On Psalm 108:8-10 and Using the Bible to Bash the President

Several years ago, I picked up a business card at the cash register of a Christian bookstore in Gallatin, Tennessee that said "Pray for Clinton, Psalms 108:8-10".  My first thought was that this was an encouragement and a reminder to Christians to keep the President, regardless of who he was or what party with which he was affiliated, in our prayers.  So as I was shopping, I picked up one of the Bibles off the shelf and looked up the reference.  

May his days be few; may another take his office. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children wander about and beg, seeking food from the ruins they inhabit.  Psalm 108:8-10, ESV 

Wordlessly, I put the basket of items I had planned to purchase on the counter, laid the card down so the clerk could see, pointed to it, and walked out of the store.  First of all, whether that was some kind of inside joke or an intentional slam, for Christians who believe the Bible is a sacred text to take it completely out of its context and use it that way is sinful behavior.  There's also implied disobedience because Christians are called to pray for their leaders, regardless of their spiritual condition or their political affiliation.  Paul and Peter asked those to whom they wrote letters to pray for the Roman leadership.  It was inexcusable for a Christian book store to put something like that in front of their customers.  

These verses are not a model prayer to pray about anyone.  To do so would be to take this passage completely out of its context.  Psalm 108 is a psalm of David and it is a lament and a cry for God's help.  In these specific verses, David is articulating the thoughts of his enemies and their accusations against him.  He imagines them, in their criticism of his leadership, uttering these words about himself, and he includes them in this psalm as a cry for help from God to protect him from them.  

Taking it out of its context to apply it for use as a prayer against the sitting President of the United States is the kind of misuse of scripture that most Evangelicals consider to be blasphemy of the inerrant, infallible written word of God. So for a sitting  Republican member of Congress (whom I will not promote by mentioning her name as a representative from Colorado) to suggest its use it as a prayer against President Biden is blasphemy.  And the lack of respect it shows toward the elected President of the United States, regardless of political differences, is an indication of this representative's lack of fitness to serve.  That is misuse of scripture, and shame on the Evangelical Christians who have enjoyed it as some kind of joke, or took it seriously. It's characteristically and categorically anti-Christian.

But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your father who is in heaven.  Jesus, the Christ, Matthew 5:44 ESV

President Biden would never say something like that about even his worst enemy in the Republican party.  And in that regard, his integrity and character stand out in sharp contrast to his shrill critics on the far right who don't know the difference between political debate and calculated insults.  

This misuse of the Bible occurred as the Representative was making a campaign speech in a church auditorium, which makes it even more of an affront to true Christian faith.  It characterizes the speaker's ideology as being something other than Christian.  Aside from all of that, churches are not political theaters or political action committees and if that's how they behave, then they're not churches.  

It would be just as wrong to insert a Republican politician's name in the blank, and call these same verses a prayer for them.  During the four years of the Trump administration, I frequently prayed that God would change his mind, protect us from his incompetence and ineptness, keep the country safe, give wisdom to those around him so that they would have the courage to keep him from ruining the country, minimize his extremism and prevent him from being elected again.  There were a lot of prayers being said during the insurrection, and I continue to pray for justice to be done.  But I would never pray that harm would come to anyone because I disagree with their politics.  

The public promotion of this use of Psalm 108, and the manner in which it was used against the President stands in contrast to his integrity and character, and demonstrates her clear lack of both.  It is, along with a whole resume of similar words and deeds, clear evidence that she is neither a spokesperson for Christian faith, nor qualified to serve in the Congress of the United States.  

A Few Questions that Pop Up Here on Occasion, and My Responses

Blogging, a hobby of mine for at least 15 years now, brings some interesting responses, comments and questions.  On a previous blog that I wrote, which was more about Christian doctrine, theology and practice, and less about politics, I had to keep track of comments after a post almost every day.  On this blog, more about politics and history than Christianity, that has not been the case.  Most of the questions I get, along with comments, come via email.  I always have a good time responding to them individually.  

I decided to answer some of the common questions in this article.  It may give some insights as to where this all comes from, my direction and my perspective. 

How can you claim to be Christian and support Democrats at the same time?  

I've devoted several blog posts to this subject.  The bottom line is that following the principles of the Christian gospel as they are laid out in the context of the biblical record, Christian faith is apolitical.  To go through a list of political issues and determine how "Christian" support for, or opposition to, each issue is an exercise in futility.  There are as many Christian principles, when applied to political issues, that are violated or opposed by Republican practices and platform points as there are Democratic practices and platform points.  Arguing that support for abortion and LGBTQ rights are worse, and more evil than the draconian racist, white supremacy, white nationalism, failure to address basic human rights and support for murder in schools by unregulated weapons by Republicans is not Christian, and distorting the biblical text by proof-texting to support those positions is heresy by definition. 

The leadership that the Republican party has chosen is anti-Christian in its lifestyle, pursuing worldly aims related to the acquisition of wealth regardless of and aside from principled practice.  The most recent Republican past-president flaunted his sexual immorality, cheated in business, is a pathological liar and a money lover, and demands personal loyalty while daring to actually criticize the teachings of Jesus Christ as inadequate in gaining worldly aims and demand that his followers follow a different gospel.  

I could never be part of a political party that supports someone like that.  And "whataboutism" cannot come up with any Democratic leader to compare with him.  They don't exist.

As a Christian who accepts the historical context as the primary starting point for interpreting the Bible and discerning Christian theology, doctrine and practice, I find that the Democratic party supports government of, by and for the people and is consistent with Christian examples and teaching when it comes to economic stewardship, the dismissal of ethnicity, race or wealth status as a means of discriminating and the recognition of the equality of all humans (Galatians 3:25-29, Colossians 3:11, from the Apostle Paul) regardless of their economic status, race or ethnicity, or gender.  

Jesus categorically rejected any alliance between politics and Christian practice.  The gospel writer Matthew makes this quite clear in his narrative about the temptations of Jesus.  There is significant symbolism that would have caught the attention of those who initially read that account, and whether they are illustrations of principles or a literal historical event, it is foundational to the Christian gospel that Jesus rejected its conflation with political or even religious authority and put Christianity on its own terms, without any need for dependence on political authority or power.  

I see any alliance or relationship between Christianity and its institutions with government, for its own benefit, as corrupting and corrosive influences on the Christian church.  There's better than 1500 years of church history, from Constantine forward, to prove that any union of church and state benefits the state, corrupts the church and leads to the distortion and destruction of the gospel of Jesus Christ. With Christian nationalism creeping into both church and GOP, that's why I'm a Democrat, and a Christian.  

My whole purpose, in writing The Signal Press it to put forth opinion and though based on facts, showing that it is possible to be distinctively Christian and passionately a Democrat and that the kind of Christianity that it takes to forge a merger with extremist right wing Republicanism is not really Christian at all, by biblical definition and principle of practice.  If I convince just one Evangelical Christian to do some critical thinking, biblical application and observation, and consider that the two things, Christianity and Republican party politics, are not the same thing, then I've succeeded.  And I have comments that I've receive which tell me that I have succeeded.

Wow, you're a real, progressive, liberal aren't you?  I guess you're a socialist, huh? 

I think the outcome of the past two elections have put the buzz-word socialism to rest for a little while.  Most people don't know what the word means, and equate it with dictatorial, political Marxism, which is nowhere near the same thing.  Realizing it's not possible to argue with ignorance, especially when it hangs up on a single point, my preference is for critics to believe what they want.  I leave plenty of explanations around for anyone who wants to make the effort to read and dispel their ignorance. 

I'm as progressive and liberal as the American founders who wrote a constitution to establish government of, by and for the people.  As far as being a socialist goes, I believe in universal health care accessible to all, financed by tax dollars as a basic human right, a "medicare for all" system like Canada has.  I believe in government funded, compulsory education for the purpose of "filling the need of our democracy for citizens and leaders who have the intellectual, social and emotional dispositions to think for themselves, hear other perspectives, ground their view in facts, maintain patience in the face of complexity and ambiguity and act on their convictions to provide insight, understanding and empathetic courageous leadership in addressing the pressing challenges of our times."* 

Is that socialism?  

I believe every American, regardless of their wealth or status, should pay their fair share of taxes, meaning an amount that is as equal a percentage of their income as those of less income and wealth pay.  I believe that the wealthier one is, the more they have benefitted from the protection provided by the government, both military protection of their property and legislative protection of their assets and profits, and they should bear the cost of that protection.  I believe there is something wrong with an economic system where the wealthiest 1% of the population pay a disproportionately small share of their income and sitting wealth in taxes.  They should pay a tax rate that is proportionate to the share of the benefit they get from the government, and there should be no way to have that deferred or excused.

I believe that it is government's responsibility, as a democracy, to use its assets and resources, as well as it's power, in any way that is constitutionally permitted, for the full benefit of its people, including economic regulation and control, especially to protect its human labor resources.  

Is that socialism?  Yes, that's a rhetorical question.  

One of the best examples of a socialist society is found in the book of Acts, starting with chapter 2.  Go take a look at that.  Then we'll talk. 

*Dan Frank, Administrator, Francis Parker School, Chicago, IL. in his greeting remarks to prospective parents.

There are all kinds of religions in the world, where's the objective proof for Christianity? 

I usually interpret these kinds of questions and comments as "How can you believe this stuff?"  

I've learned all the standard answers to the standard provocations.  I'm Christian by a combination of traditions which include family background, cultural and social influences, and educational influence.  I discovered, as a teenager, a sense of resentment and a stifling of my critical thinking skills resulting from three-point sermons by a preacher who supported his conclusions by attributing them to what "the Bible says" and then underlining his belief in its "inerrancy and infallibility."  There had to be more to it than that.  

A professor in college was the biggest influence in the way I now look at Christian faith.  Up to that point, my understanding of the Bible was reduced to a verse by verse book of commandments used by both my parents and my church pastor as a means to control behavior that they feared they couldn't control otherwise.  Pointing out, from a denominational doctrinal statement, the belief that "Jesus is the criteria by which all scripture is to be interpreted," he noted that Jesus taught the high level of importance of just two commandments.  One, to love God with all our being, and two, to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.  

Adherence to a set of doctrinal points discerned by human wisdom, via the same cultural and social influences that shaped my own early Christian experience leads to the conclusion that there's nothing to Christian faith.  But the substance of Christianity is found in those two commandments.  Belief in God, as a higher power prompts the incorporation and practice of real, life enhancing values and actions aimed at demonstrating our love for God by showing our love for our neighbor.  Jesus defined neighbor in broad terms that can be interpreted "fellow human beings."  And he didn't put any limits on what that involved.  

I don't see that as "go and win converts to your doctrinal and theological perspective," I see it as "go and do your best to use your gifts, abilities, talents and intellect to make the world a better place for the people who are your neighbors."  The practice of Christianity is the opposite of selfish.  It does not advocate for creating a system whereby its principles and practices can be enforced by law and controlled by whomever is in the best position to claim that kind of worldly power. Whenever that has happened in history, Christianity has lost its identity as a faith, and becomes apostate.  

Depending on perspective, the objective "proof" of Christianity is visible.  I like to cite examples from history, like Harriet Tubman and many others like her who dedicated themselves to rescuing people from the cruelty and sin of slavery.  Or the pastors and leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, like Dr. King, who insisted on maintaining integrity and personal dignity in holding on to their values with non-violent protest aimed at gaining equal rights, a struggle which continues and has become more necessary.  

I can't point to any specific objective fact that God exists any more than anyone else can point to one which proves he doesn't.  But as for being able to distinguish genuine Christian faith from something that uses the name for a different purpose and objective, that's much easier to do. 

Chicago Will Elect a Mayor and Council on February 28: Why That Matters to Democrats

Chicago, America's third largest city, with a population larger than 16 states, will elect a mayor and council on February 28.  With nine candidates in the mayor's race, including incumbent Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who is in a very tight race as a result of a low job approval rating, it is likely that the race will go to a runoff, and not be decided until April 4.  Chicago is dominated by the Democratic party, something like 70% of the registered voters in the city limits are Democrats, and the constituencies don't always line up like they do with ethnic and racial populations nationally.  

As a result of both the size of the city's population in relation to the cities and states that are in the same region, it's influence within the state of Illinois itself, including the power of the business and financial dealings in the city that dwarf the rest of the state, and the size of its influence on the nation's 6th most populous state, the most populous in the Midwest, what happens in Chicago city elections has an impact on the Democratic party in the region and in the country.  And this election is turning out to be a very interesting one.  

The incumbent mayor, Lori Lightfoot, ran four years ago as a genuine progressive during a time of police turmoil in the shadow of some high profile police incidents.  Lightfoot terminated the previous chief of police Eddie Johnson, who had only served three years, for cause, and hired David Brown, a former chief of the Dallas police, as a permanent replacement.  Brown hasn't been able to get a handle on internal difficulties, including shortages of personnel, and complaints about restrictions and disadvantages, and he and Lightfoot are paying a political price for an increase in the crime rate that isn't enough to make much of a media stir except for being against the backdrop of the violence that got out of hand following the George Floyd murder and after the COVID lockdown.  

Being Mayor of Chicago hasn't really been a political career launching position.  The city is so large, and has so much economic and political influence in the state of Illinois and in the whole upper Midwest, that the mayor's office ranks right up there with the governor and the state's two US Senators in terms of political influence.  If Lightfoot, who is the city's first African American LGBTQ mayor, and only the second female and third African American mayor of the city, had any political ambitions beyond this point, she hasn't said much in public, and the media hasn't speculated.  

But it is a very influential position among Democrats.  By its population alone, one out of four of the state's legislative districts lie completely within the city limits with another four districts representing parts of it.  Seven of the 17 congressional districts in Illinois contain a majority of their constituents in the city.  Three recent governors, one US senator and one former US President count themselves as Chicago Democrats.  

The two biggest issues that are unfolding in the mayor's race include the combination of police department reform and getting a handle on the crime rate, and on making significant changes in the city's public schools, which are managed by the municipal government.  There's an inequitable distribution of resources in the school system, and for a "world class city" that is a major hub of finance, corporate headquarters, manufacturing, agriculture, retail, and transportation, the schools are lacking the ability to help their students transition into the local job market at the executive level.  

There are nine candidates running.  In recent polling, Lightfoot leads the field, at 25%, with Paul Vallas, former school superintendent, surging close behind at 22%.  US Representative Chuy Garcia, the early frontrunner, has dropped to third, at 18%.  The only other candidate out of the nine with double figures in polling is Brandon Johnson, a local businessman and previous mayoral candidate, at 10%.  Only one of the candidates, Willie Wilson, is not a member of the Democratic party, he is an independent who is the preferred candidate of 9% of the voters.  Only 10% say they are undecided.  

Vallas would be the biggest departure from Lightfoot's progressive policies, and among the other Democrats in the field, has the weakest party credentials.  His presence in the campaign has attracted the interest of the gigantic Chicago Teachers Union, which fought against Lightfoot's COVID policies for schools.  The union has long advocated for an academic overhaul that would, among other things, bring a much larger vocational training presence in to the city schools, as well as focus heavily on skill levels where standardized test scores show the students are not making progress.  Vallas has a lot of supporters in the union, as the former school superintendent.  

Garcia, who now trails Lightfoot and Vallas in the polling, at 18%, has been connected to an investigation into former Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, and that is the likely reason for his drop in the polls as attack ads mentioning this contact have come from both Lightfoot and Vallas campaigns.  Polls show that a two-way race between Lightfoot and Garcia would favor the latter, while she has a slight edge in head-to-head polling over Vallas.  About 25% of Chicago voters are Latino, a constituency which heavily favors Garcia, but he actually has higher poll numbers among white voters, who make up over 35% of the electorate.  

Garcia is the second US congressman from the city to run for mayor in recent years.  Former Mayor Rahm Emanuel represented Illinois' 5th district, currently represented by Mike Quigley.  Garcia represents the 4th district, immediately to the south and east.  

There are no Republicans running in the mayor's race.  So the issues which drive Chicagoans to the polls are likely to have an influence on voters looking ahead to 2024.  The education issue is somewhat unique to the city, where the school system is not governed by an elected board, but by administrators chosen by the city council.  Because teachers are city employees, they are ultimately under the mayor's authority.  There has been a major push to change this structure in recent years and it ranks high on the list of voter's concerns.  Lightfoot claims, by statistical analysis, that certain categories of crime are actually down in the city, technically true, but the perception, because of high profile attacks randomly occurring in more affluent and safer neighborhoods, since COVID, do not help support that contention.  It is the top issue according to voters.  

When gas prices soared last summer, one of the candidates, the only independent, non-Democrat in the race, local businessman Willie Wilson, spend about $5 million by announcing gasoline give-aways at several stations scattered throughout the city.  Wilson claimed it was just to "help," not because he intended to run for mayor, which he announced later.  Wilson sits at 9% of the vote, which is about where he polls every time he decides to run for office.  He was a candidate for US Senate last November.  

Keep an eye on Chicago.  It will provide a wealth of campaign information for 2024.  

What the Chinese Balloon Incident Tells us About Conservatives

The three day episode of the "Chinese balloon"--for lack of a better descriptive term, that's what I'll call it--has been an eye opener as far as right wing politics goes.  It reminded me of the childhood tale of Chicken Little, and that's a very accurate analogy of the reaction of many conservatives who went to the media with their opinion of how this should be handled, and how they wanted to claim the Biden administration wasn't handling it.  

Let's Put Some Perspective On This

The United States entered the space age with a rocket launch in 1958 and put a human being in space in 1961.  Since then, the rapid development of American space exploration and technology has sent probes to the far reaches of the solar system, put human beings on the moon, and has developed and placed hundreds of satellites in orbit around the planet with massive capacity for communication.  

If you think the Air Force, or NASA, or any intelligence branch of the government, was not exactly certain about any of the radio signals, messages or whatever communication the equipment being carried by this balloon was doing, then you are living in a Chicken Little world.  If it had actually posed a security threat, you can bet the Air Force would have shot it down before it entered American air space.  Somewhere, there's information on everything the equipment attached to that balloon was doing, intercepted, decoded and reported to wherever it needed to go.  

Republicans Think Their Constituents are the Most Stupid People in the World 

The kind of propaganda and messaging that goes from Republican leadership to their voting constituents sends a very clear message.  The party leadership thinks that their voting base is bottomless in the depth of their ignorance and stupidity.  They say the most outlandish things, and expect their base to buy it hook line and sinker.  And most of the base does, without giving it any thought at all, because that would require intelligence, education and common sense, qualities that are sorely lacking in Republican politics nowadays. 

How much sense does it make to holler about shooting it down, and at the same time, some of the same people are claiming that it was some kind of biological weapon, loaded with anthrax or more coronavirus or maybe even fentanyl.  So, as it floats over Montana, shoot it down, so that there's a chance the pieces come to earth in Billings, or in some small town, unleashing whatever biological weapon the Chinese put inside.  Even if it fell in the wide open spaces, it wouldn't be a good idea to shoot down and release whatever potential biological agent lurked inside.  

Can Republicans not see the contradiction in their flawed conspiracy theories?  If they can't then they are, indeed, living in a Chicken Little world where the sky is about to fall. 

Then there's the risk of having it fall on people.  Sure, I know that Montana is big sky country, small population, ten times more cows than people.  But if the odds are 1 in 1000 that a balloon that size would smash through the roof of someone's home, or hit cars on a highway, or drop onto the playground of a school, and the danger from the balloon is not apparent, then the plan to let it get out over a large body of water, preferably the ocean, and then shoot it down, makes the most sense.  Since that's exactly what happened, we can give the Biden administration credit for doing the right thing, and the conservatives yelling about shooting it down, including Trump Sr. and Jr., criticism for looking like foolish idiots who didn't get an intelligence briefing.  "Trump" and "intelligence" is an oxymoron. 

Even for a country like China, which is rapidly developing technology, it seems that a balloon, slowly floating over the United States at about 60,000 feet, would be a much less effective and efficient way to spy and gather intelligence.  We have satellite technology that is so sensitive and accurate, it can listen in to conversations taking place in venues hundreds of miles away from the source.  The FBI actually has on display in their museum spy equipment that can pinpoint and listen in on conversations from a satellite, and there's not much on the surface of the earth now that hasn't been repeatedly photographed by high tech cameras and surveillance.  Our country has some of the most sophisticated spy technology on this planet.  My guess is that they know exactly what China is up to with this balloon technology. 

An Experienced President Who Knew Exactly What to Do

President Biden's reaction was neither understated nor an over-reaction.  Like any good President would do, and so unlike what his predecessor would do, he relied on his military experts to deal with the situation, inform him, get back to him, and follow his instructions, which were to wait until it got over the open water before shooting it down.  

And there is the difference between a seasoned and experienced President like Biden, and an incompetent, inexperienced, selfish, agenda driven failure like his predecessor.  Tonight, the pieces of the balloon and the equipment it was carrying are secured in a facility in Virginia somewhere, where they will be examined as closely as possible.  

After seeing Trump Sr. and Trump Jr. try to make a political issue out of this today, I am doubly glad Biden won the election and Trump did not.  

Thank You, President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer

Thank you, with all of the gratitude I can muster, for your work in ensuring that the inflation legislation got through before the party of NO! took control of the House.  Let me tell you just how your work has been such a benefit and a blessing to me.  

I take two kinds of insulin, and two kinds of cardiac medication due to developing type 2 diabetes in my early 50's and having an arrhythmia from a bad case of pneumonia back in my late 20's.  The cost to me has varied, depending on my employer-provided insurance, something Democrats have advocated for and supported for as long as I remember.  

Last fall, I went on Medicare.  I have all of the parts necessary for the prescription coverage, hospitalization, it's good insurance.  However, I got a scare when I tried to refill my insulin, found out that neither kind I take is on the insurance formulary for coverage, and the deductible and cost of the daily dose that I take came out to just over $1,000.  Now that's a ridiculous profiteering price for any kind of medication, and we all know that.  But the manufacturer and retailer have everyone over a barrel with the price.  Then, my other brand also ran low, and the deductible and cost came to over $300 for that.  

But, picking up the phone and calling my provider led to the discovery that the price limits of $35, put on insulin costs in one of those wonderful inflation fighting bills that the Democrats got through Congress, will apply to me, on Medicare, and that there are three key people to whom I owe my debt of gratitude, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, along with my wonderful Representative Mike Quigley, and one of my favorite members of the House, Ruben Gallego of my home state of Arizona.  

This is exactly the kind of issue government is intended to resolve.  And this is exactly the kind of representation and government that benefits the people, who empower it.  It makes me proud to be a Democrat and even more committed than ever to make sure I do my part to make sure all of these people continue to represent us.  It also makes me committed to do my part to make sure that those who are only self-interested and agenda driven are not elected to office.  I won't cast a ballot for a Republican.  

Maybe Mortgage Payments Motivated Johnny Hunt's Quick Return to the Ministry

Former Southern Baptist Convention President and Pastor Johnny Hunt, who was a prominent megachurch pastor in Woodstock, Georgia, an Atlanta suburb, who was exposed in an investigation into sexual abuse within the SBC, has recently returned to the ministry.  Hunt, whose sexual assault allegation was confirmed as "reliable" in an investigation commissioned by the Southern Baptist Convention at its annual meeting in Nashville in 2021, involved an assault on another pastor's wife.  Four of his very close, good friends, also pastors of SBC churches, allegedly conducted a "restoration" process with Hunt, and after a very short time, and a process which did not include either his victim, the church he once pastored, or anyone from the SBC's North American Mission Board, for whom he served as a Senior Vice-President.  

To their credit, many SBC leaders, including its current President Bart Barber, a Texas pastor, have criticized the announcement of Hunt's restoration, pointing out that lacks any Biblical support or merit, did not follow any pattern of restoration found in the Bible, or used by churches in such instances. What it looks like is a group of his close, personal friends, some "good-ole-boys," decided to help him get back in the saddle, or on the gravy train that financially benefits the big-name, well-known, well-connected megachurch pastors with high dollar guest speaking appearances, prominent positions in denominational institutions that have big salaries and require little effort or work, and Bible conference headliners.  

And in true, good-ole-boy, back slapping, glad-handing tradition, Hunt's abbreviated restoration led right straight into appearances in prominent SBC pulpits with big honorariums and being the headliner at conferences which give out generous fees for speakers and presenters.  

But..It's Not About the Money...Right? 

Julie Roys: Rags to Riches Johnny Hunt Owns Three Homes

Of course not.  Hunt made a mistake, adopted the typical excuse, that he was misrepresented and that he was paying a price for "judgmental attitudes in our culture."  He said that he just wanted to get back to what he was called by God to do, because "it has been hard to keep that fire under cap for the past nine months."  

Nine months.  It does seem a little bit out of the ordinary that someone who was credibly accused of a sexual assault could go through a real, biblically-prescribed, "restoration" process in order to side step the consequences of his actions and go back to preaching the Christian gospel as if nothing ever happened and he's still the same guy he was before, pronounced that way, not by objective observers applying a genuinely Christian process of repentance, but by four close friends who expect favors from him in return.  

Barber said, "I would permanently defrock Hunt if I had the authority to do so."  In the Southern Baptist Convention, churches are independent and autonomous from denominational control, and can choose whomever they please to ordain, to fill their pulpit, lead their church or headline a high-dollar conference gathering.  Barber's view is the correct Biblical perspective on Hunt's actions.  

"No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God. Luke 9:62, NIV 

Those are the words of Jesus, and if they are correctly and contextually applied, it means that a pastor can do something which is disqualifying from ministry service.  It doesn't mean they can't be forgiven, but in Christian practice, forgiveness does not change the consequences of one's actions.  Hunt has lost all credibility as far as his preaching and teaching goes with a confessing Christian community.  I don't care if he is on fire to preach, or to use the fat fees he gets to help pay his mortgage bills.  Forgiven, yes.  Qualified for the ministry, no.  

But apparently, his "fire" for preaching is motivated by a much more worldly reason.  At least, when he's filling the pulpit of one of his four friends, he can stay in his million dollar beachfront home and not have to worry about some of his honorarium going to pay for a hotel room.  

Southern Baptists--Please Explain this Conduct

SBC Executive Committee Member Makes More Sexually Crude Social Media Posts

Heresy and Apostasy are "Church Terms," but They Describe What Happens When Extremist Right Wing Politics Takes Over a Christian Congregation

Last week, an invitation to become Facebook friends with a former colleague of mine popped up in my account.  I use Facebook to keep up with family, friends, and some former students and this colleague taught with me in the same high school social studies department.  There were actually three of us in the department, I was the chairperson, but this colleague and I had the responsibility for an annual class trip to Washington, DC.  

Initially, we got along well and worked well together.  We had common interests in the details of the Civil War, including participating in battlefield re-enactments, had a similar approach to the classroom instruction of history and we both coached basketball.  We also shared, at least on the surface, membership in the same Evangelical denomination, though we went to different churches.  

Through planning for the trip to Washington, we discovered we were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and that resulted in his turn away from a friendly demeanor back to a professional one with faint hints of contempt here and there.  It took a while to figure out that it wasn't just a few cultural issues that was the driving force behind his politics, it was Christian nationalism.  

He believed, because it was taught in his church, that God intended for America to be a Christian nation, not a full democracy, and that was what the founders attempted to write into the Constitution.  According to him, Christians were destined to rule the country, that's why God protected the white, European settlers who came here, and let them take over the continent and exploit its untouched natural resources for the riches they produced, in order to make the world a better place.  Doing so, according to their theology, will usher in the return of Jesus Christ.  

After realizing that he wasn't going to consider any other view, and would go to the same prooftexts in the Bible over and over, telling me on more than one occasion that appealing to the original language and context of scripture was a scheme of Satan designed to divert people from the truth, I just dropped those ends of the conversation and focused our conversations on teaching history.  Even that was a struggle, because of the way he treated anyone who didn't share his politics.  

We really had an issue when it came to planning the Washington trip for the students.  The National Holocaust Museum was on the itinerary, approved by the administration.  He wanted to skip it and take a side trip to the Antietam and Gettysburg battlefields.  Going to the Holocaust museum was a half-day, so we didn't do side trips out of the city.  The whole time we were in the museum, he was a problem.  He was obviously angry, making inappropriate comments to parents and students.  He refused to participate in the primary museum objective, of receiving a small booklet like a passport with the name of a Jewish holocaust victim seeing the exhibits through that perspective, turning the pages to view the person's experience, and then revealing, at the end, whether the person whose name was on the booklet, survived or was murdered. 

He left the school at the end of that year, and I had only seen him a couple of times, in the community, until I moved away.  So I was a little bit surprised to get his friend invitation.  But after a few of his posts have popped up on my newsfeed, I knew why.  He's still a Christian nationalist, perhaps even more intensely than before, and he posts in an apparent effort to recruit others to his cause, or convince them of its truthfulness.  He reposts conspiracy theories, photographs that seem to support phony accusations against the "deep state," clips from his pastor's sermons that are full of racist hate and vitriol, and one of his favorites seems to be photos of hundreds of illegals crossing the border.  

It made it very easy to "unfriend" him. 

Twisted Theology

Some of the posts were video clips from the church where he is a member.  It's a small, fundamentalist Baptist congregation, about 50 people, and its pulpit is being used to proclaim extremist politics, blending them with select passages from the Bible, mostly the Old Testament, to create a heretical perspective for the purpose of political motivation.  It's hard to determine, from the video clips, whether there's any real preaching and teaching of the Christian gospel, but with this sort of preview, my conclusion is that the Christian gospel is not being preached at all, it is, rather, being re-defined. 

The conspiracy theories and "deep state" reports are provably false.  The Bible verses they use are taken completely out of their context, which is typical of fundamentalist Christians, even before the nationalism infected their theology.  Christian worship in these churches can't be discerned or recognized, they have become political rallies.  

The social media posts have nothing to do with catching up with what they're doing.  They're using social media as a recruiting and informing platform.  Before I unfriended my former colleague, there was no social chatter or keeping up with what's going on in his life.  I doubt a personal message would have received a response and the content of his posts comes from somewhere else. 

The moment these churches step into extremism, they lose their Christian identity.  Like the state churches which they claim preach heresy and are apostate, they, too, deny the power of God and try to use the power of government to advance their mission and purpose, which is their own empowerment and dominance, and has nothing to do at all with God or with Jesus Christ.  

Jesus set the tone for his true church when he refused to accept the political rule of the world offered to him by Satan, in his time of temptation, recorded in Matthew's gospel.  The moment a church seeks political power and influence, it ceases to be a church and it loses its original mission and purpose.  Claiming that the United States was founded to be a nation dominated and controlled by white Christians for the purpose of ushering in the second coming of Jesus is not a Biblical doctrine, it is heresy and it is how churches are being hijacked and rendered ineffectuve as the real satan does expect.