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

Franklin Graham Threatens to Sue Evangelicals for Harris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Franklin Graham wants to sue them to stop it.  

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

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

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

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

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

Why?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is where they part company with Trump.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Huge Dilemma for Conservative Evangelicals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MSNBC on Jack Smith's new filing with Judge Chutkin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dobson Still Warning of Doom if a Democrat is Elected

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

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

But he was no prophet.  

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

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

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

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

Here's the Load of Bull

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Trump, Now Vance, Flips on Abortion Rights, Selling Out Their Evangelical Constituency

In both of the debates that have occurred since Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee for President, the Republican candidates have completely shifted their position on abortion rights.  

In his debate with Harris, when the subject came up, Trump claimed he wasn't sure how he would vote on Florida's referendum to make abortion legal, up to a point, in the state.  He made it very clear that he appointed three judges to the Supreme Court committed to overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, though all three lied to Congress about their position that it was "the settled law of the land."  But now he is saying that he never meant for that to cause a national abortion ban, only that he "and everybody" wanted it in the states.  And he clearly stated that six weeks was too short a period of time to cut off the ability to get an abortion.  

"That's not long enough," he said, when Harris made mention of the fact that most women don't even know they're pregnant at six weeks.  

Clearly, this is not what conservative Evangelicals have in mind, given their support for a man they claim was "sent by God" specifically to end abortion rights in the United States.  They've taken a beating, been labelled as hypocrites for supporting a man who is an incessant liar, who gropes women and brags about it, who has had five children with three different wives, to whom he has been unfaithful, who pays for sex with porn stars, and who incites violence, and who has denied their own faith by claiming he has done nothing requiring God's forgiveness.  That's a big sacrifice to make for a single political issue, and now, both Trump, and his VP running mate J.D. Vance, have acknowledged that they are fine with each state deciding whether abortion can be legal or not, and for how long during a pregnancy an abortion can be performed.  

Last night, when pressed, Vance denied he had previously called for a national abortion ban and went back to the "states have the right to determine this issue" argument.  Of course, that was a lie.  It was a central theme of his campaign for Senate in Ohio.  But then, this is the guy who once compared Trump to Hitler, and who declared him to be the worst President in American history.  It's been easy to see that he is a slimy, lying opportunist, which is how he made his fortune and why he is attracted to Trump.  But during last night's debate, Vance went out of his way, using the example of California, who, he said, is a state that "thinks differently" on the issue and should have the ability to determine what it will do.  And he covered it all up with a lot of evasive language to change the subject.  

The pro-life position is the centerpiece for conservative, Evangelical support for Republican candidates for the Presidency, the overturning of the Roe decision being their aim ever since the Reagan administration. It's the decisive single issue for a majority of conservative Evangelicals, and is the cornerstone for the fact that a clear majority of their number join the Republican party and sometimes accept positions on other issues that run contrary to the convictions and principles of their faith, particularly economic policy, to show their Republican solidarity.  

And the national ban on all abortions, with no window of opportunity for a choice to be made, is their goal, and always has been.  It's a political goal that they idolize, and that's a correct description of their attitude toward it.  

If I had invested the kind of time, effort, money, support, into the Trump candidacy that most of his conservative, Evangelical supporters have done, and made sacrifices of the reputation and integrity of my faith to continue to support this adulterous, lying, woman-groping reprobate who pays porn stars to sleep with him, incites violence and is a pathological liar, I'd be mighty damned upset this morning, after hearing Vance echo Trump's support for states being allowed to determine whether abortion is a woman's healthcare right.  That's not what they've believed this former President would say, or support.  

So here's the question I want to ask today.  Will they continue to sell their soul to the devil, now that they are not getting anything at all in return?  Not only have they had this issue walked back on them, after they thought they'd won when the courts ruled on Dobbs, but both Trump and Vance, in debate responses to questions, have completely abandoned any reference to, or support for Project 2025, something that has their fingerprints all over it. So the one thing that I believe is the real attraction for far right extremist Evangelicals, Project 2025 and a white supremacist, Christian nationalist regime brought into reality by Trump, also appears to be off the table, at least for now.  

Do they have the integrity to stand up for what they claim to believe, and walk away from their support for Trump because he has thrown them under the bus when he realized how much this issue motivates voters to support his opponent?  Or will they have the integrity to do the right thing, and not give him their votes in November?  

The eight years of unqualified support given by political conservative Evangelicals for a worldly man who holds none of their values or beliefs, uses them only for their votes, and whose lifestyle violates every principle and commandment of their faith has left their reputation in a shambles.  It's made it impossible for people to trust them on anything, especially the Christian gospel they claim to preach.  How many of them will simply ignore this, or attempt to justify it by twisting even more of the Bible out of its intended meaning than they already have?  Who, among their self-appointed "leaders" will stand up to Trump and tell him that they're not voting for him unless he tells the truth and supports their position?  

How many of them really have sold their soul, and find themselves in a place where it's too late to get it back?  And if that's the case, and they have sold their soul, is this just more lying, duplicitous rhetoric from Trump and Vance aimed at reclaiming their lost moderate Republican and independent voter constituency?

 

It's Fall and We Need to Feel the Chill in the Air...

I'm well aware that daytime temperatures are still climbing above 100 degrees out west, in Phoenix, Las Vegas, and poor Laughlin and Bullhead City.  But it is October, and whether the weather is showing a little bit of a fall chill or not, I think some Democrats are in need of a little bit of one.  

This election season is intense.  We know what is at stake.  We saw this man serve in the Presidency for four years and it was a disaster.  Then we saw January 6th, and we know he has no respect for the law, the Constitution, anything, in fact, except his own interests, all of which involve money.  We know that American democracy as we know it will be destroyed systematically by letting him back in the White House.  

We are aware of his attempts to suppress the vote, and of all of the potential damage that will be done to our country if he is elected.  He has threatened, bullied, and his antics have attracted media attention like no other subversive personality in American history.  The fact that he is now the three time nominee of the Republican party, twice impeached, with felony convictions, awaiting sentencing and two trials is an indication that something is seriously wrong with our politics, and the only fix we have is to vote him down once again, this time in such a way that a clear message is sent to the GOP.  Don't do this again!  

And that has created a level of political stress like I've never seen before.  We're stressing out at everything, we're envisioning doom and gloom scenarios as if there is no hope, we're grasping at straws, fearing the worst, trembling at every blip in the polls, scanning them for information that, frankly, isn't there and that they're not going to provide.  

It's time to sit back, take a deep breath, let it out, and relax.  Chill for a moment.  Breathe in again, and relax.  There, I hope that feels better.  

She's going to win this.  It should make all of us feel better realizing that Biden was going to win this, too.  How do I know?  Well, not by worrying and hand wringing over the polls. 

Do some observing.  What's out there?  A Republican candidate who is so desperate, that he's not even paying attention to what he, or his running mate says.  It's a scattershot attempt at trying to pull his base together.  He's lost a lot of support along the margins, a lot of those voters who, because of party affiliation and some sort of vague sense of identity that goes with it, were going to hold their nose and vote Republican, but are giving that a long, hard look themselves.  In spite of some billionaire PAC money, they aren't finding it easy to gain contributions, leaving Trump to grift for money by selling stuff.  

Harris, on the other hand, took in half a billion in September, and the Democrats have enough to make it rain in all 50 states. Her poll numbers, for those who take that seriously, have increased ever since she's been in the race, and if the media is loathe to make known the fact that she is consistently leading in the battleground states as well as nationally, they've had to report her approval rating, double digits ahead of his, and her rising numbers on the only two issues where he has an advantage at all, though not enough to win it, the economy and the border.  

She's offering realistic solutions to problems.  He's whining about them.  

We're stressing about everything.  There's shooting in the Middle East and we're stressed over how that will affect the election.  There's a hurricane that turned into a tropical storm that devastated the hollers of the Appalachian South and we're stressed about how that effects the election.  A deep red Republican pollster defies the majority and becomes an outlier in Trump's favor and there's panic.  

Relax.  It's going to be OK. 

The fact that so many Democrats, independents and Republicans who have publicly declared they're abandoning Trump are worrying about this election is a good sign, and an indicator that we are going to have a huge turnout.  That's a good sign.  Heck, having celebrity endorsements helps, too, it all goes together.  

Heck, even a couple of the composite pollsters, usually dark and gloomy in their forecasts, are thinking that Democrats have a better chance at keeping control of the senate than we may have thought.  

So relax, lay down, take a nap, get up and play a game on your computer.  It'll help big time.  Things are looking good, don't worry about it.   

 

 

Leaving American Evangelicalism Behind, With All its Flawed Politics and False Theology

Salon: An Exvangelical on the Implosion of His Faith  

"Theology is not necessarily the defining characteristic of evangelicalism.  Whiteness, capitalism and power helped to develop an evangelical industry.  The theology takes a back seat.  That may not be the case for every single person that uses the term "evangelical."  But conservative, white Evangelicals act in a particular way and that deserves our attention.  It deserves to be criticized within those terms, as much as whether they live up to their espoused theological beliefs.--Blake Chastain, podcast host, author, Exvangelical and Beyond: How American Christianity Went Radical and the Movement That's Fighting Back.

My own experience involved being raised in an Evangelical church.  Growing up, church was something that happened every week for as long as I remember, and that included the nursery and toddler class in the small, Southern Baptist churches where my parents were members.  And because it was a routine, and was a large part of our family life, it included Sunday school and worship on Sunday morning, a class in church polity and doctrine called "Training Union" on Sunday evening, followed by another worship service, and then missions groups and prayer meeting on Wednesday night.  

When I went to college, choosing a university that was affiliated with the state branch of the Southern Baptist denomination, I discovered quite a contrast between the doctrine and theology taught there, based on the historical and cultural contexts of virtually every part of the Bible, and the simple, folk religion I had grown up with in the church, which included the required intellectual assent to specific doctrines that were "must haves" in order to be truly Christian, according to them.  That included accepting the belief that the text of the sixty-six books accepted as the "Protestant" Bible were without error in transmission and infallible in being the "sole authority for faith and practice," interpreted from a literal rendering of the Biblical text.  

So all of the history behind the writing of those books of the Bible, the myriads of differing cultural contexts which occurred while it was being written, is all basically ignored by a literal reading of the text in English, even King James English, which some conservatives believe is the original language of the Bible, and which large swaths of conservative, fundamentalist churches teach is "the preserved word of God in English."  So, in most conservative, Evangelical churches in the United States, the theology and doctrine upon which the practice of Christianity is based is not the Bible itself, but on the effects and circumstances of American cultural influences, especially those resulting from revivalist movements like the two "Great Awakenings" and various movements that sprang up during the westward expansion of the country.

No Surprises Here, That Superstitious Folk Religion is Connected to Populist Politics

Truth, in the form of objective facts, is the enemy of superstition.  The Southern Baptists among whom I grew up had a strong, anti-intellectual bias, which eventually became focused against its own colleges and universities, most of which had been founded to provide an educated clergy for areas of the frontier where there was a huge need.  Challenging commonly held beliefs and superstitions in local churches is not easy, especially when the superstitious are the ones who are in control of the church, and some of them sit on the trustee boards that run the colleges, universities and seminaries.  

The bottom line is that it has become more about the power to control than it has been over theology and doctrine, which doesn't interest the average pew sitter in the church.  A lot of pastors have been moved along to a different career by elder and deacon leadership in the churches who terminate their tenure for the slightest hint of educated liberalism.  The colleges and universities have been able to survive, largely by changing their governance structure to self-perpetuating boards of alumni who protect the school from conservatives intent on enforcing their own doctrinal positions.  A few schools haven't been so lucky, but most weren't really dependent on the financial contribution from the denomination anyway, a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue they needed to remain viable, which comes from students paying tuition and from alumni donors who are loyal to the school and who have an education that helps them get past religious superstition. 

But, it's those engaged in the practice of Christian folk religion who also connect with populist politics.  The distrust of institutions is something they have in common, the belief that the world around them is going to hell in a handbasket and they must stick together and try to fight it off, whether it's liberalism in the form of educational institutions, or liberalism in the form of government.  

Don't Believe for One Minute That Trump Believes Any Religious Doctrine or Cares About Those Who Support Him That Do Believe

Trump's lifestyle is his clearest expression of his complete and total denial of any kind of religious belief, Christian, cult or pagan.  There's no evidence here of his belief in the existence of any kind of god, because he elevates himself to the highest place of importance in his universe, and that's what he cares about.  If he has to give away a few insignificant political points, like supporting the religious right's opposition to abortion, he'll do that as long as he benefits the most in return.  

He's shown some willingness to throw his Evangelical supporters under the bus as he has realized his stances on abortion, and his helping by appointing the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, have cost him large numbers of votes.  He's also openly denied having anything to do with Project 2025, though his fingerprints are all over it, because when it leaked out prior to the RNC, it also wound up costing him votes, ultimately a lot of them.  It hasn't really dented his MAGA base much, but he can't win on the strength of their votes alone, and he has lost a significant number of votes among independents, and among members of his own party who aren't so much in the MAGA base.  

He basically figured out, once he got politically conservative Evangelicals in his back pocket, that their "theology" is cultural, not doctrinal.  "Whiteness," and the idea that the United States was once a Christian nation that must be "take back" are their theological and doctrinal pillars, not anything that Jesus said or taught, is where they invest their faith practice.  And they've come up with several points aimed at nullifying Jesus and putting Trump in his place, including the cliche, "God sometimes uses evil men to achieve his purposes."  That's theological heresy.  

In the Christian gospel, Jesus is the man God sent to achieve his purposes.  Claiming that Trump is doing this is idolatry, by definition, but those who make the claim know nothing of the significance or importance of this theological point.  They are making Trump into their savior, which is a denial of who Jesus was, something the Apostle John calls "antichrist." [I John 4:1-3]  

Joining the Ranks of the Exvangelicals

For me, personally, setting aside the theocratic heresies of populist Evangelicalism occurred way back in the 1980's, when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were pushing their own organizations, or "ministries" as they call their profit-making enterprise, to get right wing conservative Evangelicals to vote for Ronald Reagan.  It was pretty easy to see that what they were claiming to offer wasn't Christian, especially since Reagan was no saint compared to his opponent, Jimmy Carter, who was perhaps the single most genuine, sincere practicing Christian ever to occupy the White House.  

It's a good feeling to wake up in the morning, go to bed at night, and not be worried about the eternal destiny of my soul based on the way I've chosen to cast my vote.