"Discernment Blogger" Disqualified From Pastoral Ministry in Fundamentalist Church

Former "Pulpit and Pen" Fundamentalist Blogger, Pastor, "Disqualified" From Ministry 

Statement on the Disqualification of Pastor Jordan Hall, Fellowship Baptist Church of Sidney

Julie Roys on the Disqualification of Jordan Hall, formerly of "Pulpit and Pen."

A Montana pastor who was also the author of blogs containing hateful, vitriolic attacks on Christians who didn't see things the same way as he or his church has been disqualified from ministry for a confessed addiction to the prescription drug Xanax.  Jordan Hall, former pastor of the Fellowship Baptist Church in Sidney, Montana, and the originator of a blog once known as "Pulpit and Pen" but which re-identified itself after some negative attention as "Protestia," was disqualified from the pastorate.  There is a statement about the disqualification and his resignation on the church's website, linked above, and a couple of Christian news media reports.  

Protestia, which I will not link here, self-describes as a "polemical new site" that dedicates itself to providing Christian news and "discernment" in "an age of widespread censorship."  Then in the next sentence it self-justifies an unbiblical approach to criticizing all parts of the church and Christian faith with which its writers and owners disagree.  The multiple statements of faith, confessions and specific interpretations to which it ascribes give a pretty clear indication that it is a domain made up of far right wing fundamentalists who hold an extremely legalistic perspective of Christian faith.  

There is a small box on the front page mentioning Hall's pastoral disqualification as well as his absence from writing on the blog.  

The Credibility Question

Pulpit and Pen was not exactly known for its credibility.  While most people who were attacked ignored the accusations, realizing that its readership was not likely to include people in their own church or social group, those who did fight back always presented evidence that refuted and contradicted what was stated on the attack blog.  Hall's credibility was undermined completely when he fabricated a piece for another one of his electronic publications, got sued, and lost.  The subject of that blog piece didn't take kindly to being lied about, filed a lawsuit and won the settlement.  

Hall was defended by supporters in his church and among his readers who predictably turned to the "persecution by the devil" rebuttal, in spite of the fact that Hall had admitted to fabrication of the information in the article for which he was sued.  They defend the nature of the "discernment" blog's attacks, and the unverified information and accusations they make, by claiming that they are defending God against his liberal enemies.  Lying is apparently not sinful among these fundamentalists, as long as it is used to attack perceived enemies.  

Protestia's website has a "corrections" tab where they note that there are times when some of their contributors don't always get their facts straight when posting on social media, though there aren't any corrections there now, and also no mention of former pastor Hall's presence, articles on the site or of what has happened to cause his removal.  

Pulpit and Pen, and subsequently Protestia, in spite of its obvious disdain and hate for Southern Baptists, has defended the recently formed Conservative Baptist Network, and has parroted many of the innuendos, misleading statements and outright falsehoods used to attack their enemies in the convention.  CBN continued to press the point about past SBC President Ed Litton's confession that he borrowed sermon content from J. D. Greear, with permission but without proper attribution.  

While Litton publicly acknowledged what he did, apologized and followed the biblical procedure for asking for forgiveness, CBN's sources continued to hammer him with plagiarism charges, without any corroboration.  Pulpit and Pen/Protestia, along with at least one other discernment blog, continued to follow CBN's accusations with multiple posts claiming multiple incidents of plagiarism by Litton, none of which could be supported by evidence.  The harrassment eventually caused Litton's church to pull all of its archived sermons from its website.  

A Little Hypocrisy Goes a Long Way

One can only imagine how much space and time Protestia would have devoted to this issue had it been one of the targets of their vitriol who had been disqualified because of a Xanax addiction.  

It appears that the blog is an equal opportunity critic.  It is currently hammering away at Southern Baptists, at the Catholic church and Pope Francis, the United Church of Christ, and a Charismatic/Pentecostal "Prophetess".   Conspicuously absent from all of its associated attacks is Paula White, the prosperity gospel "prophetess" and apostate heretic who is the former President 45's chosen "spiritual advisor."  Such hypocrisy makes it impossible to take anything that is criticized or attacked on that blog seriously.  

It's too bad this is on-line, and there's not a paper copy.  Fortunately, I still get an unsolicited copy of The Sword of the Lord and it contains enough pages for me to have a steady supply of kitty litter box liners.  

Christianity is Not a Political Party, Part 2: "If They're Telling Us Who They Are, We Should Believe Them"*

Chauncey DeVega, Salon: "White life" and the Fascist Movement

One of the stops on a student tour of Washington, D.C. which I was helping to chaperone several years ago was the Holocaust Museum.  The night before the visit, the students were gathered in a room at our hotel and given a briefing about the experience.  Even for many adults, the experience there can be very emotional.  The first time I visited, there were several places in the museum where I had to catch my breath, where I couldn't control the tears, and where the thoughts and emotions went everywhere.  

During the tour, almost right at the beginning, in fact, looking down into an exhibit where there was footage being shown of Jews being starved, tortured and murdered in a concentration camp, one of the other chaperones, a parent, came up beside me and whispered, "You know, Hitler was right about some things."  

I made the mistake of asking. I've never forgotten his response, I wrote it down in my journal. 

"He was right about racial unity being a necessary element for national unity and the strengthening and defending of Germany against a Communist insurrection."  

When someone starts a sentence out with "You know, Hitler was right..." the warning bells should go off and the red flags should pop up everywhere.  They are about to tell you who they are and what they really believe.  They are going to side with fascism against democracy, and with a pseudo-Christian, racist perspective against the Christian gospel.   

It took me some time to gather my thoughts.  The National Holocaust Museum was not the place to continue that conversation.  I can only imagine what kind of different experience and impression of the exhibits he was having than I did.  I waited until we were back at the hotel, wrote down notes so that I could calmly respond, even though I was shaking, invited him into the room I was sharing with another chaperone, and spent the better part of an hour in a discussion with a guy who had been raised in church, but couldn't distinguish between principles of the Christian gospel, and "what Hitler got right."  He was convinced that American prosperity was evidence that the white, European descended population were the new chosen people, destined to take over the government, in order to usher in the second coming of Jesus.  

White Christian Nationalism and the White Supremacy that supports it is NOT in the Bible

When I was a kid, probably about 7 or 8 years old, my Sunday school teacher, a very nice, middle aged lady who had grown up in a West Texas oil town, said "There are people who make the Bible say whatever they want it to say," in response to some hypothetical, "but what if..." question someone in the class was asking.  

"If you're going to say that you believe the Bible," she would say, "then you need to study it and be able to interpret it correctly."  She had done that herself, earning a teaching certificate and also a minor in Biblical studies at the university she attended.  And she stood out among everyone else in the church where I grew up because of it.  She had much more of a doctrinal and theological background that most other people in the church but was limited to teaching children because she was a woman.  But I credit her with inspiring me to also earn a minor in Biblical studies at college, and then, after getting a graduate degree in my career field, to earn a graduate degree from a theological seminary.  

So I am an insider, with what I consider to be a good working knowledge of the historical and cultural contexts which are essential for understanding and interpreting the contents of the Bible and Apocrypha, as well as the details of the original languages.  I also know that most people who occupy the pews and seats of conservative, Evangelical churches in this country on any given Sunday don't really know very much at all about any of that, and in fact, are far more influenced and driven by their own emotions, personal prejudices and biases, and their political preferences, when it comes to their Christian faith.  

In fact, most Christians don't even get very much of their Christian doctrine from their own pastors or their local church.  There's a billion dollar Christian media market in this country, and it puts what I call a populist "pseudo-Christianity" out on the bookstore shelves, podcasts and internet.  So beliefs are based much more on ideas driven by emotions, "perceived needs," and what sells.  It is through these channels where conservative Christianity has crossed paths with the more extreme brand of right wing politics and where most of this ideology is coming from.  

Multiple Sources but Similar Themes Lead to the Same Facsist, White Supremacist, Nationalist Result

The Baptist Standard: Two Kinds of Christian Nations

Robert Jeffress: America was Founded as a Christian Nation but I am not a Christian Nationalist 

The most pervasive idea in all of this pseudo-Christian ideology and rhetoric is that "America was founded as a Christian nation."  I've put a couple of links in place which give a general idea of what kind of perceptions exist among conservative Christians when that phrase is used.  The description of what the article by Joshua Sharp in the Baptist Standard points to as the "first" kind of Christian Nation, one in which Christianity is a pervasive influence, but not a controlling institution, is much more compatible with the principles of Christ's gospel and the church which Jesus established as a "spiritual kingdom."  

But that's not the perspective behind what we are seeing develop and intersect with right wing politics.  In that perspective, described in the second link by Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, a dedicated Trump loyalist and sometimes referenced as "my favorite pastor" by the 45th President, there were those among America's founders who intended to establish a theocratic government, based on biblical theology and commandments, with white, European settlers filling a similar role to the Jewish nation of Israel in the Old Testament.  

There were some settlers who came to America with that idea in mind.  The English Separatists, who came to Plymouth Colony as the "Pilgrims" and the Puritans who came to Massachusetts Bay were seeking their own religious freedom from the Church of England, but they imposed their own theocratic law, arresting, persecuting and sometimes executing those who dissented.  That's what most of the religious-political right means when they talk about America being established as a Christian nation, a society in which Christian practice is enforced by law.  

True religious liberty, which separates the authority of the state from any religious authority or institution, and which does not require any specific religious practice or belief in order for citizens to vote or participate in representative democracy, was an influence of the Enlightenment, not Protestant Christanity.  And the establishment clause of the first amendment, which defines the separation of church and state, was the result of one of those dissenting, and heavily persecuted religious groups in America, the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, appealing to Thomas Jefferson's sense of Enlightenment reasoning and Deist convictions to create a constitution under which they, and every other American, would be completely free from any religious persecution or requirement of law.  

That's what the founders agreed upon, and established, not a "Christian nation."  

The Most Misquoted, Misinterpreted Passage in the Bible

When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people, who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.  2 Chronicles 7:13-14, NRSV

The passage from the Old Testament which I cited above, 2 Chronicles 7:14, is one of the single most misquoted and misapplied sentence fragments in the Bible.  Because the verse divisions, which have nothing to do with the original text, this sentence fragment is cited and applied without any reference at all to the history and context in which it was originally made.  I cannot tell you how many sermons I have heard in which a shouting, pulpit pounding, wailing preacher has declared that all of the problems we have as a nation would be resolved if the Christians in this country would just stand up and do the right thing, and "turn this nation back to God."  

First of all, 2 Chronicles 7:14 is not even a complete sentence, it is a sentence fragment that is attached to the whole concept that is being addressed.  It is part of a narrative that God is giving to Solomon at the time that the first Temple in Jerusalem is being dedicated.  It is a prophetic message to the nation of Israel, which was a theocracy.  Solomon was the nation's anointed King, and so, in a theocratic government, acted as God's agent to the nation.  It is not an open promise to any country in the world that happens to have a majority of people claiming to be Christian among its population.  

God does not make this kind of promise, does not bestow any kind of mantle of the "chosen", or offer any other nation or country the opportunity to be a theocracy.  The new covenant, which is described multiple times in both testaments as being superior to the old one, is between God and individual human beings who respond to the gospel in repentance, by faith in Jesus.  They are the new "chosen," not a specific nation, but the church, the "ecclesia," made up of people of all races, ethnicities and cultures.  There is no reference anywhere that even hints at some kind of extra favor or benefit or blessing from God based on the percentage of a nation's citizens who have converted to Christian faith.  This message was from God to Solomon for Israel. That's it.  It contains no promise to any other nation or country based on some kind of perceived "righteousness" based on how many Christians it has, or how influential they are in its secular government.

A Realistic and Honest Evaluation of History Which We Should Know 

American Christianity, in virtually all of its various expressions, from the dominant Protestant faiths and denominations, to the Catholics, the Orthodox, all of its independent churches and even branches off the tree that are considered cults, like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, enjoy unprecedented, unrestricted religious liberty, unlike Christians in almost any other part of the world.  We have no state church and complete separation which our government supports by extending a tax-exempt status to church income and assets, property, and even into some of its business ventures, labelled "ministries", which earn income for the churches.  

For most of the history of this country, white Protestants enjoyed a privileged and favored status with virtually unrestricted access everywhere, including the public education system.  It was, in fact, so thoroughly influenced by Protestants, who held most of the teaching and administrative positions, determined the content of curriculum and opened the door to campus access for evangelization, that the Catholic dioceses across the country founded their own educational system in order to protect their kids from being converted.  

What most Christian leaders are whining about when they complain about the "growing religious persecution" in this country is actually just a re-adjustment of what was once extended privilege that was really a violation of the establishment clause, and a growing recognition that the rights of those who belong to religions other than Christianity are infringed because of bigotry and discrimination.  

The Constitution of the United States gave religious liberty to the citizens of this country in a way that very few other nations or people in the world had ever experienced.  Set free by the separation of church and state, churches in the United States were free to preach the gospel of Christ, conduct church services without government supervision or regulation, establish ministries, including colleges and grade schools which were often the only source of education in many places, and carry out the great commission of the gospel of Christ, Matthew 28:18-20. 

And it thrived.  Christianity is, without a doubt, the single most pervasive influence in American culture and society across 245 years of history.  And there is no other nation in the world that is as influenced by Christianity as the United States of America.  It is the kind of "Christian nation" that Joshua Sharp describes in his first example in the piece in the Baptist Standard.  

But all of that is being severely disrupted at this intersection of conservative Christianity with right wing politics.  As much as the threat of some of the ideology is to democracy, it is also a threat to true Christian faith and practice under religious liberty.  Churches are being torn apart and people are leaving.  Pastors, under pressure from politically engaged church members are being pressured to preach political perspectives from the pulpit, change core doctrinal beliefs to match partisan political positions and display loyalty to politicians instead of to the gospel of Christ.  These influences are causing churches to become apostate and preach heresy.  When a politician tries to convince Christians to abandon basic, core principles of Christ's gospel, like turning the other cheek, or loving enemies, replacing it with violence against those who dissent, they've stepped outside the boundaries of the Christian faith. 

Fascism and Christianity that is defined by the gospel of Jesus, are incompatible.  Christianity transcends politics.  Fascism denies the very grace of God that is at the core of the Christian gospel.  Or, at least, the Christian gospel that has not been infiltrated by heresy. 

This isn't just a far right fringe movement anymore.  It has infiltrated much of the conservative Evangelical branch of the church and through their involvement, the Republican Party.  Get familiar with it, it is the political reality of our day.  And it underlines the importance of the necessity to vote in every election.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*taken from a quote by Maya Angelou

  

 

Highland Park, Illinois, July 4th, 2022

MSNBC: It Can Happen Anywhere

Yet another incident now marks the legacy of the NRA, the Republican Party and their judicial appointments, including the Supreme Court, and the six members of the current court, who, just a few days before this happened, made a ruling which supported circumstances that permitted this to happen.  There's no constitutional right that has been more misinterpreted, and more completely distorted out of anything close to its originalist intention than the right to bear arms.  And it is long past time for us, the vast majority of the American people who want reasonable and constitutional gun control to find ways to get it.  

The best way to do that is to start voting NRA-owned legislators out of office.  So it's too difficult to convince people to elevate this issue to the same level of priority that some Republicans do for abortion?  Take a look at the images from that shooting on a main street in a suburb, the kind of suburb where millions of Americans live.  There was a two year old boy found wandering around on the sidewalk in the vicinity of the shooting.  He didn't get left there in the confusion while people were fleeing.  He didn't have anyone to help him get away, because both of his parents were lying on the sidewalk, dead.  

Is that enough?   

It's been difficult to write about this.  Highland Park is less than an hour's drive away from where I live.  It's a very picturesque, quiet, typical, Midwestern, American community that has become a suburb of Chicago, lying along the western shore of Lake Michigan.  As people keep saying, "things like this just don't happen here."  But they have been happening "here" for a while now.  Personally, I had enough right after the Columbine shooting, which, just like this one, took place in a suburban community.  In fact, most of the school shootings that have occurred have happened in the suburbs, or in rural communities like Uvalde, Texas, or Littleton, Colorado or Parkland, Florida.  It's not just an urban problem, in fact, it is an everywhere problem.  

Too Much Political Rhetoric, Too Little Common Sense and Zero Understanding of the Second Amendment

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  

I could write a book on the history of this amendment, the circumstances which prompted it, and the massive, mistaken interpretations of it that have been made by our court system and politicians, much of it bought and paid for by gun manufacturers who are among the most profitable business owners in America.  But the bottom line is that there is absolutely no interpretation of the second amendment that can leave out the well regulated militia part of it, which is its clear context, and focus on unregulated gun ownership.  That's completely wrong. Beyond that, there is absolutely no guarantee of the right of an individual to own an arsenal of high powered weapons specifically designed to kill human beings by high tech mutilation of their bodies.  

How many times, in the comments that have been made over these past weeks since Uvalde, as other mass shootings happen and then, this tragedy at a July 4th parade, has the statement been made, "We need to do something about this."  

That's right.  We need to do something specific.  We need the common sense gun regulation that the people are asking for.  This is a democracy.  That is neither unreasonable nor is it a violation of the second amendment.  Those who are part of a well-regulated militia are more than likely already provided with their weapons by the state that authorized the existence of their national guard unit, and a hunting rifle, hand gun or small calibre rifle for home protection is all that is necessary. 

The first meaningful gun control legislation in years was passed by Congress fairly quickly after the Uvalde incident.  That means that Congress does feel the pressure.  We know that banning assault rifles works, because it has happened before, and the courts were fine with its constitutionality.  So do what the people are asking to be done.  

The first step toward doing this is to elect Democrats.  

  

In Recent Presidential History, Biden Has a High Ranking

Froma Harrop: Biden Doing a Good Job 

Record Firsts in President Biden's Administration

Newsweek: Biden's Seven Biggest Achievements

What Joe Has Done for me Lately

If the first hundred days of a Presidential administration count for the majority of the way that President is evaluated from a historical perspective, then Joe Biden is one of the most successful Presidents in modern history.  Only FDR actually accomplished more.  Both faced a major crisis, prompting actions which needed to be taken that had political consequences and required fighting political battles.  FDR had a larger congressional and senate majority, though at times, the Democrats in both houses could be obstinate, reverting to some of their more provincial, backward, isolationist tendencies.  

It's too early to determine whether "history" will elevate some of what President Biden has achieved to the same level as the New Deal, or to the civil rights achievements of the Kennedy-Johnson era, or to the economic and job growth under the Clinton administration, or to the Affordable Care Act, which was President Obama's signature achievement.  But President Biden is an accomplished, proven leader, has a long record of legislative achievements as a member of the Senate, was one of the more active and engaged Vice-Presidents, a huge contrast to his successor, who was less than a zero.  

Sucked-in by Media Speculation

Too many Democrats are getting sucked in and distracted by media speculation that is focusing on the 2024 election.  The priority right now is winning the mid-terms.  And getting sucked-in by the scatter-shot direction that the media promotes takes the focus away from the main course of the grand buffet that has been laid out for Democrats running for office this November--The January 6th hearings, the politically activist Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade and its aftermath, and the gigantic pressure that has been built up over "doing something" to stop the biggest American tragedy since the Depression--multiple, regularly occurring mass shootings. 

I'll start speculating and commenting about 2024 when the Democrats have secured their majority in both houses, including enough of a margin in the senate to break the filibuster.  President Biden is clearly able to handle the pressures of the office.  That's the end of that discussion. 

Every citizen in this country is entitled to constitutionally guaranteed rights.  And there's plenty of time to make sure that those rights are secured, once there is a Democratic majority in both houses after the midterms.  So am I making the point here?  Let me make sure.  If the Democrats do not win the majority in both houses of Congress in November, then there is no hope for the LGBTQ community, most ethnic and racial minorities, and women's reproductive, medical and civil rights to be advanced any time soon, if ever.  So first of all, commit to VOTE, keep your focus, hit that straight ticket Democrat button if your state allows it, don't dare stay at home or fail to show up in November, and then we can finish much of what has already been started.  OK?  

The Afghanistan Withdrawal was NOT Disastrous! 

No Democrat should ever be caught saying that.  If that happens, go back and take a look at the facts.  Labelling it a disaster is a right wing extremist opinion aimed at taking the blame off of the failed former President, whose negotiation with the terrorist Taliban, ignoring the Democratically elected Afghan government, failing to support their military training, and then, during his attempted coup, failed to provide adequate intelligence information to the incoming Biden Administration whose problem it was going to become. 

President Biden got us out of Afghanistan, something that should have been done before Bush left office, and managed to evacuate over 100,000 people, including all of the Americans who paid attention to the warnings and instead of acting like arrogant, bad tourists, headed to where the planes were taking off.  Afghanistan resulted from the stupidity of George W. Bush and the ignorance of Donald J. Trump.  Joe Biden bailed the US out of what could have been a real disaster, not a phony label like this.  

So when you have those political discussions on instagram, facebook, twitter, linkedin, or anywhere else on social media, stop calling it a disaster.  Change the narrative.  

By The Way...

Oil just dropped below $100 a barrel.  So in spite of their best efforts, and the plethora of lies about Biden administration energy policy, none of which contain a single fact that can be verified, the billionaire oil barons aren't going to be able to continue to profiteer and inflate the price of gasoline which has generated profits, but hasn't increased the cost of producing a gallon of gasoline one bit. And really, let's be honest, this is the biggest thing the GOP has in their arsenal, when it comes to the midterms.  They've got nothing else. 

Hillary Clinton's Advice:  Winning the Election is a Priority

The most investigated politician in American history, who also happens to be the most exonerated politician in American history, has advised Democrats that winning the election is the priority.  Do you trust her instincts and her advice?  I do.  I hope the DNC is listening.  

I live in an area surrounded by neighborhoods where the community is as diverse as just about anywhere in the whole country.  One of the more delightful aspects of driving to and from work is the variety of flags that people fly from their cars at various times of the year.  And there are hundreds of flags.  Early in the spring, when Poland celebrates its independence, cars, houses and businesses fly Polish flags.  On Puerto Rico Day in June, the Puerto Rican flags are out everywhere.  Since February, the Ukrainian flag has been quite prominent.  Around May 5th, there are lots of Mexican flags.  The business district closest to my home, a four block area around an intersection, has businesses that fly Romanian, Ukrainian, Brazilian and Filipino flags, and everyone has an American flag.  That's who we are, and who we intended to be.  And the hope of continuing that rests with the Democratic party.  

The hope of retaining our religious liberty also rests with the Democratic party.  I'll leave that comment right there for now.  

If you voted for Joe Biden in 2020, you did the right thing.  Don't change your mind, and go do it again.   

If Democrats Need Motivation to Turn Out and Vote in Record Numbers in November, 2022, Here it is.

Get familiar with this.  January 6th was a direct result of the influence of this combination of religion and politics.

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

That is why a man like Trump, an immoral, God-cursing, demonically-driven demagogue, is so popular among Evangelicals.  Trumpism tells Christian leaders that turning the other cheek and loving your enemies, which identify Christian character and are direct teachings of Jesus himself, are for suckers and they are hindrances to the kind of worldly influence and power that he is after.  Those who want to "get anywhere in the world," must get themselves into positions of worldly power in government, education, media, arts and entertainment, religion, family and business and that can't be done by loving your enemies or turning the other cheek.  That denies core Christian theology, but it fits with some powerful, pseudo-Christian perspectives which incorporate and use theories about "end times" prophecy that causes some Christians to abandon parts of the gospel in a quest for worldly influence.   

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

The Christian Reconstruction Brand of Dominion Theology 

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

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

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

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

"Kingdom Now" Dominion Theology  

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

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

Dominion Theology is not Christian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A representative Democracy which guarantees individual rights, makes all of its citizens equal in terms of their ability to influence and participate in government by voting, and which has, as one of its core values, protecting the rights of the minority, is not compatible with any of the forms of Dominion Theology.  Nor is religious liberty that completely separates the church from the state, both ways, and includes those who practice a form of Christian faith that is different than the majority view, other religious beliefs, such as Judaism, Islam or Hinduism, or those who practice no religious belief.  Those people would all be subject to some form of discrimination, or would be excluded from society, under any form of Dominion Theology. 

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

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

Do I have your attention now?  

What Would America Look Like Under Dominionism? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intersecting with Trumpism

I doubt that the former President cares anything at all about turning America into a Christian nation.  He lives outside the law anyway, and if Dominion theology was established in the constitution, his immoral behavior and his lack of ethics would run counter to the governing philosophy.  If Dominion Theology ran the government, Trump, his kids, and most of his inner circle would be guilty of moral crimes deserving imprisonment or execution.  But Trump claims to be the ultimate "deal maker" and many of those in the Evangelical political right are willing to overlook his faults and give him a complete pass in order to use him to get what they want.  The Evangelicals who are currently in office who push this perspective are too repulsive to win a Presidential election.  Their need for a morally bankrupt, corrupt, sexually abusive, emotional cripple like Trump shows that most of them don't believe God exists and are just using religious faith to bait voters.  

There are all kinds of heretical, deviant doctrines and theology that come out of this movement, including white Christian nationalism.  But the "Christian" and "biblical" aspect of their politics is only a means to an end, which is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.  There may actually be some in this movement who really do believe that the world will get better when Christians take over the United States government.  What I believe is that those who are part of this movement know very well that they will become the beneficiaries of vast wealth and power if they accomplish their goal and that is exactly what they are after.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have any use for a moral degenerate like Donald J. Trump.  

Let Me Be Clear... 

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

That this aberrant theology is able to gain ground in the church is due to the fact that most of the members of a Christian church have very little knowledge of biblical theology, have largely developed their own beliefs based on bits and pieces of what is preached and taught in their church, getting most of what they believe from the billion dollar Christian media, which, like the secular media, is in the business of selling products, not guarding theological or doctrinal integrity.  

The most prominent and visible supporters of the Religious/Political right among Evangelicals are those who have made a fortune peddling the gospel.  And their interests align more with immoral, worldly, corrupt, secular billionaires when it comes to government than they do with the gospel of Jesus Christ and belief in the existence of God.

"My Kingdom is Not of This World" 

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

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

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

Pilate asked him, "What is truth?" 

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

John 18:36-38, NRSV

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

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

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

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

Many Christians click their tongues at "the world" and apply these verses to the immoral behavior they see there.  But this looks a lot like what we saw in our own government between 2017 and 2021. Do you see anything there that looks familiar now, after being given that thought?  I certainly do.   

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

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

There are millions of Christians in America who see this for what it is, as a gross, misleading distortion of Christian faith, a use of doctrine, theology and identifying terminology that is deceitful and destructive. They see it as a satanic inspired, infiltration of their churches.  Preventing it from doing even more damage is taking a toll, dividing churches when small groups of members who have bought into this anti-Christian perspective and demand that their church leaders acknowledge it and promote it from their pulpit.  It is causing an unprecedented decline in attendance and membership among the denominations and churches that it is infiltrating.  

The Signal Press is making an effort to expose this lie for what it is. Thank you for reading and considering this honestly.   

Today's Vocabulary Lesson: Woke; Liberal

John Pavlovitz: To Republicans, Decency is "Woke" 

"The politics of fear is nothing new.  We've seen it throughout history.  It's a well-worn playbook. When you lack ideas, you need an enemy.  When you have nothing redemptive to offer, you have to create a monster to push back against.  When you are devoid of decency, you need to vilify it and somehow turn that decency into a threat.  That's what we're seeing right now in America." --John Pavlovitz

On a blog I read, where the topics tend toward Christian doctrine and theology, the term "wokeness" is now as common as the term "liberal" once was, when used in attacks on the wrongness and error of Christians who are drifting to the left, or who are already there.  When I ask exactly what that means, I get a repeated use of the terms, statements about Critical Race Theory being "unbiblical", a comment or two about Antifa and Black Lives Matter and that's about it.  I'm tempted to ask what is wrong with being anti-Fascist, since that seems like a good thing to me, especially if you're Christian, and if you're opposed to Black Lives Matter, does that mean you think they don't matter?  But I'd have to do that anonymously.

So Let's Start by Defining the Terms

Woke.  verb.  The act of coming out of sleep.  The point during which a state of subconscious activity fades and a state of conscious awareness occurs.  

adj.  A term used to describe individuals who have an understanding of the roots of racial injustice, particularly in America, and who desire to participate in a movement which advocates government using its resources and power to educate people about racial injustice and work toward eliminating it. A term describing an individual who is an activist working toward full equality in civil liberties, individual rights and economic opportunity for those who have been disadvantaged by racial injustice.  

Liberal.  adj. 1.  One who is willing to accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.  2. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise.  

noun.  1.  A supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.  2.  A supporter of a political philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise.  

The act of defining terms and expanding vocabulary is an educational exercise.  One of the outcomes of getting an education is clearing up misconceptions, discerning errors and misinterpretations or manipulations of ideas, and giving those who receive it the ability to think critically.  These are "dictionary definitions," so to speak, so their application and use in modern vernacular may vary slightly from these definitions.  Still, it is difficult to see where being woke or liberal is a bad thing, even in the strange and twisted world of modern American politics.  Unless there is a racial, religious, social or economic bias in the perception, which is usually the case, there's nothing to see here.  

But bias produces fear and fear is the motivating factor that gets a lot of voters to the polls.  So the use of this kind of terminology, by the right wing media as well as by those who commented on the blog I mentioned, is fear mongering. Oh, I know all the rebuttals about code language and hidden agendas, and all of the alleged loaded meanings behind the use of terms like "social justice" or social welfare and racial reconciliation.  But a lot of the extremes and the hidden agendas come from the imagination of the critics, or are distorted and misrepresented media talking points they got from Carlson, Hannity or Breitbart. 

The Sticking Points 

One of the key words in the definition of the term liberal is the promotion of democracy.  I think that's really the sticking point for most far right conservatives.  We've completely lost the negotiating, the "give and take," the compromise and the mutual respect across the aisle that are requirements for a democracy to work.  That's been a deliberate shift on the part of GOP leadership over the past thirty years, promoted by extremists in the right wing media like Rush Limbaugh.  Stacking courts with activist judges while whining about liberal justices "legislating from the bench" as a smokescreen for the duplicity, gerrymandering state legislative districts and congressional districts, changing long-standing rules to their own advantage when they control the committee leadership positions, are all signs of an anti-democratic movement on the part of the Republican party.  

There's no better example of this than Mitch McConnell's declaration that a sitting, lame duck President should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice, denying President Obama the appointment that was constitutionally his to make, then going ahead with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett just months before Trump lost an election.  McConnell has never exhibited any sense of decency, moral values or ethical behavior in his life, even before he was elected to the senate.  He's also clearly an enemy of real democracy.  Everything he has done since he was elected to office has pointed to his being a fascist with personal ambitions to be the dictator.  

The other issue embedded in all of this right wing distortion and rhetoric is racism.  To be woke is to be actively working to make change, which means that there is still racial injustice, discrimination and bigotry in society and its institutions which cannot be ignored and must be addressed.  Conservativism, by its very nature, resists change and denies there is a need for it, or insists that it can't really happen and so the status quo must be preserved.  There's no denying that we have made a lot of progress, but progress is not the end result and there are new threats from some old ideologies that have infiltrated the political/religious right that threaten to reverse the progress that has been made.  

And I'm going to interject this thought here.  Of all of the cultural institutions and influences we have as Americans which have the ability to deal with racism, Christianity should have been the most progressive influence.  Jesus set the example by crossing ethnic, racial, religious and language barriers and the early church, prompted by some spiritual experiences of the apostles, was dynamically inclusive.  As predominant as Protestant Christianity has been throughout American history, the church should have set the example by bringing all races and ethnicities together instead of being one of the most segregated cultural institutions.  There are individual churches that have succeeded at this, though it is rare to find a multi-ethnic, multi-racial congregation where the Caucasian members submit to the leadership of a non-white pastor and church elders. 

One of the sharpest criticisms of Critical Race Theory by some Evangelicals is that it ignores the biblical narratives addressing racism, whatever those might be according to them.  O.K.  Then come up with something that is consistent with Christian doctrine and start addressing racial reconciliation.  Ed Litton, the most recent past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, is one of the first to announce that he is working on a racial reconciliation initiative.  The response to that announcement, from his critics among the conservatives in the denomination, was to accuse him of going "woke."  

Being Woke:  A Comparison 

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has annointed me to bring good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor...

This is a prophetic passage from the book of Isaiah which Jesus read in the synagogue in Nazareth, where he grew up.  After noting that he was the fulfillment of this prophecy, their response was to get angry, and drag him up to a place outside of town to throw him off a cliff.  The term "woke" wasn't in common use back then.  

On another occasion, responding to a question from John the Baptist, who was in prison, but who had heard about everything Jesus was doing, Jesus said, "The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the poor have good news brought to them.  And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me."  

There's nothing offensive about wanting free and fair elections, wanting to have the same rights as every other citizen does regardless of racial, ethnic, language or economic and social differences.  There's nothing tyrannical about a government taking measures based on the best scientific medical advice provided by some of the best experts in the world.  

Thank you, John Pavlovitz, for doing such a great job of pointing this out. 

  

 

Christianity is Not a Political Party

 "The Founders wrote the constitution, not the apostles.  They added the Bill of Rights; not the Ten Commandments.  Their intent was Freedom of Religion, not control by religion.  They created a democracy, not a theocracy.  Christianity is not a political party.--retweet from Christian Democrats of America, JustMe@SueZieCue

If Jesus were alive today, would he:  Feed the poor or give tax breaks to the super rich?  Comfort the old and infirm or cut Social Security?  Build bridges that unite or build walls that divide?  Make peace or make war?--Linda Seger, Jesus Rode a Donkey:  Why Millions of Christians are Democrats

While The Signal Press is a social media presence and has what I think is a somewhat unique approach to political and religious discussion--yes, the two subjects my generation always considered taboo at the table--it is also a personal journal.  With everything that has happened in the political world over the past couple of weeks, and writing being a means by which I organize my thoughts and express myself, this is a personal journal piece.  

Christianity is Not a Political Party

The best example of how a politician who is an Evangelical Christian handles his faith and politics is the one set by former President Jimmy Carter.  He didn't change his Christian beliefs or practices when he ran for public office, but he never used his faith as a weapon or as a political campaign tactic to get votes.  His positions on social and economic justice, racial equality, women's rights, his foreign policy ambition to broker a peace agreement between Israel, Egypt and Syria, his quest for freedom from oppression for the West Bank Palestinians, were all consistent with his Christian faith.  There's nothing in the way Jimmy Carter approached politics that is inconsistent with any Christian doctrine and theology, nor is there anything he did that attempted to impose his Christian perspective on anyone else. 

Opinions on Carter's presidency from a political perspective are widely varied.  There are those who claim that his failures resulted from a lack of understanding of the "worldliness" and the secular nature of government business.  He trusted people who didn't have the same motives and character as he did.  On the other hand, looking at what transpired in the twelve years after he left office, and subsequently under all of his Republican successors, Carter doesn't look so bad.  But the way Carter managed his faith and politics was a demonstration of the fact that being Christian is not defined by partisan politics. He also understood that genuine, valid, true Christian faith, in order to be sincere, had to be free from imposition and coercion and must be a free will choice, not a government mandate.  

He also understood that in order for Christianity to be free, it had to be separated from the state and that religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution included the right not to practice any religion.  There's no doubt that his Presidency was influenced by his Christian faith as much as anything else in his life.  He was not ashamed of his testimony.  And that enhanced his compassion and concern for the well-being of people, and his consideration and respect for their constitutional rights.  

The day after my 18th birthday, I registered to vote in order to meet the deadline for the November election in order to cast my ballot for Jimmy Carter.  I was a freshman in college, and my Republican friends, to try and discourage me from supporting him, pointed out that "Christianity isn't a political party," intimating that I was voting for Carter just because he was a Christian.  And when Reagan ran against Carter in 1980, and the religious right was in full swing, I got to remind some of them, when the issue came up in discussion, that "Christianity isn't a political party."  

Social Issues Alone do not Define Politics 

I was raised in a Southern Baptist church, belonged to churches affiliated with that denomination until I was 52 years of age and when I changed, joined a church affiliated with another denomination that is considered "Evangelical."  My political convictions are influenced by my Christian faith which is defined by Christ.  It is not a system where points are given and a list of good works is checked off to make sure there are more good points than bad points.  The core belief is that Jesus is the Christ, the savior, sent by God to restore humanity to its creator, through his direct sacrifice of himself, and through what he taught and lived by example.  

In Matthew's account of the gospel, during an exchange with Jewish religious leaders, Jesus was asked the question, "What is the greatest commandment?"  It was intended to be provocative.  Jesus replied, 

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment.  And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.  Matthew 22:37b-40, NRSV

Following Jimmy Carter's example, I take it from there. 

The constitution's guarantee of individual rights applies to all Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs, or their lack of any.  As a Christian, I have the right to practice my faith, which includes acting in a manner that is consistent with it, and also includes expressing it publicly if the opportunity permits.  The constitution prevents the government from passing laws which restrict my free exercise of my faith.  Extending rights to individuals who do not hold the same religious beliefs, or who do not have any religious beliefs, does not violate my freedom in any way.  

The government, in our representative democracy, is ours, and I believe the perspective it takes should recognize this fact.  The resources it has, collected from us, should be used to collectively benefit us.  It took our society and culture, under this Republic, a long time to make progress toward the equality and the sense of national identity and community that were articulated in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and we are still not at the point where everyone around us is free and equal. But I believe that, under the leadership of most Democrats, much more progress is made in that direction than it is under the manner in which Republicans handle this. 

Christian Theology and Doctrine Does Influence My Political Perspective

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor...Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.  Luke's Gospel Chapter 4:18, 19 and 24.  

The gospel narrative which records the ministry and teaching of Jesus is the very center of Christian faith.  Belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the savior of humanity from sin by his example, his instruction, his inspiration, his crucifixion and his resurrection is the defining doctrine of Christianity.  Every Christian denomination has an acknowledgement of this core belief in their confession or statement of faith.  The gospel message of Jesus is the lens through which all of the rest of the Bible, including the prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the early church in the New Testament are interpreted.  

The three year long ministry of Jesus is characterized by those words from Luke 4.  That is the essence of what he taught and what he did.  In this particular passage, he is noting for the congregation gathered in the synagogue in his hometown of Nazareth the nature of his message.  In Matthew 11, he sends a message to John the Baptist who is in prison, who asks him if he is the Messiah, or if they should look for someone else.  He responds to John by telling him, "the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the poor have good news brought to them.  And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me."  

The whole gospel narrative is packed with this message.  At the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount is a passage known as "The Beatitudes," character that Jesus describes as flowing from those who would become his followers and disciples as a testimony aimed at motivating and inspiring people to give glory to God.  There's not a prerequisite of some kind of righteousness or bank account of good deeds which must be accumulated in order for a person to receive forgiveness of sin and become a Christian.  The "good deeds" and righteousness, which includes everything I cited here, and a whole long list of values like integrity and honesty, equality, a sense of community, stewardship of the physical world as a gift from God, living peacefully and being peacemakers, meekness, kindness, and several narratives on the nature of and expression of genuine love, flow out as a result of Christian faith. They are spiritual qualities which lose their character when they are required, enforced by law or when people are coerced into claiming their acceptance in exchange for something else.   

It is difficult to be offended by any of these values.  A Christian is a positive influence on others around them, and the Christian church is a positive influence on society and culture when it lives by, and exhibits these characteristics in the absence of arrogance and attempts to impose them.  The broad diversity of the Democratic party, and its support for achieving true equality of liberty and for justice where equality has not always been the standard, shows evidence of the positive influence of the Christians within its ranks.  

I Believe That Separation of Church and State Benefits Both Church and State

Though many Christians in the political far right use all kinds of rhetoric to deny that the concept of "separation of church and state" exists in the constitution, it is most definitely the clear, constitutional purpose of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.  The evidence for the use of that specific phrase comes directly from Thomas Jefferson himself, who cites the establishment clause as it was written, and defines it as "building a wall of separation between church and state."  

I find it ironic that a group of Evangelical Christians, specifically Baptists, were the most concerned about how an established and endorsed state church would affect the practice of their faith.  Baptists were persecuted in America, by others who came here for their own religious liberty, including the Puritans in Massachusetts, and the Church of England which was the "established church" of the colonial government of Virginia.  They saw the corrupting effect of European state churches which were controlled and used as political pawns by monarchies.  So they understood, as did Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, among other founders, that the government could not enforce "ideas" by law.  

A Christian Worldview is not a political perspective, nor does it require the use of the political power of the state.  

The Democratic Party, with its vast diversity and its recognition of individual rights, along with its philosophy of using the influence and resources of government, which all belong to the people, for the benefit of the people, is the best political option for the continued protection of the religious liberty of all Americans.  That is a common interest.  

The fact of the matter is that in spite of the language of the constitution, which is inclusive of all religious beliefs and convictions, and also protects the convictions of those who choose not to identify with any religion, Caucasian Protestant Christians are still the most preferred group in American society.  In spite of their rhetoric, the Christian political far right benefits from the separation of church and state.  Their tax exempt status is part of Jefferson's "wall of separation."  They experience no tyranny of any kind.  The Supreme Court is eroding the wall, in favor of Caucasian, Protestant Christianity and its institutions. 

Take a look around the world and see what real religious persecution looks like and it will be very easy to conclude that mask mandates, vaccination mandates by employers and other pandemic health measures, all of which state constitutions and the federal constitution authorize for government officials to implement, are not tyranny of any kind.  In fact, that kind of resistance by some among the Christian right has damaged their credibility and their Christian testimony.  Where is that found in the gospel of Christ, or in the Bible, exactly?  

The Democratic party is more likely to protect church-state separation which, in the long run, is far more beneficial to American Christians of all kinds, than the GOP.  And while there may be some specific issues, supported by Democrats, that are not influenced or supported by Christian theology or principle, those issues do not pose any threat or imposition on the practice of any faith.  And where, in the GOP, will you find politicians like President Jimmy Carter, who sees the big picture and is willing to risk the consequences of standing up for the rights of those who are marginalized, or who might not share the same religious convictions.  

Then There are Some Political Perspectives

Every member of Congress, the President, every federal judge and Supreme Court justice, swears an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States.  I can't cast a ballot for anyone who does not stand against what happened on January 6th.  Those who stand up and speak out are true Patriots.  Those who don't are traitors.  It's as simple as that.  But it's not just that. 

The obstructionism that now characterizes the GOP, as opposed to the Democrats still willing to negotiate and compromise, is resistance to democratic government.  Trying to preserve their own power and influence, by appointing political idealogues instead of qualified jurists to the Supreme Court, gerrymandering congressional districts in spite of past precedent, tax policy that creates massive inequities and favors the rich, all of that tells me, in no uncertain terms, that Republican values are different from my Christian values and that Democrats will be better protectors of my religious freedom.

Is that simple enough?   

Note on Comments Regarding the Overturning of Roe v. Wade and Abortion Rights

Personally, I am opposed to the practice of abortion and that opposition is rooted in my Christian theology.  The references from biblical texts that are used as support for the belief that life begins at conception don't actually make that declaration, but they do support the idea that human identity begins prior to physical birth.  There are practical, informed choices that can be made before a child is conceived that make its use strictly for birth control a poor choice.  Unfortunately, the resources for the kind of information and education necessary to help people make better choices in this regard are often cut by governments run by Republicans who don't believe in equal taxation. 

Regardless of what I believe about abortion, I do not believe that a politician who supports abortion rights is a "baby killer."  There are multiple reasons why politicians support abortion rights, most of them do so because they recognize that the circumstances, in most cases rape or incest, which lead to a woman making that decision, are very complicated, involving a whole range of extreme emotions and that the danger of attempting an abortion, outside the presence of qualified medical personnel, warrants making it legal to avoid worse circumstances.  Conservative Christians are big on personal responsibility and accountability; so only the individual who is making the decision bears any responsibility for it, regardless of what the law says.  If the politicians who allow the unlimited access to guns are not responsible for mass shootings and the murders that happen in school classrooms and church sanctuaries, then neither are politicians who favor abortion rights "baby killers." 

Both the Clinton and Obama administrations saw a significant reduction in the number of abortions performed during their time in office.  This was directly due to their getting Congress to fund programs providing information and education directed toward communities with high rates of pregnancies among unmarried women and high abortion numbers.  Most crisis pregnancy centers operated by churches and church groups fall short when it comes to providing for needs beyond an ultra-sound, some counseling support and maybe a couple of bags of groceries.  But when Republicans control the budget, that money goes back into tax breaks for the wealthy.  

Abortion is a social issue, and while I have strong personal convictions about it, I realize that it is not the only issue to take into consideration when casting a ballot. And I'd prefer to cast my ballot, especially for someone going into the Congress or running for President, who is strong on the major issues, like foreign policy, education, the economy, national security, commitment to our constitutional representative democracy, and who understands and is willing to support, without caveat, the whole constitution of the United States.  

That's why I almost always vote for Democrats.