I’ll End This Debate Right Here: Jesus Was Not a Socialist

kirk

It looks like Liberty University’s Falkirk Center wants to stage a debate between Charlie Kirk and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove over whether Jesus was a socialist.  Here is a taste of Jack Jenkins’s piece at Religion News Service:

Charlie Kirk says no. But the Rev. Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove says Jesus is more complicated than that.

Kirk and Wilson-Hartgrove may square off soon at a proposed debate to be hosted by the new Falkirk Center for Faith and Liberty at Liberty University. 

On Thursday (Dec. 12), the Twitter account of the newly created conservative think tank posted a challenge to Wilson-Hartgrove, a progressive faith leader in North Carolina, offering to host a debate over whether Jesus was a socialist.

The tweet stipulated that the debate would be conducted between Wilson-Hartgrove and Kirk, the 26-year-old co-founder of the Falkirk Center and head of the conservative group Turning Point USA.

The tweet said both parties would also include one other participant of their choosing.

Wilson-Hartgrove, a pastor and author of “Revolution of Values: Reclaiming Public Faith for the Common Good,” responded by accepting the challenge and offering up prominent progressive activist the Rev. William Barber II as his partner.

However, he also appeared to reject the premise of the debate.

“Socialism emerged in the 19th (century) as a critique of capitalism, which didn’t exist in 1st century Palestine,” he tweeted. “But if (Charlie Kirk) & Falwell are up for a public conversation about what the Lord requires of us in public life, (the Rev. William Barber) & I are ready.”

Read the entire piece here.

Was Jesus a socialist?  No. Socialism did not exist until the 19th century.  I thus agree with Wilson-Hartgrove.  The entire premise of the debate is flawed.  It looks like the Falkirk’s Center’s attempt to re-educate Americans about United States history is off to a good start.

Most Popular Posts of the Last Week

Here are the most popular posts of the last week at The Way of Improvement Leads Home:

  1. How Have Things Been Going at Liberty University’s Falkirk Center?
  2. Robert Jeffress is an Embarrassment to Evangelical Christianity
  3. Senior Editor at The American Conservative: “The Case for Impeachment is Overwhelming”
  4. Rudy Giuliani’s Spokesperson is a 20-Year Old Ambassador for Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Falkirk Center
  5. The Number of Court Evangelicals is Growing
  6. Liberty University Falkirk Center Announces “Falkirk Fellows”
  7. Trump’s Narcissism is Again Revealed as the House Announces Articles of Impeachment
  8. 19th-Century Evangelicals on the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
  9. The Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton Articles of Impeachment
  10. “There is no functioning, stable, globalized world of the future without the humanities”

What to the Slave Was Christmas?

Slaves on Plantation

Robert May, a historian of Purdue University, has an interesting piece about Christmas tours of Southern plantation that do not acknowledge how the slaves on those plantations experienced Christmas.  Here is a taste of his piece at The Conversation: “Slave life’s harsh realities are erased in Christmas tours of Southern plantations”:

I read many documents to find out how slaves actually spent their Christmases. The truth is deeply disturbing.

On the one hand, the majority of enslaved people did get some them time off from work during Christmas, as well as feasts and presents. Some got to travel or to get married, privileges that they didn’t get at other times of the year. But these privileges could be withdrawn for any reason at all and many slaves never got them at all.

Slavery was a brutal system of forced labor to enrich those same owners. Even over the holiday, masters kept the power to punish slaves. A photo taken during the Civil War shows a man who was whipped at Christmas. His back was covered with scars, showing that when masters punished the people they held in bondage, they often did so brutally.

There were other cruel forms of punishment. On one South Carolina plantation, a master angry at an enslaved woman he suspected of miscarrying her pregnancy on purpose locked her up for the Christmas holiday.

Masters sometimes forced enslaved workers to get drunk even if they did not want to drink, or wrestle with each other on Christmas simply for the amusement of the master’s family.

Likewise, I learned in my research, slaveholders bought and sold plenty of people over the holiday, keeping slave traders busy during Christmas week.

Read the entire piece here.

The Number of Court Evangelicals is Growing

Worship Leaders

Last week the number of court evangelicals increased dramatically as the White House invited evangelical worship leaders to meet Donald Trump.  Thanks to Dr. Andy Rowell, a professor at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, for identifying some of the worship leaders who appear with Trump in the above photo:

  1. Paula White-Cain (and husband Jonathan Cain met the night before Dec 5, 2019 at the White House with Trump supporters Jentezen FranklinMarcus LambJoni LambHarry Jackson)
  2. Brian Houston (Hillsong Church pastor) Instagram video and instagram of seanfeucht
  3. Kari Jobe (Carnes) (traveling worship leader, was at Gateway Church, Southlake TX, with Trump supporter, Pastor Robert Morris)
  4. Cody Carnes (traveling worship leader, was at Gateway Church, Southlake TX, with Trump supporter, Pastor Robert Morris) Instagram video
  5. Brian Johnson (President of Bethel Music, Redding, CA) Instagram of seanfeucht (His father, Bethel Church pastor, Bill Johnson voted for Trump).
  6. Jenn Johnson (co-founder Bethel Music, Redding, CA)
  7. Britt Nicole (traveling singer)
  8. Sean Feucht (Bethel Music, Redding, CA) Instagram group photo and another photo and video
  9. Stephen James Hart (Visual Worship Leader, Bethel Music, Redding, CA) Instagram group shot.
  10. Luke Hendrickson (Mixing engineer, Bethel Church, Redding, CA) Instagram group shot.
  11. Heather Armstrong (photography, Redding, CA)
  12. Kiley Goodpasture (Project Manager, Bethel Music, Redding, CA)
  13. Dominic Shahbon (Director of Events, Bethel Music, Redding, CA)
  14. Allison & Antonio Marin (Strings players, Northern CA)
  15. Jeremy Edwardson (Music producer, Redding CA)
  16. David Funk (Worship leader – Gable Price and Friends, Redding, CA)
  17. Chris Quilala (Jesus Culture, Sacramento, CA)
  18. Joseph Zwanziger (The Father’s House, Vacaville, CA) Instagram group shot.
  19. Tosha Zwanziger 
  20. Terry Crist (Lead Pastor, Hillsong Phoenix) (Not 100% sure he was there)
  21. Michael Stampley (Worship leader, GA)
  22. Heidi Stampley
  23. Micah Stampley
  24. Trent Cory (Hope City United Church, Albany, GA)
  25. Keisha Cory 
  26. Myles Rutherford (co-pastors, Worship with Wonders, Marietta, GA) and group shot
  27. DeLana Rutherford 
  28. David Brinson (Senior Pastor, Eighth Day Church, Warner Robins, GA who worked with Paula White)
  29. & son Rafael Brinson 
  30. Tim Brinson (Worship Leader, SC and GA)
  31. (Jonathan) Ernstly Etienne, Worship Director, Free Chapel, Gainesville, GA (associated with Trump supporter, Pastor Jentezen Franklin)
  32. Hillary Harper Etienne
  33. Eddie James (traveling worship leaders, Ocoee, TN) Instagram group shot.
  34. David Binion (Dwell Church, Fairview, TX)
  35. Nicole Binion (not 100% sure if she was there – photo)
  36. Nayomi Thomas (worship leaders, Raymore, MO)
  37. & Jaye Thomas 
  38. Bryn Waddell, Charlotte, NC.
  39. Two women from New Wine Music. selfie. (associated with Trump supporter, Pastor Guillermo Maldonado of El Rey Jesús, in Miami, FL). 
  40. Jonathan Williams, photographer

These Nashville worship leaders loved it:

I think former Christianity Today managing editor and evangelical writer Katelyn Beaty sums it up pretty well:

Here is what I wrote about power in Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump:

The court evangelicals have been shown “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Matt 4:8-10); but, unlike Jesus in his encounter with the Tempter, they have gladly embraced them.  Evangelicals claim to follow a Savior who relinquished worldly power–even to the point of giving his life. Yet they continue to place their hope in political candidates as a means of advancing an agenda that confuses the kingdom of God with the United States of America.  Evangelicals often decry the idea of “separation of church and state” (although as we will see in chapter 2, they have not always thought this way), but this constitutional principle has always served as a safeguard to protect the church from the temptations that come with worldly power.  Political scientist Glenn Tinder says that power is a “morally problematic” idea because it almost always induces “others to serve one’s own purposes.”  In the sense that political power objectifies other human beings, it is a “degraded relationship if judged by the standards of love.”  Political power does not have to result in immoral ends, but it nearly always does due to the fallenness of human beings and brokenness of a world stained by sin.  Humility, on the other hand, is always centered on the cross of Jesus Christ, a political act that ushered in a new kind of political entity–the kingdom of God.  Humility thus requires listening, debate, conversation, and dialogue that respects the dignity of all God’s human creation.  What would it take to replace the pursuit of power with humility?

Here is Rowell:

It is entirely appropriate to pray for a president. The problem is if the powerful person “receiving prayer” is primarily using the pray-er to reach their constituency on his behalf. In other words, there likely was not an opportunity to speak truth to power to President Trump. But rather, the strategy is to sell these worship leaders (who have big Instagram followings) with a one-sided “Look at what Trump is doing for evangelicals!” so that they then turn and communicate to their fans: “President Trump and his administration are people passionate about worship and prayer, just like you! And therefore, you should defend President Trump and try to see the good in what he does. And you should vote for him!”

It is of course initially exciting to get an offer to visit the White House and pray for President Trump and disappointing when people criticize you for leading worship (!), but it should be sobering to realize that you are being used to boost President Trump’s popularity. President Trump is in the midst of an impeachment proceeding because of his own misbehavior—because he ignored all advice about Ukraine from his foreign policy advisers. Moreover, on Dec 4, he slashed access to food assistance to 700,000 Americans. And his work on human trafficking is exaggerated. Yes, evangelicals vote Republican for “pro-life” but the abortion rate has been falling fast especially in Democratic administrations due to more access to contraceptives. It is fine to worry about the excesses of a Democratic administration with regard to religious freedom or other issues, but it is another thing to be part of an operation that is focused on promoting President Trump. Moreover, Paula White-Cain, who organized the gathering, is not a model of financial and moral integrity

Read his entire post here.

Rudy Giuliani’s Spokesperson is a 20-Year-Old Ambassador for Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Falkirk Center

Falkirk

Christianne Allen with “Falkirk Fellow” David J. Harris Jr.

The Falkirk Center is Liberty University’s new “think tank.”  Read more about it in these posts.

One of the Falkirk Center’s “ambassadors” is a 20-year old Liberty online student named Christianne Allen. She is also the spokesperson for Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.  I am assuming that Falwell Jr. chose Allen as an ambassador of the Falkirk Center because she has become popular as a Giuliani spokesperson. She is the kind “influencer” Falwell Jr. likes.

And how can we say that the embrace of Donald Trump by leading evangelicals is not damaging the witness of the Gospel in the world?

Here is a taste of Daniel Lippman and Tina Nguyen’s piece on Allen at Politico:

This much is undisputed: Allen soon left public high school to work for the campaign without pay, enrolling in Liberty University Online to complete her high school degree.

But she quickly gained a reputation for inflating her importance.

“I forget all the titles she told me she had. She was ‘millenials for something’ or ‘teens for this,’” one former official said. At one point, her social media accounts claimed she was an official spokeswoman for the Trump campaign. She was not, according to these officials. (In a text, Allen explained that she referred to herself as a campaign spokesperson “only because I spoke at a couple rallies.”)

“I think she made it to a point where she made [volunteering] untenable,” said one of the former Virginia campaign officials, citing Allen’s apparent disinterest in performing basic campaign tasks. “She wasn’t productive, but she was attempting to insert herself into everything. If there’s an event, she’s showing up to help whether or not she was invited to [it].”

Lee Allen described one speech she gave at a Trump rally in front of an old battleship in Norfolk with a crowd of thousands of people. “Hats off to my daughter. She has made her opportunities,” he said.

She did not elaborate further, but Allen’s Twitter bioLinkedIn, and old personal website list an array of suitable credentials: representative of the Trump Victory Finance Committee, the official joint fundraising committee for the re-election campaign; and video columnist for the Daily Caller. Spokeswoman for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Executive director of the Middle Eastern Women’s Coalition.

According to representatives of these entities, these titles are embroidered at best, and completely untrue at the most. She is, however, an “ambassador” for both Turning Point USA and Liberty University’s Falkirk Center, titles she gained this year. And there’s no question she enjoys Giuliani’s confidence.

Read the entire piece here.

How Have Things Been Going at Liberty University’s Falkirk Center?

Liberty_University_Flames_stadium,_Lynchburg,_VA_IMG_4118

In case you missed it, Liberty University recently opened a “think tank” to stop the media from converting Americans to socialism.  It is called the “Falkirk Center.”  Here is what we know so far:

  • Like any good think tank, the Falkirk Center has fellows.  But these are not scholars or public intellectuals, they are “influencers.”  The first group of fellows includes a former beauty queen and a cast member on the ABC reality show “The Bachelorette.”
  • American history will be a focus of the Falkirk Center.  According to founder Jerry Falwell Jr., the think tank will counter the teaching of American history “as some sinister, you know bourgeois, white man, taking advantage of everybody else” that is “totally opposite of what happened.
  • The Falkirk Center will also promote “History 101” because this brand of history “has not been taught in recent decades.”  (At Messiah College my U.S. survey history course is HIST 141.  Does that count?)
  • The Falkirk Center will defend religious freedom because attacks on religious freedom have caused young people “to abandon their faith in Christian roots in droves.”  (This is a new one for me.  I’d like to see evidence to support such an idea).
  • The Falkirk Center affirms the notion that those on the Left offer an “unfulfilling and outright dishonest attempt to provide a purposeful life.”

So far, it appears as if the Falkirk Center is little more than a Christian Right Twitter feed that:

Promotes Liberty University football:

Attacks those who will impeach Donald Trump:

Promotes Liberty University football (did I say that already?):

Retweets Dinesh D’Souza:

Retweets stuff from its “fellows”:

Promotes Liberty University football (oh, wait, I think I already covered that):

Will “take back the narrative”:

Endorses Sarah Huckabee Sanders for a Senate seat:

Shirley Hoogstra of the CCCU Explains Fairness for All

Fairness for All

Last week we introduced readers to the Fairness for All Act.

Over at The Anxious Bench blog, historian Chris Gehrz has published his interview with Shirley Hoogstra, president of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU).  The CCCU is one of the bill’s sponsors.

Here is a taste:

For those who haven’t been following this story until now… What is being proposed in Fairness for All?

For the past three years, the CCCU has been engaged in conversations with a broad coalition of faith and LGBT leaders, two “sides” that have often viewed their protections as being violated by the existence of protections for the other.

The result of this dialogue is a bill called Fairness for All, a balanced legislative approach that preserves religious freedom and addresses LGBT civil rights under federal law.

Fairness for All is centered on two core principles:

  1. Religious persons should not be forced to live, work, or serve their community in ways that violate their sincerely held beliefs.
  2. No American should face violence, harassment, or unjust discrimination, or lose their home or livelihood, simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

Fairness for All provides long-term protections for Christian higher education and other faith-based organizations. The proposed legislation ensures that Christian colleges and universities can hire for mission, maintain their accreditation, maintain access to federal student aid, maintain their tax-exempt status, and continue to offer professional licensure — all while remaining true to their religious convictions.

Tell us a bit of the history of FFA: when did the CCCU begin to consider advocating for it? Why did it come back into the spotlight this year?

Over the last decade, Christian colleges and universities — along with adoption agencies, rescue missions, and others — have been at the tip of the spear for religious freedom challenges, many of which have stemmed from the expansion of LGBT civil rights. These challenges make it possible to imagine a future where Christian colleges that maintain a biblical perspective on marriage and sexual ethics lose accreditation, community support, partnerships, and grants, and where their students lose access to student aid, practicums, and professional licensure because of their religious beliefs and practices.

While executive orders and attorney general memos on religious freedom are helpful, they have a possible built-in expiration date— they can simply be undone by a subsequent president. Likewise, while litigation will always remain necessary to overturn clear constitutional violations, the court strategy is limited to the question presented and offers a piecemeal approach to addressing the numerous tension points that have or will arise between government, Christian higher education, and other religious organizations. Further, research by law professors shows that when religious freedom protections are created by legislation, the Supreme Court upholds them almost 100 percent of the time. But when the First Amendment is the only basis, religious freedom wins only 50 percent of the time.

In short, in addition to short-term executive orders and the Constitution itself, legislation adds a long-term, comprehensive, certain, and specific way to secure religious freedom protections for hiring, funding, accreditation, and more for Christian higher education and many other religious organizations and interests.

This spring the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a bill that codifies sweeping LGBT civil rights at the expense of religious freedom. As written, the Equality Act would be devastating for Christian higher education, as it would threaten every Christian college and university’s ability to deliver on its missional promise. The Equality Act would also impact churches, hospitals, relief agencies, and businesses large and small.

We are working with a broad coalition of religious organizations and LGBT organizations who believe it is essential that any protections for LGBT persons be paired with the essential religious freedoms that maximize freedom for all. The way forward is proposed legislation called Fairness for All, which allows the religious and LGBT communities to resolve conflicts in a comprehensive, balanced, and enduring way. This approach represents two groups who have been historically at odds coming together to acknowledge deep differences but also a common desire to lead proactively to solve real problems for the most Americans. And, most importantly, Fairness for All protects our convictions as Christians and recognizes the needs of our LGBT neighbors.

Those committed to civic pluralism in the United States should seriously consider getting behind Fairness for All.

A Citizen’s Guide to Impeachment

 

Impeachment trial

Confused about impeachment?  Not sure how it all works? Need a primer? Check out Cumberland University history professor Mark Cheathem‘s piece at The Tennessean.

Here is a taste:

The ongoing impeachment process has understandably caused anxiety among Americans.

Some think the process has been rushed and imperfectly investigated, while others believe that it is an attempt to influence next year’s presidential election. Understanding both the constitutional origins of impeachment and the reasons for previous impeachment proceedings should help alleviate these concerns.

Presidential impeachment is discussed in three different sections of the U.S. Constitution. Article 2, Section 4 states that a president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The vague phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is confusing, but constitutional experts generally agree that while criminal activity can fall under this provision, actions that would not warrant indictment under the criminal code can also be reasons to impeach a president

The impeachment process itself is broadly outlined in Article 1, Sections 2 and 3, of the Constitution. Section 2 gives the U.S. House of Representatives “the sole Power of Impeachment.” The House essentially serves as the grand jury, deciding whether or not to indict the president. A simple majority vote on even one article means that the president has been impeached.

Section 3 directs the U.S. Senate to oversee the trial portion of the impeachment process. The Senate is charged with deciding whether to remove the president from office based on the impeachment article(s) passed by the House. The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over this trial. If two-thirds of the Senate vote to convict the president of even one impeachment article, then the president is removed from office. They are also disqualified from “hold[ing] and enjoy[ing] any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” and are still “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Read the rest here.

Senior Editor at *The American Conservative*: “The Case for Impeachment is Overwhelming”

Trump impeachment

Here is Dan Larison of The American Conservative:

The case for Trump’s impeachment seemed quite strong more than two months ago, and the evidence provided to the House’s impeachment inquiry has strengthened it further. The president’s abuse of power is not in dispute. It is clear that he used the powers of his office in an attempt to extract a corrupt favor for his personal benefit, and this is precisely the sort of offense that impeachment was designed to keep in check. It doesn’t matter if the attempt succeeded. All that matters is that the attempt was made. It is also undeniable that he has sought to impede the investigation into his misconduct. The president has committed the offenses he is accused of committing, and the House should approve both articles of impeachment.

The president doesn’t have a credible line of defense left. That is why his apologists in Congress and elsewhere have been reduced to making increasingly absurd and desperate claims. The president’s defenders want to distract attention from the fact that the president abused his power, violated the public’s trust, and broke his oath of office, but these distractions are irrelevant.

Read the entire piece here.

The Family Values of Mr. Rogers

Rogers Fred

American religious historian Margaret Bendroth is not a fan of Mr. Rogers.  She calls herself a “Mr. Rogers heretic, one of the unholy few who did not enjoy his television and actively discouraged my children from watching it.”

Ouch.

In a recent piece at the blog Righting America, Bendroth roots Rogers’s understanding of children and family in twentieth-century mainline Protestantism, the topic of her book Growing Up Protestant: Parents, Children ,and Mainline Churches.

Here is a taste:

I was working on Growing Up Protestant  in the 1990s, at about the same time evangelicals were staking their claim to be “pro-family.” The historical irony was hard to swallow. Up until James Dobson came on the scene, evangelicals had little of substance to say about family, much less a theology of Christian child-rearing. They were the heirs of fundamentalists like John R. Rice and Bill Gothard, who insisted that children were sinful, the world was a looming danger, and individual conversion the only way to safety.  

Yet as I researched my way through books like God, The Rod, and Your Child’s Bod,  it struck me that me that despite the hairy authoritarian advice about “daring to discipline,” evangelical child-rearing advice literature was more Bushnellian than not. Even God, The Rod, and Your Child’s Bod was really an argument for the primacy of the “Christian home,” a place “where parents live the Christian life and so practice the presence of Christ that children grow up to naturally accept God as the most important fact in life.” Evangelicals were in effect cannibalizing mainline ideas (possibly in part because the mainline was departing from this tradition in the 1970s and 1980s), and recirculating them with a moralistic, fortress-mentality gloss.

Perhaps that’s why Mr. Rogers traveled under the radar for so long. He was not “pro-family” in the narrow evangelical culture-wars sense of the word, where the family is a stand-in for American moral decline. He loved and respected children, and modeled an ethic of care that extended beyond their immediate families to the world they would one day inherit—which is about as “pro-family” as you can get. On that, as my good friend Henrietta Pussycat would say, the two of us could not meow-meow-meow-agree-meow more.

Read the entire piece here.

Trump’s Narcissism is Again Revealed as the House Announces Articles of Impeachment

Image: US-MEXICO-CANADA-TRADE

This morning the leaders of the House of Representatives stood in front of a copy of Gilbert Stuart’s 1796 “Lansdowne portrait” of George Washington and announced, for only the fourth time in United States history, articles of impeachment against the President of the United States.

The President, of course, is tweeting about it:

 

These are the desperate cries of a man who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors against his country.  He has abused his power and obstructed the House impeachment investigation.  Trump’s tweets remind me of this scene from November 17, 1973:

Nixon understood the gravity of his impeachment in the larger context of American history.  So, it seems, does Bill Clinton.  They both admitted (eventually) that they had done something wrong.  Clinton even described his behavior as “sin.”

Trump, on the other hand, thinks he has done nothing wrong.   Some people believe that Trump knows he is guilty, but continues to tell the American people that he is innocent because he wants to remain in power and preserve his legacy.  There is a lot of evidence to support this theory.

But what if Trump believes he is innocent because he has absolutely no understanding of American history, the U.S. Constitution, or the meaning of impeachment?  Here, again, is what I wrote about the relationship between narcissism and American history in Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump:

But the problem with Donald Trump’s use of American history goes well beyond his desire to make America great again or his regular references to some of the darker moments in our past–moments that have tended to divide Americans rather than uniting them.  His approach to history also reveals his narcissism.  When Trump says that he doesn’t care how “America first” was used in the 1940s, or claims to be ignorant of Nixon’s use of “law and order,” he shows his inability to understand himself as part of a larger American story.  As Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson wrote in the wake of Trump’s pre-inauguration Twitter attack on civil rights icon John Lewis, a veteran of non-violent marches who was severely beaten at Selma: “Trump seems to have no feel for, no interest in, the American story he is about to enter.”  Gerson describes Trump’s behavior in this regard as the “essence of narcissism.”  The columnist is right:  Trump is incapable of seeing himself as part of a presidential history that is larger than himself.  Not all presidents have been perfect, and others have certainly shown narcissistic tendencies; but most of them have been humbled by the office.  Our best presidents thought about their four or eight years in power with historical continuity in mind.  This required them to respect the integrity of the office and the unofficial moral qualifications that come with it.  Trump, however, spits in the face of this kind of historical continuity….

Is Trump capable of understanding the gravity of what is happening to his presidency right now?

19th-Century Evangelicals on the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

1869_Zions_Herald_BostonThis morning I read chapter nine of Victor Howard’s book Religion and the Radical Republican Movement, 1860-1870.  The chapter is titled “Impeachment and the Churches” and it focuses on how Protestant churches, denominations, and clergy responded to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.  While Howard’s chapter covers a specific segment of mid-19th century evangelicalism (mostly northern, radical, anti-slavery churches who favored Republican Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War), it provides some interesting context in light of today’s announcement of articles impeachment and the expected court evangelical opposition to these articles.

Here is a passage on p. 155-156. (I added the links):

The lawmakers of the new Fortieth Congress met immediately upon the adjournment of the Thirty-ninth Congress and promptly undertook the task of amending the Reconstruction Act.  On March 23, 1867, a supplementary bill was passed which gave federal military commanders on the South authority to initiate Reconstruction by registering eligible voters and calling state conventions, but Johnson, as the radicals feared, used his presidential powers to obstruct congressional Reconstruction.  Basing his action on the investigations of the Military Board and the report of the congressional committee, General Sheridan had removed the governor of Louisiana and local officers responsible for the New Orleans massacre. Johnson ordered Sheridan to defer the removals, but Sheridan answered him with a protest against recalling the order.  The president sought the opinion of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who declared that the military commanders were not authorized to promulgate codes in defiance of civil government of the states but were to cooperate with the existing governments which were set up under Johnson’s plan of Reconstruction.  Stanbery’s interpretation virtually emasculated the Reconstruction Act. Stanbery also denounced General Daniel Sickles’s acts in North Carolina as illegal.  The general angrily asked to be relieved of his duties so that he could defend his conduct before a court of inquiry.

The editor of the Baptist Watchman and Reflector asserted “If the President acts on this opinion…to obstruct justice, he will…inaugurate a new war in Congress.”  The generally conservative Ohio Baptist Journal and Messenger concluded, “The President’s conduct from the first has not been such as to inspire confidence in his ability or integrity.  Congress has therefore only the more solemn responsibility resting upon it to be calm, vigilant, and unfalterting in its adherence to duty. The editor of the Zion’s Herald was more direct.  “Without doubt, the easiest remedy would be the prompt impeachment and remove of President Johnson.”

Here is a passage from p. 159:

The Baptist Christian Times and Witness condemned Johnson’s course but still did not think Congress should impeach him, because the president’s term was drawing to a close and opinion on the matter remained very divided.  “Providence has graciously provided for the protection of the country during the remainder of the term…by giving to loyal people such a decided preponderancy in Congress to keep wrong doing in check,” explained the editor.  But J.W. Barker, editor of the Christian Freemanviewed the crisis differently.  “When he who bears the sword bears it so vainly as to be no terror to ‘evil doers,’ but to cause the good and loyal to quake, he has lost his divine commission as a magistrate,’ the editor charged. 

Here is Howard on p. 160:

By October 1867, several ecclesiastical bodies were going on record in support of the current objectives of Congress.  The New London (Connecticut) Baptist Association, for example, resolved that “the open hostility of the President to the laws of Congress and the consequent hindrance to the peaceful progress of reconstruction fill us with the most painful solicitude.”  The Grinnell [Iowa] Association of Congregational Churches characterized Johnson as “an aider and abettor of principles inimical to the best interests of the country.”

Robert Jeffress is an Embarrassment to Evangelical Christianity

Watch how he:

  1.  mocks Nancy Pelosi’s faith with his self-righteous culture warrior sneer.  Jeffress’s approach to Christianity and public life can be summarized on one word: “abortion.”
  2.  says that Trump has brought Christmas “back to the forefront” of our country.  So true. I remember before Trump was elected everyone had to work on Christmas or face fine/imprisonment. When I read Luke 2 to my family on Christmas morning I did so out of constant fear of a Gestapo-like police force storming my house and whisking me away to a prison-camp.  There were no Christmas specials on television.  I remember when Obama, the godless socialist, was president my town made me take down my Christmas lights and tried to close all the Christmas tree lots.  And all Christmas Eve church services were forbidden.   Whew!  I am glad Trump changed all this.  😉

If you can’t see the video, click on the twitter link: pic.twitter.com/3u2yLj0NmH

The Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton Articles of Impeachment

Impeachment

With two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump set to be released tomorrow (Tuesday), I thought I would offer some historical context by providing the articles of impeachment for Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson.  (Only Clinton and Johnson were impeached.  Nixon resigned before the Senate trial).

Clinton Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors . . .

Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:

  • willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration
  • willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee
  • willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him
  • allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action
  • attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action

Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:

  • encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit
  • encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand
  • allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence
  • attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness
  • allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony
  • giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action
  • giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation

 

Nixon Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. . . .

Article One: [for] making false or misleading statement to delay, cover up, or conceal evidence relating to the Watergate break-ins by:

  • making false and misleading statements to the government and the people
  • withholding information
  • allowing/encouraging witnesses to give false or misleading statements
  • attempting to interfere with FBI and other investigations into the break-ins
  • allowing secret payments to influence witnesses
  • attempting to misuse the CIA
  • leaking information about the investigation to help the accused
  • insinuating that people who refuse to testify against him or who give false testimony will receive favors

Article Two: . . . [for having] engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens . . . and impairing the due and proper administration of justice . . . by:

  • using confidential tax return information to initiate tax audits in a discriminatory manner
  • misusing the FBI, Secret Service, and other government employees by allowing their information to be used for purposes other than national security or the enforcement of laws
  • allowing a secret investigative unit within his office
  • using campaign contributions and the CIA in an attempt to sway the fair trial process
  • has failed in faithfully executing the law
  • knowingly misusing the executive power by interfering with agencies within the executive branch

Article Three: . . . has willfully disobeyed the subpoenas of and failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and information for the House Judiciary Committee . . . assuming to himself the functions and judgments given to the House of Representatives by the Constitution.

Andrew Johnson Articles of Impeachment

Read all 11 articles here.

Expect Two Articles of Impeachment Tomorrow (Tuesday)

  1. Abuse of Power
  2. Obstructing Congress

Here is The Washington Post:

Democrats are expected to unveil two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday that will focus on abuse of power and obstructing Congress, and would be voted on by the full House next week, according to three officials familiar with the matter.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) met with Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and other committee chairmen Monday night after a nine-hour hearing in which a Democratic counsel laid out the party’s case against Trump. The three officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, cautioned that the plan had not been finalized.

Leaving a meeting with Pelosi, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) told reporters that he and the chairmen of other House committees would announce specific articles at a news conference at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

Read the rest here.

“There is no functioning, stable, globalized world of the future without the humanities”

GLobal commerce

Karen E. Spierling is an associate professor of history and director of global commerce at Denison University in Granville, Ohio.  She believes that the humanities must “go on the offensive.”  Here is a taste of her piece at The Chronicle of Higher Education:

It is time for humanists to go on the offensive. Not by shoring up our silos or rejecting collaboration with nonhumanists. Not by insisting that the nature of the humanities is somehow unchanging across time and place and, thus, of ineffable and universal value. And not by giving in to the pressure to reduce the goals of our teaching to producing students who can manage both spoken and written communication effectively. (This is certainly an inherent product of humanities teaching, but not an isolated goal.)

Instead, we must make clear what we ourselves already understand: There is no functioning, stable, globalized world of the future without the humanities.

A world based on the constant global exchange of information, goods, services, and money depends upon an increasing need to rapidly access another person’s or organization’s point of view, cultural assumptions, and social norms. In a world where exchanges of all kinds rely on technology and big data, some of the greatest potential pitfalls come not in the numbers but in the interpretation of those numbers, the communication strategies needed to carry out initiatives based on those numbers, and the relationship-building areas of all types of work.

Functioning effectively in a globalized society — in business, politics, medicine, education, daily interactions with immigrants in one’s own community, or daily interactions with locals in the community into which one has immigrated — requires the skill of rigorous, critical, empathetic thinking.

Not just run-of-the-mill empathy. Not a wishy-washy definition of empathy that reduces it to natural feelings or emotions. Not just instinctive “people skills.” Not some kind of imagined empathy that depends on a person’s inherent ability to listen well and think from another person’s point of view. Not touchy-feely but uninformed sympathy for “those less fortunate” in other parts of the world. Instead, navigating this globalized world requires sophisticated, well-honed skills of empathy.

Rigorous, critical, empathetic thinking. How else are we to understand the experiences and points of view of co-workers, trading partners, or colleagues who live long distances from us? There are limits to global travel, and those limits are becoming more glaring as our climate-change crisis picks up speed. There are limits to technology — even with all of its benefits — and to how we communicate through video chats and instantaneous texting. There are limits to how much time and energy we can invest in moving to another place and immersing ourselves physically in the cultural practices of another society.

Read the entire piece here.