Court evangelical Eric Metaxas compares his fight against voter fraud to the courage one needs to stop a heavily-armed man who is trying to murder his child

The election was seventeen days ago. A lot of Donald Trump’s court evangelicals are moving on to other things. Ralph Reed, for example, is now focused on the upcoming Georgia senate run-offs. Robert Jeffress is upset about COVID-19 restrictions.

But others are doubling-down on voter fraud conspiracy theories.

Eric Metaxas, radio host and spokesperson for Liberty University’s Falkirk Center, had Lance Wallnau on his show today to talk about “the prophetic.” Wallnau, who was recently selling “King Cyrus coins” on the Jim Bakker Show, is hawking his new book. He claims that God told him that there would be problems with mail-in balloting and he reads a passage from his book to prove it. The book was published in October 2020 and Wallnau claims that God spoke to him about this in September 2020. Of course the narrative of possible election controversy due to mail-in balloting was all over the news for most of the summer of 2020. Anyone reading the news could have made such a “prophecy.”

Metaxas believes that the “voter fraud” against Trump is “Satanic” and “wicked.” He wants to “die fighting” against voter fraud. Then Metaxas compares his fight against voter fraud to the courage one needs to stop a heavily-armed man who is trying to rape or murder his child. Wallnau then re-ups on his prophecy that Trump will win this election. Metaxas agrees.

Watch:

In other court evangelical news:

Here is Liberty University Falkirk Center spokesperson Sebastian Gorka:

Liberty University’s Falkirk Center spokesperson and Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis on Mitt Romney:

Liberty University Falkirk Center spokesperson Charlie Kirk wants more rallies. As I wrote earlier this week, we are seeing a new Lost Cause.

Lance Wallnau is still pushing the “Trump as King Cyrus” narrative:

Christians are not supposed to hate, but they hate the Clintons. Here is court evangelical journalist David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network:

Tony Perkins still believes the election has yet to be decided.

Jack Graham also believes the election has yet to be decided:

Conservative evangelicals and Catholics are holding a “Jericho marches” in capitol cities every day until the Electoral College votes in December. Pro-Trumpers will march seven times around the city and pray, and expect God to give Trump a victory in the same way He gave the Israelites a victory over the pagan city of Jericho. Will they blow horns?

Pat Robertson: Trump will win, the country will be torn apart, an asteroid will hit the earth, and the rapture will come

Robertson is prophesying again. Watch:

If you don’t want to watch, here are the main points:

  1. Trump is going to win the election “without question”
  2. After Trump is sworn in the United States will go to war with China, North Korea, Russia, and/or the Turks
  3. After Trump is sworn-in there will be civil disobedience in the streets that will tear the country apart.
  4. There will be “at least two attempts on the president’s life.”
  5. The fulfillment of Ezekiel 38:14-16 will take place. Turks, Iran, and other Muslims “will come together against Israel” because the United States is pre-occupied with internal chaos. God will wipe out this “horde” of Muslims
  6. God will bring about a period of “great peace” as explained in Isaiah 2:2-4. This will last for at least five years. There will be a global spiritual revival that will bring about this time of “peace and love.” “Dictators” will be “held in check” by God during this time.
  7. The peace will eventually end and the “Great Tribulation” will come as explained in Matthew 24. During this time the earth will be hit with a 3 billion pound asteroid that will “darken the sun.”
  8. Then the rapture will happen.
  9. The 2020 election will trigger all of this so get out and vote.

There you go.

Court evangelical: Kamala Harris has a “Jezebel spirit” and is a satanic “chameleon” secretly working as an “Obama surrogate”

Lance-Wallnau

Early in the 2016 presidential campaign, Lance Wallnau, a leading figure in the Independent Network Charismatic (INC) movement, received a word from God: “Donald Trump is a wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness.”

When Wallnau’s prophecy caught the attention of Trump’s evangelical supporters, he was invited to attend a meeting with the candidate and other evangelical leaders in Trump Tower. As Wallnau listened to Trump talk about his desire to give evangelicals a more prominent voice in government, he sensed that God was giving him an “assignment”–a “calling related to this guy.”

One day, while Wallnau was reading his Facebook page, he saw a meme predicting that Trump would be the “45th president of the United States.” God told Wallnau to pick up his Bible and turn to Isaiah 45. On reading the passage, Wallnau realized that, not only would Trump be a “wrecking ball” to political correctness, but he would be elected president of the United States in the spirit of the ancient Persian king Cyrus. In the Old Testament, Cyrus was the secular political leader whom God used to send the exiled kingdom of Judah back to the Promised Land so that they could rebuild the city of Jerusalem and its holy Temple. Wallnau was shocked by this discovery. “God was messing with my head,” he told Steven Strang, the editor of Charisma, a magazine that covers INC and other Pentecostal and charismatic movement (and claims a circulation of over 275,000).

From this point forward, Wallnau would become an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump.  He has made appearances on Christian Right radio and television programs to tell his story about he prophesied Trump’s election. Some of you remember when he  hawked $45.00 King Cyrus prayer coins on the Jim Bakker Show.

Here is he is on the Eric Metaxas Show talking about “a guy from Messiah College.”

In his most recent Facebook video, Wallnau had some choice things to say about Joe Biden’s running mate. Here is Kyle Mantyla at Right Wing Watch:

Wallnau asserted that Harris is “not intelligent” but simply possesses an ability to deceive people, which is why she was chosen to serve as Joe Biden’s running mate by the “deep state” and “do what [Barack] Obama wants her to do, which is to undo Trump’s legacy.” He added that Harris is driven by a “Jezebel spirit,” which some evangelicals believe is an evil and cunning demonic female spirit intent on attacking God and those who worship him.

Watch the video:

You can watch the entire thing here. If you can’t watch it, here is what you missed:

  • Kamala Harris is a “chameleon.”
  • The “devil” is going to try to use Harris to “take Trump out.”
  • The “Wuhan China” is connected to a vision Wallnau saw of “President Harris.”
  • Satan released the virus to take down Trump.
  • The spirit of the “false prophet” is working with the media to make Harris look more moderate, but she is really an “Obama’s surrogate.”
  • “God never really intended that Donald Trump would not be there for this next term.”
  • Wallnau admits a version of the “fear thesis” when he says the voted “out of anxiety” and elected Trump, but then the church went back to “business as usual” without realizing the “apocalyptic cliff-hanger” it is in.
  • Evangelical Christian pastors and leaders who say that they will merely hold their noses and vote for Trump in 2020 are weak. They should be openly campaigning for him.
  • If we pray hard enought, God will intervene on behalf of Trump between now and November.

More than 260,000 people have watched this video. Some have even responded to it with comments like these:

–I just seen you tonight and what a Blessing, telling it like it was and is and is to come! I will be following you cause I like what I’m hearing and your my new brother in the Lord and Family of God! Thanks for sharing.

–Kamala Harris I read about her religious faith it is not Christian it is an ancient Egyptian faith just remember that when the Pharaoh put his dead son on Satan’s arm trying to bring him back to life it did not happen God will win the devil will not.

We must fight with prayer. God have mercy on our land and President Trump. Grant us mercy one more time Lord, heal our land. In Jesus name.

–I think she is a witch

–I can’t stand to hear all of this!! We must vote so these things will not happen. The enemy is not on the throne. God still reigns.

–Chameleon Harris….she’s slippery, scaly and has horns 🦎 changes colors according to her agenda.

–I have never listened to you before so I find amazing that what you said about Kamala is exactly what I said to my husband last night. Binding together in prayer and praise through Jesus name.

–Thank you. I appreciate your bold truth and not trying to protect a tax exempt status in a time as this.We need voices bold as a lion like you.God bless you in Jesus name.

–“Extraordinary surprises and interventions! Spiritually radioactive Christians around all the people engaged in this political contest!” Show us how to do the work you have called us to do!

–They will want to take your guns

–Mental manipulation to wear mask, take vaccine ….

–Amen!! Pray and vote like Jesus would! Trump 2020

–The dems have stocks in the mask companies. They want there money.

Those ensconced in their cosmopolitan enclaves need to take this stuff seriously. Wallnau and the INC influence, as scholars Brad Christerson and Richard Flory have shown, runs deep in conservative political circles in the United States and around the world.

What Does the Bible Say About the Antichrist?

Anti-Christ-Luca-Signorelli2

I spent most of my late teens and early twenties getting schooled in dispensational theology.  We spent a lot of time trying to figure out when the rapture would come, the nature of the Great Tribulation, and the signs Antichrist’s coming.  I haven’t thought about this stuff in a while, but I have been struck lately by how many people–smart religious people–have been talking about the Antichrist.

A friend recently sent me a blog post by theologian Benjamin Corey, a self-identified member of the Christian Left with an masters degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D from Fuller Theological Seminary.

Corey dug through the Bible and found every prophecy on the Antichrist.  Whatever you think about biblical prophecy, his list is very interesting, entertaining, and perhaps even revealing.

Here are a few characteristics of the Antichrist:

  • The Antichrist will be a leader of a nation that is a military superpower with the ability to trample and crush the entire earth. (Daniel 7:23)
  • The Antichrist will be a man who is exceptionally arrogant and will be known for giving boastful speeches. (Daniel 7:8, Revelation 13:5)
  • The Antichrist will be someone known for making a lot of public threats against the people (Revelation 13:2, Daniel 7:4)
  • The Antichrist will be a political outsider with despicable character and a contemptuous personality who wins an election that no one expects him to win. (Daniel 11:21)
  • The Antichrist will give speeches where he speaks “great things” and then about things that are even “greater.” (Daniel 7:20)
  • The Antichrist’s rise to power will seem like a miracle that God performed, tricking people into following Satan instead of God without even noticing. (2 Thess. 2:9)
  • Once in power the Antichrist will reveal that his heart wants to make alterations to the “appointed times” that are in current laws. (Daniel 7:25)
  • The Antichrist will make fake news popular and will be a chronic liar.  His followers will believe his delusions because they hate the truth. (Daniel 8:25, 2 Thess.2:10)
  • The Antichrist will draw strong support from many Christians as if they are willfully blind and outright delusional (Matt 24:24, 2 Thess 2:10)
  • The Antichrist will appear to receive a wound he can’t recover from, but will survive to put down the first attempts to remove him from office. (Revelation 13:3)
  • The Antichrist will worship the god of border walls. (Daniel 11:37-38)

Read the rest here.

From the Archives: “What Wayne Grudem Thought About Presidential Character in 1998”

Grudem 23

Yesterday I offered some analysis of Wayne Grudem’s article defending Donald Trump and criticizing Mark Galli’s Christianity Today editorial calling for Trump’s removal from office.  You can read my post here.

Today I am running a post I published on August 2, 2016.  It is titled “What Wayne Grudem Thought About Presidential Character in 1998.”  Here it is:

I am guessing a lot of my readers have never heard of Wayne Grudem.  He is an evangelical theologian and the author of a very popular one-volume treatment of evangelical systematic theology. He is also well-known within evangelical circles for defending a “complementarian” view of gender roles in the church and society.

Grudem is the quintessential evangelical insider.  He speaks and writes for evangelical churches and rarely ventures out of this subculture to engage a broader American public. This is why most people outside of evangelicalism have never heard of him.

When I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1989-1992) I took a theology course with Grudem.  I don’t remember much about it other than the fact that Grudem spent a lot of time talking about his work on the Biblical idea of prophecy. (I also remember having to read all of Calvin’s Institutes!). He would eventually argue that today’s Christians needed to reclaim the gift of prophecy.  If I remember correctly, he argued that the Holy Spirit could bring divine revelation to a believer’s mind.

During my time at Trinity I attended a major conference called “Evangelical Affirmations.” The purpose of the conference was to draw clearly defined theological boundaries around the word “evangelical.”  Leading evangelical theologians and pastors (mostly conservative evangelicals who upheld the doctrine of biblical inerrancy)  gathered on the Trinity campus in Deerfield, Illinois to try to figure out who was “in” and who was “out.”

One of the most heated debates focused on whether one could truly be called an “evangelical” if he or she did not believe that hell was a literal place–a place of fire and brimstone where unbelievers would spend eternity suffering for rejecting the Christian gospel.  I am guessing that most of the delegates to the Evangelical Affirmations conference would have affirmed the existence of such a place of eternal torment, but whether its literal existence should serve as a defining marker of evangelical faith was complicated by the beliefs of one man: John Stott.

Next to Billy Graham, John Stott is probably the most important and well-respected evangelical of the post-war era.  Even New York Times columnist David Brooks has sung his praises as a thoughtful, wise, humble, and respectable voice of modern evangelicalism.

Stott did not believe in a literal hell.

When the majority of delegates said that a true “evangelical” must believe in a literal hell, someone stood up (I can’t remember who it was) and begged, quite passionately I might add, that the group not define evangelicalism so narrowly that someone as influential as Stott would be excluded. (Stott was not present at the meeting).  Debate raged

Midway through this heated discussion about hell and John Stott, Wayne Grudem stood up.  I remember it vividly.  Grudem recognized Stott’s evangelical faith and his contribution to global evangelicalism, but he also articulated his strong conviction that the evangelical movement must, Stott or no Stott, affirm a belief in a literal hell.

I remember Grudem speaking with a great deal of certainty that day.  Frankly, I could not interpret his words apart from what he was teaching in his class about the so-called gift of prophecy.

I thought about this moment, and Grudem’s views on prophecy, when I read his recent article endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States.  You can read it here.  I am not going to use this post to argue with his political views.  Later this week I will be a guest on a Christianity Today podcast that, from what I understand, will be using Grudem’s piece as a framing device for a larger discussion on evangelicals and the 2016 election. I will probably offer some history-informed commentary there.  I also appreciate the responses to Grudem’s piece written by Jonathan MerrittThomas KiddWarren ThrockmortonDavid FrenchBeth Allison BarrScot McKnightRandal RauserDavid Moore, and John Mark Reynolds. Check them out.

In his argument in favor of Trump, Grudem wrote:

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

It seems like Grudem wants to ignore these character issues when it comes to Trump’s candidacy.  But back in 1998 he thought that the character of the POTUS was important. Here is a taste of a statement that evangelical leaders signed in response to the moral indiscretions of President Bill Clinton:

We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution and to the people who elected them. By his own admission the President has departed from ethical standards by abusing his presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for one’s actions.

We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our children and on our students. Some of them feel betrayed by a President in whom they set their hopes while others are troubled by his misuse of others, by which many in the administration, the political system, and the media were implicated in patterns of deceit and abuse. Neither our students nor we demand perfection. Many of us believe that extreme dangers sometimes require a political leader to engage in morally problematic actions. But we maintain that in general there is a reasonable threshold of behavior beneath which our public leaders should not fall, because the moral character of a people is more important than the tenure of a particular politician or the protection of a particular political agenda. Political and religious history indicate that violations and misunderstandings of such moral issues may have grave consequences. The widespread desire to “get this behind us” does not take seriously enough the nature of transgressions and their social effects.

(Thanks to Katie Manzullo-Thomas and Devin Manzullo-Thomas for digging up this statement when I was writing in June about James Dobson’s support of Trump).

I am not sure which Wayne Grudem to believe–the 1998 anti-Clinton version or the 2016 pro-Trump version.  Perhaps Grudem has changed his mind about presidential character.

Whatever one thinks about Grudem’s views of prophecy, it is worth noting that he does think that prophets are human and sometimes may be wrong. On page 69 of his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today he writes: “The prophet could err, could misinterpret, and could be questioned or challenged at any point.”

The Politics of the “Chosen One”

Trump inauguration

My daughter was quick to tell me that “Antichrist” was trending on Twitter today.  Then I got a call from Emily McFarland  Miller, a reporter for Religion News Service, to talk about the meaning of words like “Antichrist” and “Chosen One.”  Here is a taste of Miller’s piece (co-authored with Jack Jenkins and Yonat Shimron):

Somebody had to take on China on trade, Trump told reporters Wednesday.

“I am the chosen one,” he said, glancing heavenward with outstretched hands.

Supporters have excused that comment as a joke.

Others used words like “blasphemy” and “idolatry.”

Bass tweeted that the phrase refers to Isaiah 42:1: “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.” Christians understand the Bible verse as a prophecy referring to Jesus.

“The chosen one” isn’t necessarily a biblical concept, said John Fea, professor of American history at Messiah College. It also has been used to refer to everyone from basketball star Lebron James to fictional wizard Harry Potter.

But in the context it’s difficult to ignore, Fea said.

“The phrase ‘chosen one’ is probably part Christianity, part science fiction, part myth, part fantasy, part Harry Potter,” Fea said. “But at the same time, there is embedded within that phrase this idea that God chooses certain people — and evangelicals will believe this — that God chooses certain people for particular moments in time to serve his purposes.”

Read the entire piece here.

Evangelical Trump Fans: Don’t Forget to Buy Your King Cyrus-Donald Trump Prayer Coin

Cyrus-Trump-Coin-2019-2.png

In Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump, I wrote a several pages on the so-called INC (Independent Network Charismatics) prophets.  Lance Wallnau is one of these “prophets.”  Here is what I wrote about him:

Early in the 2016 campaign, Lance Wallnau received a similar word: “Donald Trump is a wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness.”  When Wallnau’s prophecy caught the attention of Trump’s evangelical supporters, he was invited to attend a meeting with the candidate and other evangelical leaders in Trump Tower.  As Wallnau listened to Trump talk about his desire to give evangelicals a more prominent voice in government, he sensed that God was giving him an “assignment”–a “calling related to this guy.”  One day, while he was reading his Facebook page, Wallnau saw a meme predicting that Trump would be the “45 president of the United States.”  God told Wallnau to pick up his Bible and turn to Isaiah 45.  On reading the passage, Wallnau realized that, not only would Trump be a “wrecking ball” to political correctness, but he would be elected president of the United States in the spirit of the ancient Persian king Cyrus.  In the Old Testament, Cyrus  was the secular political leader whom God used to send the exiled kingdom of Judah back to the Promised Land so that they could rebuild the city of Jerusalem and its holy Temple.  Wallnau was shocked by this discovery.  “God was messing with my head,” he told Steven Strang, the editor of Charisma, a magazine that covers INC and other Pentecostal and charismatic movements….From this point forward, Wallnau would become an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump.

Recently Wallnau showed-up on the Jim Bakker television program to hawk his Cyrus-Trump prayer coins.  According to this piece at Esquire magazine, Wallnau said that the coin is the “point of contact” between God and people praying for Trump’s success.  And guess what? This coin can be yours for only $45.00.  Here is Jack Holmes at Esquire:

This truly is the Golden Age of Grifting, and the nation’s Evangelical leaders have not passed up the opportunity. The “White Evangelical Christian” designation has always been a proxy for traditionalists who believe America’s rightful social order is the racial and gender hierarchy of approximately 1956. Donald Trump has merely laid this bare by earning their support despite being the most comically heathen man to ever step foot in the White House. What principles of Jesus Christ does the president embody? The better question might be which of the Seven Deadly Sins—pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth—does he not  represent? It’s all part of the Great Unvarnishing, as the acidity of Trump’s public persona has worn on the top coat of paint many people have applied to themselves, gradually exposing what lies beneath. It’s not about Christian Values, it’s about money and power. Unless it’s about something else.

And for those Trump evangelical supporters with deeper pockets, you can get an entire “Cyrus Trump Bundle.”  It includes the Cyrus-Trump coin, a booklet by Wallnau describing his prophecy, and DVD of Wallnau conducting a religious service.  It’s yours for $450.

As I argued in Believe Me, the Independent Network Charismatics are a very large, growing, and largely overlooked segment of American evangelicalism.  Wallnau is one of their leaders.

A Southern Baptist Theologian Suggests that the CCCU-NAE “Fairness for All” Motion is the Work of Satan

Midwestern Sem

I am not sure which part of Wayne Grudem‘s theology Midwestern Baptist Seminary professor Owen Strachan admires more:  Grudem’s belief that women should serve as “compliments” to their husbands or his belief that the gift of prophecy is real.  (Side note:  I wrote about Grudem’s views of prophecy here).

In a recent post at Midwestern’s website, it seems like the later.  Strachan disagrees with a decision by the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities and National Association of Evangelicals to propose an legislative initiative that would protect religious liberties alongside liberties for the LGBTQ community.  Read our post here.

Strachan writes with a sense of prophetic urgency.  “Are you paying attention?, he asks his fellow conservative evangelicals.  He adds: “The evangelical movement–and the religious community more generally–seems largely asleep in the face of its peril.”  But Strachan does not just have an honest disagreement with the CCCU and NAE.  He seems to be pretty certain that he is on God’s side and the dozens of Christian colleges in the CCCU and denominations in the NAE are on the side of Satan.  Here is a taste of his piece:

It is remarkable to observe the church’s silence or quiescence on these matters in our time. The evangelical movement seems not to know of the danger it faces in America. We do not wage war against flesh and blood, no, but we cannot miss that the LGBT lobby and its many willing partners seek to target and shut down Christians and Christian institutions who stand against the new sexual orthodoxy. If we are paying attention, we are seeing all sorts of quiet policing taking place on social-media platforms. Vimeo, Twitter, Patreon, Facebook: these and other organizations believe they are advancing justice by silencing those who dissent from mainstream orthodoxy. Free speech is challenged today, but not only at the more identifiable public level (the government). Free speech (and free thought) is increasingly imperiled at the private level, where it is especially difficult to spot and oppose. All this, by the way, is seen as righting the wrongs of the 2016 election, making America a more just society, and bringing gender equity to our body politic. This is, in other words, a system of righteousness, secular righteousness, and it comes by a new law that is ironically shorn of religion but championed with religious fervor.

Let us think for a moment of the broader conflict here. Part of Satan’s strategy is to use any means he can find to shut down the church. Satan’s major target is not the intellectual dark web. Satan’s major target is the body of believers who love and promote the gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected for depraved sinners like us (1 Peter 5:8). In every country on the earth, among every people group there is, Satan wants to do everything he can to destroy access to the gospel, belief in the gospel, and the very people who are claimed by the gospel. He is a waging a massive, multi-front war across every inch of the globe to deny God his rightful glory and to shred the blood-bought people of God. He does this not only by tempting Christians to sin, but by creating public and private structures that limit access to the truth. This world is not a neutral place. It is God’s world, but Satan wants it for his own. So, he works with great cleverness, great subtlety, and great daring to do everything he possibly can to oppose the work of God and the people of God.

We see an example of how to respond to Satan’s stratagems in the apostle Paul’s capture by the Romans (see Acts 22-26). I doubt your average evangelical has heard a solitary syllable about the significance of Paul’s self-defense for matters of conscience and public faith, but it matters greatly for our conversation. Satan will use any government, any body of leadership, he can to shut down the proclamation of the gospel. When he succeeds in his aims, and the state (or any group or leader) acts to quiet the church, what should Christians do? Paul shows us. When the Romans catch him in their net, Paul does not go quietly. He does not say, “Well, the life of the church matters, but the affairs of state don’t rate. I guess it’s prison for me, and then death.” No, Paul appeals to his Roman citizenship (beginning in Acts 22:25). He lives to fight another day. He refuses to accept his easy persecution and silencing. Even in prison, he continues the fight, as Acts shows, and he redeems the extra time his maneuvers buy by writing several epistles of the New Testament. Think about that: if Paul hadn’t made his citizenship appeal, and hadn’t fought his unjust persecution, we would not have the New Testament we have.

Christians in the twenty-first century should learn from Paul. We should not work with the Roman government to hammer out a way we can bow to Caesar, but also bow to Christ. We should follow Christ only. 

Read the entire post here.

I don’t have any other word but “fundamentalism” to describe Strachan’s post.  He is right.  Other Christians are deluded by Satan.  Everything is black and white.

Not All Liberty University Students are Happy about the “Trump Prophecies” Film

Trump prophecies

You are a film program at a university that aspires to be the “evangelical Notre Dame.”  You want to show that evangelical Christians can make high-quality films on subjects that will reach a wide audience or perhaps serve the common good.  You want your program to be respected in the film industry.

What do you do to advance these aspirations and goals?

You make a film about a guy who prophesied the election of Donald Trump?

Liberty University film students and alumni are speaking out again.  Here is a taste of Tyler O-Neil’s piece at the conservative PJ Media:

“Who wants to go to a school that glorifies such a controversial man?” the anonymous film student asked. “Additionally — politics aside — it’s a terrible story! The whole year they harp on telling a good story, but I have yet to see why this is a good story and one that needs to be told.”

“For the university, by stamping our name on this film, we are telling the world that this is what we believe: radical prophecies about a controversial man make him a Godsend,” the film student concluded.

Indeed, marketing for The Trump Prophecy seems rather explicit in suggesting that not only was the fireman’s “word from God” legitimate, but that Trump’s election was some kind of divine miracle, guaranteed by the prayers of the faithful.

“My view is that The Trump Prophecy film is poorly conceived, poorly timed, and (based on the promotional materials) executed with a total absence of craft,” Doug Stephens IV, a Liberty grad who now attends Harvard Law School, told PJ Media.

Read the entire piece here.  And court evangelical Jerry Falwell Jr. says that his personal support of Donald Trump does not effect the life of his university.

Liberty University Cinema Department is Producing a Feature Film on a Fireman Who Prophesied the Election of Donald Trump

Firefighter

Read all about it in Sam Smith’s article at The Christian Post.  Smith interviewed me for the piece:

John Fea, a professor of American history at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, who has been critical of prophetic claims pertaining to Trump, told CP that Taylor is just one of several Pentecostal “prophets” who claim to have predicted a Trump presidency.

“These so-called prophets — Mike Bickle, Lance Wallnau, Frank Amedia and the late Kim Clement come to mind — represent an ever-growing wing of American evangelicalism,” Fea wrote in an email. “Journalist Steve Strang has provided an outlet for their prophecies through his popular Christian magazine Charisma.

Fea claims that the “prophets,” have “built an entire approach to political engagement around their prophecies.”

“Not all evangelicals believe in prophecy, but even if you do believe that God speaks to individual people about politics, it is very dangerous to design public policy and choose political candidates based on such prophecies,” Fea argued. “These so-called prophets have no real religious or spiritual authority beyond themselves and the megachurch empires that they have created and over which they preside.”

“Perhaps tonight I will have a dream or a vision that Donald Trump is really the Antichrist,” Fea continued. “It seems to me that my dream has just as much prophetic validity as fireman Taylor.”

Read the entire story here.

“Court Evangelicals” and Daniel, Joseph, and Cyrus

Cyrus

Cyrus, King of Persia

As I posted earlier today, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council criticized my recent Washington Post piece.  In the course of the critique, he made his own biblical argument against my “court evangelical” idea.

Perkins wrote:

John Fea, a professor at Messiah College, took aim at the president in a Washington Post column earlier this week called “Trump Threatens to Change the Course of American Christianity.” He starts by labeling the White House’s religious base as “court evangelicals,” his term for “a Christian who, like the attendants and advisers who frequented the courts of monarchs, seeks influence through regular visits to the White House.” When I hear the phrase “court evangelicals,” I think of Scripture’s Daniel, Joseph, and others who brought their faith into the presence of the king — people who God strategically placed to influence leaders for the benefit of an entire nation. But Fea doesn’t mean it as a compliment. 

I am getting some nice feedback on Perkins’s use of these Bible characters.

Here is one comment I received:

I find it fascinating that Perkins references Daniel, a captive in a hostile government’s court and Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers as forerunners to today’s evangelical sycophants. Neither chose to live in the court of the king but rather had the experience thrust on them. Daniel didn’t kowtow to the norms of the kingdom but rather and put his life on the line for what he believed was right before his God. Daniel spoke truth to power with words and actions.

Here is another:

…Daniel and Joseph didn’t set out to gain power or turn the government to make Egypt/Persia worship Jehovah. And neither Daniel nor Joseph (or Moses, Nehemiah, etc.) gave their bosses the impression that they were blessed. No sycophantic praises sung in those courts.

And another:

Daniel also offers the single most important prayer of repentance found in Exilic literature, then counseled non-resistance to imperial violence; bizarre, though I guess it fits for their Babylonian sensibilities which led many of these CE’s to describe DT as Cyrus

The Cyrus comparison is interesting.  Richard Mouw referenced it in his recent post at Religion News Service titled “Comparing Trump to two biblical kings.”

And even if we discount Trump’s professions of religious faith,  we still have the Cyrus example to consider. The Persian ruler was one of the few pagan rulers in the Bible to get high praise. The Bible even refers to him as God’s “anointed” servant….

And what we know about King Cyrus is that he purposely undid the brutal policies that his predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar, instituted against the captive Jewish people, a minority group in his kingdom. The prophet Daniel had given clear instructions to Nebuchadnezzar about what God required of a pagan ruler: “Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you. Break away from your sins by doing what is right, and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Perhaps your prosperity will be prolonged” (Daniel 4: 27).

But Nebuchadnezzar refused to listen, and instead he engaged in some self-aggrandizing boasting: “Is this not the great Babylon that I have built for a royal residence by my own mighty strength and for my majestic honor?” (Daniel 4: 30).  So, as the biblical story goes, God punished Nebuchadnezzar and later raised up Cyrus. And Cyrus got it right.

Mouw also writes: “… is [Trump] living up to the standards set by the pagan King Cyrus?… The time is ripe now for evangelicals to conduct a job performance review in this regard. I have my Bible handy whenever Mr. Trump’s evangelical supporters are ready to get started!”

The Cyrus example was also brought to my attention recently by a pastor of a church affiliated with the Charismatic Movement.  Apparently the prophecies of a man named Kim Clement (he died on November 23, 2016) is getting a lot of traction among charismatics and, according to this pastor, may be behind some of Trump’s support in this community.  As the story goes, Clement predicted a Trump presidency in 2007. Read all about it here.  (Bill Gates is also part of Clement’s prophetic message).

Another charismatic leader, Lance Wallnau, has made direct references to Trump as Cyrus.  Glenn Beck’s new website The Blaze covered Wallnau’s views here.  Wallnau posted this video to his Facebook page in October 2015.  Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network also covered Wallnau.

Many of these charismatic court evangelicals follow a Facebook page called “The Elijah List.”

We need to do more work here, but I wonder how much these prophecies have influenced some of the Court Evangelicals.  I am sure there are scholars out there who are working on this community.  I would love to hear from them.

Nimrod Hughes and the Apocalypse of 1812

NimrodNimrod Hughes believed that one-third of the world’s population would be destroyed on June 4, 1812.  Read all about it at Past is Present, the blog of the American Antiquarian Society:

Hughes’s prophetic pamphlet was titled A solemn warning to all the dwellers upon earth, given forth in obedience to the express command of the Lord God, as communicated by Him, in several extraordinary visions and miraculous revelations, confirmed by sundry plain but wonderful signs, unto Nimrod Hughes, of the county of Washington, in Virginia, upon whom the awful duty of making this publication, has been laid and enforced; by many admonitions and severe chastisements of the Lord, for the space of ten months and nine days of unjust and close confinement in the prison of Abingdon, wherein he was shewn, that the certain destruction of one third of mankind, as foretold in the Scriptures, must take place on the fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord 1812. In it, Hughes claimed to have received apocalyptic visions from God during a recent imprisonment. A Solemn Warning was a bestseller, and many editions were published from mid-1811 into 1812, including at least six in English and two in German. On October 25, 1811, the Carlisle Gazette noted that “[Nimrod Hughes’s] prophecies are eagerly sought after from every corner, and the printers are hardly able to keep pace with the uncommon demand.” The popularity of this pamphlet eventually spawned a massive assault against Nimrod Hughes and his prophetic pretensions in the press.

Read the entire piece here.

The best thing I have read on Nimrod Hughes and people like him is Susan Juster’s Doomsayers: Anglo-American Prophecy in the Age of Revolution.

What Wayne Grudem Thought About Presidential Character in 1998

grudemI am guessing a lot of my readers have never heard of Wayne Grudem.  He is an evangelical theologian and the author of a very popular one-volume treatment of evangelical systematic theology. He is also well-known within evangelical circles for defending a “complementarian” view of gender roles in the church and society.

Grudem is the quintessential evangelical insider.  He speaks and writes for evangelical churches and rarely ventures out of this subculture to engage a broader American public. This is why most people outside of evangelicalism have never heard of him.

When I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1989-1992) I took a theology course with Grudem.  I don’t remember much about it other than the fact that Grudem spent a lot of time talking about his work on the Biblical idea of prophecy. (I also remember having to read all of Calvin’s Institutes!). He would eventually argue that today’s Christians needed to reclaim the gift of prophecy.  If I remember correctly, he argued that the Holy Spirit could bring divine revelation to a believer’s mind.

During my time at Trinity I attended a major conference called “Evangelical Affirmations.” The purpose of the conference was to draw clearly defined theological boundaries around the word “evangelical.”  Leading evangelical theologians and pastors (mostly conservative evangelicals who upheld the doctrine of biblical inerrancy)  gathered on the Trinity campus in Deerfield, Illinois to try to figure out who was “in” and who was “out.”

One of the most heated debates focused on whether one could truly be called an “evangelical” if he or she did not believe that hell was a literal place–a place of fire and brimstone where unbelievers would spend eternity suffering for rejecting the Christian gospel.  I am guessing that most of the delegates to the Evangelical Affirmations conference would have affirmed the existence of such a place of eternal torment, but whether its literal existence should serve as a defining marker of evangelical faith was complicated by the beliefs of one man: John Stott.

Next to Billy Graham, John Stott is probably the most important and well-respected evangelical of the post-war era.  Even New York Times columnist David Brooks has sung his praises as a thoughtful, wise, humble, and respectable voice of modern evangelicalism.

Stott did not believe in a literal hell.

When the majority of delegates said that a true “evangelical” must believe in a literal hell, someone stood up (I can’t remember who it was) and begged, quite passionately I might add, that the group not define evangelicalism so narrowly that someone as influential as Stott would be excluded. (Stott was not present at the meeting).  Debate raged

Midway through this heated discussion about hell and John Stott, Wayne Grudem stood up.  I remember it vividly.  Grudem recognized Stott’s evangelical faith and his contribution to global evangelicalism, but he also articulated his strong conviction that the evangelical movement must, Stott or no Stott, affirm a belief in a literal hell.

I remember Grudem speaking with a great deal of certainty that day.  Frankly, I could not interpret his words apart from what he was teaching in his class about the so-called gift of prophecy.

I thought about this moment, and Grudem’s views on prophecy, when I read his recent article endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States.  You can read it here.  I am not going to use this post to argue with his political views.  Later this week I will be a guest on a Christianity Today podcast that, from what I understand, will be using Grudem’s piece as a framing device for a larger discussion on evangelicals and the 2016 election. I will probably offer some history-informed commentary there.  I also appreciate the responses to Grudem’s piece written by Jonathan Merritt, Thomas KiddWarren Throckmorton, David French, Beth Allison Barr, Scot McKnight, Randal Rauser, David Moore, and John Mark Reynolds. Check them out.

In his argument in favor of Trump, Grudem wrote:

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

It seems like Grudem wants to ignore these character issues when it comes to Trump’s candidacy.  But back in 1998 he thought that the character of the POTUS was important. Here is a taste of a statement that evangelical leaders signed in response to the moral indiscretions of President Bill Clinton:

We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution and to the people who elected them. By his own admission the President has departed from ethical standards by abusing his presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for one’s actions.

We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our children and on our students. Some of them feel betrayed by a President in whom they set their hopes while others are troubled by his misuse of others, by which many in the administration, the political system, and the media were implicated in patterns of deceit and abuse. Neither our students nor we demand perfection. Many of us believe that extreme dangers sometimes require a political leader to engage in morally problematic actions. But we maintain that in general there is a reasonable threshold of behavior beneath which our public leaders should not fall, because the moral character of a people is more important than the tenure of a particular politician or the protection of a particular political agenda. Political and religious history indicate that violations and misunderstandings of such moral issues may have grave consequences. The widespread desire to “get this behind us” does not take seriously enough the nature of transgressions and their social effects.

(Thanks to Katie Manzullo-Thomas and Devin Manzullo-Thomas for digging up this statement when I was writing in June about James Dobson’s support of Trump).

I am not sure which Wayne Grudem to believe–the 1998 anti-Clinton version or the 2016 pro-Trump version.  Perhaps Grudem has changed his mind about presidential character.

Whatever one thinks about Grudem’s views of prophecy, it is worth noting that he does think that prophets are human and sometimes may be wrong. On page 69 of his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today he writes: “The prophet could err, could misinterpret, and could be questioned or challenged at any point.”

The Author’s Corner with Lyn Millner

Lyn Millner is Associate Professor of Journalism at Florida Gulf Coast University. This interview is based on her new book, The Allure of Immortality: An American Cult, a Florida Swamp, and a Renegade Prophet (University Press of Florida, 2015).

JF: What led you to write The Allure of Immortality?

LM: I was looking for a magazine story idea, and there was this little-known historic settlement down the road from me. The Koreshans formed a utopian society around the belief that they could achieve immortality. They followed a man who believed he was a messiah, they practiced celibacy, and they believed that we live inside the earth.

I figured I’d research and write a 2,000-word piece and then move on to my next project. But it didn’t work that way. The Koreshans wouldn’t let me go. What haunted me was the question of why a group of people would give up everything to follow a man into a mosquito-infested forest to build a city. It seemed crazy to me, but the more I researched it, the less crazy they seemed. We all know someone who has made a radical change that puzzles us, but we rarely explore why. The more I followed my curiosity about them, it became apparent that in 2,000 words, I wouldn’t get beyond “Gee, aren’t they kooky?” I saw that they deserved their own book.

JF: In 2 sentences, what is the argument of The Allure of Immortality?

LM: This story shows how unshakable belief can be, even when it runs counter to reality. Even when fact bleeds through, belief has the power to triumph.

JF: Why do we need to read The Allure of Immortality?

LM: There are people we would like to dismiss as crazy because it’s convenient for us not to explore our own beliefs and contradictions. The Koreshans, kooky as they seem, wanted what we all want. To live somewhere beautiful away from pollution and crime, to eat healthy food, to have more time to play, to raise our children the way we see fit, to have answers. To transcend. That’s hard to turn away from.

JF: When and why did you decide to become an American historian?

LM: When I read Erik Larson’s “Devil in the White City.” I’m a reader and writer first, but it just so happens that history is what I most like to research and write about. My favorite books to read are nonfiction narratives, and I’m inspired to write history in a way that’s readable—using character, scene and dialog. That’s my formal training.

JF: What is your next project?

LM: I’m still pondering that.

JF: Thanks, Lyn! 

Slacktivist on Why Rapture Prophets Can’t Celebrate 50th Anniversaries

What happens if you preside over a ministry devoted to the idea that the so-called “rapture” of the Christian church will occur at any moment, but your ministry is fifty years old or older?  Wouldn’t it be a bad public relations move to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of such a ministry?  Fred Clark explores this idea in light of the fiftieth anniversary of an organization called The King is Coming Ministries founded by a preacher named Howard Estep.  Here is a taste of his post at Slacktivist:

The King Is Coming” ministries carries on Estep’s work, preaching that the Rapture is imminent and could occur at any moment, if not sooner. It’s now run by Ed Hindson, dean of the “Institute of Biblical Studies” at Liberty University. Hindson took over for Estep because, as the Gospel of Matthew says, “Two men will be grinding out a prophecy newsletter together; one will be taken and one will be left.”
The King Is Coming has a long, storied history as an organization. But celebrating that history is a bit awkward, given the content of the group’s message. They can’t do something like, for example, World Vision’s proud account of its 60+ years of work, with a timeline charting the growth and accomplishments of the organization throughout its long history.
What would such a timeline look like for a Rapture-prophecy “ministry” like TKIC?
1963: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1964: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1965: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1966: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1967: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1968: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1969: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1970: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1971: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1972: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong. …
1973: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong.
1974: Predicted the Rapture would happen very soon. We were wrong. …
That’s probably not a winning fund-raising strategy. It’s probably wiser just to fudge the group’s long history of premature extrapolation and to do their best to appear as though they haven’t been at this for as many decades as they have….
Clark also mentions the evangelical eschatological thriller A Thief in the Night and the very popular tract 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988.

Berry, Bruggemann, and the Boss

I love what Stephen Lamb has done in this piece

It is essentially a review of Springsteen’s Wrecking Ball, but he consider the Boss’s new album through his recent reading of agrarian writer Wendell Berry and Old Testament scholar Walter Bruggemann.

Frankly, I have not yet read a better review of Wrecking Ball.  I was going to write one at some point, but Lamb has already said much of what I wanted to say.

And here is a taste of his “The Prophetic Imagination of Bruce Springsteen“:

Last month, Wendell Berry delivered the 41st Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities. He introduced his lecture by making it clear that, “In what I will say here I speak for myself, insofar as I must take full responsibility for what I say. But I know, as the diversity of helps in the making of this lecture has informed me again, that I speak also for predecessors and allies, without whom I could not speak at all.” In “We Are Alive,” the last track on Wrecking Ball — a song built around the riff from “Ring of Fire,” one of the many musical quotations on the record — Springsteen acknowledges a similar debt to those who have gone before, to those who have fought for and served as reminders of our need to pursue justice. He reminds us of touchstones in three centuries of our history — the first major rail strike (and general strike) in our country, the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and of the experience of some immigrants today searching for a better home: “A voice cried I was killed in Maryland in 1877 / when the railroad workers made their stand / I was killed in 1963 / one Sunday morning in Birmingham / I died last year crossing the southern desert / my children left behind in San Pablo.” All of these voices, and many more, join in the chorus Springsteen is leading, becoming part of what the scriptures call the great cloud of witnesses. “Our souls and spirits rise / to carry the fire and light the spark / to stand shoulder to shoulder and heart to heart.” Wendell Berry ended his Jefferson Lecture similarly, after enumerating the ways that we, as a country, have privileged profit and consumption over love for our neighbor: “We do not have to live as if we are alone.”

Thanks to Pete Powers for calling my attention to this piece.

What Happens When the World DOESN’T End on May 21, 2011?

Tom Bartlett, writing at “Religion Dispatches,” tells the story of people who believed that the world was going to end on May 21, 2011. What are they doing now?  What happens when prophecy fails?  Can we learn anything from the Millerites?

Bartlett writes:

But I wanted to know what happens next. If you’re absolutely sure the world is going to end on a specific day, and it doesn’t, what do you do? How do you explain it to yourself? What happens to your faith in God? Can you just scrape the bumper stickers off your car, throw away the t-shirts, and move on?

As Bartlett informs us, even engineers working for Fortune 500 companies believed the predictions about the end of the world made by Christian radio host Harold Camping were accurate.

May 21 believers couldn’t afford to doubt either. Whenever I met one, I would ask: Is there any chance you might be wrong? Could someone have miscalculated, misunderstood a verse, botched a symbol? Just maybe?

I asked this question of a believer in his mid-twenties. He started listening to Harold Camping’s radio show in college and immediately went out, bought a Bible, and immersed himself in it. 

After graduation, he took a job as an engineer at a Fortune 500 company, a job he loved and a job he quit because he thought the world was ending. He wrote the following in his resignation letter: “With less than three months to the day of Christ’s return, I desire to spend more time studying the Bible and sounding the trumpet warning of this imminent judgment.”

He would not entertain the possibility, even hypothetically, that the date could be off. “This isn’t a prediction because a prediction has a potential for failure,” he told me.

“Even if it’s 99.9 percent, that extra .1 percent makes it not certain. It’s like the weather. If it’s 60 percent, it may or may not rain. But in this case we’re saying 100 percent it will come. God with a consuming fire is coming to bring judgment and destroy the world.”

In the end, Bartlett found that few of Camping’s followers abandoned their Christian faith.  Many were embarrassed. Others conveniently “edited the past in order to avoid acknowledging that they had been mistaken.”  Most of them just returned to their normal lives.

Read the entire article here.

Catholics and Evangelical for the Common Good: Part Two

For the first post in this short series on the recent meeting of Catholics and Evangelicals for the Common Good click here.

After a reception, dinner, and welcome from Georgetown president John DeGioia, we discussed an excellent paper by Notre Dame theology and law professor Cathleen Kaveny on the place of “prophetic indictment” in political discourse. 

Kaveny argued that those engaged in the public square should use prophetic language with caution.  When not employed carefully, prophetic language results in a loss of nuance, ad hominen arguments, a dualistic world view that sees politics as a battle between good and evil, and a failure to be constructive.  When both sides of a particular issue speak in prophetic tones it usually gets us nowhere.

She then offered a few suggestions toward a “just prophecy” or a “prophecy without contempt.” Kaveny applied the lessons of Catholic Just War Theory to the use of prophetic language in public discourse.  Those who use prophetic rhetoric should be held accountable by the larger religious communities of which they are a part.  She also suggested that prophetic language should only be used when there is a good possibility that its use will result in success. Finally, she insisted that prophetic language should not target children, families, or other “non-combatants.”

Kaveny concluded that prophetic indictment must be tempered and informed by a spirit of humility.  Before calling down the wrath of God on one’s enemies Christians must remember that they ARE NOT Old Testament prophets.  She cited Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln (particularly in his Second Inaugual Address) as examples of this kind of prophetic humility.

Kaveny’s paper inspired some excellent discussion, most of which centered around King’s use of the prophetic voice.  Though it did not get much discussion, I was most intrigued by a question about the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington D.C.  Does this monument serve as a prophetic message to the rest of the world?  I would argue that it does not.  Rather than being a prophetic piece of material culture, I argued that the King monument, set amongst all the other monuments in Washington dedicated to great Americans, is more a sign that King’s message had been co-opted by a larger national story.  And if I read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail correctly, I think King would have wanted it this way.  His Letter, as I am often reminded by my Messiah College colleague Jim LaGrand, was an appeal to the story of the nation.  King wanted African-Americans to be considered a part of that story.  His letter placed the cause for civil rights in a national narrative that began with the Pilgrims and continued to unfold during the American Revolution.

It is thus fitting that King’s monument shares the Tidal Basin with Jefferson.  Unlike more militant black activists, MLK did not criticize or prophetically condemn the nation Jefferson helped to create.  Instead he longed to be an equal part of it.

Look for a full-explication of Kaveny’s argument in a forthcoming book.