He said she is a heretic, but I could not understand on what basis.
As far as I could tell it was because she took the Biblical messages about how to treat other people literally rather than performing hermenutical gymnastics to get around them.
Did anyone else catch Radio 4 Sunday this morning? They wheeled in one of Trump's pet pastors to give an unhinged rant about +Mariann. It was really quite disturbing how much he lied (claiming the Bishop didn't preach from scripture) and dissembled (basically claiming that any reference to compassion, or mercy, or helping the oppressed can and should be exegeted into irrelevance).
Yes, I did catch that and couldn't quite believe what I was hearing.
And another who couldn't quite believe what they were hearing. And couldn't quite figure out the reason for calling her a heretic.
Pastor Lorenzo Sewell, "fresh from his own prayers at the Presidential Inauguration"
You need a login Id to be able to play it back, but it's here, the Bishop at about 27 mins, the Pastor at about 29.
"She never came from the Bible, she never preached the Bible, and the reason why I call it theological and spiritual malpractice is, she never went into the texts of Scripture, helped everyone understood what the Scriptures meant then and how we can apply the scriptures today. She never did that. What she did was... what she did was use her pulpit in the name of God. She used her pulpit in the name of spiritual authority to commit spiritual abuse."
The presenter had a good go at saying she was referring to the Bible, and quoting Luke 4, and she was asking for mercy for the vulnerable and where in the Bible does it say you can't so that. (Apparently everywhere, because something about judgment - didn't quite catch it) And asking for clarification on why she was being called heretical...
"When you take a political perspective, and you try to overtone it with the Bible, that's where heresy comes in. You can't... you draw from the scriptures, you draw from the word of God, you draw a political perspective from the word. You don't interject it into the word so that's the difference"
Our own Fr P's sermon today was based on the Lord's quotation (and modification of) the passage from Isiah. The good Bishop was referenced with the utmost appropation.
It was excellent stuff. Fr P. is obviously also a heretic. As I am.
Yesterday was of course 'Burn's Night'.
Burn the witch!
Yes, I heard Pastor Lorenzo Sewell's rant. One of his beefs was that the Bishop hadn't quoted scripture. The interviewer pointed out that she had and indicated which passage, from Luke 4 I think.
So he changed tack and said that she hadn't exposited it.
When the interviewer pointed out that whilst that might be the case but surely the tone and tenor of her comments accorded with scripture he changed tack again and ranted about overlaying scripture with one's own political views - as if he never does exactly that himself.
At the risk of cross-threading, if there was ever an argument against 'sola scriptura' then it's his own dodgy exegesis and highly selective approach.
I certainly think that it was right of the BBC to interview and to air the views of Pastor Lorenzo Sewell. It must have made a good number of people think what is this guy on about and how Christian is his message.
The pastor was one of the clerics who offered a prayer of benediction at the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump.
I certainly think that it was right of the BBC to interview and to air the views of Pastor Lorenzo Sewell. It must have made a good number of people think what is this guy on about and how Christian is his message.
The pastor was one of the clerics who offered a prayer of benediction at the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump.
I certainly think that it was right of the BBC to interview and to air the views of Pastor Lorenzo Sewell. It must have made a good number of people think what is this guy on about and how Christian is his message.
The pastor was one of the clerics who offered a prayer of benediction at the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump.
Definitely a case of "giving him enough rope".
Maybe? In general I’m in favour of a policy of balance in BBC broadcasting but I worry about the air time given to sycophantic and hypocritical views (thanks Nick Tamen) expressed aggressively.
As could have been predicted with some confidence in this case.
I was once told (and I don't know if this is strictly true) that the word *heresy* simply means *a different point of view from that more usually accepted*.
I certainly think that it was right of the BBC to interview and to air the views of Pastor Lorenzo Sewell. It must have made a good number of people think what is this guy on about and how Christian is his message.
The pastor was one of the clerics who offered a prayer of benediction at the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump.
Definitely a case of "giving him enough rope".
Maybe? In general I’m in favour of a policy of balance in BBC broadcasting but I worry about the air time given to sycophantic and hypocritical views (thanks Nick Tamen) expressed aggressively.
As could have been predicted with some confidence in this case.
I agree it wasn't necessarily intentional, just that it was how it played out in this case. Normally the wingnuts they get on are more adept at framing "legitimate concerns" than this particular specimen.
I disagree with the estimable @Barnabas62 on the inept or inappropriate use of 'balance' by the BBC in this instance. It may not have been a deliberate ploy to make Pastor Laslo Sewell look stupid but that was the effect. He came across as a prize wally.
It's not exactly analogous but when Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC's Question Time he made such a thorough fool of himself that he effectively ended his own 'political' career. For non-UK readers Griffin was the leader of a far-right party.
Sometimes it is good to let these sort of people condemn themselves in their own words.
@Nick Tamen - sure, I'm not saying that hypocrisy and sycophancy are the hallmarks of 'sola scriptura' - but then I'm not convinced that 'sola scriptura' actually exists - at least not the form that Pastor Laslo Sewell probably understands it.
'Sola scriptura' is a contradiction in terms. It is an oxymoron.
But that is something for the other thread ...
I hasten to add that casuistry, hypocrisy and sycophancy can be found in spades within non-sola scriptura Christian traditions / Traditions.
@Nick Tamen - sure, I'm not saying that hypocrisy and sycophancy are the hallmarks of 'sola scriptura' - but then I'm not convinced that 'sola scriptura' actually exists - at least not the form that Pastor Laslo Sewell probably understands it.
Do you have any evidence of how, or even whether, Lorenzo (not Laslo) Sewell understands sola scriptura and applies it? Or are you just making assumptions?
Could anyone provide the link to Radio 4's report. This Yank could not find it.
Here’s a link. I don’t know if it’ll work outside the UK. It’s on the BBC Sounds app. The relevant section is about twenty-seven and a half minutes in.
Could anyone provide the link to Radio 4's report. This Yank could not find it.
Here’s a link. I don’t know if it’ll work outside the UK. It’s on the BBC Sounds app. The relevant section is about twenty-seven and a half minutes in.
@Nick Tamen - sure, I'm not saying that hypocrisy and sycophancy are the hallmarks of 'sola scriptura' - but then I'm not convinced that 'sola scriptura' actually exists - at least not the form that Pastor Laslo Sewell probably understands it.
Do you have any evidence of how, or even whether, Lorenzo (not Laslo) Sewell understands sola scriptura and applies it? Or are you just making assumptions?
Sorry, I got his name wrong. My bad.
Yes, I was making an assumption. He did sound pretty fundamentalist so I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption to make. I am prepared, though, to stand corrected if my assumption is incorrect.
Please don't misunderstand me. By having a go at Pastor Lorenzo Sewell I am certainly not having a go at Protestant clergy or ministers in general nor the Protestant tradition as a whole. If I were to criticise the former Archbishop of Canterbury it wouldn't mean I was criticising the Anglican tradition as a whole.
I've often made disparaging remarks about Patriarch Kyrill on these boards.
That doesn't mean I am dismissing the entire Russian Orthodox tradition.
The impression I gained of Pastor Lorenzo Sewell from the BBC interview was a highly negative one. He shifted ground, he dissembled, he ducked and dived. I have no hesitation in expressing my views on his performance nor, in this instance, the kind of exegetical method he seems to employ.
In doing so I am not casting aspersions on your own Presbyterian denomination or tradition nor American Protestantism in the wider sense.
The impression I gained of Pastor Lorenzo Sewell from the BBC interview was a highly negative one. He shifted ground, he dissembled, he ducked and dived. I have no hesitation in expressing my views on his performance nor, in this instance, the kind of exegetical method he seems to employ.
I’d say the negative impression you gained was quite accurate. As to the exigetical method he seems to employ, that interview suggests to me it’s the method of expediency.
A tangent. After some other discussions, and in particular with Louise and chrisstyles about air time, I’ve become more critical of the current policy on balance. We need some critical skills to understand when somebody has made a fool of themselves in dialogue I agree with your viewpoint that in this case that happened. But space was still given for some pretty derogatory and factually incorrect words. And not all listeners will be able to discount the sycophantic and hypocritical words.
There’s a fine line between good quality control and unfairness. Some speakers don’t deserve the air time. Particularly if their intention is manipulative rather than informative. And there’s a lot of that about these days.
Jesus' directive (Matthew 18) on correction is to speak to the person in private first. Secondly, take witnesses and speak to that person. If needed, tell the church. If no correction is made, treat him like a gentile or tax collector. Not sure how preaching in a national setting from the pulpit follows Jesus' directive on this matter.
Not taking sides here, just commenting on the procedure.
Jesus' directive (Matthew 18) on correction is to speak to the person in private first. Secondly, take witnesses and speak to that person. If needed, tell the church. If no correction is made, treat him like a gentile or tax collector. Not sure how preaching in a national setting from the pulpit follows Jesus' directive on this matter.
Not taking sides here, just commenting on the procedure.
I think the rules for the conduct of private individuals is not particularly relevant to the rhetoric and actions of public officials in their duties. There our examples are the prophets, up to and including John the Baptist, who certainly did rebuke those in authority. Jesus was also willing to criticise the religious authorities publicly, and in much harsher terms.
Jesus' directive (Matthew 18) on correction is to speak to the person in private first. Secondly, take witnesses and speak to that person. If needed, tell the church. If no correction is made, treat him like a gentile or tax collector. Not sure how preaching in a national setting from the pulpit follows Jesus' directive on this matter.
Not taking sides here, just commenting on the procedure.
Sounds like stage 3 to me...
What can't know what has happened privately.
Not sure it's exactly analogous
Jesus' directive (Matthew 18) on correction is to speak to the person in private first. Secondly, take witnesses and speak to that person. If needed, tell the church. If no correction is made, treat him like a gentile or tax collector. Not sure how preaching in a national setting from the pulpit follows Jesus' directive on this matter.
Not taking sides here, just commenting on the procedure.
Sounds like stage 3 to me...
What can't know what has happened privately.
Not sure it's exactly analogous
Quite. Trump knows damned well what many Christians think of his claim on Christianity.
Stage 1, in principle.
His claim on Christianity is well documented, and he anyway makes no attempt to deny it.
Stage 2, in principle.
So we're at Stage 3 already and have been for eight years.
I'll leave just a qualitative comment that it seems odd to use words of Jesus about handling issues within the church with kindness to criticise someone calling for handling issues with kindness.
This is assuming we actually believe Trump believes his own claims, rather than being a self-seeking grifter who says what he says to grease his way into the support of powerful lobbies, which is rather my suspicion.
Jesus' directive (Matthew 18) on correction is to speak to the person in private first. Secondly, take witnesses and speak to that person. If needed, tell the church. If no correction is made, treat him like a gentile or tax collector. Not sure how preaching in a national setting from the pulpit follows Jesus' directive on this matter.
Not taking sides here, just commenting on the procedure.
Based no doubt in the conduct of Jesus and the prophets, Lutherans hold that a public sin deserves a public rebuke, particularly when the one sinning is a prominent public figure and is sinning in his public capacity.
A tangent. After some other discussions, and in particular with Louise and chrisstyles about air time, I’ve become more critical of the current policy on balance. We need some critical skills to understand when somebody has made a fool of themselves in dialogue I agree with your viewpoint that in this case that happened. But space was still given for some pretty derogatory and factually incorrect words. And not all listeners will be able to discount the sycophantic and hypocritical words.
There’s a fine line between good quality control and unfairness. Some speakers don’t deserve the air time. Particularly if their intention is manipulative rather than informative. And there’s a lot of that about these days.
A tangent. After some other discussions, and in particular with Louise and chrisstyles about air time, I’ve become more critical of the current policy on balance. We need some critical skills to understand when somebody has made a fool of themselves in dialogue I agree with your viewpoint that in this case that happened. But space was still given for some pretty derogatory and factually incorrect words. And not all listeners will be able to discount the sycophantic and hypocritical words.
There’s a fine line between good quality control and unfairness. Some speakers don’t deserve the air time. Particularly if their intention is manipulative rather than informative. And there’s a lot of that about these days.
Sure, but I'd have thought that a clergy person in the Trump camp was a pretty obvious interviewee to approach for a reaction and response.
It's not analogous but after football or rugby matches they always interview players and managers from each team.
Besides, if they'd not got aome kind of reaction from Trump's lackeys they'd be accused of bias. Sorry, I don't buy it. It was completely appropriate to get a response from Pastor Lorenzo Sewell.
We could have predicted he'd say something daft and lo and behold he did. The only people who would be persuaded otherwise would be people on the same page as him.
He showed himself to be a complete clown just like his boss.
A tangent. After some other discussions, and in particular with Louise and chrisstyles about air time, I’ve become more critical of the current policy on balance. We need some critical skills to understand when somebody has made a fool of themselves in dialogue I agree with your viewpoint that in this case that happened. But space was still given for some pretty derogatory and factually incorrect words. And not all listeners will be able to discount the sycophantic and hypocritical words.
There’s a fine line between good quality control and unfairness. Some speakers don’t deserve the air time. Particularly if their intention is manipulative rather than informative. And there’s a lot of that about these days.
I hadn’t thought about Martin54’s point which is very fair.
Gamaliel, if the invitation was to avoid criticism, that kind of makes my point. If so, it wasn’t really to inform, just the defensive sense that we must get someone to balance things out.
But Martin54 has encouraged me. Why he was invited is less important than the fact that the Sunday morning Radio 4 audience would in general see his foolishness and unfairness for what it was. And that’s a good thing.
Perhaps you will pardon me for retaining my general concern about the balance policy? One swallow does not make a summer.
For those who might be interested, here's a gift link to a NY Times article on the reception among mainline Christians in the US of Bishop Budde's sermon:
... for many progressive Christians and their leaders, the confrontation was more than a moment of political catharsis. It was about more than Mr. Trump. It was an eloquent expression of basic Christian theology, expressed in an extraordinarily public forum.
...
Bishop Budde’s sermon delivered a jolt of energy in many mainline Protestant churches, whose numbers and influence have declined steeply from a high point in the middle of the last century. Some mainline Christians have sensed an unsettling whiff of irrelevance that has accelerated in the Trump era, as Mr. Trump has elevated a stream of conservative, political Christianity whose leaders in some cases do not even consider Bishop Budde a fellow Christian.
So it was startling for many progressive Christians and their leaders to see Bishop Budde’s sermon overpower the prayers that were delivered at the inauguration by clergy members who are more sympathetic to Mr. Trump — and to see her rely primarily on theological principles themselves, rather than advocating specific policies.
To me the important thing about Budde's sermon is that she modelled speaking truth to power in the best way. It doesn't matter that Trump reflexively attacked her, and it doesn't matter that the BBC put on some cleric no one in the US has even heard of in the name of what's passing for balance these days. What does matter is that someone said out loud what needs to be said, and that her doing so may encourage others to do likewise. This is exactly the kind of thing we're going to need if we're going to have any hope of holding onto decent values in this country.
I’ve said it probably far too often but the lines from “Dune Messiah” seeking to speak truth to power keep coming back to me. Especially in the second age of Trump.
“If you put away from you those who speak the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections”.
And there I’ve said it again. A real “badass” quote!
Ruth, I share your misgivings about the BBC balance policy as I’ve said upstream. But in this case it probably did more to damage the “cleric that no one has ever heard of” who made something of a fool of himself.
I hadn’t thought about Martin54’s point which is very fair.
Gamaliel, if the invitation was to avoid criticism, that kind of makes my point. If so, it wasn’t really to inform, just the defensive sense that we must get someone to balance things out.
But Martin54 has encouraged me. Why he was invited is less important than the fact that the Sunday morning Radio 4 audience would in general see his foolishness and unfairness for what it was. And that’s a good thing.
Perhaps you will pardon me for retaining my general concern about the balance policy? One swallow does not make a summer.
Most gracious of you Barnabas62. And I certainly share your concern, ever since Hutton. And there was time about 10 years ago when the flagship Today program (or it may have been PM) wheeled out Baron Lawson of Blaby, the district I lived in at the time; Nige, for his inexpert opinion on global warming. A term the BBC still eschews in favour of climate change.
Sorry, I cannot see how the one side can be called Christian. Can anyone find a middle ground?
Shane Claiborne, the author of the piece, is an evangelical Anabaptist. In the piece he observes that it is increasingly difficult to find any middle ground between the Christianity of Trump and his followers and the gospel of Jesus.
Not in a majority of evangelicals of course. Not by any means. But good friends with the late Tony Campolo., also from evangelical stock. Who observed in the 1990s that the marriage of convenience between right wing Republicans and right wing Christians could put back the cause of Jesus in the USA by 50 years.
Comments
As far as I could tell it was because she took the Biblical messages about how to treat other people literally rather than performing hermenutical gymnastics to get around them.
And another who couldn't quite believe what they were hearing. And couldn't quite figure out the reason for calling her a heretic.
You need a login Id to be able to play it back, but it's here, the Bishop at about 27 mins, the Pastor at about 29.
"She never came from the Bible, she never preached the Bible, and the reason why I call it theological and spiritual malpractice is, she never went into the texts of Scripture, helped everyone understood what the Scriptures meant then and how we can apply the scriptures today. She never did that. What she did was... what she did was use her pulpit in the name of God. She used her pulpit in the name of spiritual authority to commit spiritual abuse."
The presenter had a good go at saying she was referring to the Bible, and quoting Luke 4, and she was asking for mercy for the vulnerable and where in the Bible does it say you can't so that. (Apparently everywhere, because something about judgment - didn't quite catch it) And asking for clarification on why she was being called heretical...
"When you take a political perspective, and you try to overtone it with the Bible, that's where heresy comes in. You can't... you draw from the scriptures, you draw from the word of God, you draw a political perspective from the word. You don't interject it into the word so that's the difference"
Have mercy!
It was excellent stuff. Fr P. is obviously also a heretic. As I am.
Yesterday was of course 'Burn's Night'.
Burn the witch!
Oh yes it does!
So he changed tack and said that she hadn't exposited it.
When the interviewer pointed out that whilst that might be the case but surely the tone and tenor of her comments accorded with scripture he changed tack again and ranted about overlaying scripture with one's own political views - as if he never does exactly that himself.
At the risk of cross-threading, if there was ever an argument against 'sola scriptura' then it's his own dodgy exegesis and highly selective approach.
The pastor was one of the clerics who offered a prayer of benediction at the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump.
Definitely a case of "giving him enough rope".
A heretic is anyone that disagrees with your world view.
Maybe? In general I’m in favour of a policy of balance in BBC broadcasting but I worry about the air time given to sycophantic and hypocritical views (thanks Nick Tamen) expressed aggressively.
As could have been predicted with some confidence in this case.
I was once told (and I don't know if this is strictly true) that the word *heresy* simply means *a different point of view from that more usually accepted*.
I agree it wasn't necessarily intentional, just that it was how it played out in this case. Normally the wingnuts they get on are more adept at framing "legitimate concerns" than this particular specimen.
That would be extreme cancel culture: evil. Using evil to overwhelm evil just means you get worse.
True, it helps everybody who uses it for good and ill. So... it doesn't help.
It's not exactly analogous but when Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC's Question Time he made such a thorough fool of himself that he effectively ended his own 'political' career. For non-UK readers Griffin was the leader of a far-right party.
Sometimes it is good to let these sort of people condemn themselves in their own words.
@Nick Tamen - sure, I'm not saying that hypocrisy and sycophancy are the hallmarks of 'sola scriptura' - but then I'm not convinced that 'sola scriptura' actually exists - at least not the form that Pastor Laslo Sewell probably understands it.
'Sola scriptura' is a contradiction in terms. It is an oxymoron.
But that is something for the other thread ...
I hasten to add that casuistry, hypocrisy and sycophancy can be found in spades within non-sola scriptura Christian traditions / Traditions.
Sorry, I got his name wrong. My bad.
Yes, I was making an assumption. He did sound pretty fundamentalist so I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption to make. I am prepared, though, to stand corrected if my assumption is incorrect.
Please don't misunderstand me. By having a go at Pastor Lorenzo Sewell I am certainly not having a go at Protestant clergy or ministers in general nor the Protestant tradition as a whole. If I were to criticise the former Archbishop of Canterbury it wouldn't mean I was criticising the Anglican tradition as a whole.
I've often made disparaging remarks about Patriarch Kyrill on these boards.
That doesn't mean I am dismissing the entire Russian Orthodox tradition.
The impression I gained of Pastor Lorenzo Sewell from the BBC interview was a highly negative one. He shifted ground, he dissembled, he ducked and dived. I have no hesitation in expressing my views on his performance nor, in this instance, the kind of exegetical method he seems to employ.
In doing so I am not casting aspersions on your own Presbyterian denomination or tradition nor American Protestantism in the wider sense.
Re BBC balance
A tangent. After some other discussions, and in particular with Louise and chrisstyles about air time, I’ve become more critical of the current policy on balance. We need some critical skills to understand when somebody has made a fool of themselves in dialogue I agree with your viewpoint that in this case that happened. But space was still given for some pretty derogatory and factually incorrect words. And not all listeners will be able to discount the sycophantic and hypocritical words.
There’s a fine line between good quality control and unfairness. Some speakers don’t deserve the air time. Particularly if their intention is manipulative rather than informative. And there’s a lot of that about these days.
Not taking sides here, just commenting on the procedure.
❤️ Agreed.
(I “heard” this in pantomime style though.
“Oh yes it does!”
“Oh no it doesn’t!”
“Oh yes it does!”
And so on…)
I think the rules for the conduct of private individuals is not particularly relevant to the rhetoric and actions of public officials in their duties. There our examples are the prophets, up to and including John the Baptist, who certainly did rebuke those in authority. Jesus was also willing to criticise the religious authorities publicly, and in much harsher terms.
Sounds like stage 3 to me...
What can't know what has happened privately.
Not sure it's exactly analogous
Quite. Trump knows damned well what many Christians think of his claim on Christianity.
Stage 1, in principle.
His claim on Christianity is well documented, and he anyway makes no attempt to deny it.
Stage 2, in principle.
So we're at Stage 3 already and have been for eight years.
I'll leave just a qualitative comment that it seems odd to use words of Jesus about handling issues within the church with kindness to criticise someone calling for handling issues with kindness.
This is assuming we actually believe Trump believes his own claims, rather than being a self-seeking grifter who says what he says to grease his way into the support of powerful lobbies, which is rather my suspicion.
Based no doubt in the conduct of Jesus and the prophets, Lutherans hold that a public sin deserves a public rebuke, particularly when the one sinning is a prominent public figure and is sinning in his public capacity.
Not all target listeners of Radio 4?
Sure, but I'd have thought that a clergy person in the Trump camp was a pretty obvious interviewee to approach for a reaction and response.
It's not analogous but after football or rugby matches they always interview players and managers from each team.
Besides, if they'd not got aome kind of reaction from Trump's lackeys they'd be accused of bias. Sorry, I don't buy it. It was completely appropriate to get a response from Pastor Lorenzo Sewell.
We could have predicted he'd say something daft and lo and behold he did. The only people who would be persuaded otherwise would be people on the same page as him.
He showed himself to be a complete clown just like his boss.
At 7:30 on a Sunday morning too!
Gamaliel, if the invitation was to avoid criticism, that kind of makes my point. If so, it wasn’t really to inform, just the defensive sense that we must get someone to balance things out.
But Martin54 has encouraged me. Why he was invited is less important than the fact that the Sunday morning Radio 4 audience would in general see his foolishness and unfairness for what it was. And that’s a good thing.
Perhaps you will pardon me for retaining my general concern about the balance policy? One swallow does not make a summer.
Sorry, I cannot see how the one side can be called Christian. Can anyone find a middle ground?
To me the important thing about Budde's sermon is that she modelled speaking truth to power in the best way. It doesn't matter that Trump reflexively attacked her, and it doesn't matter that the BBC put on some cleric no one in the US has even heard of in the name of what's passing for balance these days. What does matter is that someone said out loud what needs to be said, and that her doing so may encourage others to do likewise. This is exactly the kind of thing we're going to need if we're going to have any hope of holding onto decent values in this country.
And there I’ve said it again. A real “badass” quote!
Ruth, I share your misgivings about the BBC balance policy as I’ve said upstream. But in this case it probably did more to damage the “cleric that no one has ever heard of” who made something of a fool of himself.
Most gracious of you Barnabas62. And I certainly share your concern, ever since Hutton. And there was time about 10 years ago when the flagship Today program (or it may have been PM) wheeled out Baron Lawson of Blaby, the district I lived in at the time; Nige, for his inexpert opinion on global warming. A term the BBC still eschews in favour of climate change.
Shane Claiborne, the author of the piece, is an evangelical Anabaptist. In the piece he observes that it is increasingly difficult to find any middle ground between the Christianity of Trump and his followers and the gospel of Jesus.
Not in a majority of evangelicals of course. Not by any means. But good friends with the late Tony Campolo., also from evangelical stock. Who observed in the 1990s that the marriage of convenience between right wing Republicans and right wing Christians could put back the cause of Jesus in the USA by 50 years.