Christians Supporting Trump Endorse His Immoral Worldliness, and His Lies, and Deny Their Own Faith

Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once and for all handed on to the Saints.  Jude 1, NRSV

It is impossible to contend for the Christian faith and at the same time, support a politician who is running for office in a constitutional democracy, where people have the privilege of electing their own leadership, whose political platform and personal character defy that same faith, in virtually every way.  By following the doctrine, interpretation, and application of the Biblical text that is distinctive to conservative, Evangelical Christians in this country today, I can draw the conclusion that it is inconsistent, and therefore "sinful" by their own definition, to give their political support to a candidate like Donald Trump. 

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 debauchery and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  Jude 4, NRSV

Though the Apostle Jude, who was very likely the son of Joseph and Mary, and thus one of Jesus' own brothers, was not giving some future prophecy of the appearance of a politician in the United States when he wrote these words, he was prophetically warning what was then an infant church, residing in a world surrounded by pagan religion and secular philosophy, about protecting their integrity, and the message of the gospel of Christ, from being perverted and distorted, allowing the church to be used for purposes outside of the mission and purpose given to it by Jesus, its founder.  The church has been the victim of multiple attempts, over the course of its history, of intruders who were not interested in the message of the Christian gospel, but who were very much interested in hijacking the institution and using it for their own political purposes.  Emperor Constantine is one of the better, earlier examples, among hundreds since, which illustrate how the church has been corrupted and co-opted by secular politics.  

Trumpism, and white, Christian Nationalism, are just more recent, modern intrusions that set aside the core principles of the Christian gospel, things that were taught directly by Jesus himself, if one holds to the belief that the gospel narratives of the New Testament are accurate transmissions of his preaching and teaching, and the example he set during his public ministry.  In following, and giving political loyalty to Trump, Christians set aside a whole long list of their own values, such as integrity, honesty, and truthfulness, sexual purity and marital fidelity, humility, peace, and what Jesus himself said was the second greatest commandment, equal to the first according to him, loving one's neighbor--an inclusive term meaning all other human beings according to his definition of it--along with loving and praying for one's enemies.  Jesus also said that those who were peacemakers were worthy of being known as the "sons of God," quite an honor that points to just how important that is to genuine Christian faith.  

Of course, no one is perfect.  And that's one of the more prevalent excuses conservative Evangelical Trump supporters trot out when this is pointed out to them.  That is true enough.  But one of the early Christian apostles, in an epistle he wrote to some specific churches, points out that the gospel of Jesus Christ centers on a conversion experience that starts with conviction of one's sinful nature, confession of that sin leading to repentance, and acceptance of Christ's sacrificial death as the sacrifice for sin in order to receive redemption.  Trump has, on multiple occasions, when asked to articulate a public confession similar to this one, which is a core part of Evangelical doctrine on which they do not budge or compromise, refused to do so, proclaiming that he has done nothing for which he must ask God's forgiveness, and then declaring that what he believes about God is private, and not open for discussion. 

"By this you know the Spirit of God," says the Apostle John, in his first churchc epistle, "every spirit that confesses Jesus has come in the flesh is from God."  [I John 4:2, NRSV]

In Evangelical doctrine and theology, this is a confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the promised one referenced by prophets in the Old Testament as the son of God, the one who would become the sacrifice for humanity's sinful nature.  So the failure to acknowledge the need for this forgiveness is a failure to acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh.  

"And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God," says John.  "And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you heard that it is coming, and now is already in the world."  [I John 4:3, NRSV]

So, in a conservative, Evangelical, interpretation, which would be more literal in its application, someone who refuses to acknowledge their own sinful nature before God, as a result of spiritual conviction, is antichrist.  Not The Antichrist, as in what those Evangelicals who hold a futurist interpretation of New Testament eschatology believe is some coming, evil, world ruler, but "antichrist" in that they have rejected Jesus and the gospel he preached.  

Now I'm not judging anyone's faith.  I'm simply pointing out words that have been spoken, on more than one occasion, by a politician who has confessed, to multiple Evangelical Christian "leaders," that he has done nothing requiring God's forgiveness.  Readers are free to draw their own conclusions, based on the Evangelical doctrine and theology that has been pointed out, exactly what that means.  And they are also free to decide if that is a position that they themselves, who claim to be Christian by this very confession itself, want to endorse and support in a politician whom they have the liberty to help elect.  

The excuses that are being used don't work.  "I'm not voting for a pastor-in-chief, I'm voting for a commander-in-chief," is an attempt to separate the political from the spiritual.  Unfortunately, this is not possible with Trump and the Republican party, nor with those Evangelical Christians who have made Trumpism and Republicanism part of their doctrine and theology.  They do not separate their faith from their politics, their position is based specifically on the union of their faith and politics.  So that particular phrase is deceptive and duplicitous, and unworthy of a sincere Christian who desires to reflect the values and live by the vitrues of true Christianity.  

Nor does the comparison to King David that some Evangelical leaders have used to justify their support for Trump.  If one accepts the historical accuracy of the Biblical text regarding King David, and the manner in which he was used by God, it is clear that he was morally flawed and imperfect.  He committed adultery, and then a murder to cover it up.  But here's the big difference between King David and Donald Trump in this regard.  King David was held accountable by God for his sin, confessed it, along with a whole lot of other sinful behavior in his life, demonstrated true repentance and was forgiven.  

But King David was not excused by God from the consequences of his sin.  He lost the loyalty of a good portion of his kingdom and his army, and had to work hard to gain back the confidence he lost.  Two of his sons were killed as a result of his poor decisions and as a consequence of his sinfulness, and his family life was a mess because of the lack of respect and confidence in his leadership that his behavior caused.  The spiritual leadership of the kingdom, which included the construction and consecration of the Temple in Jerusalem, was left to his son, Solomon, a pointed move attributed to God as a result of all of the character issues surrounding the rule of King David.  

Does a Candidate's Character Count When Christians Cast Ballots in a Constitutional Democracy?  Well-known, Well-respected Evangelical Pastor Dr. Adrian Rogers Says, Emphatically, "Yes, it does!" 

This is not the first time in American history, not even in modern American history, that the morality of a politician was considered as a factor in their candidacy for public office, more specifically the Presidency.  That's a long, old story.  But for Evangelical Christians, Trump isn't the first candidate whose lack of morality and integrity have raised questions about whether or not it is consistent with sincere Christian faith to vote for such a person.  

In fact, some of the very same Evangelical leaders who are more than happy to side-step the immorality and lack of integrity of Trump, and come up with every excuse in the world to bypass their own interpretation and application of scripture they consider to be inerrant and infallible, were some of the most caustic, vitriolic, hateful critics of President Bill Clinton, not only when his behavior with Monica Lewinsky was revealed, but also of alleged affairs he had prior to running for office.  Many of them declared him morally ineligible and unqualified for the United States Presidency, and worked hard to convince other Christians, specifically Evangelicals, not to support President Clinton with their votes.  

On February 8, 1998, Dr. Adrian Rogers, then senior pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a leading Evangelical pastor with a large television audience, preached a sermon entitled "Does Character Count?"  While he did not make any reference to President Clinton, and avoided specifics that would lead to the conclusion that he was preaching politics, both the timing and the content of the sermon made it clear that Dr. Rogers was telling fellow conservative Evangelicals that voting for politicians whose personal morality fell short of a higher level of expectation for the office to which they aspired was sinful.  

Dr. Rogers text came from the book of Romans, chapter 1.  Though he never mentions President Clinton by name, he makes strong allusion to the fact that the exhibition of "ungodliness" in leaders leads to widespread injustice, and that ungodliness, in the practice of immorality, comes from spiritual darkness where those who practice it "exchange the truth of God for a lie," interpreted as a veiled reference to the fact that President Clinton was an active member of a conservative, Evangelical church.  There is little room for doubt that many Evangelical leaders, and many Republican politicians, picked up on this theme and used it in their condemnation of President Clinton.  

It would be interesting to see how Dr. Rogers would deal with Donald Trump, whose total lack of integrity, who gives a whole new meaning to the term "pathological liar," whose multiple affairs with women, most of whom Trump identified, and bragged about bedding, who divorced and married "the other woman" twice, and who was recently convicted of 34 felony accounts of fraud due to an affair he had with a porn star during his third wife's pregnancy and the birth of his youngest son, who was, by any stretch of the imagination, far more immoral and dishonest than President Clinton.  I'd also like to see how he would have handled President Clinton's public repentance and confession, something he felt obligated to do because of what had happened while he was in the White House, compared to Trump's declarations that he sees no need to ask for forgiveness.  

"We Are Duplicitous, Don't Trust Us!" 

There's the message from conservative, Evangelical, Republicans to the voters of the United States.  "We are duplicitous, don't trust us!"  

"We believe our Christian faith, and our trust in the gospel of Jesus is powerless to achieve anything in this world," they are saying.  "Political power is where it's at, and how we get our agenda achieved.  To hell with our neighbors and to hell with our enemies." 

Christian history is more than 2,000 years of churches finding out that they cannot survive and keep their true mission, purpose and identity as the body of Christ intact when they are loyal to and dependent on politics.  What remains of European institutional Christianity, in the heartlands of countries where the link between church and state caused some of the bloodiest and most brutal warfare experienced on this planet, is the empty shell of a dead church which depends on ritual, tradition and in most cases, income mandated by tax dollars, that has no spiritual life or political power.  And conservative, Evangelical Christianity, placed in the same kind of context by its own political engagement and alliances with corrupt politicians, is headed for the same fate.  That destiny can already be observed.  

This election is coming down to a single issue, and that is which party, and which Presidential candidate, is going to be committed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutional democratic republic that it establishes and sustains.  Trump, who led an insurrection against the Capitol, aimed at overturning a legitimate, provably accurate election, has already taken the first step to destroy the Constitution and the democracy "of, by and for the people" that it establishes.  And that kind of insurrection is forbidden by New Testament instruction of the early apostles, both Paul and Peter.  [Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-17]  

Since The Signal Press has been in existence, we have challenged those who want to disagree with anything we write to post a comment, with credible evidence from a recognized, politically neutral source, to do so.  Only a few have taken up that challenge, and so far, none have been able to provide the evidence to support their contention.  We do have evidence to support ours, and specific sources are usually directly referenced.  

Prove us wrong.  Otherwise, vote for President Biden to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  

Who's Treading on Whom?

The association of the Gadsden Flag with Trump MAGA politics has to be one of the most blatant displays of historical ignorance, and political deception ever experienced in American politics.  We have more than our fair share of historical failure and political backwardness in this country.  But support for Trump seems to have brought out the absolute worst collective ignorance that exists across the country, and put it on display.  

The Gadsden flag has a yellow background with a black illustration that depicts a rattlesnake with thirteen rattles, coiled and ready to strike.  Underneath are the words, "DON'T TREAD ON ME."  Some of the more modern versions include the apostraphe in "don't," while it is missing in older versions.  The rattlesnake is a representation of the unity of the thirteen colonies at the outset of the American Revolution.  It is used in other symbolic American political statements in similar fashion, such as in Benjamin Franklin's "Join or Die" woodcut in 1754.  

Symbolically, the rattlesnake represents the colonists, and the fact that it is coiled and ready to strike indicates the development of a willingness to defend the individualism and liberty that had developed over time during the settlement of the colonies.  As the British monarchy acted to protect its financial and political interests over the resources and people in the colonies, and began to limit individual freedom by subjugating colonists, many of them determined they were going to fight to defend what they had earned by their own hard work.

MAGA Use of the Gadsden Flag is a Gross Distortion of its Symbolism  

The appropriation of this symbol by Trump's Maga supporters, and their attempt at identifying with the cause that it represents is a gross distortion of its symbolism and meaning by those who are themselves engaged in politics aimed at repressing the individualism and freedom of people who don't look like they do.  This is an ignorant and hateful mob aimed at subjugating entire segments of the American population in order to create an oligarchy of the rich, benefitting only those with the power of personal wealth at the expense of all other Americans.  They are following a racist bigot whose aim is to stuff his pockets with our money.  And he's sure put that scam on his Maga base.  

Here's the question that begs an answer.  I want to know the answer to this question, supported by factual evidence, not lies off the top of that orange head. 

"What individual rights or freedoms of yours have been trampled?"   I dare you to name one, and then support your contention with factual evidence.  

Because here's how I see it.  

White Americans, especially white, Christian males, are the single most privileged group in the United States, especially if they are wealthy.  In addition to the bigotry, racism and misogyny that exists, which already elevates them over every other ethnic, racial and cultural minority group in this country, they have enough wealth to buy the kind of justice that is denied to women, and to every other racial, ethnic, social and cultural minority group in this country.  

In the legal and justice system, they universally receive the benefit of the doubt, and that factual evidence that I was just talking about overwhelmingly proves the point I'm making here.  The whole attitude of this racist bigotry is characterized by Trump's now infamous remark about shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and no one doing anything about it.  

The man has committed a cataract of crimes throughout his life, and he's whining and moaning about being convicted on 34 felony counts, which required the full resources of a state attorney general's office to pull off.  Where is there a working class, black, Latino, Asian or even Caucasian male who would have been able to put off a trial for as long as Trump did?  And if one of them had mouthed off and threatened the judge or his family, and violated a gag order, how long would it have been before they were grabbed by police and kept in the darkest corner of a jail?  

Who, among the people of the United States, can afford the kind of lawyers it takes to get the federal judicial system to delay justice if they had incited a riot that led to the trashing of the US Capitol, the deaths of five police officers, and an attempted coup against the government?  As we have seen, by the evidence, most of those who committed crimes as a result of their participation in that insurrection have already been charged, tried, adjudicated and imprisoned.   The perpetrator and organizer of it, however, is a rich, white male who has paid millions to lawyers to prevent his being brought to justice. He's not only not paying for that crime, four years later, he's campaigning to be the President of the country whose Capitol building he trashed, and whose government he attacked.  That's so wrong, in so many ways. 

So who's liberties and individual expression is being trampled?  

And let's be honest here.  Trump is not the only wealthy, white, male bigot who gets away with multiple felonies.  Any wealthy, white, male bigot with a financial portfolio has individual liberties that trump, and I use that term deliberately, those of the rest of us Americans who work for a living, live from paycheck to paycheck, pay our taxes and take our vacations in the back yard.  

It's Trump Who is Doing The Treading--On YOU!

And I'm going to be brutally honest here.  Anyone in this country who does work for a living, lives paycheck to paycheck, becomes dependent on social security and medicare as their only retirement benefits, struggles to pay bills, and respects the rule of law is ignorant and foolish if they are voting for Donald Trump in the coming election.  Those who still support him and who aren't rich, white, men, need to take a close and careful look at his agenda, and at what he tells his diminished rally crowds he's going to do, to find out just how heavy those treading boots are going to be if he manages to eke out a win in November.  

Start with the agenda of Project 2025.  Those who are not white, not conservative, Evangelical Fundamentalists, and not relatively well off will be the first individuals in this country to lose their liberty.  This is the key issue of this election, people!  I subtly and strongly suggest that those who are fooling around the edges with things like "Biden is too old," and the Gaza war, and inflation (which is the sign of a prosperous economy) better take a hard look at this.  I also not so subtly suggest that they remove their head from their rear end, shake themselves really hard, slap themselved across the face a couple of times, kick themselves in the back side if that's possible, and make a commitment to either send in a mail-in ballot, or show up at the polls in November and cast a straight ticket Democrat ballot.  

Every American who goes to the polls and votes in this election is refuting the claim that the election was stolen.  If they really believed that, and it was a sincere conviction, they would not show up to cast their ballot, because that would make them a liar and a hypocrite.  Those who believe, sincerely, that elections in this country can be stolen, should act on those convictions and refrain from participating in the process.  Every single one of us who believes that elections in this nation are the most secure and honest in the world needs to make sure we cast our ballot in November.  That is the surest way to make sure that someone "DOESN'T TREAD ON ME!"

There's No Convincing Evidence Indicating Black Men Are Shifting Their Support to Trump

Over the past half of 2024, I've seen a lot of political news that I think can hit the trash can, or as we do it these days, the delete button.  There are a lot of catch phrases and buzz words being used, accompanied by adjectives indicating a lack of certainty of the author that makes me wonder why they wrote what they did in the first place.  For example, Newt Gingrich, who I wouldn't trust even if angels wings appeared on his shoulders, thinks he's seeing some "indications" in some polling data which "might" be interpreted as a coming Trump landslide.  

Of course he is.  He saw the same thing for Bob Dole, running against Bill Clinton in 1996.  And we know how that worked out.  But what I don't understand is, why bother reporting that?  Gingrich has been bonkers for a long time, and while it might be comforting to some far right wingers or extremists, he doesn't have the credibility that makes a statement like that worth reporting.  

There are some sources who seem to want to insist that they are seeing a "trending" movement of younger, black men toward support for Trump.  Polls "seem" to be indicating this movement.  Trump, of course, has announced that he knows it's happening as a result of his recent indictment and now convictions, because this has given him some kind of solidarity with black men.  So, insinuating in a manner that couldn't be more disrespectful or insulting toward black men, he claims that their affinity for him is out of sympathy for the fact that they share the experience of being unjustly accused.  So, unjustly accused black men are lining up to vote for him.  

Except, they're not.  

Black Men Are a More Reliable Source on Black Men Than "Polls"

Richard Chew is a morning talk show host on Chicago's progressive radio station, WCPT.  He also happens to be a black man, though his comments and his show doesn't focus exclusively on black political issues.  His focus, ever since he replaced the nebulous, narrowly focused Santita Jackson, has been convincing his listeners that voting for President Biden is the only way to preserve and protect American democracy as we know it.  

And it doesn't seem that he senses, or believes, the reports that black men are increasingly planning to support Trump.  In fact, his conclusions seem to be more directed the other way, that what little support Trump may have had among black people last time around is evaporating, that they can see where things are headed and are going to turn out in larger numbers to vote for Biden than they may have done last time around.  And while it would be hard to determine the full scope of his listeners, based on calls he gets, there's no indication from them of any support at all for Trump.  None. 

Richard is, of course a local guy.  He, along with our mayor, Brandon Johnson, who is also black, though I shouldn't have to point this out, don't seem to think the polls reflecting this specific trend is accurate. 

The Rev. Al Sharpton, on the other hand, has a national audience.  He's not really convinced of this, either.  On his MSNBC program, Politics Nation, he's said so, and pointed to evidence to the contrary.  

The "war on woke" being waged by Ron Desantis, governor of Florida, is producing its own kind of opposition and has probably done more for Democrats in that state than anything from the last 20 years.  It's actually put Florida back in play as a possible gain for Biden's electoral vote total, and because it has centered specifically on put downs and discrimination directly against the black community, it is creating its own opposition core.  

What Would Cause Such a Shift? 

Politically, black men have nothing to gain by switching support to Trump.  So why would they?  

First of all, I think there's a legitimate question of the accuracy in poll surveys identifying responses coming from "black males."  That's difficult to verify, and not an easy demographic for which to get an accurate reading.  And in the process of sorting out responses and determining how likely or unlikely they are to vote, I'd really like to see how those factors play out in putting the data together.  In the few groupings where black men are included in the data, the shift has been more toward Biden, not away from him.  

And what's missing is the really visible evidence, where people identified as leaders and spokespersons among this constituency are actually speaking the rhetoric.  That's not happening.  In fact, what is happening is just about the exact opposite of what we would need to see to confirm it.  

Big headlines were made in the electronic media, attracting attention to the fact that Trump made a speech at a rally at a "black church" in the heart of Detroit.  Yes, he did make a speech at a church identified as a building owned by a black congregation.  But with the exception of a few well-placed people for photographic purposes, the audience in the church was--white. With Trump's habit of not paying bills, I hope the church collected the money he offered them before he used their building.  But that's not proof that black men are turning to Trump.  Not at all. 

It wouldn't be consistent with Trumpist politics to commit to any significant enough benefit to black men that would cause a shift big enough to make a difference.  He doesn't like black men, and they're not part of his white supremacist, Christian nationalist perspective of a future America.  He's accused them, openly and just about at every rally, of being the cause of a crime problem, along with Latino immigrants.  He's given them no reason to vote for him, while Biden's policies has decreased their unemployment to record levels, increased their wages and opened the door for unprecedented economic opportunity.  

My Own Back Yard

I live in Chicago.  And while Chicago is a heavily Democratic city, and the collar counties have significant Democratic majorities, if there were a shift in black men over to Trump, we'd be seeing it here as well.  It's not happening, not visibly, or perceptively, anywhere.  I don't know enough black men to conduct an accurate poll, but I do know quite a few, from business, from church, from being neighbors.  I don't know any of them who are not all-out Biden supporters, the kind of people who put bumper stickers on their car and yard signs in front of their house.   

And while this doesn't appear to be a yard-sign, bumper sticker kind of election, I'm not seeing any of Trump's flags, signs or bumper stickers.  Well, I take that back.  I've seen one.

Fickle voters are out there, but to claim the kind of inroads into traditional constituencies without evidence causes a lack of credibility.  And I'm not seeing anything that convinces me that black voters, male or female, will turn to Trump at all.  What I hope they will do is turn out for Joe like they did for Barack in 2008 and 2012.  That's what we need to work together to save this democracy and rid it of the MAGA plague. 

 

No Absolution Coming for the Southern Baptist Convention

Baptist Standard: Paul Pressler, "Resurgence Architect" Dead at 94

Baptist Standard: Southern Baptist Attorney Tweets, "Pressler is a Monster and a Predator"

Silence.  

That's the response from the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, which bills itself as the nation's largest Evangelical denomination, when it comes to an extensive sexual abuse scandal, involving pastors of churches, and leaders of denominational entities including its seminaries, mission boards and its executive committee.  A second task force in the three years since messengers demanded action made its report to the convention during its annual meeting last week in Indianapolis, essentially failing to achieve the results that had been asked for.  

The general perception left with the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of abusers who were pastors and church leaders in the Southern Baptist churches they attended, is that the rhetoric from the task forces and leaders is more centered on protecting the convention's assets from lawsuits, and the cost of insurance premiums, than it is focused on any concern about the victims, or about how to set up a system which would prevent abusers from moving from one church to another, as they do now in the denomination made up of 45,000 independent, autonomous congregations.  And that's a failure of spiritual discernment and will in a Christian denomination that arrogantly claims to be the proclaimer of the "clear teachings" of the Bible they claim is both inerrant and infallible.  

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845, as a split from the Triennial Convention, based in Philadelphia, over the latter's opposition to slavery and its restrictions against appointing slave owners as missionaries. It was not until 1995, one hundred and fifty years after it was founded, one hundred thirty years after the abolition of slavery and the end of the Civil War, that the Southern Baptist Convention, for the first time, formally apologized to blacks for it's past support of slavery, segregation and white supremacy.  A resolution passed that year was the first time the denomination acknowledged that racism had played a significant role in its history, both past and present.  

I'm wondering if it is going to take that long for them to acknowledge the role they've played in a sexual abuse scandal that is as just as serious, and just as sinful.  

The "holy grail" of Southern Baptist life since 1979 has been the acknowledgement that the "Conservative resurgence," a turn back toward more fundamentalist, conservative doctrine and theology in the face of accusations of "creeping liberalism", saved the Southern Baptist Convention from decline, decay and dissolution.  This "resurgence" was led by two men who, out of deference for their agenda, were given an inordinate amount of power and influence well outside the boundaries of the denomination's bylaws in order to effectively bring about their claimed intentions to restore the denomination to "it's conservative roots." 

But since the Conservative Resurgence began, the things that its conservative theology and doctrine were supposed to save, and help get moving forward again, particularly evangelistic activity measured by the number of baptisms happening each year, and growth in church attendance and membership, have been in a steepening decline.  Even as overall church membership and attendance reached their all-time peak in 2005, the number of baptisms, representing the number of individuals who professed to having become converts to the Christian faith in Baptist churches, was in decline. 

The real intentions of the resurgence's two "architects," as they were called, had little to do with restoring the SBC to its "conservative roots."  Paige Patterson, who was then President of a tiny, financially strapped, broken down Bible college, Criswell College, in Dallas, wanted to be made president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, then the largest theological seminary in the world. Paul Pressler, the Texas Appeals Court judge, deacon and Sunday school teacher at Houston's First Baptist Church wanted to bring the Southern Baptist Convention into a full political alliance with the Republican party.  Both achieved their personal kingdom-building goals at the expense of the SBC  

The denomination's membership and attendance began a slow decline in 2006, and then a sharper, more steep drop off began in 2016, though church researchers and SBC leaders are loathe to connect this decline to the influence of far right wing extremist politics intruding into the denomination's churches.  Since it's peak in 2005, the membership has declined by 3.4 million, and the attendance by 1.9 million.  That's more than 20% of the total.  Since 2016, the membership losses began adding up to 200,000 a year, and that turned into 450,000 by 2018.  It slowed down to 250,000 this past year, while attendance rebounded by about 80,000, coming out of the pandemic.  But the pre-pandemic attendance was down considerably, almost 20%, from just a decade earlier.  

The idolization of the two men who helped bring about the Conservative Resurgence, the power they were allowed to have and the lack of any kind of accountability, which ultimately resulted in both of them being disgraced in some way, and eventually cut off from the denomination's fellowship, is a sign that the resurgence they led wasn't spiritually centered or focused, but it was either an exercise in personal kingdom building from the start, or it turned into one as a result of the power and influence given to these two men.  There are those who know both of them personally, who will attest to the fact that their goals were personal from the outset.  

The sexual abuse scandal in the denomination has been responsible for bringing down both resurgence leaders.  One of them because in his positions of leadership, he failed to value the women who were students in the seminaries he led, and didn't take their victimization by male students seriously enough to protect them.  The other, because he was alleged to have been an abuser himself, with credible accusations eventually catching up with him.  I don't find this ironic at all, in a predominantly fundamentalist religious denomination where women are still considered culturally and intellectually inferior to men as a point of doctrine.  Or where the fundamentalist atmosphere is so thick, that grace is always trumped by legalism. 

The abuse scandal, and the manner in which it worked its way through every layer and every level of Southern Baptist life, is a heinous and grievous sin.  So are attempts to downplay it, and make it look like a minor problem, coming from many of the denominations more reactionary hardliners.  But it is not this sin that is the root cause of the problem.

The sin is arrogance.  The fact that this has come along at a time when Southern Baptists are increasingly linking themselves blindly to one of the most morally bankrupt, corrupt, evil politicians of our time, is a sign of internal weakness that has failed to connect spiritually to God, or to the Christian gospel.  The denomination, at least at the core of its leadership, has become prideful and arrogant, declaring themselves and their own interpretations of the Bible to be as inerrant and infallible as they claim the scriptures to be.  But this arrogance has been exposed in its inability to confront a horrendous sin in its own camp. And there are those within the ranks of this denomination who do see it, and have called it out, and have been vindicated as a result. 

The leadership of the denomination is still blind, though it has distanced itself from both of these former privileged oligarchs, who didn't have to follow the same rules everyone else did.  This is a denomination which pays its bills out of the offering plates of its churches and that includes the perks and privilege expenses of these two self-proclaimed Kings of the SBC.  Indulging in sin that Southern Baptists place at the top of the list of bad sins that can be committed, with leaders who knew it was happening, and said nothing, is the height of sinful arrogance.

So far, the denominational leadership has been silent.  Silent when it comes to acknowledging the fact that they let these two men and the cause of the Conservative Resurgence become an idol that they worshipped.  Silent in failing to call out their grievous sins when they knew all along what was happening.  Silent in disavowing both men, and in expelling any church which accepted them into their membership.  Silent in admitting that their cause was an arrogant one, and their claims of being the sole interpreters of the "clear teaching of scripture" was not only offensive to every sincere Christian who tries to live a Christian life guided by prayer, study of the scripture and humble submission to God, but to God himself.  

Those who were in leadership and permitted this will need to come clean and be accountable, stepping down from their leadership positions as well as letting go of the de-facto power that is one of the more backward traits of Southern Baptist life. And that's why I don't think it will ever happen, and that Southern Baptists will ever see the light restored to their now darkened temple.  Because there is too much arrogance and pride in the camp to admit failure, wrongdoing, or to give up even the slightest power or privilege. I'm not sure there will ever be an acknowledgement that the conservative resurgence itself is the source of many of the inherent problems leading to the decline in evangelistic activity, church planting and church growth among Southern Baptists, but there's little question, when examining the facts, that it was.  

It was used to create an alliance with the secular political far right that has completely hijacked the mission and purpose of churches and denominations which once claimed to be committed to Christ alone and that has also been a key factor in the staggering membership losses experienced by Southern Baptists, though their leadership also has yet to acknowledge this fact. Supporting a political figure whose lifestyle is deliberately self-proclaimed as "worldly," who is a symbol of male dominance and misogyny and who brags about his immorality in grotesque, foul language is not the business of a Christian denomination and the fact that he has become the focal point for a majority of white Southern Baptists is blasphemy of, and an abomination before, a holy God. 

The Conservative Resurgence failed to re-energize and ignite the spiritual passion behind an evangelistic revival, and instead, its leaders presided over a sharp decline in baptisms.  It failed to reverse the trend in which 70% of the churches in the denomination were either plateaued or declining in membership and attendance, and it failed miserably in increasing the revenue available for its ministries, primarily its two mission boards.  It has made up for that loss by pressuring and brow-beating state convention bodies to give them a larger share of their receipts which most, not all, have done, bankrupting several of them in the process.  

And the Southern Baptist Convention's conservative resurgence leadership has failed to deal with a serious, clergy sexual abuse scandal among its pastors, church leaders and denominational leaders.  This happened on their watch, not while the "liberals and moderates" were in charge of the camp.  Nor are these the drag queens and the LGBTQ movement who are engaging in the abuse.  These are pastors, church leaders and denominational employees who are hiding behind the privilege and prestige they've been given in this apostate denomination.

Until repentance occurs, there will be no absolution.  Don't count on it happening any time soon.  Spiritual blindness is hard to shake, especially when it is partnered with arrogance.  

What Comes From the Dark Corners of Corruption in Conservative Evangelical Christianity is Hypocrisy

Baptist News Global: Pressler's Death Brings Overwhelming Sadness 

Baptist News Global: Paul Pressler Died and the SBC Said Nothing

Baptist News Global: What the SBC Should Do About its Most Famous Accused Sexual Abuser

One of the single most effective influences in the entire history of the Southern Baptist Convention, dating back to its origins in 1845, is Paul Pressler.  Pressler was an attorney, a former Texas Appeals Court judge, a Republican party influencer, mover and shaker, a Sunday school teacher and at different times, member of two of the largest Southern Baptist churches in Houston, Texas.  He is one of the two men known as the "architects of the Conservative Resurgence," a movement which started in 1979, and which aimed to gain complete control of every committee and board seat in the denomination, in order to effectively fend off a "liberal drift" in the denomination, particularly in its six seminaries, and enforce more conservative, fundamentalist-friendly interpretations of the Bible.  

Though outside of the Southern Baptist denomination, Pressler's name is not all that well known, he was probably one of the most influential figures in the movement to align Evangelical Christians with Republican party politics.  His role in the Conservative Resurgence included getting the Southern Baptist Convention out of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and completely revamping its public affairs commission, turning it into the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and securing the appointment of Richard Land, a Bush political ally, as its executive director.    

Pressler, along with fellow resurgence "architect" Dr. Paige Patterson, who was a protege of Dallas pastor and SBC power broker W. A. Criswell, and the President of Criswell College in Dallas, made the claim that "liberalism" had taken over the seminaries of the denomination, and needed to be purged by making sure the trustee boards were made up of theological conservatives who would fire those not aligned with the approved doctrine, even though Southern Baptists had never demanded strict doctrinal accountability in ministry cooperation. Acccording to Marv Knox, former editor of the Texas Baptist Standard, the work of these two men "split the Southern Baptist Convention and decimated the ministries of countless seminary professors, denominational workers, and pastors."  In the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, Paul Pressler will go down as one the most polarizing figures in the denomination.  

A Strange and Very Dark Turn of Events

Pressler died in Houston on June 7th.  The Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana June 11th and 12th made no mention of his passing, held no vigil or memorial, and no one eulogized and lauded this man's achievements in turning the Southern Baptist Convention into a far right wing, ultra-conservative, fundamentalist denomination and right wing Republican political action committee.  

How did it happen, for someone who was one of the most visible figures in the Southern Baptist Convention for over five decades, one of the men who helped push the liberals and moderates out of the denomination, helping it turn decidedly and staunchly conservative, and almost singlehandedly linked it to conservative, political Republicanism, that there was not even a mention of his death, much less any public tribute or acknowledgement for his helping bring about one of the single most celebrated movements in Southern Baptist history, the Conservative Resurgence?  

During all of the time he worked as a conservative reformer, as the result of legal settlements (including one which named the SBC Executive Committee), credible accusations surfaced of his sexual abuse of boys and young men. The abuse started two years before he became one of the two architects of the Conservative Resurgence, when he was alleged to have abused and raped a 14 year old who was a member of the youth ministry he led in a large, Houston church.  Though he faced no criminal charges because of statutes of limitations, he eventually settled a lawsuit brought by this accuser, Duane Rollins.  

Ultimately, the list of his victims grew to include others involved in church youth ministry where he served, along with interns and male employees of his law firm who who were assigned to do their work at Pressler's office in his Houston home.  The details of the law suits and the abuse that is known to have occurred is referenced in the links at the top of this article.  

One of the two Southern Baptist Churches in which he held membership, First Baptist Church of Houston, actually sent a letter to him asking him to resign from all of his church offices and positions, based on allegations from a victim within the church which they had verified.  The letter also warned him that if such accusations became public knowledge, it could discredit the cause which he was promoting, namely the Conservative Resurgence.  There's no explanation of why the church leadership, which was, at the time, deeply involved in and supportive of the Resurgence, did not take the step of informing Southern Baptist leadership of these allegations which were credible enough to cause them to ask him to step out of all of his church leadership positions.  

But then, who among the Southern Baptist's leaders would have been able to challenge Pressler's power?  

Clergy Sexual Abuse is the Southern Baptist Denomination's Modern Sin

About six years ago, the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News published an expose based on information they had received, mostly from victims, that there were a number of sexual abuse cases that had been adjudicated against pastors and other church leaders in Southern Baptist churches.  What the investigation uncovered was that pastors or other church leaders, such as youth directors or worship leaders, had committed abuse in one church, and had simply left there to go serve in another church that was unaware of the abuse.  

Subsequently, an internal investigation, conducted by an outside investigating firm, was demanded by the delegates, known as "messengers," attending one of the annual meetings.  That investigation uncovered the fact that multiple abuse cases, reported by victims, including directly to the excutive committee itself, were simply filed away and nothing was done.   There was no system in place to handle such cases, because of the denomination's polity in which each church is independent and autonomous and no denominational authority exists which could force perpetrators out of the church positions they hold.  That's a dark cloud that's been hanging over the Southern Baptist Convention for at least six years now.  

This puts their religious and political conservativism into perspective, doesn't it?   

What is tragic about this whole thing, which drips with arrogant hypocrisy, is that both of the "architects of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC" have been stained and discredited by the sexual abuse scandal.  Paige Patterson failed to properly handle and report cases of sexual abuse at both of the seminaries where he served as president, Southeastern in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and Southwestern in Fort Worth, Texas.  And Pressler, as it turns out, was himself an abuser of male victims.  In all fairness, one of his friends who wrote one of the linked articles above, pointed out that before his death, restitution was made to all of his victims.  For whatever that's worth.  

So the two most revered leaders of the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention, whose current leaders cannot yet bring themselves to completely disavow either of them, and whose response is not anger over their misconduct, or even an attempt to undo the damage that has been done, turn out to be purveyors of the denomination's ongoing failure to deal with sin in its camp.  Their response is silence, to protect their resources and reputation, and silence so as not to lose the votes of conservative Evangelicals for Trump, who has been convicted on 34 felony counts involving another grievous sexual sin.  

What It Will Take To Restore Credibility

Until the Southern Baptist Convention effectively acknowledges the seriousness of the sexual abuse problem among their church leadership, entity leadership and in their churches, and lays out effective, workable plans to deal with it in the context of their "independent and autonomous" churches, it has no credibility as a Christian denomination.  And as far as this author is concerned, this abominable hypocrisy totally and completely undermines the entire platform of Evangelical-influenced, Republican politics. 

Incidents like this need to be at the forefront of the political messaging that people hear and see.  Trump grabs women by the genitals, has multiple affairs on his wives, sleeps with a porn star, gets charged and convicted of 34 felonies regarding the illegal business dealings surrounding his attempt to cover that up, and he's still a candidate for the Presidency.  His most vocally supportive constituency is embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal in a Christian denomination that involved it's leaders at the highest level, in both homosexuality and in sexual abuse of women.  

Southern Baptists must own up to the damage that was done by its "architects of the Conservative Resurgence," and be honest about their failures.  There will be a cost attached to that, in that those within the denominational leadership and on its committees and boards who supported the resurgence leaders and enabled their lack of accountability will have to step away from denominational politics.   

As far as the Republican party goes, the only absolution they should receive will occur when they force Trump out and nominate someone else for the Presidency.  

Far Right Wing Politics Makes American Evangelicals Better Known as Trumpers Than as Followers of Christ

Beware of any Christian movement that demands the government be an instrument of God's wrath, but never a source of God's mercy, generosity or compassion.  Rev. Benjamin Cremer

In spite of the rhetoric the far religious right has developed to excuse their support for Republican political candidates who do not reflect their Christian beliefs or practices, it is not philosophically or practically possible for a person who professes the conservative Evangelical testimony of Christian conversion to give their political support and their vote to Donald Trump, and claim that is consistent with their faith and beliefs.  The two worldviews, Trumpism and what we now call the MAGA base, and biblical Christianity, are practically, philosophically and religiously incompatible with each other.  

I'm not saying that those Christians who support Trump have "lost their salvation," or were not sincere in their Christian beliefs and practices.  That's for God to judge.  But what I am saying is that their own knowledge of, and practice of their Christian faith is neither extensive enough, nor mature enough, to recognize the fact that MAGA Trumpism is antithetical to biblical Christianity.  They are, as the author of the book of Hebrews called them, "infants unskilled in the word of righteousness," no matter how many sermons they've sat through or Sunday school lessons they've heard.  

Talking the Talk Without Walking the Walk

With white, Evangelical Christians being the single largest constituency within the MAGA crowd, and traditional, Reagan Republicans being a minority, Trump has had to figure out where to make his deals and what he can promise and deliver that won't interferre with his main agenda, which is to give ownership of the resources of the United States to a class of wealthy oligarchs who will control every aspect of the economy, and not interfere with their ability to achieve this goal because of some quirky aspect of Christian nationalist politics.

Abortion and overturning Roe was an easy deal.  It cost him nothing, because the judges he got on the Supreme Court who were willing to overturn Roe were philosophically and politically aligned with his agenda right down the line.  And frankly, the fact that Trump's personal morality is as antichristian as it can get, and what faith practice he has is with the heretical, apostate "prosperity gospel" crowd, which has abandoned the Christian gospel found in scripture by defining the term "blessing" with "money,"  lets him please both agendas and keep them on his train.  

It takes a level of what I refer to as "Biblical literacy," which includes knowledge of the themes and principles of each of the Bible's 66 books, along with some ability to discern how to interpret a text written in a culture and society in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago, to understand, and practice, the Christian gospel as a personal faith experience.  Most church researchers, like Barna, or Ed Stetzer, for example, have discovered that, among those who are found in the church's pews on a regular basis each week, fewer than 25% of them have enough working knowledge of what can be found in the Bible to discern the difference between authentic Christian teaching and what the Apostle Jude calls "intruders" who have "crept in...and perverted the grace of our God into sensuality."  

That's an apt description of exactly what has happened with Trump and the Evangelical far right.  Look at the rhetoric.  Trump has no qualms about making statements that Christians would recognize as sheer blasphemy if anyone else was making them, but they are blind to his use of that kind of terminology.  

Several high profile, self-appointed Evangelical "leaders" have made multiple attempts to get Trump to confess an authentic Christian conversion experience.  From their conservative, literalist, Evangelical perspective, this requires an individual to acknowledge spiritual conviction of their sinful nature, admit and confess that they are a sinner who cannot save themselves, turn to God, accepting the sacrifice of Jesus' crucifixion as the payment for sin's penalty and to avoid the wrath of God, repent from their sin and be restored spiritually by the Holy Spirit.  The hang up they've encountered with Trump is his refusal to admit that he is sinful, and his proclamation that he has not committed any sin that requires God's forgiveness.  His view of God, which he openly articulates, differs significantly from what those Evangelical leaders preach from their pulpits.  

Franklin Graham was caustic and judgmental in his condemnation of President Clinton, calling out his "marital infidelity," and publicly claiming that it "morally disqualified" him from the Presidency.  His response to Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels?  He should be "left alone"  to deal with it with his wife, and with God.  And that statement morally disqualifies Franklin Graham, as far as I am concerned.  

Of course, their response has been to try to ignore these public statements made by Trump, some of them caught on their own video, and pass over this, knowing that most of the people who follow them are not going to bother checking it out, and will believe whatever they are told.  After all, these are the people who fork over millions of dollars to them on a regular basis, basically for nothing, so that they can claim to be recipients of "God's blessings."  I'd suggest, or should I say, strongly assert, that any Evangelical leader of a large, multi-million dollar ministry organization, or a mega-church, who endorses and supports Trump is a phony.  And that's not judging them, that's simply an observation.  

So What is it About Trump That's So Anti-Christian? 

I think the easier question to answer would be, "what isn't?"  

Leaving the character issues aside, his history of adulterous affairs, divorces, marrying the "other woman" each time, along with a whole, documented, sordid history of sexual immorality which, by all of the available evidence, has continued through his presidency and into his post-presidency, his complete lack of remorse, repentance or even an admission that his lie about the 2020 election was wrong, is a serious sign of his anti-Christian attitude and demeanor.  He is a pathological liar, and that is just not consistent with the character of someone who claims to be Christian.  

The kind of rhetoric in which he, and his associates and surrogates who are involved in his campaign are engaging, advocating domestic violence, using the law, not to prosecute criminals but to get revenge against political opponents, and the endless lies being told and conspiracy theories being promoted are a diametric opposite of any Christian values or virtues.  Of course, his own son, Don Jr., made it clear, in a speech to a Turning Point U.S.A. rally that the virtues advocated by Jesus Christ "have gotten us nowhere."  That's an exact quote.  

When Trumpers emerge from a church service, critical of the pastor's sermon, based on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, complain about where he got those "liberal talking points," that's a good sign that the spirit of antichrist reigns supreme in that far right wing political movement.  Loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek are Christian virtues that, when practiced, are a clear demonstration of spiritual transformation, since they run counter to human nature.  

The insurrection which Trump incited to attempt to keep Congress from counting the legitimately certified electoral votes, in addition to being a violation of the law, bordering on treason, are also a clear violation of scripture, written by the two most influential church Apostles, Peter and Paul.  Paul's instructions to the church at Rome was a powerful testimony to the depth of Christian faith, found in Romans 12;1-7, and Peter, who says much the same thing, actually mentions the emperor in I Peter 2:13-17.  

Then there's the incessant lying, deliberate dishonesty for the purpose of self-benefit and to deliberately mislead.  Trump is a proven liar, who has left behind a trail of thousands of deliberate lies which he is either incapable of recognizing, or which are a demonstration of his lack of any kind of concience or integrity.  And those who support him and buy into the lies are liars themselves.  And that means that it is not possible to trust the word of any of his Evangelical supporters, especially not those who are in positions of leadership, because they are endorsing the lies and the behavior.  

Conservative American Evangelicals Are Now Known More For Their Political Support for Trump, Than For Their Testimony of Jesus as Messiah

There's no way to avoid having to carry all of this worldly baggage when supporting Trump as a presidential candidate.  There's no way to separate his corrupt character from his politics or from one's faith.  Supporting someone with a vote that is a privilege, whose character is contrary to everything about one's own faith is sinful.  

The fact that so many conservative Christians continue to support Trump, with evidence of his lack of Christian character facing them in the news cycle every day indicates what I see as an appalling lack of knowledge of the Bible that they claim is the "sole" authority for faith and practice in Christianity, and a disconnect between what the Bible defines as Christian practice, and their own, which tells me that they are resisting any spiritual prompting or conviction that is essential to a visible Christian testimony.  But the lack of knowledge of the Bible in Christian practice is characteristic of Evangelicals as much as they claim it is a problem in other denominations whom they criticize for not believing the Bible like they do.  In their support for Trump, they are giving loyalty to a false messiah (Matthew 24:23-24).  

The very short epistle of the Apostle Jude, the only writing in the New Testament attributed to this Apostle who was most likely the son of Joseph and Mary and a brother of Jesus, gives instruction to the fledgling, first century church on remaining faithful and avoiding the intrusion of ungodly people who "pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ."  

Jude identifies the intruders in a way that so closely resembles what is now happening to American Evangelicals that it's difficult to believe it wasn't written by someone who is observing it as it occurs.  His decriptions of those who are leading the church astray are spot on.  

"But these people slander whatever they do not understand, and they are destroyed by those things that, like irrational animals, they know by instinct. Woe to them!  For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam's error for the sake of gain, and preish in Korah's rebellion.  These are blemishes on your live-feasts, while they feast with you without fear, feeding themselves.  They are waterless clouds, carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their owns shame; wandering stars, for who the deepest darkness has been reserved forever."  Jude, Verses 10-13;

"These are grumblers and malcontents; they undulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage."  Jude v. 16 

To get the full effect of using this as a description of the MAGA cult, do a little research and define what this author means by his use of "the way of Cain," "Balaam's Error," and "Korah's Rebellion."  It's an eye opener for sure.

And that's as good of a description of this abberration of American Evangelical Christians as I could come up with myself.  

Want to Know Who the Anti-Democratic, Pro-Russian Opponents of US Aid to Democratic Ukraine Are?

Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists, the Forces in the US Impeding Aid to Ukraine, and How They Do It

I'll let the piece speak for itself, and readers can draw their own conclusions.  

This is a Ukrainian based site, with Ukrainian authors.  

In a Shocking Passage of a Resolution, Southern Baptists Slap Down MAGA Christian Nationalism

Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, about 10,000 delegates representing the 45,000 churches of the Southern Baptist Convention came up with a couple of huge surprises that were somewhat unexpected, defying predictions of this author about the outcomes from their two-day convention meeting.  I'm still looking over the media reports, both secular and Baptist, checking for insights and explanations into what is clearly a move away from the influence of Christian Fundamentalism, rooted mainly in independent Baptist congregations (think Jerry Falwell) and from the Christian nationalism that has blended itself into the MAGA movement of the GOP.  

By Affirming First Amendment Religious Liberty as a Matter of Individual Conscience, the Southern Baptist Convention Distances Itself From Christian Nationalism

Baptist News Global: Engaging in Feisty Debate, Southern Baptists Re-affirm Traditional View of Religious Liberty 

Christian nationalism in some form or another has always been around, but Baptists, who developed a free, independent church tradition and who were among the original separatists who came to America to escape persecution by the British monarchy.  They were among the biggest influences on both Jefferson and Madison in helping promote the idea of religious liberty and abandoning the idea of a state church.  Their ideology in this regard was based on the manner in which Jesus and at least two of his Apostles, along with the gospel writer Luke, transferred the idea of "chosen people" from the Old Testament covenant with the nation of Israel to individual followers of and believers in Christ, rather than to the custody of a political entity.  

Some of the arguments put forth by those who were seeking to alter the resolution proposed by the Southern Baptists' resolutions committee are based on false assumptions and mis-interpretations of what Baptists consider to be inspired scripture.  They were infused with the rhetoric of the heretical Christian nationalist movements, and lacked supporting quotes from Jesus or any of his Apostles. They also represent the influence of Trumpism, and the MAGA cult's views.  Trump himself has rejected the premise of Christian conversion for himself, but has set a system in place to use it for his own political purposes.  Those within Evangelical Christianity who hold this view are demonstrating a very stilted and distorted view of the Christian gospel, ignoring the fact that there's no support or suggestion that Christianity be linked to political power.   

The "new Covenant" offered by Jesus, extends the redemption from sin and reconciliation to God that had been offered through the mediation of the theocratic structure of the Old Testament Jewish political-religious state and requires no ecclesiastical or political authority to mediate.  Two of the apostles, Paul and Peter, offer Christian perspectives of secular political power, mainly to demonstrate respect for the law as a testimony of faith.  Noting that they were speaking of the Roman Empire and its emperor, who would eventually turn against them and persecute the church, their words are remarkable in their context.  And for two centuries, during some of the worst persecution experienced anywhere in history, Christians remained faithful to the words of their apostles.  They did not organize a rebellion and resist.  They simply found ways to survive, if they could.  This persecution, and their suffering, led to the conversion to Christianity of a majority of the population of the Empire by the beginning of the third century, including subsequent emperors.  

In other words, while there are multiple nations that are "Christian influenced," in that their political system is based, either generally or more specifically, on a particular set of values identified with the Christian faith, and a majority of the population follows some branch of Christianity, there is no biblical authority that creates a state church where the theology and doctrine is enforced by law.  

The leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention is to be commended for recognizing this creeping, illegitimate threat to its own religious liberty, and to acknowledging free will expression of one's conscience as a gift from God.  The rhetoric in the arguments made against this resolution during the convention sessions is clearly influenced by MAGA politics.  The passage of this resolution is as strong a statement against Christian nationalism and in support of religious liberty as Baptists have come up with for a while now, and shows that there may be quite a few more Evangelical pastors and church leaders, who make up the majority of the messenger body at a Southern Baptist convention meeting, who are not part of the MAGA cult than we might think.  

Southern Baptists Turn Away Attempt to Amend Their Constitution to Prohibit Women Serving in a Pastoral Ministry Role 

Don't mistake the failure of the Law Amendment to the constitution and bylaws of the Southern Baptist Convention as a victory for women in ministry.  The day prior to this amendment failing to get its required two-thirds majority at two subsequent conventions, over 85% of the gathered messengers from the churches voted to expel the historic First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia from the denomination because it has ordained several women to the ministry over the course of the past 50 years, has three ordained women who serve as pastors on its staff currently, and told the credentials committee, who sent representatives to question them, that if the opportunity came up for them to call a female senior pastor, they would do so without hesitation.  

And so, out the door they went, a historic church whose founding pre-dates the Southern Baptist Convention's founding in 1845 by almost a hundred years, because they disagree with the current version of the Baptist Faith and Message when it comes to the gender of who God can call as a pastor.  

Then, the next day, the same convention body failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority for a second year in a row to pass an amendment that would codify the dismissal of churches on this basis, making it an ecclesiastical interference into the affairs of a local, independent, autonomous church.  The credentials committee and convention ballot process already does this, on this specific issue, but putting it in the constitution would have made it more difficult to amend, as more and more Baptists seem to recognize a better historical and contextual way to interpret scripture than the literal nit-picking which led to this prohibition.  

It's Not All Good News; Southern Baptists Fail to Achieve Forward Progress in Resolving Their Sexual Abuse Scandal 

In this same denomination, where there were no qualms about violating local church autonomy to prevent women from being ordained and serving as pastors, no solution could be found to put practices in place which would prevent sexual abuse from occurring in local churches and in denominational entities.  Very little concern was expressed for the multiple victims of sexual abuse that has occurred at the hands of pastors, church leaders and denominational employees in what is as widespread of a problem as the Catholic church has been dealing with for decades.  The biggest problems for those who addressed the issue seem to be the extent of legal liability that the denomination or its entities might assume, and the cost of insurance premiums and lawsuits and litigation that might result from abuse.  

The task forces and investigations that have been done since the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News exposed the scandal, even though their evidence was found among those already adjudicated for abuse instances in a limited geographic area, have cost a lot of money, eaten through reserve funds that belonged to its executive committee and stressed the resources of a denomination that has seen a 25% decline in membership and attendance over the past couple of decades.  But even though there's a reason for the concern, the manner in which many of the victims of the scandal have been treated, when they should have been supported, prayed for, and experienced the kind of ministering spirit expected from a Christian denomination, speaks volumes about where this group of Evangelical Christians has landed ideologically. 

There have been those who have suggested that a lot of this is just some kind of satanic attack on the SBC, to slow it down and prevent its evangelistic outreach from advancing.  The fact that this isn't taken seriously, that it got bogged down in denominational bureaucracy and that the "independence and autonomy" of local churches became the obstacle to action is inexcusable.  Among the many problems that the Southern Baptists resolve with the use of task forces, they seem to be stymied and at a complete loss as to how to deal with this issue. 

Personally, I think their failure to deal with this particular issue stems from their perspective of women in general.  They get hung up by their literal interpretation and application of an ancient biblical text, including the cultural norms of the day in which it was written also being considered as authoritative to interpreting and practicing the principle, and as a result, their treatment of and perspective of women fails to consider them as equal to men.  Their "equal but with different roles" argument doesn't really support the "equal" part.  And that's one of the main reasons why they're struggling with this.  

An Interesting Divide 

Three years ago, influenced heavily by perspectives from the extremist, right wing political faction of Trump, a small group of pastors formed the Conservative Baptist Network, following the defeat of a more conservative candidate for the denominational presidency.  Their anger and wrath was directed mainly at Dr. Russell Moore, then executive director of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, because he was openly anti-Trump, which is a position consistent with Christian faith and practice.  The bottom line was that they were looking to tighten the relationship between far right wing extremism in politics to the denomination.  

Since that time, only one of the candidates they have endorsed for office, a minor vice-president position, has won an election.  All of their other endorsees have been defeated, their recommendations and resolutions have been turned aside and they have become somewhat obscure, as their funding has dried up.  I would not interpret that as a sign that the SBC is becoming more moderate, because what remains is ultra-conservative doctrinally and in practice.  What is also present is a resistance to seeing the denominational structure itself get too wrapped up in secular politics.  A majority of Southern Baptists are Trump supporters, and blind to the fact that goes against the Christian gospel, but they are not willing to let their denomination be turned into a political action committee.  

At least, not yet. 

The Difference Between the Reactions to Two Verdicts Sends One of This Campaign's Most Powerful Messages

The United States Department of Justice, under the Biden Administration, has not yet been involved in any prosecution of Donald Trump.  They've been involved in investigations which produced evidence leading to indictments on multiple counts related to the theft of classified documents, and to inciting an insurrection against the Congress in session on January 6, 2021.  But there was no involvement or connection between the justice department and the Manhattan district attorney's office regarding the Trump trial for the crimes committed in covering up a scandal involving the affair he had with porn star Stormy Daniels, just prior to the 2016 election.  

The investigation involving Hunter Biden was initiated by the Justice Department, not under Trump, but under President Biden's appointed Attorney General, Merrick Garland.  And the difference between the way Hunter Biden, and the President, have handled that prosecution, trial, and now conviction compared to the manner in which Trump handled himself during his trial is, in my own opinion, a contrast that points out a monumental difference in integrity between the President, who has shown just exactly how qualified he is to serve by his actions and reaction, and the ex-President, who has shown not only how lacking in integrity he is, but what a disgusting, disrespectful, selfish human being he is.  

This contrast alone establishes President Biden's personal and professional superiority over Trump, who has proven, once again, that he doesn't have an inkling of understanding about this country and its government, and has nothing but contempt for its people and their constitutional democracy.  People caught up in hard core partisanship don't notice things like this, but there will be Americans who look at this particular comparison, and see what they've needed to see for a long time.  Joe Biden is so far superior to Donald Trump in every way, and particularly in integrity and honesty, that the choice for President is a no-brainer.  And only those with no brains would choose Trump. 

President Biden Stayed Out of His Son's Trial 

Even though he isn't President any more, thank God, Trump has used every trick possible to delay his federal trials in order to use the power of the Presidency to get out of accountability.  There's no question that he would do so, this lack of integrity is assumed, even by his most ardent supporters, most of whom are deplorable enough not to have any integrity of their own.  Trump has cheated the system and gotten away with it most of his life.  It says an awful lot about his complete corruption and his lack of any shred of decency or integrity that this is what is assumed about him from the start.  

Had this been one of his children, and had be been in the White House there is not any question at all that he would have intervened with the attorney general he appointed to squash the charges and prevent the case from even getting the media attention this one has.  If that hadn't happened, then whomever he had appointed as attorney general would be packing up his office and moving out.  He did that to one attorney general he appointed who, even though he was a Republican Senator, had too much integrity for Trump and the first time he acted like he might use it to hold back the monstrous corruption he was seeing from the Mueller investigation, he got canned.  

The Hunter Biden trial has been as diametrically opposite any of that as is possible.  The President could have intervened long before now, but not only hasn't, he has also publicly stated that if his son broke the law, then he needs to be held accountable.  I'm sure this has grieved him, as much as everything about his son's addiction has grieved him.  And I don't doubt that he has been strongly tempted to use his Presidential power to benefit his son.  But as much as anything he has ever done, this is an example of his integrity, in contrast to what we've seen from his opponent in every possible way.  

A Major Factor in The 2024 Presidential Campaign 

Unfortunately, we have a lot of people in this country who are so caught up in their own pleasure and personal benefit, that they do not value integrity, or notice when it is lacking.  Fortunately, they are not the majority.  Even as this gets the kind of media coverage that has been reserved for Trump shenanigans ever since he first ran for President, there are a lot of people, some of whom have been on the political fence, who are taking note of the huge difference and contrast between the way Trump disrespected the court and has demonstrated a lack of integrity in all of the legal problems he is encountering, and the way the Biden family, and particularly the President and his son, have handled this difficulty.  

I don't expect to see much evidence of a shift in the polling data at this point, since I don't think most of the polling data is anywhere close to being accurate.  But I am observing, in both our blogger world and on social media, many people discussing it, and a significant number of those doing so are saying that they've had enough, and his trial conduct, and convictions, have pushed them to vote for someone else.  Also pointing to the contrast. MSNBC reporters have provided insight into several focus groups which have shown a majority of two-time Trump voters determining, as a result of his convictions and his behavior in the court room, that they won't vote for him a third time.   

We went through several weeks of reporting on Trump being disrespectful to the judge in the courtroom, to his family members, and to the professionals who work there, not only verbally abusing them, but sitting there, falling asleep, drool running down his chin--which the media seemed loathe to report and make him look feeble and senile--the physical flatulence as bad as the verbal flatulence.  Then, in one week, the attention shifts to Hunter Biden's trial.  No disrespect, the President's son expressing his personal perspective without disrespecting the court.  The restraint that the President has shown, which makes him so much more qualified for this job than Trump could ever hope to be, should, and will be enough to move a lot of voters in his direction, and away from Trump.  

This will be one of the most valuable assets for the Biden campaign this time around.  I believe there are a lot of Americans, on the fence because of Biden's age, whose opinion will shift and who will cast their ballot for him in November.  And I believe this particular demonstration of the President's integrity will shift more than enough voters his way to give him a win in November.  

He does have a lot of advantages.  However, because they have nothing else, the GOP is focusing on his age and stamina.  So far, the President has a clean sweep of victories against those assertions.  He's clear-minded, able to gather his thoughts and exhibits no impairment of any kind.  He does show some stiffness when he walks, as any eighty year old would, though according to reporters, he put in several miles during his visit to the Normandy beaches in France this week, and his appearances there, like his State of the Union address, demonstrated a level of energy and clarity of mind when speaking that one would expect from any President of the United States.  He is certainly way ahead of Trump in that department. 

A Contrast in Understanding of Justice That is Critical in the Presidency

Aside from the difference between the Biden administration's accomplishments, which includes the competent handling of the COVID pandemic as opposed to Trump's total incompetence, the restoration of American respect and unity in the NATO alliance and support for Ukraine, and getting us out of Afghanistan, I believe this particular contrast demonstrates how much more Biden is qualified for the Presidency than Trump.  Trump shows no respect for justice, attempting to avoid it, corrupt it or ignore it.  

Any American who understands the Constitution, and how the government works, should also acknowledge this as a qualification.  Otherwise, we're in trouble.  

New Doctrine, Theology is Changing Christian Practice Among Evangelicals

Growing up in an Evangelical Christian church, I tended to think that the church's doctrines were somewhat rigid, especially in the "rules" they produced for Christian living that I was always taught were an arbitrary part of being Christian.  We always had to be "against" something, and we always had to make sure that we were denying ourselves a good time, so we could appear to be suffering under oppression, and when someone asked why, the answer was "Because we're Baptist."  

That really attracted a lot of new converts to the Baptist faith, huh? 

But these days, Evangelicals are really lucky, fortunate, in fact, that Trump has come along and helped completely re-make Evangelical Christianity over in his image.  No more "Jesus," no more frumpy faces and dowdy clothes.  There's a new savior in town, and he's completely renovated fusty old Fundamentalism, ignoring those difficult parts of the Bible that always caused a lot of conviction and guilt, and coming up with a whole new way to worship God.  In fact, he's come up with a whole new image of God, too.  

So lets take a [tongue-in-cheek] look at this new Trump MAGA Evangelicalism, and see what's changed.  

Don Trump Jr.: Following Jesus has "gotten us nothing" 

It's been a little over a year ago now that Don Jr., addressing a crowd at a Turning Point rally at Dream City Church in Phoenix, told those gathered that they could set aside Jesus' teaching, from the Sermon on the Mount, about loving one's enemies, and turning the other cheek.  

"We've been playing t-ball for half a century while they're playing hardball and cheating.  Right?  We've turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of*, the biblical reference--I understand the mentality.  But it's gotten us nothing. Okay?"  

So there you have it.  The teachings of Jesus have gotten his followers, or at least, those who claim to follow him in the MAGA crowd, nothing.  So just toss that out and forget about it.  

Ruthlessness, and turning government into a tool to achieve personal revenge is now the core doctrine of the faith.  

Reject the Teachings of Jesus Because They are "Woke" 

It appears that much of what Jesus actually said, in establishing the Christian gospel, is no longer satisfactory for modern, MAGA Christian practice.  It's got to go.  

Russell Moore, former executive director of Southern Baptists's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, now editor of Christianity Today, tells of encountering church members who, after hearing a sermon based on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, asked the preacher, "Where did you get those liberal talking points?"  

So you can now take these things off the list of obligations and practices of your Christian faith.  They cramp your style anyway, and since they're "woke," it is no longer necessary for us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to turn the other cheek, which Don Jr. already trashed for us, and that most pesky, difficult thing to do, love our enemies.  

Somewhere the scripture says, "Vengeance is mine," says the Lord, "I will repay," but we are now able to claim vengeance for our own, and for our favorite politician, and claim the joy of wreaking it on those we hate as an act of worship.  

The Sexual Liberation of the White Male 

Well, thank God for all of this change!  We've been taught that the fulfilling practice of the Christian faith can be found in following the example of Jesus.  But now that Trump has replaced him as the role model and example for Evangelicals, and Jesus has been thrown under the bus, we, or at least, white, right wing, conservative men, can now do things that were once considered "sinful" among Evangelicals.  

Adultery is at the top of the list.  That commandment was quite old fashioned, anyway, coming from the Old Testament, all the way back to the book of Exodus, what?  Trump has not only shown us that adultery, and subsequently getting re-married to the "other woman," is now the standard for the church, but he's thrown in the freedom to grab them by the genitals and get away with it as a bonus.  Even Franklin Graham approves, his silence certainly speaks volumes.  He's certainly changed his mind after his scowling disapproval of Clinton's sexual misconduct and lies about it.  Thank goodness he's seen the light, and no longer disapproves.  

How liberating it is to be able to kill two commandments, prohibiting lying and adultery, with one affair with a porn star.   

But be careful not to mistake this change as being all-encompassing.  This is only a liberation for white males.  Females are still biblically obligated to be submissive to their husband.  And probably stoned if they violate this commandment. 

Bad Language is Making a Comeback, Even in Church 

I can remember getting my mouth washed out with soap for saying what my mother determined was a bad word.  It was the "s" word, ending in 'it' and I used it as an expression of frustration at something she asked me to do.  

Well, those days are over.  Evangelicals are free to speak what's on their mind, even if its bullshit, and they happen to be sitting in church.  

That's right.  

During a recent rally at Dream City Church in Phoenix [that poor church is caught up in this in a bad way, aren't they? :-) ] Trump, trying to find words to criticize President Biden's recent executive order that slows down immigration exactly the way the Republicans wanted it, couldn't find the words so he alluded to the fact that in these sitations, he feels like using bad language, which he often does.  

Today, he didn't give in to the temptation, but the crowd picked up on it and began hollering out, in unison, in this church sanctuary, a place of worship, "Bull-shit, bull-shit, bull-shit......."  

For a complete list of formerly inappropriate words to spice up your Evangelical vocabulary, see many of Trump's recent speeches at campaign rallies when he's talking about his trial and conviction.  

Conviction of Sin, Repentance, Forgiveness no Longer Required in Order to "Be Saved" 

Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, and a host of Pentecostal, Baptist and other Christian conservative leaders, have tried since 2016 to get Trump to declare that he has become a Christian.  But, Trump doesn't submit to anyone or anything, certainly not to an invisible God who demands submission and loyalty.  

So it is no longer necessary, in order to be "saved" or redeemed or converted, depending on the language you use, to be Christian.  In your own mind, you communicate with, or pray to God and everything is just hunky dory.  You can claim you haven't done anything that requires his forgiveness, and ignore that Roman road crap, "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God."  Just enjoy life and put this stuff, which causes you to be uptight, away.  

It's amazing that this took eight years.  It's so freeing.  No more fusty rules or ritual practices, Evangelical Christianity has finally become the apostate church we all know and love.  

All thanks to Trump.  

What Would Jesus Say About This Kind of Dishonesty and Duplicity?

Evangelist Franklin Graham on Bill Clinton:  

"Mr. Clinton's extramarital sexual behavior now concerns him and the rest of the world.  If he will lie to, or mislead his wife and daughter, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?"  

Evangelist Franklin Graham on Donald Trump: 

"I think some of these things--that's for him and his wife to deal with...and I think the same with Stormy Daniels and so forth is nobody's business."  

I must admit, I've never really cared very much for Franklin Graham.  As a Christian, I try to avoid being judgmental and I've never been openly critical of him, though I do not make any contributions to his ministry, as I once did to his father's.  This is not the only overtly political activity in which he has engaged, and it's not the only time his public statements stand in conflict with biblical principle.  While I would not question the sincerity of his Christian faith, that's a matter between him and God, I do question much of what he says, especially when he steps into the political realm, and I am able to see the inconsistency between what he claims to believe, as a "leader" of conservative, Evangelical Christians, and what the Christian gospel, found in the New Testament, actually does say.   

He got it right the first time.  The problem with his refusal to make the same claim for Trump as he did for Clinton is that Trump has already been known as a pathological liar, and Graham is willing to pick up and carry that baggage, along with the adulterous affairs, the now proven-by-evidence rape, the divorces and remarriages, which are also considered adultery by Biblical definition, the insurrection, the lies about the 2020 election and Trump's open denial of the experience of Christian conversion. His claim that he has not done anything to require God's forgiveness is a flat out denial of biblical truth.  The fact that he made this statement to Graham further adds to Graham's lack of credibility.  

This kind of duplicity is an admission of reliance on political power over the power of the Holy Spirit, which is a core doctrine of the Christian faith.  It undermines everything Graham has ever said from a pulpit.  I cannot fathom how someone can claim to have strong Christian convictions, enough to openly call out a sitting President of the United States over allegations of sexual misconduct, and fail to call out much worse behavior in another sitting President who is of a different political party.  That's sheer hypocrisy, the price for which is the complete undermining of Franklin Graham's reputation and his ministry. 

It's a pretty clear statement from Graham that he doesn't believe the doctrine and theology of the Christian gospel.  At least, he doesn't allow it to convict himself of this sin, which it certainly is, demonstrate repentance and in contrition and remorse, make it right by pointing out that Trump's immorality is equally sinful to Clinton's, and that if he is willing to lie to, and mislead his wife and family, as much as he has, then he must also be willing to mislead and lie to the American people, as he has since the first time he got behind a camera with a microphone in his mouth.  A true believer would call Trump out just like Graham called out Clinton.  You decide what his failure to call out Trump makes him, I'm already there.

And it causes another question to come out of this obvious duplicity and deception on Graham's part.  

What's in it for him?  

What outcome is worth the loss of credibility that comes with this kind of dishonest duplicity?  

Franklin Graham is not alone in picking up all of this immoral baggage and owning it by their support.  It seems like there are many so-called, self-appointed "leaders" among Evangelical Christianity who place a higher value on loyalty to Trump than they do to Christ, and on political power over spiritual power.  That's the only plausible explanation for behavior like this.  

It's getting more and more difficult to find Evangelical Christian leaders who are committed to the truth of scripture instead of a corrupt, adulterous politician.  

Trump, GOP Plan to Weaponize the Government Against Their Political Enemies Must be Defeated at the Ballot Box

Rachel Maddow: Trump Demands Prosecutions for Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Members

Rachel Maddow: Missing Cues, Trump Claims Right to Prosecute Political Enemies

Ali Velshi: "An Absolute Betrayal," Representative Raskin slams Republicans for aiding Trump's Plans for Retribution

The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost

Few people remember the first time Donald Trump's name came up as a candidate for President.  That's because it wasn't a memorable candidacy.  It happened in 2000, at the end of the Clinton Presidency, as Republicans were sorting out who they could nominate to defeat Al Gore, still the party of Reagan, looking for a "Reaganesque" candidate who could win what would be more a battle of rhetoric than a battle of change, since the country had been lifted out of the economic doldrums, including high unemployment and stagnant economic growth under George H. W. Bush.  

Few people took Trump seriously, whom they considered some kind of comic figure that had built a reputation and personal fame on immoral worldliness, getting himself in the gossip columns of the major dailies and on the daytime television gossip shows because of his bragging about his sexual exploits and affairs on his "trophy wives," including highly publicized divorces, rumors of big settlements he had to pay to get out of marriages, and his penchant for getting away with corrupt business dealings.  His line about being able to get away with shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and getting away with it didn't just materialize in 2016.  He had a long history of using money, or the image of having money, to cheat at business, and bragging about it was his brand.  

He didn't always get away with it.  He paid out millions of dollars in settlements to make crimes go away.  When one is rich, that's a luxury open to them that ordinary Americans don't have.  But in that Republican party, at that time, it didn't catch on.  Republicans were still hiding themselves behind the banner of being the "party of family values" and Trump's shenanigans, which included a plethora of anti-Constitution and anti-Democratic rhetoric, led to his relatively early exit from the campaign, due to it being squashed by party leadership.  

Nothing has changed since then, except that Trump had sixteen years between his first and second attempts at the Presidency, which included muttering about possible runs in 2004, and 2008, and the early 21st century electorate has proven to be much less conservative and Republican, and much more progressive and Democrat.  Characters like Rush Limbaugh built a career on anti-democracy rhetoric, advocating that the minority party use loopholes to abandon the two-party give and take compromise that makes democracy work.  The best politics for Republicans, according to Limbaugh, was to throw up roadblocks and halt any forward movement for which the other party could take credit. 

Trump, who used the loopholes for his own benefit for virtually his entire career, fit well into that way of doing politics.  And so, a party that was getting desperate to figure out how to claw and scratch its way to power with a minority of voters in the electorate, settled on Trump's rhetoric of racism and white supremacy, including hatred of blacks, Latinos and Asians, his anti-establishment image, and his television celebrity status.  Republicans abandoned their Reagan "family values" principles, and chose a serial adulterer, "never-ask-for-forgiveness", lying, cheating, racist, misogynist sexual deviant, rapist as their party nominee for President.  

Then, when the chickens started coming home to roost, as the Mueller investigation uncovered the cheating and illegal activity turned into campaign strategy involving foreign contributions and influence, and extensive violations of the law by his collaborators and associates, the Republicans want to claim that it is the Democrats who are weaponizing the justice department against their criminal nominee.  

He brought all of this on himself.  

What Did We Expect?  

Did the Republicans who decided to back Trump because they desperately needed a win and had to depend on celebrity rather than on the standard characteristics that Americans recognize for leadership, actually think that when he got into the White House, he would play by the rules, follow the law and suddenly become a patriotic American with a knowledge of history, government, economics and the international situation necessary to be the President?  Or did they think he would be some kind of figurehead, rubber stamping what they wanted to do as long as they let him play with the toys, get his fat face in front of the microphone and pretend to be important and famous?  

And what did those among the electorate who decided to vote for him actually think?  There's an old saying in politics, "When the pot boils, the scum comes to the surface."  That has certainly materialized, as what now constitutes the MAGA base that supports Trump includes a long list of society's undesirable elements, criminals, racists, subversives and counter-cultural antagonists.  Virtually everyone whose intelligence and critical thinking skills have failed to prevent them from being sucked in by conspiracy theories which don't even remotely try to support their claims with evidence have been sucked in by Trump's politics.    

There's probably not anyone who epitomizes his brand of bureaucrat more than Steve Bannon, now headed to prison in spite of having received a Presidential pardon for his worst crimes, which would have landed him there for decades. Hillary Clinton called them "deplorables," a name they used with pride, not contradicting the nature of their breed. Bannon, especially in the days since he has realized he is going to spend time in prison, has opened his mouth to spew his hatred for America and for all that it stands for.  Look at the rest, all convicted felons, not resulting from some Democratic party "witch hunt," but all by their own actions long before Trump brought them into the light of day.  Once in Washington, they didn't know any other way to behave, except to break laws to get what they wanted, use bribes, threats and loopholes in the law to win at all costs.  

It was the GOP that weaponized the Justice System when Trump forced Jeff Sessions out of the Attorney General's office for being too committed to the Constitution and the law, and brought in Bill Barr, a former attorney general under Bush who knew how to turn the office into a personal Presidential attorney.  Barr was exactly what the GOP needed to make the mountain of criminal evidence against Trump and his entire campaign, uncovered and published in the Mueller Investigation, simply go away.  And he was willing, right up until the very end, to be a loyal hack and keep the mountain of illegal activity going on in the White House from ever seeing the light of day as long as he was in office.  

His legacy, in spite of his brief attempt to look honest and distance himself from Trump when the criminal activity surrounding January 6th, and the theft of classified documents scorched his reputation, is that he turned the Attorney General of the United States into a personal attorney service for the President.  

And the GOP wants to talk about Democrats weaponizing the justice department.  Wake up, America.  You are being deceived by a devil who is trying to look like a savior. 

Evidence is Usually the Key to a Successful Prosecution

It's still pretty much a requirement, under the law, that to prosecute someone for a crime, there has to be evidence that a crime was committed.  As Republicans in Congress have tried, for four years now, and especially in the past two years when they've had a slim congressional majority, to find a reason to impeach President Biden, it's been somewhat comical, if not also infuriating, to see that they have not yet been able to find something he's done that qualifies under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" definition of evidence of misconduct in office.  But they keep trying, and that, in and of itself, is a prime example of "weaponization" of government.  

On the other hand, in the case of both impeachments of Trump, the weight of the evidence was so overwhelming that it would have been dereliction of duty for an impeachment not to have been launched, though the standard employed by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the house was quite high, seeing as Trump had done so many things that met the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the evidence was overwhelming.  

When he sued across the country, accusing various states of "massive election fraud," he lost every single case because there was one thing he lacked.  Evidence.  He, and a couple of his attorneys found out rather quickly that accusations must be backed up by proof, or there's a high cost to pay for frivolous lawsuits.  He has two former attorneys who have lost their law licenses as a result.  Staged hearings and ballot drops with actors paid to make claims that there's evidence of voting fraud does not constitute voting fraud.  Nor can a President accuse someone of a crime, and order the Justice Department to prosecute if there's no evidence.  

All of the wailing and whining about the indictments brought against Trump by the GOP is nothing more than extremist politics.  There was evidence, plenty of it, mountains of it, in fact, including admissions to having done some of what he was accused of doing from Trump himself.  What he couldn't remember, members of his staff filled in for him.  And the irony of virtually every investigation that has led to the criminal charges, indictments, and now to 34 felony convictions in one trial, is that the evidence has virtually all come from Republicans, most of them individuals who were part of the Trump administration, or the staff at Mar-a-Lago, or worked for Trump's companies.  All of the testimony that has led to indictments in the January 6th and Documents cases has come from Republicans, many of them Trump associates.  

If the GOP is going to get behind their criminal nominee, and support his campaign of vengeance, they're going to have to come up with evidence to bring charges.  But in all of the attacks being made from the right, especially from Trump, what's missing is the evidence. If you know what your political opponents have done that's illegal, and can be subject to a future prosecution, you call it out, right?  Unless, of course, there's nothing to call out and this is just another Republican rant about their intent to weaponize the justice department. 

The People Must Speak at the Ballot Box in November

I consider myself somewhat of a historian when it comes to American history and politics.  This is a critical moment in our history.  I do not believe that the nation can survive without a functioning, non-political, constitutionally-committed justice department and judicial system.  Rhetoric from media pundits like Rush Limbaugh has advocated turning the judicial system and the justice department into an agency pushing right wing, conservative politics, since there is not enough of a Republican majority to sustain the kinds of oppression they want to instigate through legislative means.  So they appoint conservative justices who will then issue findings and rulings that support their own conservative agenda, and undermine the legislative ability of Congress.  

The Trump Presidency already made inroads into dismantling the judiciary, by appointing radical, right-wing extremists, most of them completely unqualified by experience, to the federal bench. Some of them are so incompetent, they can't run a courtroom during a trial. We're seeing this already taking place in Trump's documents trial, with a judge who is ignoring the constitution, and the oath she took to uphold and defend it, in order to support his wishes to make the case just go away.  That's a huge danger to the existence of this nation.  

If our courts and our judiciary loses its constitutional commitment, and its objectivity, and turns partisan like the legislative and executive branches have done, then there will not be an America as we know it for much longer.  We will descend into a violent chaos, perhaps a civil war, and will either become a military dictatorship when they step in to restore order, or the Russians or Chinese will move in to dominate, using the political puppets they've already put in place in the media, and the government, to gain control and suck our resources dry.  

And I tend to think it's a foreign presence in Republican politics that has brought all of this about.  There's a ton of evidence to support this.  Reading through the Mueller Report, which, unfortunately, few Americans have bothered to do, even though it's still available,  Rachel Maddow gives historical insights into much of what she observes and reports, which support this same line of thinking.  

We are a constitutional democracy which derives its power from the people.  There are politicians attempting to subvert the power of the people, expressed through the ballot box, and through court cases that prosecute felons no matter what office they once held in government.  No one is above the law, and the best way we have of assuring this is to vote against everyone who is enabling it.  There can't be any dickering over the President's age, or over inflation or gas prices that he can't control, or over this or that with regard to the Hamas war, or any other part of the administration that, if Trump had been in office, would be far worse than it is now in every way.  

Every American who believes in freedom, in this constitutional democracy, in a government which derives its power from the people, must step up, and re-elect the President in November.  And the results of that election will tell us how much Americans really care about their constitution and their democratic government, and most of all, their guaranteed individual freedom.