior "antichrist."  I call it sinful, and substantiate my claim with the scriptures Christians claim are authoritative in all matters of Christian faith and practice.  

Lying is Sinful and the Reason Behind the January 6th Trump Insurrection is a Lie

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.  Exodus 20:7, NRSV

Claiming that there was massive voter fraud, and that the 2020 Presidential election was "stolen" from Trump is a lie.  I'm not even going to argue that point here, there is so much evidence out there, including much of it from pseudo-auditors paid by Trump supporters to sift through ballots in six states, five in which the state legislature allowed it, none of whom found even a small piece of evidence to prove anything but that the vote totals were accurate.  Believing a lie makes one a liar.  

It's possible for a reasonably intelligent person with a high school diploma to do some research, find facts, develop an understanding of how elections work, including the process for protecting the integrity of the vote and the safeguards to prevent fraud, look at specific information regarding this election and see that the "evidence" presented by Trump's campaign was not credible, while the evidence presented by every secretary of state in every state they sued was consistently accurate, and discern the truth.  It is also possible to look at the conspiracy theories and the stories of fraud, and determine that they are false and lack credibility.  And regardless of personal bias toward a favored candidate, someone with integrity, a Christian who understands this commandment, would not defend a lie even if it is to their advantage, because it dishonors their faith in God.  

We now know, from the testimony of multiple individuals in the Trump Administration, that everyone knew there was no evidence of any fraud, and that they knew, by their own inside information, that the vote totals in the six states Trump tried to challenge and accuse of fraud, were accurate.  They knew that he had lost and they knew his claim that the election was stolen was a lie.  

Carrying a Christian flag into a violent insurrectionist mob that intended to kidnap, torture and murder members of Congress, and who did murder five police officers, is exactly what commandment number 3 warns against doing.  The flag represents Jesus, the pledge that goes along with it declares allegiance "to the savior for whose Kingdom it stands."  I do not know whether the individual who carried that particular banner, and used it as a weapon against a police officer who was protecting the Capitol and doing his job, was a Christian or not but that really doesn't matter.  What matters is that what they did with it was a sin, for which the commandment says there is no acquittal from the Lord. 

Three of the gospel writers reference blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as "unforgiveable." An act such as this, the violent misuse of a symbol of the Kingdom of God, would qualify, since the flag represents the spiritual kingdom Jesus established through the Holy Spirit. Bringing the flag to this insurrection is an indication that the person who did it knew exactly what they were doing.  There are no excuses for supporting a lie.  And there are spiritual consequences for doing so.  A sincere Christian with an understanding of the faith would know this.

The Example of Jesus in the Face of Arrest is the Most Powerful Argument Against Participating in Violent Insurrection by Christians

John's gospel account of Jesus' arrest is the most comprehensive record of what occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane.  And it is the single most powerful argument for the Christian virtue of peace, versus rebellion and violence, anywhere in the Bible.  

Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, "For whom are you looking?"  They answered, "Jesus of Nazareth."  Jesus replied, "I am he."  Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.  

When Jesus said to them, "I am he", they stepped back and fell to the ground.  John 18:4-6 NRSV

This would have been the point, in Jesus' ministry, when he could have started an insurrection against the Temple guards and Jewish authorities who had come to arrest him.  And in fact, at least one of his disciples, Peter, who had brought a sword for this purpose, attempted to take some action. 

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the High Priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword back into its sheath.  Am I not to drink the cup the Father has given to me"?  John 18:10-11, NRSV

In one of the other gospel accounts of this moment, after Peter wields the sword, Jesus tells him, "No more of this" then touches the slave's ear and heals him.  And he tells the Temple guards, "Have you come out with clubs and swords as if I were a bandit?"  

According to John's account, Jesus had the power to resist arrest, and in fact, to completely overcome the Temple guard, contained in the spiritual power of his spoken word.  When he identified himself, according to John, the guards fell to the ground.  But to use that power to save himself would have been a complete rejection of who he was, and of his reason for existing.  He is the one who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the Sons of God," along with "Love your enemies and pray for those who despitefully use you," and "turn the other cheek also," to the one who hits you in the face first.  

So who is the enemy against whom the insurrectionists are fighting and where is there any justification in Christian doctrine or theology for joining it?  There is nothing in the politics surrounding the January 6th insurrection or the 2020 election that demands Christians deny their faith and act in a manner that violates their spiritual convictions, which would be the only justification for an act of civil disobedience.  But there is no justification in any Christian teaching for taking up arms and committing violence, especially against a civil government that protects their religious freedom.  

Is Civil Disobedience Ever Justified in Christian Doctrine? 

There's no record in the New Testament, other than the crucifixion of Jesus, which provides an example for acceptable civil disobedience by Christians to a government that is persecuting the church or forcing its members to violate their convictions and their faith.  Jesus didn't resist the civil authority, nor did he resist the religious authority of the Jewish Sanhedrin that asked the Roman government to carry out his execution on their behalf.  

Two of the early church's apostles, Peter and Paul, both provide clear principles instructing the church's relationship with civil government which, for almost all of their audience, was the Roman Emperor and his agents.  

For the Lord's sake, accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.  For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish.  As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as  a pretext for evil.  Honor everyone.  Love the family of believers.  Fear God.  Honor the emperor.  I Peter 2:13-17, NRSV

Peter is specific about who the governing authorities are, and how Christians were to submit to their authority.  The emperor's authority was absolute, and the Christians had no say or voice in the decisions they made.  

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.  Romans 13:1-2, NRSV

Neither apostle makes an exception to this.  Paul's obedience to the law and his respect for the authority of the governing authorities was key to his ability to continue to preach the gospel.  He appealed to his Roman citizenship for protection against attacks from those who were seeking to silence him, submitted to the authority of the emperor, but was able to continue in his ministry in spite of a house arrest, because of the posture he took toward governing authorities.  

Both Paul and Peter were executed by the Roman government, though the scripture doesn't record either event.  But even in the record of those events, there's no rebellion or insurrection and they went to their death testifying to the veracity of their Christian faith by their obedience.  Their example was followed by the church which, during the various waves of persecution that occurred in the first two centuries of its existence.  In their obedience to the instruction of these two apostles, and to the example of Jesus, many Christians went to a horrible death, but their testimony was so visible, and so powerful, that by the time the persecution of the church under the Roman government ended during the reign of Constantine, Christianity had grown into the largest religious group in the empire.  

The Roman authorities that persecuted the church were not acting on God's behalf.  They were abusing the authority that God had given them.  Ultimately, as a result of that, God, in his own timing and according to his own will, turned that around to the benefit of the church.  Christianity became the most influential world religion as a result of the obedience of its adherents to these instructions.  At that point, the Emperors who ascended to the throne were professing Christians and it was that marriage of Christian faith with political power that let to the corruption of the church. 

Insurrection against the governing authorities by the church would have resulted in its demise.  Give that some thought at this point in the 21st century.

The other example of "civil disobedience" frequently cited in response to using these two passages from Peter and Paul as an argument against the Christian's use of violence is that of Daniel.  Noting that Daniel is an Old Testament prophet, who lived before either Peter or Paul made those statements, Daniel is still not an example that permits Christians to choose violent insurrection as a means of overthrowing a government they consider "unjust," especially if there's no evidence to support that claim. 

There are two instances in the historical record of Daniel which are cited as support for the "exception" to Peter and Paul's principles.  However, neither of those examples support that contention.   In both cases, Daniel, and the three Israelite young men known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, did not resist the authority of the king when it came to a law that they believed was unjust according to their faith.  They still submitted to the governing authorities.  Even if you think of this as allegorical rather than historical, there is no resorting to rebellion against the authority, or to force.  The response is to accept the consequences for disobedience to the civil law, and trust in deliverance from God.  

According to Biblical principle, even if a law handed down by the civil government was unjust, there is no justification at all for a Christian to participate in an armed, violent insurrection or, in fact, in any kind of attempt to overthrow the civil government.  There's been no abuse of the Christian church in America, of any kind.  Even if the premises of those who organized the January 6th insurrection had been accurate, there was still no justification for Christian participation in it.  Of course, the evidence has now been laid out and is known that the premise for the insurrection was a lie, and everyone involved, including the former President's inner circle of close advisors, his own children, his attorneys and he himself knew it.  

That makes it indefensible.  I hope those who claim to be Christians, and who carried those Christian symbols and flags into that seditious insurrection, have appealed to God for his grace and forgiveness, and did not misuse God's name in a manner that denies their acquital.  

 

We Are in a Political Crisis: Resolving it Won't be Easy

While the January 6th committee hearings are now underway, and that is a good thing, there are some observations that come with it that we must face realistically and plan for the future accordingly.  The fact of the matter is that a relatively large minority of Americans, as many as a third by most credible evidence, can be considered "extremists" in that they believe something that has been proven to be false, and they believe it strongly enough to be willing to use force to defend it.  

That is an extremely dangerous place to be.  It's the kind of situation that existed in Europe prior to both 20th century world wars.  It's existed in the United States in the past as well, in the decades that led up to the Civil War.  Extremism has embedded itself in social and cultural institutions, where it is almost impossible to eliminate or change.  It only needs a tipping point or, perhaps a better analogy, a carelessly tossed cigarette into the dry tinder to ignite the flames.  

The groundwork for the extremism that is causing this crisis has been laid for a long time.  When Richard Nixon was caught in lies, he blamed the media for being biased.  The very nature of conservativism requires withholding and suppressing information to protect itself from change, so of course, the media became a perfect scapegoat for Nixon's crimes.  But the difference back then was that there were very few media outlets that were willing to depart from sound journalistic principles in order to defend him.  That's one of the major differences between then and now.  

Democracy Dies in Darkness

That's the motto of the Washington Post, the "nation's daily newspaper" as it is sometimes called.  The extremist right considers the Post "liberal, left wing media."  That's one of many errors that is made by people who hold that perspective.  To say that tells me, a regular reader of both the Post and the New York Times that the individuals making that statement have never read either newspaper themselves, and have paid little attention to their contents.  

Both newspapers, which are primarily on-line media outlets these days, since their online readership is massively larger than their print circulation, follow strict journalistic principles which come as close to eliminating any kind of political, social or cultural bias in their reporting.  Their editorial position is a different story, but notice that I said their reporting is unbiased.  I've rarely seen a reporter from the Post fail to include all of the facts and all of the perspectives relevant to a news story and if they do, its because they missed something, not because they were deliberately trying to hide it from the readers.  

Reporting is kept separate from editorial and opinion sections.  Both papers have editorial writers and columnists who are sympathetic to conservative perspectives, though it is true that the majority of their writers take a leftward leaning moderate to liberal approach when expressing their opinion.  But the notable difference is that conspiracy theories, statements that cannot be fact-checked or verified for their accuracy, and intentional, deliberately misleading statements are not included in the editorials of the Washington Post or the New York Times.  And to conservatives, who only read and watch right wing media outlets, which are really nothing more than propaganda channels, see the factual perspective of the two big dailies as biased.  

Many conservatives have become far right extremists because they are in a media world that is in darkness.  They are being manipulated.  The driving force appears to be fear, generated by a lack of education or the failure to develop critical thinking skills, and a lack of ability to even tolerate people who don't share the same interests.  And while this is purely anecdotal, in many conservatives whom I know, their fears border on the edge of paranoia, thinking that there is someone or something out there always out to "get" them.  Their isolation inside a media bubble has created an "us vs them" perspective, with the "them" being an enemy who isn't entitled to the same rights because they are "unAmerican" by a hypocritical definition. 

Wasn't One of the Original Purposes of a Public Education System "Democratic Equality" Leading to Better Citizenship? 

American educators were able to see the connection between an educated society and the preservation of representative democracy.  Most people who came to America were motivated by the personal freedom that it offered.  Over time, they connected access to that freedom with abandoning the idea of a "ruling class" from European tradition and they realized that equal access to education would eliminate the social, cultural and economic inequities that perpetuated those ideas.  And it succeeded.  

The American Civil War played a big role in demonstrating the need for an educated electorate to prevent democracy from being distorted and captured by special interests.  The result was compulsory public education by the time the United States entered World War I.  And that has led to a measure of equality that strengthened the representative democracy by increasing the public's participation in it.  I believe that the influence of American education stabilized representative democracy, at least for most of the post war period, even though Vietnam, until the attacks on independent media by conservatives began to take a toll.  That, and the deterioration of public education, have brought us to this present darkness. 

Is it Even About Democracy Anymore? 

More than any other extremist propagandist in the media, Rush Limbaugh interjected idealism that runs counter to democratic values.  Limbaugh took the position that people aren't capable of ruling themselves and they need a more firm, authoritarian system to make sure that the things that are "right" are done, and the things that are "wrong" are avoided.  The bottom line for Limbaugh in measuring what was "right" was money, how to make it and keep as much of it as possible, avoiding giving any of it to the democratic government that will use it to pander to liberal, wrong ideas.  

The right talks about patriotism and the founding fathers and democracy like they own it.  But in fact, what they are advocating is not democracy, it is an autocracy in which there is a ruling class, based on ideology.  And if that sounds ominous, it is.  There is a mixture of ideology in there that has pulled the money interests, those who are aiming to enrich a small group of individuals by using government power, together with those who believe that America was originally destined to be a revival of white, Christian European culture, chosen by God and given the riches of an untapped North American continent as a blessing, and the Christian Dominionists and Reconstructionists who believe they are the forerunners of Christ's return and God's kingdom on earth.  

We got an up-close look at this in the insurrectionist mob that invaded the Capitol on January 6th.  One of the images that specifically got my attention was a banner with a Confederate flag and a Christian flag being used as a weapon to jab a police officer.  That mob is just a small sample of the work that right wing media has been doing for several decades, 

Free Speech Turned Against Democracy

So how is political poison like this neutralized under constitutionally guaranteed free speech?  

This won't happen overnight.  It is now as embedded in the far right as any political ideology has ever been in this country, going back to its early days, with the possible exception of the period prior to the Civil War, and then Reconstruction.  It's political opponents have been very patient, though there have been incidents which have flared up into violence, flash points which illustrate exactly why the time has come to wake up before there is another civil war.  

Free speech is a cherished core value of American democracy.  And it cannot be abused or sacrificed.  We just have to learn how to use it effectively to defeat what is an obvious attempt to subvert American values.  I don't believe America has run its course yet.  This won't be easy, but it's not insurmountable. 

We need to recognize that the injection of far right political ideology has its limits, and is waning.  It reached its high point in getting Trump in the White House for four years.  That, in turn, motivated the largest turnout of Democratic party votes in American history, over 80 million, from virtually every Democratic party constituency, and most independents, to get him out.  So the first step is to gather the strength of the ballot box again, in 2022, and put an exclamation point on 2020.  

It's Been Gift Wrapped Already--Make it Work!

Is that so unrealistic?  It has to be done, and opinions about who is in the White House don't matter, though the President we have is politically the best suited to carry out what needs to be done and that's why 80 million of us elected him in the first place.  Uniting the country has to be done under the rules and principles of its democratic constitutional government, and with the minority party playing the obstructionist card, holding the majority in Congress, getting the Senate past the filibuster obstacle and negotiating from a position of strength is the only language obstructionism understands. 

I hear the wailing, the despair, the rhetoric.  "It would take a miracle.  The party in power in the White House always loses the mid-terms."  But Democrats have had a lot of help.  Putin showed his true colors and attacked Ukraine.  There's definitely a way to stir up some angry voters, in spite of gas prices and inflation by sticking some labels on that and plastering photographs of a smiling Trump with his left arm around a smiling Putin.  This is an issue which has the support of well over 60% of the American people, so use it. 

Over 60% of the American people are against, against, seeing Roe v, Wade overturned.  At this point, I don't care who leaked Alito's papers (I'm convinced Ginny Thomas was responsible) that news lit a fire under a significant segment of otherwise sleepy voters.  Getting 60% support on a political issue these days is rare indeed, and yet here we are.  

In Uvalde, Texas, the logical progression of unbridled and out-of-control irresponsibility of a distorted perspective of second amendment rights led to the brutal, bloody massacre of nineteen children and two teachers, and the wounding of a dozen others, in an elementary school in a small town in rural South Texas, where things like that aren't supposed to happen.  Most of the bodies were mangled beyond recognition.  This is a direct result of legislation that is pushed by the far right and promoted by their propagandists.  Any objection to this becoming a political issue was nullified by the governor of Texas, who said, "it could have been worse," in his initial press conference.  How could it possibly have been worse?  

Support for increased regulation of gun ownership, especially limiting calibre and number of weapons that can be owned by one person, runs upwards of 80% of the electorate.  Eighty percent. 

And I could write a book about what can be gained from the January 6th hearings.  I know that there are a lot of Democrats who are throwing wet blankets on this, but at this point, any wedge for an advantage is a gift.  The whining and complaining of the right should be ignored and the focus maintained on the facts.  Gain all of the ground here that can be gained, there will be a lot of members of Congress who get called out in this and their Democratic opponents should get all the help necessary to keep this up front through the election cycle.  

Who is going to step up and take these wonderful gifts that are already significant advantages for Democrats among marginal Republicans and independents, and use them to motivate the 80 million voters who cast a ballot for President Biden in 2020 to go back and give him the tools he needs to finis the job?

Haven't we been accused of promoting the "cancel culture"?  Why can't we turn that effort toward the sponsors of Fox News, Breitbart, USA Radio, Newsmax and other right wing propagandists?  

This is one way I have of doing my part.  I was trained in Journalism in college, but I'm a blogger and I fall into the "editorial" category, not the news reporting category.  As you can see, I have a lot to say and I make a lot of relevant connections.  I'm not one to sit on the couch watching cable news, clicking my tongue at how bad the world is and I'm not letting this go.  Share this around, improve on it if you want, use it to prove points or to make conservatives angry.  I'm up for the debate.  I have the facts on my side and they can't clap their hands over their ears and pretent they can't hear me.

All Good Ideas are on the Table: This is How Politics Should Work

Advice from Bernie Sanders to Democrats: Change Course Before you Nosedive in November 

Open minds, a variety of diverse ideas and perspectives, listening to people who sit in a different place and have a different perspective.  How refreshing it is to write those words after decades of gridlock politics brought to us by the Republican Party.  I'll preface this by saying no one is perfect, and no one is the ultimate authority on what is or is not going to work in an election.  We've been surprised before, though we are at a point now where polling data and the predictions that go along with them are generally pretty accurate.  But even so, just accepting this information without acting on it, or working to do something that will make a difference, is silly and defeatist.  And considering what is at stake, which is the effective functioning of American constitutional democracy, everything it worth a try.  

Of all political perspectives and party positions, Democrats should know that all ideas do not have to be mutually exclusive. 

Concerned About the Possible Outcome of the Midterms?  Me, too. 

Since the Supreme Court leak of Justice Alito's brief, and the Uvalde Shooting, adding to a summer of televised hearings on the January 6 Trump Insurrection, my confidence in the Democrats ability to retain its control of Congress has increased significantly.  That, along with obviously diminished support for Trump-endorsed primary candidates in GOP primaries thus far, which seem to be hitting a ceiling somewhere around 30% of the vote, win or lose, makes me feel better than I did back in the winter.  The polling numbers, which are scrambled and not as clear as they usually are, indicate that voters aren't necessarily ready to hand control back over to a GOP that they pushed out in 2020.  

And while Trump supporting Republicans are hanging their hat on the "Big lie," his continued harping about it, including continued ways to try and figure out how to subvert the constitution and somehow get him back in the White House now, even though that's constitutionally and legally impossible and is not supported by the fact that the voters kicked him out, is a liability, not an asset to Republican candidates running for office.  Those who he has endorsed have eked out narrow wins in most cases, while many of his endorsees have been spectacularly defeated.  It's hard to win a general election when 70% of those who are likely to vote think you are lying and don't believe the lie you're pushing.  

My concern at this point is that I don't see much change in the Democratic party's strategy to bring all of this messaging in a way that will motivate voters to go to the polls in November.  Like Senator Sanders, someone whose opinion and perspective I consider and to whom I pay attention, I think the strategy needs to shift to a more effective method. The debate over Roe and the speculation of the Supreme Court's decision, the January 6th hearings, the gun control debate, and the Putin war against Ukraine are all issues now tilted in the Democrats favor.  And it looks like some secondary issues, especially Russian involvement in the 2016 election and the proof for collusion, will make the rounds again.  But it is clear that just letting issues make the argument isn't enough. 

Democrats Listen, Consider and Act

As I said before, different ideas about how to go about what is now a somewhat urgent political job with limited time, do not have to be mutually exclusive.  Of course, because this is the Democratic party, the concern over the ethics of what gets done is an important consideration, and I agree with that.  But the Democratic party is diverse enough that several paths to the same outcome are not duplicitous or deceiving.  

I think we need to listen to Senator Sanders, and Senator Warren, who has similar ideas and a similar perspective about how to do this.  I trust them both.  They are politicians, but their concern for those they represent and their lives shows in everything they do.  I think they're on the right track.  Point out that two obstructionist senators have stood in the way of the Democrats completing their agenda in the first year of the Biden Presidency and that change that the voters approved when they elected Biden is only going to occur if you give the Democratic party two more senate seats to plow around the obstructionists.  

That's easy to understand.  Senators Manchin and Sinema are household names which everyone knows because that's what the mainstream media has focused on rather than multiple accomplishments and achievements of the Biden administration.  A lot of frustrated Democrats who need motivation to go to the polls can relate to this because it has been the news media theme day after day.  So turn that around just a bit and state the obvious.  The Biden Administration will be faithful to its promises which will benefit the American people (i.e. you and your interests) when it has a fully cooperative Congress.  So give that to them. 

Works for me.  

Democratic Populism is Still Democratic

The last thing Bernie Sanders wants to see is a Republican dominated Congress.  He's made being an independent who caucuses with Democrats work because he is very practical in his politics, to the point where he can pick up votes from other independents and even Republicans because they get away from ideology and into practical matters.  There's probably not anyone more influential among the more progressive wing of the Democratic party except maybe Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, or Elizabeth Warren.  

There is no possible way the Republicans can get enough votes to win a majority of congressional seats, even with their gerrymandering, if they face a united Democratic party, as diverse as it is.  And that's the bottom line.  I'm in favor of doing what it takes to get there, as long as it isn't lying or deceit.  

Christian "Dominion Theology" Intersects with Right Wing Politics

The intersection of Dominion theology with right wing politics has created a movement within the Evangelical and Pentecostal/Charismatic branches of American Christianity that pushes churches to use Christian theology and doctrine to achieve political power rather than fulfilling the Christian mission and purpose apart from political power, which is what Christ and the apostles taught.  It is anti-Christian in its philosophy and actions, willing to set aside core principles of the Christian faith to gain political power and influence.  

That is why a man like Trump, an immoral, God-cursing, demonically-driven demagogue, is so popular among Evangelicals.  Trumpism tells Christian leaders that turning the other cheek and loving your enemies, which identify Christian character and are direct teachings of Jesus himself, are for suckers and they are hindrances to the kind of worldly influence and power that he is after.  Those who want to "get anywhere in the world," must get themselves into positions of worldly power in government, education, media, arts and entertainment, religion, family and business and that can't be done by loving your enemies or turning the other cheek.  Though that denies core Christian theology, they follow him.  

Understanding Dominion Theology in conservative branches of the Christian church would require reading several different authors on the subject.  Like most Christian theology, Dominion Theology branches out into differing interpretations based on the practical dividing lines that separate Conservative Evangelicals, primarily those who are Reformed or Calvinist, from Pentecostals and Charismatics, the latter of whom believe in the active presence of "sign gifts",  primarily speaking in tongues and faith healing. 

The Christian Reconstruction Brand of Dominion Theology 

A quick, thirty-minute read through of the Wikipedia description of Dominion theology will give you the general idea of the broad scope of the idealism that comes from this pseudo-Christian worldview. The "Christian Reconstruction" brand, which is more closely associated with the writings of R. J. Rushdoony in the 1960's and 70's, is found mostly among Calvinists and the conservative, Evangelical branch of the church. Rushdoony was a hard line, far right minister in the ultra conservative Orthodox Presbyterian church, which opposed "modernism" of any kind.  Ultimately, he created the Chalcedon Foundation which published a monthly journal defending his reconstructionist perspective, believing that American financial prosperity was a gift from God because it was a Christian nation and maintaining a covenant relationship with God, based on human righteousness, was the key to maintaining American power and strength.  

Turning the United States into a theocracy, which is what reconstructionists believe was the original intention of the founding fathers, with laws that legislate social practices mandating Christian doctrinal positions.  They believe that a government which implements "God's law" would be permitted to execute offenders not only for murder, but for idolatry, open homosexuality, practicers of witchcraft, anyone who "blasphemes" God or the Trinity, and rebellious youths.  They believe that God gifted the rich resources of the North American continent to Christians to establish a nation for his own glorification and as such a government and worldview improved society, making it more righteous,  it would usher in the second coming of Christ.  

The view is influenced heavily by Calvinism.  Jean Calvin, during the Protestant Reformation, set up governments that enforced his own interpretation of Christian behavior and obedience to biblical commands and laws and justified what appeared to be the opposite of what the gospel of Jesus said by appealing to the doctrine of predestination, which is the idea that since God knows in advance which human beings will be redeemed, he has chosen those who will respond to his offer of redemption.  Those who will not respond, which he also knows in advance, are already condemned, and are reprobate and unredeemable, destined for spiritual destruction.  So their execution is simply an exercise in God's will.  

It would be difficult to claim that the intentions of modern day Christian Reconstruction would be much different than Reformation-era Calvinists.

"Kingdom Now" Dominion Theology  

The Pentecostal/Charismatic brand of Dominion theology is primarily known as the "Kingdom Now" movement.  This is the belief that God is currently involved in choosing people who will work with him now to "take back" (ever heard that term before?) areas within the world that Satan "usurped" or took over were given over after the fall of Adam and Eve.  They believe that by putting certain "chosen" Christians in positions of worldly power and influence in government, education, entertainment, banking and finance and international relations, these individuals will be in position to implement the Kingdom of God on earth in this present age, replacing the flawed and "worldly" democracy and the will of the people with the will of God.  

They will also be in position to claim the wealth and power associated with being the alleged stewards of God's will and "Christian America".  Many of those associated with the Kingdom Now perspective are also part of the "Prosperity Gospel" cult.  Paula White, the self-proclaimed "prophetess", who Donald Trump claims is his "spiritual advisor," is a heretical, cultic prosperity gospel preacher.  That should explain a whole lot about his worldview.  Their god is wealth, the power that comes with it which permits those who have it to live outside the law without consequence, and material possession. 

Dominion Theology is not Christian

As a self-described Christian, once an Evangelical but now as one who rejects the use of that description because of its political implications, but who continues to believe in the gospel message of Jesus Christ, I reject any form of Dominion Theology as an aberration of Christian doctrine and as a theological heresy, and churches and church leaders who promote it, teach it in their churches and preach it in their sermons are heretics.  I've seen some Christian theologians refer to it as "pseudo-Christian" because it does incorporate elements of the biblical narrative, though they are incorrectly applied and interpreted.  

Acceptance of it is denial of the  "new covenant" instituted by Jesus who proclaimed that his kingdom, the "ecclesia" or the church, was "not of this world."  It is a means by which an elite group of self-appointed individuals acquire control of worldly power and wealth, not to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth, but to endow themselves with those things from which they would personally benefit. 

Those who promote Dominion theology, whether it is Reconstructionism or Kingdom Now, or "Seven Mountains", which is a variation of the Kingdom Now movement that believes Christianity should seek the worldl power that comes from dominating all social, cultural, government and financial institutions,  deny what Jesus and the Apostles said about the power of God, and the nature of his Kingdom.  Both Paul and Peter acknowledge that no power is held on earth except that which has been permitted by God, and that his will and purpose is being achieved in this age, as it has since the resurrection of Jesus, in the "Great Commission" of the church. To claim the use of worldly influence and political power as a means of establishing God's Kingdom on earth is to deny the very foundational principle of Christian faith.  It is using the very powerful influence of Christian faith as a means for a political faction to claim wealth and power for themselves.  

While I do not believe the New Testament book of Jude is a specific prophecy regarding those who promote Dominion Theology, I do believe it is a prophetic warning which aptly describes what is happening among some of the conservative branches of the Christian church in the United States. There is an intersection between various forms of Dominion Theology and right wing Republican politics.  Christian leaders in many cases have abandoned the spiritual Kingdom of God in exchange for the worldly influence of politics to achieve their ends, which are not consistent with the ends of the church according to Jesus.  

As Jude says, "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 Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."  

It's these abberant, heretical views, which came in on the coattails of Donald Trump, which explain how it is that millions of American Christians have submitted to the political leadership of a man who flaunts his immorality, particularly his adulterous affairs and his worldly image, denies any Christian confession of Christ, ridicules principles like turning the other cheek and loving your enemies as being the deeds of "suckers", "who indulges his own lusts, is bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage."  (Jude v. 6)

This is a Prevailing View Among the Religious Right, and in the Republican Party

It is the aim of most forms of Dominion Theology to take over the government of the United States and "turn it back into the Christian nation that the founding fathers intended it to be."  The only problem with that aim is that the founding fathers did not intend for the United States to be a "Christian nation" and most of the principles written into our foundational documents, specifically the Constitution and its Bill of Rights were from influences of the Enlightenment, not the institutional, state-controlled church, or the small, scattered American denominations of it that existed at the time.  But historical facts have never stopped those who believe that the intentions of those who founded this country were to create a Christian theocracy of sorts, believing that the white Europeans who settled here were a new "covenant people" in the same way that Hebrews were the "chosen" people of the Old Testament, given the resources of the virgin continent of North America to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, in some form.  

The attempt to take over the government has already begun.  There are many Dominionists in all branches of the government.  They have been elected to public office, they have been appointed to the judiciary, including the federal courts.  Among the politicians who openly identify with and follow this Dominion perspective are Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry.  And while they have not openly identified as such, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, Madison Cawthorne and Matt Gaetz all frequently use Dominionist rhetoric.  

Do I have your attention now?  

What Would America Look Like Under Dominionism? 

So all of those conspiracy theories, especially the basis for the whole Q-Anon theory, and all of the "Christian nationalism", which I more accurately describe as "white Christian nationalism," the tendency toward white supremacist influence, attacks on Critical Race Theory and the distorted criticisms of Black Lives Matter, do find common political and philosophical ground in Christian Dominion theology.  The impetus of the movement is toward what they claim will be taking America back to its Christian roots.  America's representative democracy was an Enlightenment influence, not a Christian principle, so overthrowing democratic rule is a key point of the reconstructed republic. Those who would become the government would be those individuals who claimed to be "on God's side" as he reclaimed the United States for his own Kingdom, redeeming it from Satanic control.  There would be no elections, no term limits and no recourse for redress of grievances.  

"Religious liberty" would become "Christian domination."  Only the perspective of the Dominionists in charge would have any kind of religious liberty.  Their religious principles would be taught in the schools, promoted in public institutions and in government.  "Liberal" denominations would either be restricted to their own venues, or outlawed, depending on who was in charge.  There would be little tolerance for any other religious perspective.  

The Constitution would become a vehicle for enforcing "Biblical law," a set of codes which would likely include literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ten Commandments and laws based on the religious beliefs of the dominant group.  Economic and social discrimination against people of color, which would include Latinos as well as African-Americans, Native Americans and Asians, anyone who was not of Caucasian, European descent, would face discrimination in educational and economic opportunity.  We already have a court system that is tilted against racial and ethnic minorities.  We would go back to the days of Jim Crow, and conceivably, to the days of the antebellum South.  

Things considered to be immoral by those who were in charge would become illegal.  Not only would abortion become illegal, but women who had one would be subject to arrest and trial on murder charges.  That's already being considered in some states.  Obviously, same-gender marriage would be outlawed, and where that would end is anyone's guess.  Any kind of sexual contact or activity between same-gender individuals would be illegal, and would be subject to the death penalty.  And what would you do with Trump and his older two sons, who are open about their sexual exploits and immoral behavior?  Well of course, they would be exempt. :-(

It's hard for some of the apologists for this perspective to argue that there's no intention to be racist or discriminatory, and that it is only reform of the Constitution, and resetting it to their distorted perspective of its original intended purpose that is their goal.  Most racism, especially the belief that the black race is destined for servitude, emerge from some of the Genesis narratives about the post-flood re-settlement of the world, including the "curse of Ham" nonsense, which is still pervasive among far right Pentecostal and Fundamentalist sects.  NPR: Slavery and the "Curse of Ham"

There is no "covenant" relationship offered in the Bible to any nation or country or  political entity in the world once Jesus offered his covenant and established his "ecclesia," or church.  His "kingdom," which he clearly described and defined, is spiritual, and the members of the universal church are connected to each other by their common acknowledgement that Jesus is the Christ.  There is no way for a country to be "Christian," only individuals can become disciples of Jesus and there is no provision for some kind of additional blessing to be bestowed upon a country based on the number of its citizens who acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  

The United States is a Christian-influenced nation, in that Christianity, in multiple branches, is the predominant religious expression of its people, but there's no Biblical doctrine to support the claim that there's some kind of protection or benefit given to such a country. There is nothing anywhere in Christian doctrine in the Bible that offers any other nation or country in the world the same kind of theocratic, covenant relationship that God had with Israel in the Old Testament.  That covenant ended with the resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the church, which is the body to which the new covenant applies.  The church's commission is a spiritual one, not political or invested with worldly power. Since that is the core conviction of Dominion Theology, and that belief denies the Christ covenant, it makes those who believe in its principles heretics and churches they lead are apostate. (I John 4:1-3)

Intersecting with Trumpism

I doubt that the former President cares anything at all about turning America into a Christian nation.  He lives outside the law anyway, and if Dominion theology was established in the constitution, his immoral behavior and his lack of ethics would run counter to the governing philosophy.  But there is a mutually beneficial relationship between the two in that compromise and deal making get both the Christian nationalists and Trumpism to their ultimate goal of control and power.  

If the Christian nationalists and Dominion theology aim to create an America governed by biblical law, where does someone like Trump fit in?  The support for Trump among right wing political Evangelicals is a very strong, clear indication that they really do not have any trust in spiritual power, and that they are only after what can be achieved by worldly power and influence, which is one of the goals of Dominion theology and Christian nationalism.  The "Christian" and "biblical" aspect of their politics is only a means to an end, which is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.  As long as someone like Trump can help them achieve this goal, they could care less about his morality or his religious beliefs.  

Let Me Be Clear... 

Let me be clear:  While Dominion theology, reconstructionism, Kingdom Now theology and Catholic Integralism use Christian terminology and Biblical quotations, it is not, in any way, shape or form, true and genuine Christian faith.  I'll repeat that.  Dominion theology, reconstructionism, Kingdom Now theology and Catholic Integralism is not in any way, shape or form, true and genuine Christian faith. It is a demonic force, masquerading as an angel of light, distorting true faith and deceiving Christians into a subversion of their faith. It is a distortion of biblical theology, specifically eschatology or "end times" prophecy. 

"My Kingdom is Not of This World" 

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world.  If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews.  But as it is, my kingdom is not from here."  

Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?"

Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king.  For this I was born and for this I came into the world to testify to the truth.  Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." 

Pilate asked him, "What is truth?" 

After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, "I find no case against him." 

John 18:36-38, NRSV

There is no need to stake out territory in this world, and reclaim it for God from satanic domination.  God is already in control of it.  The biggest temptation Jesus faced, more than once according to the Biblical narrative, was to elevate himself to a position of worldly power.  When he was tempted in the wilderness, it was the third temptation that he faced.  When confronted with his arrest and his trial, he was tempted to use his power to save himself.  His critics mocked him with that temptation. Many of those who clamored for his crucifixion were disappointed that the one claiming to be their Messiah wasn't going to use his power to free them from Roman rule.  It's pretty clear that the intention of Jesus was to keep his church from being corrupted by worldly power, not to use it to dominate the world.   

Had he resisted his arrest, he did indeed have the power, without having to call on any human assistance, to free himself.  But that would have completely subverted the purpose of his existence and it would have denied God's redemptive grace to humanity.  Dominion theology and all of its branches is a selfish aberration of Christian faith, a turn away from trust in the spiritual power of God, and toward the temptation of worldly power to achieve selfish ambition.  

Paul's prophetic words to Timothy, which were meant for his time and his place, are also relevant to our perspective: 

You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come.  For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power.  Avoid them!  2 Timothy 3:1-5, NRSV

Do you see anything there that looks familiar now?  So do I.  

Christianity has never thrived when it was enforced by the power of the state.  It loses its essence and meaning immediately.  The new covenant, instituted by Christ when he empowered the church, was a spiritual kingdom.  It redeems and transforms lives.  Change and serving others are the result of a transformed life. The mission and purpose of the church is to testify to the redemption and transformation.  When Christianity is enforced, it loses its redemptive, transforming power and becomes oppressive.  

A nation cannot be "Christian."  Only individuals can be Christians.  And the influence of Christians on other people is a living and verbal testimony of faith.  Behavior is changed by a transformed life, not by force, intimidation or cultural dominion, which robs the Christian testimony of its spiritual power.  

There are Christians who see this for what it is, as a gross, misleading distortion of Christian faith, a use of doctrine, theology and identifying terminology that is deceitful and destructive.  I'm working to expose the lie.  

Thank you for reading and considering this honestly.