Analysis of BAD FAITH: Christian Nationalism’s Unholy War on Democracy
By Gregg Frazer
In the interest of full disclosure, I come to this review of the film Bad Faith as a scholar who disapproves of Christian Nationalism. But my disagreement with Christian Nationalism does not really come into play, because this film that is expressly designed to criticize and attack Christian Nationalism has very little to do with its supposed subject.
Actual Christian Nationalists such as Douglas Wilson or Stephen Wolfe, whose book promoting Christian Nationalism reached the New York Times bestseller list, are not even mentioned once in the 85-minute film. Numerous people who died before it emerged or who would never identify with it are lumped together under the Christian Nationalism umbrella along with those who have never heard of it. Bad Faith is really an anti-conservative screed with a deluge of propaganda that would make most purveyors of propaganda jealous. Today’s trendy word “misinformation” is an inadequate description. The film does not even pretend to be balanced or fair.
Whatever is stated, the actual theme of the film is: conservatives and conservatism are evil and dangerous; Leftists and Leftism are good and necessary to save America.
As do so many who address Christian Nationalism, Bad Faith begins with its own definition of the term: “A political movement that believes America was founded as a ‘Christian Nation,’ privileging Christianity over all other faiths.” It is a curious choice of a definition because almost none of the film concerns either the American founding or privileging Christianity.
The statement that follows gets closer to what the film is really about: “Masquerading as religion, this ideology exploits scripture and sacred symbols to achieve extremist objectives.” One could list all of the film’s references to scripture on less than one hand, but the key words here are “ideology” and “extremist.” A supposed threat from Christian Nationalism is a pretext for attacking conservative ideology as extremist.
As one might expect from those on the Left, the opening scenes are shots from the January 6th riot. The voiceover from a recognizable Hollywood actor claims: “The galvanizing force behind the assault on the U.S. Capitol was a political movement known as Christian Nationalism.” No evidence to support this astounding claim is offered then or at any other time. A few religious symbols appear in the footage, but none inside the Capitol except one man carrying a Bible.
The narration continues: “The leaders had a long-range plan to seize power and impose their political visions by any means necessary.” I suppose that is possible, but it is curious that their nefarious plot to “seize power and impose” their preferences did not inspire them to bring weapons. Either way, this claim is similarly left without any supporting evidence.
It is also curious that a gathering supposedly organized by Christian Nationalists would include both Catholics and Protestants (as the footage shows), as real Christian Nationalists consider Catholicism to be false religion that they would not allow.
Another interesting claim follows: “They knew that the only way to create a theocratic Christian nation was to overthrow our democracy and that’s what they set out to do.” It is interesting because they brought no weapons with which to “overthrow our democracy” and because, again, no evidence is offered to back either the claim that they were there to “create a theocratic Christian nation” or to “overthrow” democracy. A few quotes are offered, but from people speaking fifty years earlier – not from anyone on January 6th.
The bulk of the film consists of various “experts” expressing their personal opinions of Christianity, religion in general, politics, and racism. But they primarily criticize conservative values and conservative people impertinent enough to think that they should be able to compete for political influence on behalf of their beliefs. These experts are more a group of “who’s that?” than “who’s who,” but they share one thing in common: they are all Leftists except for one disaffected former Trump supporter and one never-Trumper. It is not entirely clear why one should accept what they say without tangible evidence. The imbalance in sources will be obvious to any attentive viewer.
The primary villain of the film, Paul Weyrich, is introduced talking about “spreading the gospel in a political context.” I agree that is inappropriate, as there is no political element in the gospel. But the film’s treatment here is telling: we are meant to be outraged by Weyrich’s statement, but this is exactly what Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton have done. A little later in the film, another black pastor does the same thing with the approval of the filmmakers.
The narrator tells us that “Paul Weyrich was a dangerous combination of religious zealot and savvy Republican operative” who wanted to organize Christians into a “powerful voting bloc” in order to “transform America.” Where has more religious effort been made to create a political voting bloc than in black churches? As for “transforming America,” did not Barack Obama explicitly state that he intended to do that very thing? A criticism of Weyrich says that he “spends much of his time urging ministers to get out the vote” – as opposed to what black preachers do? Later clips in the film approvingly show one of the experts, Rev. William Barber (who is black), doing it. In just the last two weeks, Kamala Harris and Fani Willis recruited black voters in churches.
There is a double standard that runs throughout the film. Religious or political activities are brutally criticized when done by conservatives, but there is nary a criticism of them when done by the Left and no recognition that they are standard practices on the Left as well. Why is it nefarious when done by conservatives, but perfectly acceptable when done by the Left? The answer is simple: this film is about Leftism over conservatism – not concerns about excessive religious influence in politics. For the makers of the film, political views and practices are only excessive or “extremist” when they oppose their own preferences.
One of the experts tells viewers: “The societies that practice this [i.e. Christian Nationalism] in whatever form it takes, are the most evil places on earth” He gives as examples Vladimir Putin in Russia, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Recep Erdogan in Turkey. It is convenient on his part to leave China, North Korea, and Iran out of the running for “most evil” – those could not be made to fit the narrative. Still, we are expected to believe that Putin and the Muslim Erdogan are motivated by Christian Nationalism.
A key effort in the film is a relentless attempt to make racism a central element of today’s Christian Nationalist movement and the Republican Party. Again, most of the talk about anything “Christian” is more about conservative ideas and values as promoted by the Republican Party.
An attempt is made to link today’s Christian Nationalists to the despicable Ku Klux Klan via clips of the KKK marching with crosses. No actual connection is demonstrated, but it makes for stirring visuals. A similar attempt is made to link today’s Christian Nationalists and the current Republican Party with segregationism and opposition to civil rights in the south of the 1960s. No mention is made of the fact that it was Democrats who opposed and filibustered civil rights efforts and that a Democrat ran as a segregationist candidate for president in 1968.
There were, of course, some southern conservative Christians who supported segregation, but that ancient history that does not take into account the tremendous changes in the law and the culture and, most importantly in this context, in the Christian community. Contrary to what some want us to believe, great strides have been made in race relations in this country and in the attitudes of Americans in general over the last sixty years.
Randall Balmer is, as one might expect, one of the experts consulted in the film. Balmer has made a career out of criticizing the religious Right. In the film, he claims that evangelicals only got motivated after a court decision about segregation that threatened to remove their tax-exempt status. He says: “that provided the catalyst for the religious right.” The implication, reinforced by the visuals during his voiceover, is the segregation aspect of the case. The only two entities shown are the two schools that were segregated.
But the precedent-setting nature of court decisions brings lots of strange bedfellows together and few of the interested parties were segregationist. The primary concern for most was to prevent precedent being set that a religious institution could have its tax-exempt status removed. Once the Court establishes a precedent, the particular details do not matter for future cases. Every conceivable religious organization and group later filed friend of the court briefs in support of the Crystal Cathedral in its tax-exemption case and in favor of Grace Community Church in its case about counseling in order to prevent unwanted precedent.
Lisa Sharon Harper follows by claiming that “the religious right” (not Christian Nationalists, by the way) made it their primary goal to “turn the Supreme Court … why? Why would they do that? Why would they choose the Supreme Court?” In her statement, Harper identifies the real enemy of this film: the religious right – i.e. conservatives, not Christian Nationalists.
Her answer to why they would seek to “turn” the Court is that they did it to protect segregation. This conclusion begs a number of questions. Today’s Democratic Party has made turning the court one of their primary goals … why? Must it be something nefarious? Perhaps it is because it is a way to make changes quickly without a legislative majority? In fact, most of the Left’s successes have been gained through the Court.
She continued: “if your goal is to preserve white patriarchy, then you want a conservative Supreme Court.” Other reasons – the ones given by the religious right – are if your goal is to prevent the murder of 60 million children or if you want to preserve basic religious rights. On the other hand, if your goal it to “fundamentally change America” and you can’t get a legislative majority to do it, then you want a Leftist Supreme Court.
Harper concludes: “the masterminds of the religious right did not raise the white supremacy flag, they raised the abortion flag in order to get the same result … and they got it.” What is the evidence for this scurrilous charge? None is offered. If that was the goal, why did they continue after the segregation battle was lost? When was the last time the religious right fought a segregation case?
As for her remark that “they got it,” what did they get? They did not maintain segregation. Right after she says this, the scene shifts to overturning Roe v. Wade. But wait a minute, weren’t we told that raising “the abortion flag” was merely a cover for white supremacy? This is another example revealing their real goal of attacking the right on conservative issues – not a threat of theocracy or establishing Christianity.
The Dobbs ruling is declared to be a victory for the “Christian Right’s influence.” That may well be, but notice that it is not declared to be a victory for Christian Nationalism, but the “Right.” The Christian Right is not equivalent to Christian Nationalism, just as the secular Left is not synonymous with Marxist Nationalism.
The Court is labeled “extremist” when it simply rules that: a) the Constitution does not mention “abortion” as a right and b) the Court did not have the authority to make it so – legislatures must do so. But the Court somehow was not extremist to create a right that is not mentioned in the Constitution and that bypassed the democratic process that the filmmakers pretend to be protecting.
All of a sudden, the whole narrative changes from racism to the abortion issue. It is not clear how requiring that legislatures make laws instead of courts is a threat to the American system or an evidence of “Christian nationalism.” No explanation or reasoning is offered. The implication is that one side can have political views without being some kind of nationalist threat, but not the other.
The film returns to Paul Weyrich as the supervillain. We are told that Weyrich wanted “revolution, not accommodation” even though the very snippets shown from his writings and the audio clips are about winning elections. Is that not the historical and traditional way to make change in America? What, exactly, is revolutionary about it?
Anne Nelson, on whose book (according to the credits) the film is based, says of Weyrich that he “talked about the way that his vision of religion needed to dominate every aspect of American culture and society.” Actually, he talked about how the values coming from his vision of religion needed to dominate (just as Rev. Barber says that the Left’s values should dominate). It was not Weyrich’s plan to make everyone attend Christian churches or pay his religion’s ministers with tax money. The values of society come from somewhere; he wanted them to be his values. That is true of everyone who gets involved in politics. He was not advocating establishment of religion or some kind of Handmaid’s Tale society (as the film suggests).
Nelson continues: “they realized that this was going to go against the majority of Americans, but they felt they had the right and the obligation to do that.” In 1973, a clear majority of Americans and states opposed abortion, but the Court imposed it on every state – why is Nelson not upset that they imposed their view on the majority of Americans? Why is it wrong for some to win politically and not others? Nelson then asks: “why did they feel entitled to dominate American society?” Why did the Roe v. Wade Court and the Left feel equally entitled to dominate?
In a clear plain folks appeal, clips are shown of “health and wealth” televangelists to suggest that they were the sugar daddies for the Christian Right; but these men had no political interest or influence.. But if danger comes from the wealthy using their income disparity for political purposes, where is the criticism of George Soros … Jeff Bezos … Bill Gates? Where is the criticism of Hollywood or Silicone Valley fundraisers for the Left? If acquiring wealth while courting the poor is inherently wicked, where is the criticism of Obama’s $4 million beach home or socialist Bernie Sanders’ multiple homes?
In an intended reproof, Samuel Perry warns that “in Paul Weyrich’s eyes, the goal was winning.” This is hardly shocking for someone in politics. But Perry is not done: “the goal was conservative Christians in positions of power and being able to dictate how things go in our country – not ensuring that fair elections happen.” This is an outrageous, irresponsible statement. Weyrich talked simply about winning elections and said nothing about going outside of legal constitutional processes. It is irresponsible to suggest without evidence that he did not care about elections being fair.
The film transitions directly from this ridiculous statement to supposed efforts to limit voter access forty years later – with no connection whatsoever to Christians, only to the Republican Party. Weyrich had been dead a decade before these claims were made and none of the laws involved curtailed “rights” [e.g. there is no “right” to have ballot drop boxes or for non-registered citizens or dead citizens or non-citizens to vote].
In its scatter gun approach, the narrative returns to how it is nefarious for conservatives to seek and accept donations from wealthy donors with no mention of whether it is equally wicked for Leftists to do the same in order to promote the causes that they favor.
Rev. William Barber says: “I think it’s an abdication of my Christian responsibility not to remind politicians that the budgets you pass in these legislatures is a moral document” and he expresses concern for “fundamental values of Christian faith.” Why is it acceptable for him to say this and be highlighted positively in this film? Could it be because the filmmakers approve of his political positions? Why should he not be criticized as a Christian Nationalist for wanting his values and preferences to prevail?
Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove correctly identifies what was happening: a “struggle for the moral narrative.” He further suggests that the Christian Right was an answer to the voice of Martin Luther King, which is an admission that the same thing was happening on both sides. Wilson-Hartgrove bemoans the attempt made to get southerners to use their religious identity to become part of a voting coalition, but since the issues were moral, why would religious identity not be an appropriate factor?
He suggests: “I think it’s absolutely imperative that we lift up the witness of people who practice a different kind of faith.” But why should that be done if it is dangerous and inappropriate to have religious beliefs as a basis for political action? The answer is, of course, that he thinks it is only dangerous and inappropriate for those with whom he disagrees.
The scene shifts to a supposedly radical “manifesto” written by Weyrich. Certain phrases that are incendiary when taken out of context are circled to draw attention to them as the narrator warns that “a Christian elite will take power in America by waging an insurrectionist war.” The context for the circled phrases tells a different story if one freezes the frame to be able to see complete sentences as the camera flashes the text.
In context, the “manifesto” [not what Weyrich called it] talks about destroying Leftist institutions – not government institutions. It talks about promoting “a set of beliefs more compelling than that of our opponents” and acting “with more energy and more intensity than our opponents.” The circled “We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil” is followed in context by: “And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this ….” This is hardly the plan of an insurrectionist. There is nothing about violence or insurrection here, just strategy for campaigning and winning elections on the basis of superior ideas.
Forty-one minutes into the film, we very briefly find the first mention of real Christian Nationalism – the movement that has engendered a lot of discussion and debate today. The film quickly shifts back forty years in time as the narrative returns to criticism of conservatism.
We are again expected to be shocked by a circled phrase in Weyrich’s “manifesto”: “scholar warriors.” We are expected to think this is a reference to actual warriors, though the context talks about study groups and uses Turning Point, USA and the Leadership Institute as examples. Neither of these organizations mentions anything about religion – much less Christianity – in its mission statement. These are organizations to train young people in conservative ideas and principles, not military tactics or religious fanaticism. This section of the film clearly shows again that the filmmakers’ beef is with conservatism, not Christian Nationalism.
With amazing lack of self-awareness, film shifts to Obama’s Grant Park speech about changing America and the cheering crowd of Leftists excited to do what the film’s experts have said is a threat to democracy when done by those on the Right spurred on by a charismatic speaker.
Pivoting to the Tea Party movement (again, not something Christian), another “expert” named Steve Schmidt informs us that while a majority of Americans believed the country was on the wrong track under Barack Obama, that was because of racists being upset with black progress. He provides no evidence for that claim, of course, and the subsequent narration says: “the Tea Party captured political lightning in a bottle; they came in on a promise to shock Washington into spending less, cutting more.” These were political issues that the country obviously supported.
Where is the Christian part – the demand to make America a Christian nation?
Nelson claims that this amounted to a “hostile takeover” of the Republican Party by Christian Nationalists, but there’s no evidence that it was “hostile” and no evidence that it was about Christian Nationalism, as opposed to conservative values such as the reduced spending that the narrator mentioned.
Rev. Barber describes the Tea Party platform in completely partisan and unfair terms and then states: “that kind of policy demands a moral response.” So, it is OK for him to explicitly state that a moral response is necessary because the makers of the film agree with his policy positions, but it was extremist for conservatives to make moral claims for their own policies.
He then calls what the Tea Party stood for “racism” without demonstrating any racial element in it at all. It was a difference of opinion as to how to achieve the same objectives that he was emphasizing. So, if you disagree with his policy preferences, you’re a racist and it is not dangerous and a threat to democracy for him to slander you. Furthermore, where is the element of creating a theocracy? Nothing was said about that by the Tea Partiers even in the clips shown; it is just conservative politics vs. Leftist politics.
Donald Trump’s first comment in the film is his promise to “uphold the sanctity and dignity of life.” The narration tells us that Trump made a deal with the Christian Right for “resources” if they could “influence his judicial and cabinet appointments.” This is shocking and unheard of! An interest group makes demands (which are already in the party platform) in exchange for their political support? Who could imagine such a thing? Oh, yes, both parties practice this. Would any Democratic candidate for president get the party’s nomination for president? Who was the last pro-life Democratic president?
Again, why is certain conduct that is standard procedure for both parties outrageous and dangerous on one side, but fine for the other? This is all about partisan politics and ideological differences and not about any actual threat to turn the United States into a theocracy.
Nelson postulates that “these fundamentalists” can support Trump because he can be “a wrecking ball that they use to bring down the federal government.” As she speaks, the visual is one of the phrases taken out of context from the “manifesto” that has nothing to do with bringing down the federal government.
Conservative politician Michelle Bachmann then talks about voting for people who stand up for “godly, moral principles” – just as Rev. Barber did in favor of Leftist principles that he considered to be godly and moral. Bachmann says nothing about overthrowing the government and setting up a theocracy, though, because for her, it is issues and values that matter.
Nelson criticizes the Right for using “the vast network of faith leaders and high tech megachurches” to spread their message. Why, exactly, is this nefarious? Who spread Hillary Clinton’s message? Her campaign spent twice as much money as did Trump’s.
Katherine Stewart complains about the Family Research Council’s network of pastors turning out their congregations “to vote for the hyper-conservative politicians that the movement favors.” There you have it; it is about conservatism. It is fine for black churches to preach politics and organize rallies such as Rev. Barber addressed in ealier and later clips because they have the correct politics – Leftist politics. That is the threat that the filmmakers see. That is why they do not focus on actual Christian Nationalists because they are so few in number and lacking in influence.
The makers of this propaganda film do not want viewers to recognize that there is a difference between Christians who are engaged in politics in pursuit of policies that reflect their values and Christian Nationalists who want to take over America and install a theocracy. The filmmakers want to raise apocalyptic alarms just like they accuse the Right of doing.
Criticism of the successful get-out-the-vote system organized by the Right follows. Of course, it was fine for Obama to have and brag about his tremendous get-out-the-vote system and appropriate for the media to promote the Leftist agenda on a daily basis. But it is dangerous when conservatives are good at mobilizing voters. Think about it: the filmmakers want you to conclude that mobilizing voters constitutes a “war on democracy.” Isn’t democracy all about people voting?
In order to attack the Right’s mobilization system, Nelson demonstrates the condescension that those on the Left have for middle America. She says: “So, if you’re this person out in Missouri, this is all the information you’re getting.” She has undoubtedly never been to Missouri and does not realize that radio, television, the internet, and cell phones have actually penetrated that far into the middle of the country. She then complains about “Fox and Sinclair, which function and sing in harmony” – as opposed to the lockstep uniformity of the mainstream media. Her conclusion is that “you are a target for a multi-faceted operation of tremendous sophistication.” Wait, is she talking about the Russian collusion hoax?
The narration continues with criticism of Trump’s cabinet. Not even pretending fairness, a clip is shown of what “critics” had to say about Education Secretary Betsy Devos. Trump’s cabinet as a whole is summarized as “white, male, and wealthy,” as opposed to checking off diversity boxes with incompetent people. But where was the religious ayatollah? When a picture is shown, one-third of the members are women – hardly fulfillment of The Handmaid’s Tale fiction.
To further lend credibility and expertise to their analysis of the cabinet, the film shows late-night TV host Stephen Colbert criticizing appointees to the EPA because they had a different opinion concerning its function. That is, of course, a difference of opinion – not a threat to democracy. America’s democracy actually thrived for two hundred years before these agencies were created. Some believe that Congress – the constitutionally empowered lawmaking body – should make laws instead of unelected agencies. Some think it is more democratic to have elected persons make the rules.
Apparently in order to show that they hadn’t completely forgotten their supposed concern about religion, a clip follows with evangelical leaders behind Trump as he signs a Day of Prayer proclamation. Here is the evidence that Trump is trying to create a theocratic regime. In this act, he joins other religious fanatics such as George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklyn Roosevelt. There is also a clip of Trump telling evangelical leaders at a dinner that he had given them what he promised, but no similar clip for a Democratic president to a supporting group.
Samuel Perry makes another astounding and unsubstantiated claim: “I think most Americans would be completely oblivious to the designs behind this; that there are intentions to enshrine Christian identity and a certain kind of Christian identity as the law of the land.” Everyone is, in fact, oblivious to such a silly notion because it simply is not true. Evidence, Mr. Perry? Trump was in office for four years; can you give us examples? Are you still able to attend the church of your choice, Mr. Perry – or no church at all? This is outrageous and irresponsible.
A spokeswoman from The Guardian (another nicely balanced source) warns that “religious bills” were funneled “to state lawmakers all across the country” and six states passed bills making schools post “In God We Trust.” They didn’t just impose these autocratically? They allowed legislatures – the representatives of the people – to vote on them? Is this not the way American democracy works? Where is the autocracy, the theocracy? It is also worth mentioning that “In God We Trust” was adopted by Congress as the national motto in 1956 – long before Paul Weyrich became active in politics. It is dangerous to post the official national motto in schools?
At various points, the filmmakers and their chosen experts demonstrate an astounding lack of self-awareness. Both Perry and Wilson-Hartgrove, for example, attribute Trump’s success to fear mongering to Americans who felt wronged during the Obama years or “scaring white Christian people into believing that there is an enemy out there that’s going to obliterate you.” But throughout this whole film, the filmmakers have been trying to scare viewers into believing that Paul Weyrich, Trump, and others like them were enemies out to obliterate American democracy and their way of life. This very election year, President Biden’s entire campaign is about Trump as a threat to democracy. And the Little Sisters of the Poor, among many others, might rightly think they were wronged by Obama’s policies.
Perry declares that the “overtly religious language” of the Christian Nationalists (which has been sparse in the film) “represents a tremendous threat to democracy.” Why, exactly, is overt religious language a threat to democracy? American democracy has survived Washington’s overt religious references in his Farewell Address; it has survived Lincoln’s relentless religious references; it has survived William Jennings Bryan’s and Jimmy Carter’s; it has survived Roosevelt’s prayer on D-Day. Tocqueville and countless others have suggested that America’s religious nature is a bulwark of democracy. What were the religions of the world’s worst tyrants and most prolific killers: Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?
A particularly low blow is a section on domestic terrorism implying that it was instigated and carried out by Christian Nationalists, though there is no Christian-related language by the terrorists and, once again, no evidence presented to back the implication.
The voiceover announces that “Christian Nationalists were firmly embedded at the highest levels of government” under President Trump, but while pictures are shown, no evidence that the individuals are Christian Nationalists is presented. They are conservatives and that is enough for the makers of this film.
The narration continues by claiming: “The Supreme Court had an absolute majority of justices poised to overturn landmark civil and women’s rights decisions.” No civil rights decisions are referenced to support this defamatory remark. As for women’s rights, presumably the reference is to the Court ruling that abortion cannot be made a right by courts and is not a right unless made so by a legislature. In terms of women’s rights, the Court said that it had unconstitutionally been labeled a “right.” Furthermore, their decision protected the right to life for millions of unborn children who will become women.
Immediately following this charge, Stewart again demonstrates profound lack of self-awareness. She claims that “this is an anti-democratic movement that doesn’t believe in representative democracy.” She says this on the heels of complaining that the least democratic part of the American system – the Supreme Court – ruled that it could not impose abortion on the thirty states that had banned it and that legislatures – the centerpiece of representative democracy – must decide the issue.
Inevitably, a propaganda piece with this goal must center on the January 6th riot. Nelson begins by presenting a completely groundless conspiracy theory about what was going on behind closed doors in the White House and what the purpose of various events was. In lockstep with the Leftist press, she conveniently leaves out Trump’s instruction to the crowd to protest peacefully. Audio of an actual Christian Nationalist extremist follows as the visual shows people breaking into the Capitol building. The impression given is that they were all Christian Nationalists and/or driven by Christian Nationalism. No evidence of that is presented except for snippets pulled out of context from Weyrich’s “manifesto” in order to change their clear meaning.
To give the impression that the rioters were actually engaging in the Leftist narrative of violent insurrection, footage is shown of the officer shooting the one person who died in the riot. The lack of narration and explanation leaves the impression that the rioters were shooting people. Noticeably absent due to the film’s purpose is the footage of Capitol guards opening doors or escorting participants around inside the Capitol. That footage was purposely suppressed by the January 6th committee and had to be leaked to some news outlets in order to be seen.
Wilson-Hargrove declares: “It is possible to draw a line from the January 6th Capitol riot back to that manifesto and to plot just how a culture was built in which mainstream Christians could feel completely legitimate and, indeed, feel righteous in an act of trying to overthrow their government.” In one sense, he is right: it is possible to do this if you’re creative enough and intellectually dishonest enough. First: how many who entered the Capitol – as opposed to merely protesting outside – were Christians? Do you know? If not, is it intellectually honest to identify the participants as Christians? Second: in context, none of what they showed of the manifesto says anything about violence or overthrowing the government. Third: the Jan. 6th people were not trying to overthrow the government or they were fools for not bringing any weapons. This is why they show the clip of the shooting – to leave the impression that the rioters were using weapons, when in fact the only one using a gun was a Capitol officer.
Wilson-Hartgrove’s irresponsibility continues: “They would rather tear it down; they would rather burn it down than go along with it. And in that way, I think it’s very much a holy war. People who understood themselves to be in the army of God were waging a war to try to reclaim the United States for God.” A holy war without weapons? Who burned down or tore down anything, much less the government? They broke some windows in the Capitol building. Who called it a holy war? The January 6th committee claimed that they did it for Donald Trump – not for God. There is no evidence in the film that anyone inside the Capitol building was a Christian, much less a follower of the long-dead Weyrich’s “manifesto.” Those shown carrying a cross or holding a Bible were outside of the Capitol. Is protest not a right?
By way of full disclosure again: I completely disapprove of the January 6th riot and break-in and I do not believe that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. I am not part of the Trump election conspiracy.
That said, the film’s narration dutifully repeats the Leftist talking points: “The assault on democracy continued inside the chambers of Congress. Senate and House Republicans rejected the slate of electors, though no proof of electoral fraud was ever presented.” Democrats have done this in EVERY presidential election won by a Republican since 2000 – also without any proof. Why is this suddenly an “assault on democracy?” Thirty-four Democratic members of Congress even boycotted Trump’s inauguration ceremony because they called him illegitimate. The “no proof was presented” element is a fine piece of propaganda because no one was allowed to present any evidence. The discussion was disallowed. Again, I do not think there is sufficient evidence – but the filmmakers present the situation as if no one stepped up to attempt it.
Schmidt returns to lay out his own personal theory concerning “autocrats.” He tells us that an autocratic movement needs more than a charismatic leader; it also needs a propaganda arm and the “cynicism of the elites – the most highly educated people.” To begin with, no one has established that this is an autocratic movement; it is just this guy’s opinion. Second, this again reflects Leftist bias. If one is looking for an autocrat, one need look no further than Barack Obama telling a joint session of Congress that he has a pen and a phone and if they don’t act, he will. Or Obama stating publicly nine times that he did not have authority under the Constitution to enact his DACA program before he did it. Or the fact that the courts declared thirteen of his actions to be unconstitutional. Or one could look at Joe Biden continuing to “forgive” student loans after he acknowledged that the Supreme Court declared that practice unconstitutional.
As for a propaganda arm, virtually all of the mainstream media are lapdogs for the Left – or at least for the Democratic Party. As for educated elites, every study conducted in the last forty years shows that more than 90% of university professors are on the Left. This section of the film amounts to personal musings by this one man without even a hint of supporting evidence and arguably promoting ideas that apply more clearly to the Democratic Party.
The film moves to the issue of abortion. To try to indicate a “threat to democracy,” Justice Clarence Thomas’s suggestion that the Court reconsider the issues of contraception and same-sex marriage is brought up in conjunction with the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Thomas’s statement is not part of the Court’s ruling and is, therefore, legally irrelevant; but it riles up Leftists, so of course it is appropriate for this film.
A reporter from ABC News says that Dobbs is a decision by the Court’s “emboldened conservative majority resetting the boundary between church and state.” What does that mean? Does it mean that the Court is not always emboldened with the power that it has and this is something extraordinary? Does it mean that the Court that made the Roe v. Wade decision was not “emboldened?” Does it mean that being “emboldened” is inherently wicked?
And how is the abortion decision a matter of the boundary between church and state? Did the Court give religious reasons for its decision? Did the Court outlaw abortion in the name of God? Did the Court outlaw abortion at all? The answer to each of these questions is: no. They ruled that legislatures must make laws in this country – not the Court. Where is the religious element?
This is followed by an MSNBC reporter declaring “democracy very much on the ballot” in the 2022 midterm elections. Right – the least democratic part of our system made law; then the least democratic part ruled that the most democratic part of the system, the legislature, must make law. Democracy was on the ballot, but for reasons contrary to those held by the filmmakers.
Clips from various religious gatherings are shown, with one of them being a church platform full of Black pastors decrying the transgender movement as “demonic.” Hold the phone! I thought that anyone holding traditional conservative political views and values is inherently racist. I am confused.
A clip is shown of Steve Bannon saying “we’re taking over school boards, we’re taking over the Republican Party.” But Steve Bannon hardly represents Christianity, so why is this relevant? Also, this is another example of criticizing Republicans for what Democrats have done for the past forty years: taking over school boards as well as dominating faculty positions from elementary level to graduate school. Taking over school boards was an actual espoused policy program during the Obama years. Was that a threat to democracy? In terms of taking over a party, the Left has so captured the Democratic Party that several Democrat officeholders have left the party – including two current senators. This is politics, nothing more than that.
In this sort of scattershot portion of the film, some wacky fringe people are quoted in support of Trump. Of course, the same could be done for any politician. Obama infamously held a fundraiser meeting in the home of a member of the violent revolutionary Weather Underground and he did an interview with a woman whose claim to fame was posting videos of herself bathing in milk and cereal. No person or group can fairly be held responsible for extremists that choose to identify with them unless they are courted and given approval.
We learn that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist. That makes one person in this film ostensibly about Christian Nationalism who acknowledges having that identity.
The scene shifts to a Leftist rally headed by a pastor with other pastors standing around; that is perfectly OK because they are Leftists. He ends by saying that if his political goals are not achieved, “this nation will pay a deep price.” Why is that not seen as threatening? Why not read violent overthrow into his words? If he were conservative, he would be declared a “threat to democracy” by the folks who made this film.
Rev. Barber (the acceptable Leftist religious political activist) says we are primed for a “resurrection of America” and even refers to it as being “born again” and “seeing the gospel in its truth.” Why is it OK for this religious leader to say such things and use such language in a political context? If the filmmakers did not have a double standard, they would have no standards at all.
Wilson-Hartgrove warns that a basic principle is that the worst evils never present themselves as evil; they always present themselves as good. But the Leftists in the film do the same thing. That does not get us anywhere, because both Left and Right think they’re good and the other is evil.
Following that, we are told that “34% of Americans think violence to achieve your aims could be justified in certain circumstances. Folks, that’s the definition of terrorism.” Did we just switch topics to the George Floyd rioters, the Black Lives Matter rioters, the Baltimore rioters, ANTIFA, or the anti-semitic rioters who destroyed property and took hostages on university campuses? Regardless, what does it have to do with Christian Nationalism? No evidence has been presented that they would advocate violence.
As the film winds down, Schmidt returns to express more of his unsubstantiated opinions: “The reality is the Republican Party is more extreme, more dangerous, and more committed to the autocratic project of gaining power right now than it was on January 6th of 2021. And this has to be confronted, and there is no issue that supercedes it.” Aside from the fact that none of what he says has been demonstrated with any actual evidence, notice that he is talking about the Republican Party, not Christian Nationalists or Christian Nationalism.
In one final visual irony, the last shot of the film is Rev. Barber at a political rally inspiring a crowd to a frenzy – something that would be evidence of nefarious activity if done by conservatives. Included is a shot of someone in the crowd holding up a poster that says “Everybody’s Got a Right to Live.” It is supposed to refer to poor people, but if it were at a conservative rally in favor of life for unborn children, it would be criticized as a threat to democracy.
The final irony comes in white letters on a black background: information on “how you can volunteer for the upcoming elections, register to vote and help spread the word.” By the argument of this film, this would be a nefarious act if the Right had done it.
What is glaringly missing from this film is any evidence that any of what they’ve criticized is designed to create a Christian tyranny or to deny religious freedom to anyone.
The religious conservatives mentioned in this film were motivated to view issues on the basis of their religious beliefs – so were the spokespersons representing the views of the filmmakers. They do not really have a problem with the religious aspect – their problem is with conservatism.
Bad Faith is actually an apt description of the content and approach of the film itself. It is replete with claims without any substantiating evidence. It repeatedly takes statements out of context in a way that changes their clear meaning and gives them the worst imaginable meaning. There is no attempt or even pretense of balance or fairness. Blatant hypocrisy runs throughout, as actions depicted as “dangerous” when done by conservatives are lauded as positive goods when done by the Left. Their supposed representatives of Christian Nationalism do not talk of destroying the government or of establishing a theocracy. In fact, there is very little religious content at all, begging the question of why they say they are combatting “Christian” Nationalism.
The film is dripping with condescension from Eastern elites and a stunning lack of self-awareness.
As one would expect from those with the filmmakers’ political bent, when all is said and done, it all comes down to the Left’s view of January 6th and Donald Trump.
The fact that neither of those has anything to do with Christian Nationalism apparently does not matter to those who made the film.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Frazer has coordinated the Political Studies program at The Master’s University since its inception. Dr. Frazer and his wife Leanne have three daughters and four grandsons. They are members of Grace Community Church, where he is a deacon.
For more information, please go to: http://www.scp-inc.org/
- Content: +2Share:
- Content: +2