YouGov poll last fall prior to the election found a significant portion of both Republicans and Democrats who hold that violence can be justified to achieve political goals. Among the findings was that 36 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats said it is at least “a little” justified for their side “to use violence in advancing political goals.” 

A January 2021 American Perspectives Survey study also found there is an increasing tolerance for political violence among Americans. And this is particularly the case among Republicans. “A majority (56 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life.” Nearly 40% of Republicans agree with the statement, “If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves even if it requires taking violent actions.” 

Considerably less than half as many Democrats answered in the same way. But among them, as well, a disturbing acceptance of political violence can be found. Daniel Cox, director of the American Enterprise Institute, described the findings as “really dramatic” in an interview with NPR. “I think any time you have a significant number of the public saying use of force can be justified in our political system, that’s pretty scary,” he said.

A CBS/YouGov poll taken subsequent to the insurrection found “half of Americans (51%) expect even more political violence in the years to come. A majority of Republicans (59%) and Independents (55%) expect more political violence in the next few years.” Furthermore, “Most Americans believe the biggest threat to America’s way of life is other people in the country and domestic enemies.”

What role have Christian leaders had in this tendency to find political violence more acceptable? Considerable, I’m afraid, especially in white conservative churches that most closely identify with the political right. As Rebecca Sager and Brie Loskota have written, “This merging of racial and religious interests created political alliances were more than just a marriage of convenience: white entitlement and grievance, packaged with a moral veneer of racialized religious belief, uses the language of spiritual warfare to justify the pursuit of political power by any means.”  

Rather than calling for peace during this time when violence-prone passions seem to be on the increase, some Christian leaders are throwing fuel on the flames. Distressingly, the language of spiritual warfare has transitioned into the sort of religious rhetoric that lends support to literal civil war, or at least religiously sanctioned violence. So it should be no surprise that religious symbols and signs at the deadly January 6 protest made abundantly clear the fervid participation of many conservative Christians.

While many across the spectrum of opinion condemned the violence, it was not universally the case. The morning following the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, The Dove Christian television network’s morning news program featured right wing activist John Guandolo telling viewers that the Trump-supporting mob actually displayed “restraint” by not executing the “traitors” in Congress.

Speaking of progressive influences in American society, he went on the say, “I don’t see any other way out than a real armed counterrevolution to this hostile revolution that’s taking place, primarily driven by the communists,” said Guandolo, who conducts anti-Muslim law enforcement trainings throughout the United States and propagates anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.  It is ironic that Guandolo’s call for civil war took place on a television channel called “The Dove.” 

READ: Say ‘No’ to Christion Nationalism: Evangelical Leaders Statement

Well-known author and conservative Christian radio host Eric Metexas has contributed to the sanctioning of political violence. During a November episode of his show, Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano put Trump on speakerphone. “I’d be happy to die in this fight. This is a fight for everything. God is with us,” declared. Given the context of his words, it would be difficult for him to claim he was speaking figuratively. And in fact he didn’t claim to be doing so! When Metexas was later asked what he meant, he answered, “I meant exactly what Nathan Hale meant when he said, ‘My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country.’” 

He went on to say, “When you believe liberty is being threatened; when you believe elections are being threatened; when you believe that any of these things are being threatened—people have died for these things.” He denied that he was talking all about Trump but then immediately reaffirmed that he believed Trump won the election and criticized those who say, “We just don’t want to stick our necks out on this.” He insisted there is evidence of widespread voter fraud but produced no evidence at all. Metexas refused to admit that questioning the legitimacy of the election could provoke violence even as he himself employs militant rhetoric.

Late last year right wing Christian author and pastor Rick Joyner voiced his support for a civil war during an appearance on the The Jim Bakker Show. “We’re in time for war. We need to recognize that. We need to mobilize. We need to get ready,” Joyner. He went on to say, “One of the things I saw in a dream I had related to our civil war was that militias would pop up like mushrooms. And it was God. These were good militias.” 

He claimed, “If God’s people don’t become a part of the militia movements, the good militias, the bad people will take them over.” When asked who these “bad people” are he pointed to Black Lives Matter, declaring that Christians must aggressively oppose the organization because it’s “the KKK of this time.” 

Despite the frequent fretting heard from the political and religious right over Black Lives Matters, this is for the most part, a fabricated threat, a distraction to draw attention away from the real danger that is found overwhelmingly with the radical right. While in a small minority in the thousands of BLM protests there has been property damage and violence, 95% of the demonstrations were peaceful, according to a study done by The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED).

It is a testimony to the rarity of even violent talk -much less action- among BLM that those on the right endlessly refer to one incident in one protest where the chant, “pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” was heard. This chant occurred in 2015 in a demonstration in St. Paul Minnesota, lasting about 30 seconds. There is no evidence that such a chant was ever used in any of the hundreds of other BLM demonstrations for racial justice. But leaders on the right have repeatedly and slanderously tried to characterize the movement by tying it to the chant. 

However, far too many voices on the white Christian right have been raised on behalf of political violence. The same is not found among more progressive Christians.

As those at the Southern Poverty Law Center have observed, “Extremist ideas don’t exist separately from our larger culture – including our political economy, media landscape, and education models.” If political violence in the U.S. is going to be curtailed the various influences that contribute to it need to be confronted. Since right wing radicalism obviously has enlisted many Christians, clear thinking church leaders need to actively and openly point to a better, more faithful way.

Some ministers have attempted to intervene -both through personal counseling and in sermons-  when they have become aware that church members have become radicalized by rightwing propaganda. This needs to take place much more often. It seems that far fewer ministers who are unsympathetic to the radicalism on the right are willing to speak up than those who align themselves with it. The voices of religious leaders are indispensable if white Christians –evangelical and otherwise- are not going to continue having their faith subverted by the far right.

According to Elizabeth Neumann, who served as an assistant secretary of counterterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security under Trump until last Spring, “It’s important to acknowledge what a challenging moment we have as a nation, but also the fact that there was an element of the Christian community that participated in what got us to this point,” she said. “We need to pause and take a moment and reflect, and if we have sinned, repent of it.” Indeed, we do!

READ: Is Killing Lisa Montgomery the Best Version of Justice We Have?

But especially during the Trump years, they have proven themselves to be the real ethical relativists. They have echoed Trump’s cry, “Fake news!” every time reliable, internationally respected news sources contradict the claims of Trump and other politicians with whom they have aligned themselves. They have condemned scientists and other renowned experts by derisively calling them “the elite,” preferring instead to trust right-wing pundits and conspiracy theorists.

Trump supporting evangelicals have shown that while they may be honest in their personal lives among friends and family, their commitment to truthfulness in public affairs is absent. Their ethical relativism allowed them to compartmentalize their attachment to honesty. “Truth” is whatever serves their interests and protects their partisan political loyalties. This is what allowed Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition to say, “There has never been anyone who has defended us and who has fought for us, who we have loved more than Donald J. Trump. No one!” Such words do not represent a people of the truth but a people of the lie who seek power or security at the cost of integrity.

Regardless of what they may claim, Christians of this sort are not, to cite the words of Jesus, “salt and light,” influencing the world for good, but agents of darkness and deceit. White evangelicals and other Christians who have willingly embraced the lies of Trump or his surrogates and who have chosen to dismiss the apparent truth have discredited themselves before the nation and the world. They share responsibility for the deadly and destructive insurrection of January 6. And they shouldn’t be surprised that their trust in the lies of Trump leads many people to distrust them about Jesus.

The upcoming turbulent election finds the country not only more viciously divided than at any time in over a hundred years, it is also more heavily armed than it has ever been. “FBI background checks – a direct indicator of gun sales – almost doubled year-on-year this summer, a reflection of the jitters that abound. As America arms itself, deadly weaponry is increasingly finding its way on to the streets, borne by self-styled private militias,” noted Guardian reporter Ed Pilkington. While guns are being purchased predominately by those on the right, those on the left are buying them as well.

In response to Trump’s call to carefully watch the polling places for voter fraud, armed intimidation and voter suppression is expected. There are tens of thousands of militia members who are loyal to Trump who could create a tremendously threatening situation. In the just cited article Devin Burghart, the director of the anti-bigotry organization the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights is quoted saying, “A number of [militia] groups have begun talking about mobilizations on election day and beyond. We’re hearing initial chatter about preparations for 3 November and we’re paying close attention.”

READ: The Burning Bush

A growing number of both social commentators and historians have suggested that the time between the presidential election and the inauguration may prove to be the most dangerous period for the United States since the Civil War. It is very possible that the outcome of the election may not be know for days, perhaps even weeks, after the election day. Uncertainty creates instability. Some individuals who have fled countries internally disrupted by bloody violence have warned that what they see taking place in the U.S. is troublingly similar to what they saw happening in their own countries.  Warning lights are flashing.

A significant increase in political violence is particularly likely if the results of the election is disputed and thrown into the courts. For weeks the President has been busy suggesting widespread voter fraud is inevitable. Given the likelihood that he will be defeated, there are numerous indications that Trump will seek to invalidate the results of the election. As Barton Gellman wrote recently in the Atlantic, “Let us not hedge about one thing. Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance.” Everything we know about Trump tells us this! But if he refuses to concede there will almost certainly be blood.

Appallingly, there are preachers and religious media figures who are pouring gasoline on the partisan flames by adding their voices to those of militias who are promoting a new civil war. As I have written about earlier, a number of evangelical leaders have issued bogus warnings that Christians in America will soon be persecuted. Echoing the ridiculous claims made by Trump that Democrats and those on the left are atheists and want to get rid of God, some among the religious right claim that the stakes are so high deadly force against their political enemies is necessary.

But followers of Jesus in fact must be committed to nonviolence, regardless of what others do. Jesus declared, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:7). In his own life he modelled what it means to be a peacemaker. Peacemaking in the way of Jesus is never a matter of meeting violence with violence, deadly force with deadly force. Rather, the priority of peaceableness must be maintained and the rejection of bloodshed must he held without qualification.

But this peaceableness is not a commitment to maintaining calm and quiet in the face of attacks on the integrity of elections, the subversion of democracy, and disregard for justice.  Those who seek power at any cost deserve to be resisted. Those who willingly disregard the will of the people as expressed through free elections must be stopped. Democratically illegitimate rule should be fought with every nonviolent means possible. All attempts to allow the Supreme Court to determine the presidency –as Trump has already suggested might be done- should be resisted persistently and with unflinching determination. If necessary the streets need to be filled with protesters willing to disrupt the ordinary course of business day after day, week after week.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. declared, “Every true Christian is a fighting pacifist….Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of justice.” With a commitment to the priority of peaceableness we must fight against the authoritarianism that erodes democracy and subverts majority rule while it preserves narrow ethno-nationalistic interests. In keeping with our peaceable priority we need to resist the temptation to demonize those we must oppose. But that should not lessen our willingness to fight for justice as we enter the most threat-filled and consequential election season in well over one hundred years. Blood may be shed. But may it never be by our hands.

Trump accused the judge presiding over the suit involving his defunct, fake “university” of being a “hater.” That judge Gonzalo Curiel has a Mexican heritage and because of that Trump declared in a racist denunciation that he should have been disqualified from the case. The most evident hatred was not that of the judge but Trump’s own.

He has recently labeled the House of Representative a bunch of Trump haters. Previously he had gone for far as to accuse certain non-white members of Congress of “hating America.” At one point he claimed the Democratic Party as a whole is “consumed with hatred.”

Trump declared that painting the words Black Lives Matter on Fifth Avenue was a symbol of hate. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany defended Trump by recalling an incident five years earlier during a protest in Minneapolis when some of the protesters chanted, “Pigs In A Blanket, Fry ‘Em Like Bacon,“ as though that one chant on that one occasion somehow defines the entire movement. Yet Trump has pointed to the chant on a number of occasions to distract from the entire point of the Black Lives Matter movement and to suggest that it is all about hate for police rather than justice for black people who are disproportionately shot and killed by police.

Trump baselessly claimed that teachers in public schools instruct kids to hate America. He insisted, “Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes but they were villains.” He accused teachers of being motivated by a ““far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.” The charge is ironic, given the level of loyalty Trump has demanded from others.

When in Portland a band of mothers linked arm in arm along with veterans from every branch of service and lined up to protect protesters from Trump’s federal troops who had tear-gassed and beaten them, Trump called them “haters.” He tweeted, “The ‘protesters’ are actually anarchists who hate our Country. The line of innocent ‘mothers’ were a scam.” He referred to them as “sick and deranged Anarchists & Agitators.”

In fact, Trump accusations of hate actually are reflections of his own hatreds. He hates those who won’t step in line. He hates dissenters. He hates the media. He hates those who question his view of reality. He hates those who don’t think he has accomplished more than any other President. He hates those who are not loyal to him. And the list goes on.

Hate is not found in any list of virtues. Yet, interestingly enough, we find scripture saying, “There is…a time to love, and a time to hate” (Ecclesiastes 3:8). Scripture also contains these words: “Let those who love the Lord hate evil” (Psalms 97:10).  

So when is it time to hate and what sorts of things are worthy targets of hatred in our present situation? While Trump and his supporters accuse those who are at odds with them of hating America, I think it is more accurate to say that they hate Trump’s version of and vision for America, and not only America but the broader world.

In view of this I believe several things are hate-worthy in Trump’s America.

READ: Antiracism Educators, Your Sources Matter

Hate-worthy is anti-immigrant bigotry and particularly the exclusion of desperate refugees during what has been the worst refugee crisis since World War 2. The callousness of Trump’s policies which has included dividing families and caging children is appalling and morally repugnant. Recently, a Canadian Federal Court ruled “that the U.S. cannot be considered a safe country for refugees.” Borders, to the extent that they are necessary, must be maintained humanely.

Hate-worthy is racism and white supremacy and the continued denial by Trump that there is a serious systemic problem in law enforcement and the U.S. criminal justice institutions. This highly destructive expression of racial inequality is seen in the fact that a disproportionate number of black people are shot by police, charged with drug offenses, and are given harsher sentences for crimes than are whites convicted of the same crimes.

Hate-worthy is gross economic inequality fostered by Trump through tax cuts that predominately benefits the rich and through reductions in aid for the least advantaged. Such inequality has been shown to have a strong correlation with such social problems as high murder rates, high prison population, high infant mortality rates, high rates of substance abuse and low average life expectancy. Economic inequality didn’t start with Trump but he has worsened it.

Hate-worthy is the strain on international relations due to the arrogant “America First” stance. Christians should know intuitively that such a baldly nationalistic stance is hazardous. National self-centeredness is no less ethically deficient than personal self-centeredness. We live in a world where interdependence is unavoidable and necessary. Seeking the good of all rather than a single-minded focus on the advantage of one nation over all deserves the support of anyone who would follow Jesus.

Hate-worthy is militarism that consumes funds needed for schools, healthcare, infrastructure, and the general welfare of the population. Those who follow the Prince of Peace have every reason to have the deepest reservations about the glorification of armed might. Excessive pride in the armed forces misshapes social priorities and fosters the notion that weapons-based security is more important than the security that comes from dependable healthcare, decent housing and sufficient food.

Hate-worthy is the degradation of the environment due to abolishing or weakening regulations protecting clean air, water and soil. Leasing protected public lands for private profiteering companies to mine and drill has been given a green light by the Trump administration. The way the Endangered Species Act is administered under Trump gives more weight to economic considerations when designating an endangered animal’s habitat. 

Hate-worthy is Trump’s undercutting of efforts to curtail climate change.  The Clean Power Plan policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants was eliminated when Trump entered the White House. He loosened emission standards on cars and trucks. He withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, the vitally important international treaty to address the climate crisis. His policies move the planet ever closer to disaster.

I can easily list more. But what is most notable about this kind of hatred is that it is the flipside of love. In the words of a great prophet, “Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate” (Amos 5:15a). Some hate should be embraced because is the consequence of a passion for a more just, healthy, and harmonious world. If we love rightly we will inevitably recognize that there is, indeed, “a time to hate.”

“It is always wrong to lie for your own benefit,” he insisted. “But lying to gain political advantage is not wrong. If it is necessary in order to win people over and to stop them from supporting a political party or position you believe is destructive, then lying is morally legitimate.” My friend said he expected that some of his students would provide examples of situations where lying to save someone’s life would be permissible. But politics?

That Christian young man is far from the exception.

As the cynical, misanthropic Dr. Gregory House, of the TV series often said, “Everybody lies.” Yes. None of us are guilt-free when it comes to lying. But everyone doesn’t lie abundantly, shamelessly, and often maliciously. The fact that most of us don’t lie blatantly or continually is because we recognize the importance of telling the truth, even when it is inconvenient. A society will crumble if lying is not looked down upon and if people can’t be counted on to tell the truth the vast majority of the time.

But we have come to expect a certain amount of dissembling from politicians. Fudging the truth to make themselves look better has always been part of the game of electioneering. And not sharing all the relevant information about ramifications of policies they push is virtually expected. Flagrant, unapologetic lying is another matter. 

Jesus said, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no” (Matthew 5:37). He called for the unvarnished truth. Jesus went so far as to say the truth would “set you free” (John 8:32). However, we live in a time when many people are convinced power sets us free and any truth that doesn’t lead to power is dispensable. Clearly, that is the case with President Trump who is on track to make 20,000 false or misleading claims by the end of this month.

Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote of Trump, “His goal, even before he became president, was far more ambitious than to tell mere lies. It was to annihilate the distinction between truth and falsity, to make sure that we no longer share facts in common, to overwhelm people with misinformation and disinformation.” Yet the vast number of white Christians –evangelical and otherwise- have continued to stand with him, defend him, echo his lies and even lie for him.

Sadly, many Christians, both before and since his election, have proven to have a very casual relationship with the truth. But, Frederick Clarkson noted that “various expressions of conservative evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are allied in a long-term war with everyone else. And in this war, lies are a feature, not a bug.” He points to the thinking of theologian, R.J. Rushdoony, the most important figure in the rightwing evangelical Dominionism movement who points to the biblical figure Rahab to justify lying.

Rahab (Joshua 2:1-21) lied on behalf of two Israelite spies she had taken into her home who had come prior to the attack on the city of Jericho by the army led by Joshua. She hid the two and lied to Canaanite soldiers who came in search of the spies. For her help the spies promised that when the city was attacked she and her family would be spared. Rushdoony, and those influenced by his ideas, contend that in war –and that includes culture war- there is nothing wrong with lying in order to win. Such lies are not hypocritical but a righteous necessity.

I’m not convinced Jesus would agree. Shortly before his crucifixion when Jesus was hauled before the Roman governor of Judea, Pontus Pilate, he said to him, “I came into the world, to testify to the truth.” Pilate responded, “What is truth?” (John 18:37-38). He wasn’t asking a serious question. He was being dismissive. For him power was more important than truth and that was made clear in the events that followed. 

The quest for and preservation of power is evidently more important than truth for some well-known Christians in our time as well.

Sarah Sanders is a notable example. The daughter of Baptist minister and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee, she served for two and a half years as White House press secretary. During that time, she developed a reputation for being anything but honest and forthright. No doubt representing the Trump administration while being anything remotely resembling truthful must have been a tremendous challenge. 

READ: Nationalism, Purity Culture, and Hijacked Christianity

Vice documented a number of her most notable lies. She claimed FBI Director James Comey’s firing in May 2017 was partly because “the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in Comey.” Lie. She later admitted that claim “was not founded on anything.” She claimed 4000 terrorists or suspected terrorists had been stopped at the southern border. Lie. There were six. She claimed that employment for blacks had risen dramatically under Trump in comparison to what had happened under President Obama. Lie. Not even close. And the list goes on.

Evangelical Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, is a liar’s liar, saying, “If keeping one’s word is central to one’s character – and it clearly is – then Donald Trump has shown he has far more character than his critics.” Except for those nearly 20,000 documented falsehood? Against all evidence to the contrary, Reed maintains that Trump “freely acknowledges … flaws and mistakes of his past.” In fact Trump doesn’t ask for forgiveness from God or people. Reed insists, “President Trump has ushered in a new era of spiritual renewal and religious liberty.” That claim can be regarded as truth only if exclude Jesus in our understanding of spirituality.

Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and of Samaritan’s Purse, has shown himself to be ready and able to lie for political ends. He is deeply devoted to President Trump and refuses to acknowledge his most blatant faults and failings. When asked about the president’s propensity to lie, Graham flatly denies that to be the case. Instead he concedes that Trump may have “misspoken” or that he was “misrepresented.”

Really? The payoff to Stormy Daniels is one of many things about which Trump clearly lied. But Graham has also actually repeated Trump’s self-serving lies, such as this: “The economy of our nation is the strongest it has been in 50 years.” At no point in Trump’s time in office has that been the case, no matter how many time he makes the boast.

Vice President Pence has a name for being a man of faith but that hasn’t stopped him from being a man of deceit. Heaping praise on Trump, he gushed, “You have restored American credibility on the world stage” when in fact there probably has never been a time when the U.S. has been more pitied and disrespected throughout the world. Several weeks ago he lied by saying, “I don’t believe the president has ever belittled the threat of the coronavirus.” 

But Trump had said, “We have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at this moment — five. And those people are all recuperating successfully” (January 30). And, “I think the numbers are going to get progressively better as we go along” (February 19). And similar statements could be added. Trump has spewed an abundance of lies in reference to the coronavirus.

But not only “big name” Christians engage in political lying. Ordinary Christians do as well, as evidenced by numerous posts on social media, especially through spreading wild conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, the “deep state,” antifa, or impending Christian persecution.

“The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy” (Proverbs 12:22). In his recent book, theologian D. Stephen Long has written, “If speech does not serve truth, it serves only the interests of power….The only way for truth to be served, and thus for the possibility of a just political society, is for persons to be held accountable for their speaking and acting.” 

We must not normalize political lying. We must not justify it, make excuses for it, or call it by less pointed names. If we believe Jesus when he said, “The truth shall set you free,” we must insist on nothing less than the truth from the White House to our own houses.

Many of us have bent over backwards to insist that they are actually pretty good people, especially the ones who have filled churches. But perhaps it’s worth examining further. This is not to say there is no good in them but it is to say that the goodness they have seems disconnected from and distorted by their support of Trump.

Sure, they can be pleasant and do good deeds, maybe many of them. But is this goodness selective, bestowed on a chosen, worthy few: their friends, family, church, and perhaps even the “right kind” of needy people? It doesn’t appear to be mindful of the common good, to be sure.

Behind said goodness is a willingness to justify vicious lies, applaud cruelty, and celebrate financial benefits for the few to the neglect of the many. Behind it is an impulse to believe the worst about the poor, minorities, immigrants, Muslims, and otherwise marginalized people. Without this they couldn’t support his policies that inflict so much harm.

Of course hyper-partisanism plays a significant role in Trump’s support. Some people have so internalized distain toward Democrats that they will vote for literally anyone, no matter how deep and numerous their faults, rather than support a Democrat. White anxiety also is most certainly a driving force—that fear that they will “lose” the country to people who don’t look like them.

And, yes, there is always abortion to justify applauding any Republican over any Democrat. This, regardless of the fact that policies Democrats are more likely to support -easy access to contraceptive, sex education, and a strong social safety net- have a proven record of being more effective in reducing abortion rates than banning abortion.

But none of these other factors explain how Trump has managed to maintain his approval in the polls within a stable, relatively narrow range regardless of how many lies he tells, how many women accuse him of sexual assault, how many times he crudely insults people worthy of respect, how racist he has shown himself to be, and how much evidence there is of his criminality. His standing in the polls have been amazingly steady through it all. 

Contrast this with President George H. W. Bush whose approval dropped to 29%. Or worse, President George W. Bush whose approval went as low as 25%. Surely, they had flaws, too. But in comparison to the current occupant of the White House, they pale. What has Trump tapped into that other presidents didn’t? Whatever it is, it can’t be called goodness.

READ: There Is No Other

Apparently, Trump has displayed more insight about the nature of his supporters than those of us who have sought to give them the benefit of the doubt. When he declared in that often cited line, that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose his supporters, he was not only boasting about his ability to win loyalty. He was also acknowledging that his followers have less of a commitment to basic morality and common decency than they have to him.

They justify, deny, minimize, or willfully ignore the sweeping corruption of Trump. They cling to him but not because he has conveyed an inspiring, uplifting vision or because he has somehow appealed to the best that is within them. To the contrary.

They are not repelled by Trump because in fact he endorses the worst that is within them. They quietly – or not so quietly- rejoice hearing Trump boldly say and display the things that are in the darkness of their hearts. Trump gets away with it all because his supporters actually admire what most of us can see as evil. Sure, some of them feel periodic discomfort. Still, they stand by him.

Every time we speak of Trump supporters and insist on making prominent the claim that they are generally “pretty good people” we end up aiding and abetting the very moral compartmentalized that we see them practicing. Those crowds of grinning people seen in old black and white photos at the base of so many hanging trees no doubt had friends and family members who would insist that they, too, were “pretty good people.” Possibly most of them likely would not themselves have put a rope around a Black person’s neck. But they are the kind that make horrors possible.

Some may object and say all of this is judging, to which I must respond with the words of Jesus, “You shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15). Love for family and friends and “America first” is not sufficiently good fruit to offset the rotten fruit of divisiveness, exclusion, cruelty, corruption and the sweeping attack on truth that Trump’s supporters participate in as they stand by him as his enablers. 

Those whose lives bear good fruit couldn’t possibly cheer as Trump recites “The Snake” to vilify immigrants, or nod in agreement at his racist comment about “shithole countries,” or readily accept his totally baseless claim that “Antifa” and anarchists were the driving force behind the protests over the police murder of George Floyd and so many other Black people while at the same time denying the reality of systemic racism.

People with “good fruit” in their lives resemble Jesus. They emulate the one who stood with the poor, healed the sick, reached out to the marginalized, practiced nonviolence, faithfully proclaimed truth, and loved even his enemies. They don’t scoff at “losers” but side with the weak. Their kindness, goodness, and gentleness is not kept near at home but leaps barriers put up by fear, suspicion, and hostility. These are not qualities found at a MAGA rally.

We need to be finished with putting the phrase “good people” in the headline when talking about the supporters of Trump. Reserve it for a footnote. The headline should contain a call for them to repent.

Those who have been howling from Michigan to California to Texas and more insist that they are being oppressed and abused by restrictions that require wearing a face mask –or a cubreboca, as it is called where I live- maintaining social distancing, and staying at home except for essential purposes like food and medications. It is not a tyrannical government that is imposing needless constraints on people. Rather the measures have been put it place to avoid the catastrophic consequences.

Covid-19 has already claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world. Millions have already fallen victim to it. Serious lingering effects from the disease continue to be discovered. The virus is highly infectious. The restrictions that have been put in place in the United States and many other countries are emergency measures with the sole intention of saving lives. More lives have been lost in the States than anywhere else on the planet. 

Without a vaccine the deadly disease will continue to be a threat. The only other ways to hinder the spread of the horrible disease are found in the courses of action that have been put in place, the very measures that are being resisted by the lockdown protesters. No one enjoys wearing a mask, not being able to go to work or being told to stay at home. No one wants businesses to have to stay closed, risking the possibility of bankruptcy. No one wants a recession. But neither should we ignore the dangers of reopening our communities and workplaces prematurely.

Dr Anthony Fauci, the government’s top public health expert, cautioned in Senate testimony recently that the official coronavirus death toll in the US is in fact an undercount, and that “the consequences could be really serious” if America relaxes safeguards against Covid-19 too abruptly. He said: “There is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you might not be able to control. Not only leading to some suffering and death, but it could even set you back on the road to get economic recovery.”

Yet misguided lockdown protesters have come pressing to lift stay-at-home orders regardless of the risks such action would pose and the lives that would be lost. Some insist –with the support of President Trump who said, “They seem very responsible to me”- that they are willing to die for the economy. It is their right to cast aside the restrictions! So they come to the state capital, often with guns in hand, with the clear intent to threaten and intimidate law makers. They demand freedom!

Some continue to dismiss the dangers presented by the coronavirus and claim the entire crisis is a hoax. Extremists are exploiting the situation as they push conspiracy theories and seek recruits. In Michigan protesters with semi-automatic weapons entered the Capital building. The Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer has been threatened and compared to Adolf Hitler. Protesters have showed up with nooses and Confederate flags. Some signs read, “TYRANTS GET THE ROPE.” Demonstrators with weapons walked into the Senate gallery where they stood above lawmakers. The Michigan attorney general warned against a “powder keg dynamic” fostered by heavily armed protesters. 

In at least a half dozen cases around Texas, frustrated small-business owners have turned to heavily armed, militia-style protesters to serve as reopening security squads. Phillip Archibald arrived with his semi-automatic weapon to defend the reopening of Crash-N-Burn tattoo parlor. “It’s not for looks,” declared J.P. Campbell, 45, a military veteran with the group Freedom Fighters of Texas as he stood guard outside the shop with a shotgun draped across his chest. “We’re willing to die.”

READ: Stopping COVID-19’s Third Wave: Our Christian Duty

“We go out there because we want peace, but we prepare for war,” said C.J. Grisham, 46, a retired Army sergeant whose gun rights group Open Carry Texas helped the arrested owner of a bar in Odessa get a lawyer. “I hope this never happens, but at some point guns are going to have to cease to be a show of force and be a response to force,” he said. President Trump looks to the lockdown protesters and says they are “great people.”

Irrational anti-government impulses drive much of this movement. As one of the protester’s sign reads, “FEAR THE GOV’T, NOT COVID-19!” Certainly there are times to be wary of the government. Measures that are put in place during emergencies can linger far beyond their legitimate usefulness. We might immediately think of the so-called Patriot Act put in place shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But constructive, life-saving measures that have been implemented in response to the coronavirus are not expression of a tyrannical government but acts of wise governments.

Some of the signs carried at the lockdown protests have been humorous in a trivial minded sort of way, like the one that said, “I WANT A HAIRCUT!” More often seen are signs that read “SET US FREE!”, “FREEDOM OVER FEAR!”, and “DEFY FASCIST LOCKDOWN!” In one of the protests a man with a handgun on his hip and a middle aged woman carried a large sign the read, “I WILL NOT TRADE MY FREEDOM FOR YOUR SAFETY!” 

But the sentiment conveyed by the sign and expressed in the lockdown protests have nothing to do with real freedom. Real freedom can never disregard the safety of others just so it can stretch its wings. The freedom that the lockdown protesters are demanding is not freedom at all. Freedom worthy of affirmation is not an end in itself.

I recall a striking line from the movie “The Crossing Guard” spoken by a wise ex-con: “If nothing is more important than freedom then freedom is just entertainment.” If freedom does not serve a purpose beyond itself then it is a self-centered trivial thing. Freedom that is nothing more than the opportunity to follow my whims, grasp my personal preferences, and the chance to feed my passing appetites is not a high and noble value. What gives freedom its true worth is the end that freedom serves.

Real freedom is not found in simply doing what we want to do without regard to others. Rather real freedom is found as we do what is for the good of others. As scripture says, “You were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become servants to one another” (Galatians 5:13). The purpose of freedom does not reside in my self-satisfaction but in the pursuit of what enhances the lives of others. Genuine freedom is love at work.

Stanley Hauerwas wrote, “We are told that others hate us because they despise our freedoms, but it may be that others sense that what Americans call freedom is bought at the expense of the lives of others.” That has so often been true, and it is certainly true of the sort of freedom the lockdown protesters are demanding. But real freedom is not bought at the expense of others. Rather it comes in the service of others. 

A life lived in genuine freedom is a life lived that others might flourish, and in doing so, finding our own fulfilment. Real freedom is not found merely in the act of choosing but in choosing well. And we only choose well when our choices are made so that life might thrive, not only our own life, but the lives of those around us as well. To cite again the book of Galatians, “Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . .For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (5:1, 14).

It is a bogus freedom that the lockdown protesters demand for themselves as they brandish their weapons in the midst of a pandemic. Instead of following their lead, lets heed the warnings of the public health experts and support the restrictions they tell us are necessary for the time being as we look forward to when we can set aside our masks, leave our homes, and socialize without endangering ourselves or anyone else. “Love does no wrong to a neighbor” (Romans 13:10), and neither does real freedom.

It would be extremely easy to find more than a few people who are eager to get back to some semblance of “normal” life. Virtually no one likes the shelter-in-place lockdown that has been broadly imposed in many places in the United States and beyond. For most people, the social isolation has been a trying experience, even though necessary to inhibit the spread of the novel coronavirus. 

But conservatives are sure that slackers abound. Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio recently said, “A lot of [business] people are having trouble re-hiring workers because workers are saying to them, ‘I’m making more on unemployment.’” He essentially echoes the other Florida U.S. Senator and past Governor Rick Scott who earlier insisted, “If given the choice to make more on government program than on a job, some will…delay going back to work, hampering our economic recovery.”

Of course Florida politicians are not the only ones pointing fingers of judgement. It is happening in Iowa, Oklahoma, Georgia, and elsewhere. And threats are being made as well: Return to your jobs or risk losing unemployment benefits. Teresa Thomas Keller, the deputy director of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission said, “If there is a claimant out there that says, ‘You know what, I can make more money sitting at home, drawing this extra $600,’ and some other benefits, then if the employer will contact us, that is considered a refusal of civil work and we will cut off their benefits.” 

Yet Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease doctor, responded to the fact that more than 30 states will have started easing social distancing restrictions for coronavirus by the first days in May by saying that some are taking a “really significant risk” in doing so. Some states are reopening without having met federal guidelines. Dr. Fauci and other health experts fear such action could lead to a jump in infections and more deaths than predicted.

President Trump has been trying to normalize deaths caused by the coronavirus by comparing them to auto accident deaths, claiming that car-related deaths are “far greater than any numbers we’re talking about.” But, in fact, about twice as many American deaths have been caused by COVID-9 in three months than happen on U.S. highways in an entire year. More recently, Trump has said, “We have to be warriors. We can’t keep our country closed down for years.” Those who can read between the line can see his implication: workers who are not willing to put their lives on the line are deserters and cowards.

Laborers who had been considered relatively unimportant before the pandemic are now seen as essential, frontline workers. Not only are doctors and nurses risking themselves for the sake of others, those all along the food supply chain are doing the same, making themselves vulnerable to infection. From farmers, to truck drivers, warehouse workers, and grocery store clerks. Too many have fallen ill and died.

READ: Fighting for Hope: Brooklyn Coffee Shop Turned Food Pantry

Workers like those at the Smithfield pork factory in Sioux Falls, South Dakota were glad to have their jobs and wanted to return to the work they were doing. “I can’t wait to go back to work for the simple reason that this is the only thing that supports my family,” said Smithfield employee Achut Deng. But the plant became the center of the state’s coronavirus outbreak, with more than 700 cases linked to the plant.

 Slaughter houses, meat packing companies and poultry plants in several states have been centers of coronavirus inflections and deaths. Christine McCracken, a meat industry analyst at Rabobank in New York, said, “If workers don’t feel safe, they may not come back, and we don’t have a large pool of people that are lining up to work in these plants.” 

President Trump issued an executive order that could shield companies from lawsuits by employees who fall ill while cutting meat. The executive order declares: “It is important that processors of beef, pork, and poultry in the food supply chain continue operating and fulfilling orders to ensure a continued supply of protein for Americans.” What is missing are mandated requirements insuring the safety of the workers. Optional guidelines are insufficient. 

Recently, even as the pandemic was raging, the Department of Agriculture issued waivers allowing 15 poultry plants to increase their line speeds. “They prioritize line speed production and traffic over worker health and public health,” said Debbie Berkowitz, a former high-ranking official at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Many workers don’t want to risk their lives by returning to their jobs. They are not trying to get something for nothing, as conservative politicians suggest. Rather they reasonably believe that their health is worth too much for them to be jeopardizing it and that of their family members for a low paying job. Instead of sufficiently acknowledging the legitimate safety concerns of workers and the absurdity of expecting them to risk their lives for minimum wages or a little more, conservative politicians and their like-minded supporters choose to see these people as slackers who simply want to sit at home and collect unemployment checks.

Too often religious conservatives, particularly the politicians among them, are quick to judgmentally and self-righteously cite the scripture that says, “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). It is always toward the less advantaged, never to the idle rich, that they aim this scripture. There is a vast difference between being unwilling to work out of laziness and an unwillingness to work during a pandemic in unsafe conditions for deplorably low pay. There is no room for judgmentalism toward workers if we love as we have been called to love by Jesus.

If essential workers on unemployment are getting paid more to stay at home than to go to work in conditions hazardous to their health, the problem is not with the workers. The problem is with the low pay and unacceptable working conditions. The shame should fall on those who are unconcerned about this state of affairs, not on workers who are being pressured to return to work. If contempt is to be heaped somewhere, let it not be on workers but on heartless politicians.

This can be seen in a piece written several years ago that has lately been circulating again on social media, Five Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian. No doubt it is making the rounds again because a couple progressive political candidates have been doing well in the primary elections. Not only would no Christian who identifies with socialism accept her definition of what it is, her arguments fall far short of taking the biblical witness –and specifically Jesus’ model and message- seriously. 

Let’s briefly examine her points.

First, she says, “To socialists. All that really exists is the material world.” She attempts to impose Karl Marx’s atheism on all socialists, ignoring the many faithful Christian leaders who for generations have embraced some form of socialism. In fact Christian writers were advocating versions of socialism before Karl Marx ever penned the first line of Das Kapital. Frederick Denison, Adin Ballou, Thomas Hughes, John Ruskin, and Frederick Dennison Maurice were among them.  Many others followed, including Baptist minister and author of the Pledge of Allegiance Francis Bellamy.  

In the research done by Harvard professor Dan McKanan, he concluded that as many as 25% of mainline ministers in the United States identified as socialists in the first decades of the 20th century. It can be argued that atheism is more of an aberration than an intrinsic trait of socialism. There are many Christians today who have views which some would label as socialist who would scoff at the notion that their convictions imply that “all that really exists is the material world.” Any attempt to paint socialism as fundamentally atheistic is ignorant and misguided. 

Just because the material world is not all that exists does not mean we should not take the material world and its problems seriously. Inequality is a crucial concern that demands the attention of anyone who takes seriously the admonition, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself” (Mark 12:30-31).  In fact a tremendous amount of suffering is the result of an unequal distribution of wealth and many troubling social issues are associated with gross economic inequality. This has been well documented.

The developed nations with the worst wealth inequality are also the ones with the highest infant mortality rate, highest murder rate, largest prison population, most substance abuse, and the lowest life expectancy, among other things. As the author of the above named article states, “The Bible says the cause of suffering is sin.” Yes. And gross inequality is an expression of sin. Repentance is needed, personally and corporately.

Second, she insists that “socialism punishes virtue.” Behind this claim is the deluded idea the prosperous people are the more virtuous people and the poor are of lesser moral character. Nothing could be further from the truth. Strangely, she imagines her claim is backed up by the well-known line from Marx, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Give and take is required. Both contribution and reward are contained in these words. 

Yet the author is misguided by her ideology so that all she can see is some sort of sanction to “mooch.” She falsely says socialism, as defined by the well-known line, will “punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who aren’t.” She ignores the words, “From each according to his ability…” Consequently, she predictability quotes a favorite passage of those who judgmentally accuse the poor of laziness: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10).

The poor are often far more hard working than the rich.  As British journalist George Monbiot noted, “If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.” And not only women, and not only in Africa. In most cases hard work does not bring wealth. The poor are not impoverished because of a lack of doing work but because of inadequate pay. 

As scripture says, “The field of the poor may yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice” (Proverbs 13:23). Those who are more powerful “sweep away” profits which the poor should receive and keep for themselves. Sure there are some who are poor and lazy, but they are the minority. Just as there are those who are lazy but self-indulgently rich. Interestingly, conservatives never speak a word of criticism about them.

READ: Taking Biblical Economic Justice Seriously

Three, the author says, “Socialism endorses stealing.” In fact it can be argued that it is capitalism that endorses stealing. Failing to pay a living wage when profits are available to do so is theft. Because they are weak and desperate, many people are exploited.  Scripture speaks of those who oppress the poor in order to enrich themselves (Proverbs 22:16). Sometimes that oppression is entirely legal. The great prophet Isaiah condemned the rich and powerful “who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right” (Isaiah 10:1-2).

Personal property is affirmed in scripture with such words as those which speak of “everyone under their own vine and under their own fig tree” (2 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10). But the right to private property is not unlimited. Perhaps it is for followers of Ayn Rand but not for followers of Jesus. Laws in scripture curtail unrestricted ownership. 

One example of this is the gleaning law: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. ‘Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God (Leviticus 19:9-10). This law functions like a tax to shift resources from the more affluent to the less affluent. And this is not the only biblical law that served such a purpose, as I have pointed out elsewhere.

The early Church Fathers had a much clearer understanding of the limits of private property and the meaning of theft than present day conservative Christians. Among the most influencial of them, Ambrose Bishop of Milan (340 AD – 397 AD), wrote, “You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor. You are handing over to them what is theirs. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.” Everything that comes into one’s possession is not one’s own without qualification, according to the Bible.

Four, the author argues, “Socialism encourages envy and class warfare.” In fact, there was class warfare before socialism existed. Class warfare is driven by great need in the face of a minority basking in great abundance. Economic injustice is the soil in which class warfare grows. Socialism is not the cause of class warfare rather it offers one possible solution to it. The conservatives claim socialism fosters envy. But the issue is not envy. Rather the accumulation of great wealth evokes justified resentment among the under-privileged who work hard but are rewarded little.

The author insists that “socialists demonize the rich.” It may seem that way to conservatives who may glorify the rich and view them as more worthy of praise than others. But their adoration is misplaced. No one has in fact earned hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. No amount of the “sweat of the brow” and supposed “virtue” can justify such extraordinary sums. 

If someone made $19,230 a week –about 20 times the average full-time pay- it would take a thousand years for him or her to take in a billion dollars. There is something spiritually distorting in great wealth. After Jesus told the rich man to sell what he owned and give it to the poor and the man refused, Jesus said, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God…It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:23, 25). Was Jesus a class warrior?

When Jesus’ mother Mary envisioned the future of her son, as though already accomplished, she sang, “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:46-53). As Jesus began to teach, his words echoed the sentiment of those spoken by Mary. “Jesus looked up at his disciples and said: ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God….But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation” (Luke 6:20, 24). 

At no point in his ministry did Jesus support the interests of the rich and powerful over those of the weak and poor. Rather he used every means available to him in his age to do what he could to aid those in need. We need to do the same. It is not wealth and the wealthy that deserve condemnation in and of themselves. Rather it is super abundance in the face of suffering and great need that is rightly seen as demonic. 

Finally, in her attacks on socialism, she asserts, “Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.” While this may have been true for Marx, most others never embraced this idea, and certainly Christian socialists have rejected it. Her attack is dishonest, a strawman argument. 

Indeed, one of the central reasons greater economic equality is a worthy goal for Christians to pursue is precisely because it makes possible healthier, better educated, flourishing families. For this reason Christians should be at the forefront of those working to reduce the huge and destructive wealth disparity that now exists.

None other than the president of the United States named that end in a tweet he reposted from a preacher who has been called the Apostle of Trump: civil war! He said that if Trump was impeached and removed from office it would cause a civil war-like disruption in the country. He didn’t say a literal civil war, nor claim to be predicting one. But the very words conjure horrors.

The fact is that a growing number of people are predicting a literal civil war. Not a war between states or one with large armies lined up against one another, but a national upheaval that would involve a significant increase in domestic terrorism and guerilla action.

There are rash, careless voices being raised that both predict and seem to encourage civil war. Republican Congressman Steven King posted a taunting meme on social media suggesting that if there was a civil war, red state citizens would win because they have “about 8 trillion bullets.”

Humor? Perhaps. But in the poorest of taste given the fact that there is much talk about the possibility of civil war that is deadly serious.

Radical right-wing religious broadcaster Rick Wiles recently said the liberal politicians “are compelling calm, law-abiding, middle-class American citizens to prepare for the unthinkable: a violent civil war in America fought between the pagan left and the religious right.” He went on to say to his audience, “I strongly encourage you to take immediate action to prepare your home and family for the worst. Don’t foolishly dismiss my warning that a revolution could erupt, or widespread civil disruptions, even civil war.”

Stuart Rhodes, leader of Oath Keepers, a neo-militia group made up of current and former law enforcement officers, declared, “This is the truth. This is where we are. We ARE on the verge of a HOT civil war. Like in 1859. That’s where we are. And the Right has ZERO trust or respect for anything the left is doing. We see THEM as illegitimate.” Add to this the fact that there is some troubling questions about where the military might fall if widespread armed conflict breaks out.

A lot of ordinary Americans agree that the U.S. is moving from a cold civil war to a hot civil war. A 2018 national telephone and online survey from Rasmussen Reports finds that 31 percent of likely U.S. voters think it’s probable that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years. Eleven percent say it’s very likely. An even more recent study, a new Georgetown University poll, seems still darker. It found that the majority of Americans believe, irrelevant to party or region where they live, the country is “two-thirds of the way to internecine bloodshed.”

David C. Barker, professor of political science at America University in Washington, D.C, said, “We think the most likely outcome for 2020 and beyond is that the country divides even further. It sounds hyperbolic that we could be heading toward a civil war, but I don’t know that that’s completely out of the question.” He went on to point out that surveys indicate 15 to 20 percent of people say that violence against political adversaries is called for.

But why has the country come to this point? Some blame Obama. Others point to Trump. Both are inadequate answers.

In a recent article C. Bradley Thompson wrote, “There are now two Americas, and the division is not between the ‘haves’ and the ‘not haves’ or between whites and blacks.” So what is it? “His answer: “The coastal, blue state, Ivy-educated Ruling Elite has contempt for flyover, red state, trailer park deplorables. And vice versa.”

He is, I believe, exactly wrong! This is a narrative created and propagated by the real “Ruling Elite,” the wealthy elite who own media empires and buy political influence through large campaign contributions. These are the ones pulling the strings for their own advantage, not college professors or most other professionals. And if you don’t think the yacht, Lamborghini, and Rolex crowd have contempt for the “trailer park deplorables,” you are delusional.

Jesus said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25). Abraham Lincoln drew from these words of Jesus in his famous pre-Civil War speech given in Springfield, Illinois, in 1858 in which he insisted that the nation could not be two things at the same time. It could not be half slave and half free. He recognized that some differences are so fundamental that they cannot be resolved through compromise.

And the present day United States can’t have white, anxiety-soothing, conservative, minority rule and be a diverse, genuinely democratic country at the same time. The country can’t cater to the interests of the oligarchy and allow them overwhelming influence and, at the same time, have a government that is attentive to the needs of the vast majority of us. It must be one or the other. These are the conflicts at the heart of the division, the suspicion, the mutual hostility, and disdain that grips the U.S. And unlike smaller issues, they can’t be compromised away.

As one insightful commentator has pointed out, if a new civil war comes, “it won’t just be a war of white supremacists and Trump cultists against the rest of us…but a war between those comfortable with oligarchy (indeed, embracing it, as it promises them safety and stability) versus those who believe in democracy.”

As I look toward the 2020 presidential election, I don’t see the possibility — perhaps even the likelihood — of deadly conflict disappearing, no matter who is elected. It seems we are at an impasse. Mutually exclusive futures are before the country. And this is tearing America apart. But as Lincoln recognized, the country can’t be two utterly opposed things at the same time. And so the situation is explosive.

What can we do to avert civil war? There are no easy answers, and there is nothing we can do that will guarantee a pleasing outcome. We certainly cannot stop advocating and agitating for justice for all, for greater inclusion, influence, and equality for those who have been marginalized. That is not an option! But we can temper the rhetoric and refuse to demonize those who stand opposed to the future we want to see. We must, as scripture says, be a people who are “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

We must also recommit ourselves to nonviolent love. As we struggle for justice, we need to maintain a priority of peaceableness. As Jesus taught, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6:27-28). Sadly, the “enemies” we need to love are fellow citizens and even brothers and sister in Christ, though at times we may find it difficult to recognize them as such. But regardless of what others do, we need to reject deadly force.

Finally, we need to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). We are not alone in our struggles, even as we face the dreadful possibility of a new civil war. It is important that we acknowledge our dependence on One greater than ourselves who alone can make the world come out right. We go to God, trusting that “God moves in a mysterious way / God’s wonders to perform.” We do not know when, and we do not know how. So, in the face of uncertainty, we “persevere in prayer” (Romans 12:12).

May God help us find a way to a more positive, peaceful, and just future.