Will the Teachings of Jesus Ever Take Priority Over Church Doctrine?

#569: Will the Teachings of Jesus Ever Take Priority over Church Doctrine?

By Rudy Barnes., Jr., October 18, 2025

David French has written that Something Is Stirring in Christian America, and It’s Making Me Nervous.  “That’s understandable since church doctrine limits salvation to Christian believers.  At the memorial service for Charlie Kirk, there were mixed calls for love (most notably Erika Kirk’s decision to forgive her husband’s killer) compared to Trump’s explicit hate.”

Charlie Kirk supported Trump, and to the laughter and cheers of the crowd at Kirk’s memorial service--Trump said that he hated his opponents.  Stephen Miller, the president’s top domestic policy advisor, declared that his perceived political enemies were “nothing.  You are nothing, he said, You are wickedness.  You are jealousy.  You are envy.  You are hatred.”  The contrasting views of Charlie Kirk reflect the conflicting views of Christianity in America.

According to French, “Revival begins with the people proclaiming by word and deed: I have sinned.  MAGA Christianity has a different message.  It looks to American culture and declares, You have sinned.”  And America sinned grievously when it elected Donald Trump, not once, but twice .  Democracy has allowed us to sin collectively.           

Jesus never limited salvation to Christians.  His teachings were universal, timeless and altruistic, as reflected in the hymn Others, in The Cokesbury Hymnal.  But exclusivist doctrines remain; and even though Christianity is in decline, it remains the world’s largest religion, with popularity the measure of success in both America’s religion and its politics.

Even democracy is losing popularity around the world today, with autocratic and populist politics gaining strength over democracy.  Nationalism has subverted the universal moral appeal of democracy.  Trump, Putin and Netanyahu are demagogues who represent the shift from support for the common good in democracy to populism and religious nationalism.

Church attendance has never been a true measure of the strength of the teachings of Jesus in the church, and his universal teachings have never been popular; even so, Christianity has remained the most popular religion in the world, even though it’s now in decline.  Jesus was a universalist Jew who never taught that God limited salvation to any religion, not even his own.

It’s no wonder that David French is nervous about a Christian religious revival in America, since its doctrine is controlled by the church and continues to emphasize Christianity’s exclusivist beliefs as the only means of salvation, rather than the universal teachings of Jesus in the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors of other races and religions (others) as we love ourselves.

Will the next church revival (if it comes) be an institutional church revival that emphasizes popular doctrinal themes that were never taught by Jesus, or promote less popular themes of altruistic love that were taught by Jesus--like providing for the common good and loving all Others as we love ourselves?  

So long as church doctrines measure their success based on popularity, expect Jesus to remain an outsider.  Popularity will always remain the measure of success in democratic politics, but the American church should promote providing for the common good as the measure of its success.  That’s probably what’s making David French so nervous about a church revival.  See David French, Something Is Stirring in Christian America, and It’s Making Me Nervous, See https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/16/opinion/christianity-charlie-kirk-revolution-revival.html.

  

Notes:  

On Popularity as the measure of success in the church and democracy, see  https://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2024/08/musings-on-popularity-as-measure-of.html.

Charles D. Meigs, Wrote the Hymn Others, The Cokesbury Worship Hymnal (1938), p, 177:

Lord, Help me live from day to day In such a self-forgetful way, 

That even when I kneel to pray, My prayer shall be for others.

Refrain: Yes, others, Lord, yes, others,
Let this my motto be; Help me to live for others,
That I may live like Thee,
Help me in all the work I do
To ever be sincere and true,
And know that all I’d do for You
Must needs be done for others.

Let “Self” be crucified and slain
And buried deep: and all in vain
May efforts be to rise again,
Except to live for others.  

So when my work on earth is done,
And my new work in heav’n’s begun,
I’ll praise You for the crown I’ve won,
But praise You more for others.

In 2009 Robin Meyers wrote, Saving Jesus from the Church: Or How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus.”  Meyers’ book illustrates the dichotomy between following Jesus and worshiping Christ. What are those remaining Christians who are committed to following Jesus (discipleship) supposed to do?  We might begin with The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity:

1.  Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;

2.  Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;

3.  Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:

conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, believers and agnostics, women and men,

those of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and those of all classes and abilities;

4.  Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe;

5.  Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;

6.  Strive for peace and justice among all people;

7.  Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth;

8.  Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love. See https://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/.

#568: How Civil Military Relations Could Reshape America's Future

#568: How Civil-Military Relations Could Reshape America’s Future

By Rudy Barnes, Jr., October 18, 2025

America’s Political Future is shaped by its civil-military relations, as it was in 1860 when President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law and deployed Union forces to counter the secession of 13 states.  But there has been no internal threat to the U.S. since the Civil War, contrary to the claims of Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth on September 30.

Even so, last week Donald Trump activated and deployed National Guard forces to U.S. cities, from Chicago to Memphis, Tennessee, with more to come; and he urged Secretary of Defense (and War) Hegseth to use the cities where forces have been deployed as training grounds for a new military mission to protect the U.S. from an unknown internal political threat.  

Republicans have effectively shut down Congress, leaving Trump’s Executive branch as the only operational branch of American government.  On September 30 Trump convened senior military officials in Quantico, Virginia, and alarmed onlookers by invoking the need to mobilize military forces to quell an unseen “invasion from within;” and Trump has continued to consider using the Insurrection Act, a rarely used 1807 law that gives the president authority to deploy military forces to stamp out rebellion and ensure order at home. 

The military is a part of the Executive Branch that can quell insurgency and provide essential public services through its civil affairs personnel.  As fears grow about how far Trump will go in politicizing and reshaping the mission of the military, Republicans have continued to support Trump’s norm-busting and self-serving policies.  While Democrats oppose Trump, they don’t have enough power to stop Trump and his Republicans in Congress.

I’m a retired JAGC colonel and a graduate of the Army War College who was taught that the ultimate purpose of America’s military is to preserve peace, not to make war.  I was privileged to wear a green beret and awarded the Legion of Merit, and I have published numerous articles in military journals and a book on Military Legitimacy, Might and Right in the New Millennium in 1996.

If civil-military relations are left to Trump and Hegseth, America could go the way of Hitler’s Germany, Putin’s Russia, and Netanyahu’s Israel with a totalitarian regime.  It will take an enlightened electorate and new political leadership to reaffirm the duties and obligations of the military to support and defend the Constitution; otherwise all could be lost.

On September 30 Trump and Hegseth openly advocated domestic military deployments that would constitute a military insurrection and give Trump and his supporters effective control of America’s military.  Can America correct this threat of insurrection that could undermine the Constitution and civil-military relations in America?   Can we save our freedom from ourselves?             

#567: Trump has Created a Civil-Military Crisis in American Democracy

Rudy Barnes, Jr. October 11,  2025

Trump has talked too much about the use of military force and not enough about national security policy and the civil-military relations that are so essential for a stable democracy.  For Trump, talk about the military is cheap and honesty on the rule of law is in short supply.  That was evident during  an unexplained and unprecedented meeting of US military brass called by Trump’s Secretary of Defense (or War), Pete Hegseth on September 30.

The meeting was notable for its timing.  It came just as Trump had started to act aggressively to deploy National Guard troops to Democratic cities as training grounds to reduce crime, despite state and city officials opposing Trump’s uninvited military invasions.  In a real sense it proclaimed an invasion to proclaim Trump’s political power.

“Several hundred top military commanders turned up at Quantico having flown in from places as far away as Germany, Brussels, Japan and South Korea, and they sat mostly in silence as Trump talked for 73 minutes about the same things he talks about almost every day, no matter where he is or to whom he is speaking.” Trump did not elaborate on deteriorating civil-military relations or national security strategy, or how the military would be deployed in American cities.  Instead he talked about the media, tariffs and the border, and going to a restaurant in Washington to eat dinner, and not being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize that he felt he had earned.

The words of Trump and Hegseth should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom.

What transpired was the commander in chief darkly asserting that “we’re under invasion from within.” Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is gonna be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control.”  The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan.

Hegseth preceded the president, calling for a “historic reassertion of our purpose.” Sounding like the infamous sergeant major from the HBO series Generation Kill, he emphasized the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness. He also asserted ignoring the Law of War and to end “stupid rules of engagement,” saying that the military’s job is to “break things and kill people.”   

The words of Trump and Hegseth should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans, like me, can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom. Hegseth called all the military’s commanding officers to Quantico, Virginia, for a pep rally and Gave the Military Brass a Rehashed Speech.  See Shawn McCreech, NYTimes, at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/30/us/politics/trump-military-brass-speech.html.

Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is gonna be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within.  He said he had instructed the secretary of defense to “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan. Sounding like the infamous sergeant major from the HBO series Generation Kill, Hegseth emphasized the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness, and asserted an end to “stupid rules of engagement,” saying that the military’s job is to “break things and kill people.”

The civilian leader of the Department of Defense instructed the brass that “if the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign”—especially when coupled with the president’s calls for violence against fellow Americans. These are unprecedented and dangerous words from the civilian leadership of our military. What was reassuring was how the military leaders reacted. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine introduced the secretary as the secretary of war—distasteful, since only Congress has the authority to change the department’s name, and it has not done so. But Caine and his colleagues exemplified the professional restraint of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at State of the Union addresses: present but not participating in the politics.

Trump was clearly taken aback, encouraging them: “If you want to applaud, applaud.” They did not, just as the chiefs do not applaud at the political festival that is the State of the Union address. That is the appropriate professional response by the military when forced by their civilian leaders into being present at political events. See Foreign Policy, By Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, see Foreign Policy, Oct 1, 2025.

At this unprecedented meeting, U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth behaved reprehensibly. Their speeches before several hundred assembled military commanders and their senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) were tantamount to incitement—a genuinely dangerous effort to suborn the military’s oath and condition them for using violence against their fellow Americans. Their words should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom.

Hegseth and Trump called all the military’s commanding officers to Quantico, Virginia, for a pep rally. What transpired was the commander in chief darkly asserting that “we’re under invasion from within.” Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. 

Trump said he had instructed the secretary of defense to “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan. Hegseth preceded the president, calling for a “historic reassertion of our purpose,” emphasizing the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness over obeying the rule of law in the Constitution.

These are unprecedented and dangerous words from the civilian leadership of our military that deny the Constitutional rule of law in warfare.  What was reassuring was how the military leaders reacted. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine introduced the secretary as the secretary of war—distasteful, since only Congress has the authority to change the department’s name, and it has not done so. But that was probably unavoidable in the circumstances and was more than balanced out by the comportment of Caine and his colleagues. They exemplified the professional restraint of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at State of the Union addresses: present but not participating in the politics.

Trump is sure to be disappointed, as he was disappointed at the niceness of soldiers during the Army parade over the summer. Before today’s event, the president threatened: “I’m going to be meeting with generals and with admirals and with leaders, and if I don’t like somebody, I’m going to fire them right on the spot.” Nobody was fired on the spot, but the president and the secretary may retaliate for this disciplined response. Congress, the other constitutionally empowered source of civilian oversight of the military, ought to put its weight behind preventing any retribution.

During the 1867 constitutional crisis, Ulysses S. Grant, the commanding general of the Army, was pinioned between Congress impeaching President Andrew Johnson and that president threatening to disband Congress. Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, appointing Grant the civilian war secretary concurrent with his military appointment. Congress threatened Grant with five years in prison and a $10,000 fine if he accepted the appointment.

In what feels like an important decision for our time, Grant determined that in peacetime, the legislature has the superior claim to military subordination. Our current Congress might profit from the example and exercise its Article I authorities to establish military policies and shield our military from partisan onslaughts of the kind we saw today. From The Atlantic Daily <newsletters@theatlantic.com> October 7, 2025; and 

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/10/civil-military-crisis-trump-hegseth/684486. See also,  https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/10/01/trump-military-generals-incitement-civilians/.

Summary:

When the President and Secretary of Defense call for senior military leaders to ignore laws that restrict their use of force in military operations, they make a mockery of the rule of law and their oath to support and defend the Constitution as the foundation of the rule of law.  If any should resign, they should include the President and his Secretary of Defense.   

Will America Follow Britain as a Once Proud Democracy That's Now Floundering?

           By Rudy Barnes, Jr., October 4, 2025

      Trump made an official visit to Britain recently and seemed right at home with the grandiose privileges of monarchy--even though Britain is a democracy.  We need to remember that the American colonies fought a revolutionary war to be free of British power.  If Trump’s vision of America represents following the example of Britain it may portend another civil war.

Freedom is in decline with radical right demagogues in America, Israel and Russia.  In seeking to expand their power, they seem to have forgotten the lessons of history and are likely doomed to repeat those painful lessons in legitimacy.  Democracies are not a panacea.  Trump, Netanyahu and Putin became demagogues in putative democracies.  Will people ever learn?

After an initial period of power and prosperity, despotic democracies in America, Israel, and Russia are becoming the rule rather than the exception.  No powerful and affluent democracies have survived the initial lure of materialism, hedonism and greed of human depravity that have “trumped” altruism in their politics.  

With the demise of America, China is the likely hegemon.  Putin is seeking to restore the Russian empire while Ukraine is fighting for its independence, and a Zionist Israel has resorted to the genocide of Palestinians to expand its borders.  Demagogues now control politics in America, Russia and Israel, and they have used religion to promote their corrupt regimes.

“Ben Rhodes has used Britain as a warning of what America could become.  Trump’s second term has embodied the cruder approach of taking control.  Grabbing what can be got for the sake of what is to be got. There is no pretense of democratic values. The considerable powers of the state have been leveraged to reward Trump and his associates, punish his foes and elevate a largely white, Christian, conservative American identity: to “take back control.”  

“We cannot turn back the clock. Democracies will be increasingly diverse, no matter what politicians say. The American and British people will continue to suffer, enthralled by the siren song of blood-and-soil nationalism and imperial nostalgia. The challenge for those who rightly fear this approach is to reclaim the better aspects of our stories as a source of identity and accountability, not supremacy.” 

“Both of our countries have benefited when we strove to represent something bigger than a narrow conception of nationalism. And both countries can retain a sense of pride and patriotism about the better aspects of our past without whitewashing or clinging to it. That requires leaders who embrace societal change instead of fearing it.

Winston Churchill once described democracy as the worst form of government, except for all the others.  But no pluralistic democracy can be sustained without a moral culture based on providing for the common good.  That’s a big order for cultures corrupted by materialism, hedonism and greed.  America will have to go back to the future more than 250 years ago to find it.

Notes:

“Ben Rhodes has used Britain as a warning of what America could become. President Trump’s visit to Britain was designed to flatter with imperial imagery: Windsor Castle, a carriage ride, flyovers, a glimpse at the Churchill archives at Chequers, the prime minister’s country estate. This pageantry veiled the reality that Britain is no longer the superpower of these symbols.  Of course, the nostalgic diplomacy serves a purpose. For Trump, it sates his thirst for validation as the predominant Western leader, with the British establishment genuflecting before him as so many powerful American institutions have done since his re-election. For Prime Minister Keir Starmer, it continues a careful strategy of avoiding worse outcomes on tariffs and the war in Ukraine while showing that Britain has a foot in the door on technologies such as artificial intelligence.

Yet underneath the surface, both the United States and Britain are suffering through crises of identity. For two centuries, London and Washington were the seats of empire, the vanguard of the West, the proselytizers of liberal democracy. Our leaders used to meet to shape the direction of world events; now the balance of global power is shifting to the East. Our leaders used to reaffirm a story of shared democratic values; now the United States has taken an authoritarian turn, and Mr. Starmer is struggling to prevent Britain from doing the same.As our nations go through a crucible of change, it is no wonder that our people are anxious and unmoored, our politics destabilized. 

In the summer of 2016, British voters severed their relationship with the European Union, motivated by a nationalist backlash to globalization. A few months later, American voters stepped into the same undertow, electing a president who railed against immigration and international norms, institutions and obligations. Within a matter of months, both nations turned against their own stories. 

Are the American and the British people better off than they were before 2016? They are still polarized and pessimistic. Rampant inequality and overburdened safety nets feel beyond the control of governments. Global conflicts have escalated, from wars in Europe and the Middle East to trade wars and tensions with China. Post-Brexit Britain should offer a cautionary tale to America about the dangers of isolationism dressed up as exceptionalism. 

“Separated from Europe, the value of British citizenship has shrunk. Growth has stagnated. And the social welfare state has continued to depend upon migrant labor. Trump and Mr. Starmer will be judged on whether they can fend off this resilient far right with a return to normalcy: sober leadership, stricter border enforcement and the pursuit of better economic indicators. Given our long and intertwined history, there is much that can and should bring the United States and Britain together. But the special relationship should be rooted in learning from our shared past,” not by going back to the future more than 250 years ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/opinion/trump-britain-state-visit.html.     

 

The Greatest Commandment as a Moral Imperative for Pluralistic Democracies

The Greatest Commandment as a Moral Imperative for Pluralistic Democracies

By Rudy Barnes, Jr., September 27, 2025

Charlie Kirk claimed to be a Christian conservative who supported Donald Trump.  But no one who claims to follow the universal and altruistic teachings of Jesus as the Word of God can support Donald Trump. The greatest commandment is a summary of the teachings of Jesus that calls believers to love God and our neighbors, including those of other races and religions, as we love ourselves.

At the memorial service for Charlie Kirk, his widow tearfully said she forgave the man who killed her husband.  At the same service, Trump stated “I hate my opponent.”  It was a nasty sentiment that Trump has publicly proclaimed throughout his Presidency, but it was clearly out of order at the memorial service for Charlie Kirk.

Repercussions from the Kirk assassination have impacted Christianity from colleges to neighborhood churches.  Kirk’s Turning Point is a mixture of religion and politics that has transformed evangelicalism, especially among the young, while traditional congregations are aging and becoming smaller.  The American church is destined to have its own Turning Point.

On Christianity after Charlie Kirk Ross Duthat has observed that “eight years ago, religious conservatives accepted the leadership of a flagrant immoralist as the price of protection against a then-ascendant-seeming secular progressivism.  This political compromise fractured churches, divided pundits and introduced a further crisis into an American Christianity already dealing with scandal, disaffection and decline.”

“But today conservative Christians are eager to tell a different story, and Charlie Kirk’s memorial service was subordinated to preaching, with Erika Kirk’s  extraordinarily moving message of forgiveness for her husband’s killer.  It was a stage for a narrative of revival, recovery, conversion, Christian strength.”

David Brooks has noted,”There’s been a lot of mingling of Christianity and politics since Charlie Kirk was murdered. Tucker Carlson opened one of his shows with a straight-up sermon: “This is a religion committed to love above all and to living in peace and harmony, truly. It’s a universalist religion that believes that every person has a shot at heaven. It’s not exclusionary at all.”

Given the rise of popular new variations of Christianity in politics and the decline of the church, it’s questionable whether the church will survive as the major social institution that it has been in the past.  Familiar but smaller versions of the church will no doubt continue to survive to satisfy traditional desires, but American churches are likely to continue to decline.

With the contentious relationships between competing Christian organizations like Turning Point, change is certain, but what kind of change it will produce--other than declining churches that is already evident--is yet to be seen.  David Brooks has indicated that one thing is certain:  There is no confusion between the teachings of Jesus as a moral imperative in pluralistic democracies and the evil narcissism of Trump.

Notes:

On Ross Douthat’s Christianity After Charlie Kirk, see   https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/charlie-kirk-memorial-christianity.html

On David Brooks, Why we Need to Think Straight About God and Politics, see 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/25/opinion/kirk-trump-christianity.html

Behind Charlie Kirk’s Spiritual Journey that Fused Chrstianity and Politics, see  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/us/charlie-kirk-christian-faith-politics.html.

Musings of a Maverick Methodist on Conflicting Concepts of Jesus, see 

http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2023/09/musings-of-maverick-methodist-on.html.

Musings on the the Dismal Failure of the Church and Democracy in America, see

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xWM4o586mCu6QoL69XAhkxfjjh6daTnNdnGnkJ05cZ8/edit.

On Jefferson's Jesus and Moral Standards of Legitimacy in Religion and Politics.docx