Trump Prayer Breakfast Speech: Fighting for God?

Donald Trump, White House photo

Does Donald Trump use faith for the awesome power of doing good, or does he use the awesome force of government to crush all opposition?

“I'm never going to make it to heaven. I just don't think I qualify. I don't think there's a thing I can do.”

So confessed President Donald Trump at the February 5 National Prayer Breakfast. Trump’s thesis was that he, himself, was on a wrong moral path, but he had spread religion across the land. As he spoke about religion, Trump expressed values of power, not wisdom. He boasted that he used his power to spread a religious movement. The Christian Right had long supported Trump, and Trump boasted that he supported their movement! So, what are our values? Like most speeches, this one reflected Trump’s values.

Mike Pence Heckled by the Christian Right Because He Didn't Bow to Trump

Indeed, Trump’s lengthy speech said little about prayer, but much about political triumph. Trump reflected the Christian Right’s view that Christian evangelism needs the power of government. As he did so, Trump revealed the disconnect between the Christian Right’s politics and such Christian values as caring for the poor and protecting vulnerable people. Do we use government policy to advance Christian ideals, such as caring for the downtrodden, or do we instead seek to use government to impose a particular interpretation of religion?

Indeed, former TV star that he is, Trump boasted that he had made religion “hotter:”

“But all of these good things I'm doing, including for religion. You know, religion is back now hotter than ever before. I mean, I have to tell you. But I said even though I did that and so many other things, I named things, I said I won't qualify, I'm not going to make it to heaven. We call him Rand Paul Jr. You know, it's like they just vote no. They love voting no. They think it's good politically. The guy's polling at about nine percent. It's not good, but we have great support and we have great support for religion. You know, I've done more for religion than any other president. When Paula [Rev. Paula White] was saying that, it was so nice.” [italics added]

Did that comment say a thing about prayer? About being religious? No! Trump said he was doing “good things . . . for religion.” He said “great support for religion.” He did not say, “the good things that religion asks us to do.” Trump was only talking about power—the power to spread religion – and conflict – his conflict with Republican Sen. Rand Paul.

Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies in 2019

Continuing, Trump absorbed Rev. White’s praise and boasted again that he used his power to spread religion:

“I was proud of it and I said that’s true. I told the people backstage, what she [Rev. White] said is true. Who else would say that, right? But it is true. But then I said, but that’s not saying much because not too many presidents have done too much for religion. I want to tell you that, certainly modern day. Certainly modern day presidents, they didn’t. They bailed out on you.” [italics added]

It is telling that, despite the First Amendment’s provision against an established religion, Trump literally complained that other presidents, including overtly religious presidents like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, had done little to advance religion. However, was that their job? Does being a religious president mean that you do religious things, or that your government spreads religion?

Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us What We Should Have Known All Along: There Are Two Different Christianities

The Christian Right has, of course, long supported Trump. Paula White had, in fact, been one of many conservative Christian pastors who promoted Trump's candidacy. They overlook his moral failings—failings that he admitted during this speech—to obtain their religious goals. At times, all too often, they seem to worship him like a prophet.

The Golden Trump Statue at CPAC 2021: Why Is the Christian Right Silent?

Rev. Robert Jeffress Prayed a Pro-Trump Political Speech

Franklin Graham Prayed for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents

Still, if our national policy becomes to oppress immigrants and the poor, what good has the Christian faith done for us? The Christian Right has indeed gained great power, but to what end? Are they following the teachings of Jesus? Did Jesus say to deport immigrants, make life harder for the poor, to be cruel and hateful? 

With stark clarity, Trump revealed American Christianity’s basic choice: do we trust God enough to follow his laws in public life, or do we seek to rule by power? Speeches do, indeed, reflect our values.

by William D. Harpine

Note:

A recent Pew survey found that White Evangelical Christians still support Trump more than do other groups, but less so than they did a year ago.

Trump made little mention of the Christian religion per se, as opposed to religion in general, but I think most people figured out what he meant. 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Donald Trump: public domain, official White House portrait

Rev. Henry J. van Dyke, Sr. and the Rhetoric of the Christian Right, Civil War Style

Cotton ruled the American economy. In 1860, cotton was king, and King Cotton made Americans rich, except, of course, for the slaves. Slaves worked under the lash to grow cotton, while northern workers processed the cotton and shipped it to Europe. Abolitionists terrified King Cotton, and many churches charged to his rescue. 

On December 9, 1860, four months before the first shots of the American Civil War, the Rev. Henry J. van Dyke, the minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, New York, preached against the abolition of slavery. He published his sermon as a pamphlet, complete with footnotes. Van Dyke’s theme was Christian morality, but his fear was that abolition would wreck the cotton-based economy. Religion was merely his excuse, his smokescreen, his blustering apotheosis. As so often happens, the speaker’s crude motives contradicted his moralistic proof.

“I have selected a text from the Bible, van Dyke said, “and propose to adhere to the letter and spirit of its teaching.” At the outset, he prepared his audience to believe that religious authority supported his subsequent economic, pro-slavery arguments. And how could his audience argue with that? I mean, Christians can argue against slavery, but to clash with the Bible? So, he gave (biblical) authority as an excuse—or a bludgeon—to preempt moral arguments against his position.

This famous, distinguished minister of a Christian church in a non-slave state used religion to support the absolute evil of chattel slavery. Still, quoting religious scriptures for an evil cause is nothing new. As Antonio opines in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice:

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose!
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.

Van Dyke cited scripture for his purpose. As we will see, van Dyke built his vile case by expounding a lengthy Bible passage, which, by an intricate pattern of reasoning, led him to warn of the dire economic consequences that would follow if abolitionists destroyed slavery.


What Does the Bible Say?

Van Dyke’s sermon-pamphlet began by quoting this passage from 1 Timothy, chapter 6:

1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Ironically, the biblical book of 1 Timothy, taken as a whole, is a diatribe against false teachers. I can hardly imagine how shameless van Dyke must have been to draw his text from that book. Van Dyke pointedly did not quote an otherwise similar passage in Colossians 4:1, which adds, “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Starting with religious evidence did, nevertheless, give this sermon great power. Religious arguments can stop political conversations and shut down reasoned debate in a heartbeat.

________________

Dr. Robert Jeffress Tried to Close Down Conversation about Jerusalem - by Praying!

________________

Note, please, that 1 Timothy says nothing about politics or economics. Instead, this passage asks slaves to submit to the yoke, while expressing no sympathy for their plight. However, it says nothing to justify being a slave master. We could easily interpret this passage to mean that a person should willingly submit to evil, but one must stretch to say that the passage encourages people to commit evil. That’s a different thing entirely, is it not? Van Dyke pulled quite a trick there. How did he do that?

Van Dyke insisted that this ancient moral teaching refers, not just to ancient times, but specifically to the United States in 1860. Van Dyke projected his biblical text centuries ahead—to be a prophecy for the Abraham Lincoln era. To make that historical and logical leap, van Dyke jumped from saying that slaves should obey to the broader, political claim that sin underlies the very practice and ideology of abolition. So, van Dyke uttered this stunning claim:

“The text . . . is a prophecy written for these days, and wonderfully applicable to our present circumstances. It gives us a life-like picture of Abolitionism in its principles, its spirit and its practice, and furnishes us plain instruction in regard to our duty in the premises.” (p. 6) [italics added]

Prophecy was not, however, the point that van Dyke ended with. Having proven to his own satisfaction that slavery was morally good, he then turned to his real topic: the advantages of lucre, mammon, or, if you prefer, plain, unadorned greed. Let King Cotton rule, and everyone (except the slaves) could prosper.

Picking cotton under an overseer’s watch, c. 1850

The Bible and Economics?

Indeed, as his sermon continued, van Dyke wandered away from slavery’s morality and, as a true conservative, complained that abolition would disrupt (white people’s) economic health. Yet he still gave credit to Providence, not to simple greed, for the way that the cotton trade linked North and South:

“A kind and wonderful Providence has so tempered the body of these States together, so bound and interlaced them with commercial and social ties, to say nothing of legal obligations, that no member can be severed, and especially no contests can be waged among the members, without a quivering and anguish in every active, and a stagnation in the vital currents of all.” (p. 29)

It was heaven, in other words, that set up the slave-based economy. And not just any heaven, but “a kind and wonderful Providence” that set up the slave-based economy. So, van Dyke concluded, abolition would prevent any peaceful attempt to settle the nation’s dispute without war:

“And as Abolitionism is the great mischief-maker between the North and South, so it is the great stumbling-block in the way of a peaceful settlement of our difficulties.” (p. 29)

As he neared his conclusion, van Dyke left his moral arguments trodden into the dust, instead focusing his congregation’s attention on simple economics. Since the North depended on the cotton trade just as much as the South, he remarked, what would happen to factory workers and ships’ crews if they could no longer process the products of slave labor? The very thought of abolition filled van Dyke with horror. Indeed, he warned that abolition would devastate the economy:

“When the thousands of working-men whose subsistence depends upon our trade with the South, many of whom have been deluded by Abolitionist demagogues, shall clamor in our streets for bread, free labor may present some problems which political economy has not solved.” (p. 38)

In fact, stunningly, even as he defended his view against the abolitionists, van Dyke unwittingly admitted that Christian teaching does not endorse slaveholding after all:

“The New Testament is utterly silent in regard to the alleged sinfulness of slaveholding.” (p. 10)

Van Dyke’s opening text from 1 Timothy, which asked slaves to obey their overlords, turned out to be merely an excuse. So, what was left was his view that Christian teaching is silent about slavery, that the divinely arranged economy rested on slavery, and, therefore, slavery was moral while abolition was wrong. The logical gaps are obvious. 1 Timothy did not defend capturing people and holding them in slavery, and claiming that the slave economy was Heaven-sent merely begged the question. The cruel facts of American slavery, known then and now to any school child, received no mention. Well, no one expects slavers to exhibit moral consistency.


Conclusion

Van Dyke began his pro-slavery argument by citing a tangentially relevant biblical passage, drew a conclusion that that passage failed to support, and finally argued that he supported slavery, really, mostly for economic reasons. The sermon perverted Christianity into an excuse for economic oppression. Van Dyke bludgeoned abolitionists down to hellfire. Even sadder, Van Dyke feared for Southern plantation owners and northern (mostly white) factory workers, while giving not a moment’s thought to enslaved families in their abject misery. Where did van Dyke really get his inspiration? From the Bible, or King Cotton?

Yes, there were abolitionist white churches in 1860, especially the Quakers. Too often, however, white churches had made their peace with slavery. And what about today? Does anyone see a family resemblance to the 20th Century Christian Right’s continuing opposition to civil rights enforcement or to “wokeness?” To their campaign against teaching African American history? Does the advancement of minority group members still make other people anxious? The Bible is right about many things, but the most blatantly obvious is when it says that “there is no new thing under the sun” (Eccles. 1:9)

________________

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

Rev. Witherspoon and the Christian Right in the Revolutionary War

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents: Religion Becomes a Political Tool
________________

Research note: Slavery wasn’t just a southern issue. Although New York had outlawed slavery in 1817, historians often note that large swaths of the 19th century United States economy still depended indirectly on forced labor. The southern economy used slave labor to produce raw cotton, while the cotton was often processed in and exported from the north. Often enough, northerners protested slavery and looked down on slavers, even as they profited from slaves’ unpaid work. For example, Eric Foner’s widely used textbook, Give Me Liberty, vol. 1, discusses this issue.

Textual note: How accurate is the text of van Dyke’s speech? In the days before film, television, and YouTube, major speeches received far more distribution in pamphlets and newspapers than they did when originally presented to the audience. Thus, speakers could revise, expand, or condense the speech text to suit their purposes. Yet, my former professor Kurt Ritter said that published texts often had the most influence and were therefore most worthy of study. Which do you think matters more: the speech delivered to the initial audience, or the version that was widely distributed to the public?

Images: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Father Ioann Burdin Cited Christian Values to Oppose the Invasion of Ukraine

Do Christian leaders speak according to the principles of the “Prince of Peace?” Or do they bow to public authorities who are often violent and wicked? Father Ioann Burdin, a small-town Russian Orthodox priest, was recently arrested for breaking a newly-enacted Russian law that prohibits anyone from discrediting the armed forces. Both online and in a sermon to his parish, Father Burdin criticized Russia’s war against Ukraine. Standing up, not only against his own government, but also his church’s patriarch, he called for Christians to resist evil.

There is more to this than we might think. Let us never forget that Adolf Hitler was a Christian Nationalist who rose to power with strong support from Christian conservatives. Religious people of any doctrine face constant temptation to twist religion to evil. Yes, government leaders can use religion to strengthen their own power. Nevertheless, religion is at its best when it challenges wrongful governmental actions.

And, in fact, challenging government is exactly what Father Burdin did, and in no uncertain terms. In translation, his website said:

“Brothers and sisters! In the early morning of 24 February, Russian troops attacked Ukraine. There is shelling of Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities. Russian soldiers are killing their brothers and sisters in Christ. We Christians do not dare to stand aside when a brother kills a brother, a Christian kills a Christian. Let us not repeat the crimes of those who hailed Hitler’s action on 1 September 1939. We cannot shamefacedly close our eyes and call black white, [or] evil good, [or] say that Abel was probably wrong in provoking his older brother. The blood of the inhabitants of Ukraine will remain on the hands of not only the rulers of the Russian Federation and the soldiers who carry out this order. Their blood is on the hands of each of us who approved this war or who simply remained silent.”

A Progression of Moral Ideas

Father Burdin began by stating the facts, reminded his congregation of Christian moral principles, brought up historical precedents, and concluded with a universal call.

First, he described the Russian military’s attacks against Ukraine in cities. He pointed out that many Ukrainians are Christians.

Second, Father Burdin said that Christians should never look away when “a brother kills a brother.” In fact, he said “dare:” Christians should not “dare to stand aside.” It requires courage to resist earthly authorities. In contrast, “dare” suggests that only great arrogance causes one to stand against God’s laws.

Father Burdin was not saying that it is all right for Christians to go to war against non-Christians. Instead, he chose words carefully to help his congregation identify with the war’s Ukrainian victims.

Third, he compared the Ukraine-Russia war with the horrors of World War II. Hitler’s army invaded Ukraine during that horrible conflict, spreading devastation while committing horrible massacres in Ukraine itself. That army, as Russians well remember, soon swept into Russia itself. Father Burdin reminded his congregation that many people “hailed Hitler’s actions on 1 September 1939.” That bold statement implied that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was equally wrong. Furthermore, it implicitly condemned people of today who praise Putin’s actions. We all know that Hitler was evil. Since we don’t always recognize evil in ourselves, Father Burdin showed the similarities between Hitler in 1939 and Putin in 2022.

 

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

Fourth, Father Burdin pointed out that the entire nation is responsible. Not only are Russia’s rulers and soldiers guilty of shedding Ukrainian blood, but also “Their blood is on the hands of each of us who approved this war or who simply remained silent.”

Russia is a constitutional republic only in name, as Vladimir Putin rules the nation with an iron fist. Yet, Father Burdin said that anyone who endorses the war, even by silence, is morally responsible. (How much more are Americans responsible if they stay silent in the face of evil?)

The Russian authorities arrested this troublesome priest and sentenced him to pay a fine, which was covered by his parish’s donations.


Moral Courage Is Rare

Yet, not much earlier, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, the spiritual leader of Russian Orthodoxy, praised Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He supported Putin because he wanted to avoid moral deterioration and Gay Pride parades. (Doesn’t that sound like the American Christian right?) Patriarch Kirill’s pro-war stance is sparking stark divisions in the Russian Orthodox Church.


Religion and Government

It’s not just Christians. Will religious leaders, of whatever sect or denomination, stand up for what is right? Or will they let the lust for power corrupt their sacred teachings? History gives us many examples of both paths. In the United States, our own Christian Right continues to seek political power, often abandoning their own religious principles in the process. In 2014, Rev. Franklin Graham did not exactly praise Putin, but did speak favorably of Putin’s anti-gay-rights philosophy. He used that opportunity to attack Barack Obama for defending gay people’s rights. Christian Right author Eric Metaxas blamed the Ukraine war, not on Putin, but on an American Deep State conspiracy. 

So, at risk to himself, Father Burdin stood up to a ruthless dictator. He reminded his congregation about Christian values of peace; of brotherhood and sisterhood. He warned them not to repeat the mistakes of those who supported Hitler. He urged them not to watch evil deeds in silence. Furthermore, he reminded the world to speak up to do the right things. If religion and government become too close, both inevitably become corrupted. Father Burdin, a small-town priest, spoke up for what is right. So far, his government isn’t listening. Are we?

Franklin Graham Prays for the Divine Right of (Republican) Presidents

In Warsaw, Biden Warned the World of "The Long Fight Ahead"

Mike Pence Heckled by the Christian Right Because He Didn't Bow to Trump

Mike Pence, White House photo

Earlier today, former Vice President Mike Pence faced loud heckles of “traitor!” and “boo!” when he spoke to the convention of the conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition. The angry audience remembered that Pence had failed to show sufficient deference to Donald Trump when he certified the Electoral College vote.

The Coalition’s annual "Road to the Majority" gathering brings together a collection of conservative politicians, leaders of the Christian Right, and deranged conspiracy theorists. They say that their goal is to bring Christianity into the government.


Christianity Becomes a Weapon

Yet, Trump aside, I would have thought that the Coalition would like the things that Pence spoke about so passionately. Indeed, near the end, he called the United States to “reject Critical Race Theory in all its forms.” That should appeal to even the most bigoted conservatives. He said we would not let “Nancy Pelosi nationalize our elections.” He opposed “religious persecution masquerading as a quest for equal rights.” The Coalition’s purpose is to turn the Christian faith into a weapon that advances political conservatism. Many of the Christian Right’s policy ideas, including oppressing immigrants, flatly contradict biblical morality. The Christian Right doesn't care about mercy to immgrants. That isn’t their point.

So, it is not really the Coalition’s purpose to spread Christian morality. Pence apparently didn’t fully understand this. Indeed, at the speech’s outset, Pence missed the point when he said:

“It is great to be back with so many patriots.”

That got some cheers. But he next said that:

“I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”

As he uttered those words, which were, one would think, exactly what the Coalition should want to hear, the crowd shouted “traitor” and booed him. For a time, it became difficult to hear Pence speak. The crowd booed Pence because Donald Trump is the Christian Right’s champion. 

So, in his policies, ideas, and words, Mike Pence is exactly what the Christian Right pretends to support. Unfortunately, he failed in the one test that mattered: absolute loyalty to Trump.


Conservatives Are Cancelling Their Own People

And, so conservatives once again employed (or tried to employ) cancel culture against their own people! Pence had failed to bow to Trump. America’s conservative movement has degenerated to personal loyalty to a most unworthy man. That many members of the Faith and Freedom Coalition demand absolute loyalty to a person, rather than to God, should warn us about their intentions.

That is why the hecklers could not abide Pence. Why they did not even want him to speak. Pence had, unforgivably, accurately counted the Electoral College vote for President on January 6. Donald Trump had famously urged Pence not to count the votes as part of his corrupt Stop the Steal campaign to void the election. At the time, Trump had falsely said that Pence could “decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification.”

The Coalition’s reaction to Pence was extremely ironic. Conservatives often complain about what they call cancel culture. They think it’s awful when conservatives are not allowed to speak. Conservatives complained bitterly, and rightly, when libertarian scholar Charles Murray was heckled off a college stage. Today, they turned around and heckled one of their own. This really does need to stop.

Free speech on campus, Charles Murray 

Cancel Culture Gone Amok: Governor Brian Kemp Was Shouted Down by His Own People

  
It wasn’t just the heckling. The Christian Right’s entire function is to stop reasoned speech in its tracks. When they heckled Mike Pence, members of the Faith and Freedom Coalition made it clear that they wanted to stop him from speaking. Even more, however, the Christian Right’s purpose is to shut down reasoned debate. We can debate about any element of American domestic and foreign policy. But when one side claims – falsely, in my opinion – that they represent true religion, how do we argue with that? The Christian Right’s entire ethos is to pretend that they are serving God. Can we argue with Mike Pence? Certainly. But who wants to argue with God? And so, by pretending to speak for God, the Christian Right employs the ultimate conversation stopper. 

Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate


Conclusion

Pence angered some members of the Coalition enough that they wanted him heckled off the stage. Did Pence foolishly think that these people pursued Christian ideals? The crowd’s hostile reaction to Pence shows that they sought political power, not religious perfection. Does the Christian Right think that faith requires loyalty to God? Or to Trump? For Trump is not God. Let us remember, however, that the Christian Right can only define God if other Christians allow them to do so.

Yes, the conservative movement shrinks daily. But as its followers become more fanatical, its baneful power grows.

The Golden Trump Statue at CPAC 2021: Conservatives Worshipping a Golden Idol?   

How to Heckle in a Tasteful and Witty Manner 


P.S. Security at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference escorted some of the worst hecklers out of the room. Many of them, however, were apparently allowed to remain. Pence was able to complete his speech, although, to my ears, he sounded just a bit subdued or chagrined. He got a few cheers here and there.

The Golden Trump at CPAC 2021: Why Is the Christian Right Silent?

Sometimes, it’s what you do not say that matters most. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was once a simple event where conservative pseudo-intellectuals gathered to spout ill-conceived ideologies. In 2021, it transformed into a quasi-religious celebration of Donald Trump. At the conference’s outset, an artist wheeled in a golden statue of Trump, wearing red, white and blue shorts and waving a magic wand. The Christian evangelical leaders, who supported Trump so strongly throughout his political career, still remain silent. No word of protest from them. Their silence, I think, sends a message: a message that they have sold their Christianity to a false god. They are so quick to condemn the tiniest religious slight from liberals, but not a word about the Golden Trump? How remarkable.

About 80% of white Christian evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and they continue to provide his most reliable support. Yet, we read in the Bible that, during the Exodus, while Moses was on Mount Sinai collecting the 10 Commandments, the prophet Aaron commanded the people to melt their gold jewelry to create a calf statue. They held a festival for the golden god they made, “and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.” When Moses saw the calf, he destroyed it and a murderous civil war broke out among the people. All things considered, the golden calf didn’t go well.

This wouldn’t be so striking except that political cartoonists have for years mocked white evangelical Trump supporters for worshiping the golden calf. Most famously, Los Angeles Times artist David Horsey’s 2017 cartoon shows Moses descending from the mountain, carrying two stone tablets covered with Bible verses, while the people worship a golden bull bearing Trump’s face. The people pointed to the tablets and shouted, “Fake News!” At the time, we all thought his cartoon was a bizarre exaggeration. Little did we know that it would come true at CPAC in 2021.

Rhetoric of Silence: What You Don't Say Matters - The Minnesota Mosque Bombing

Yet, Trump’s leading evangelical supporters stun us with their silence. Reverend Franklin Graham has not only offered Trump unyielding support, but once compared Barack Obama to the Christian-oppressing Roman emperor Nero. Yet, I see no sign that Graham has condemned the Golden Trump statue. He has, however, found time to condemn equal rights for LGBT persons, which he thinks would “discriminate against people of faith.” Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress has been one of Trump’s strongest supporters. Yet, even as the Golden Trump rolled out, Jeffress wrote that he would support the most anti-abortion party, while political issues like immigration were “secondary.” I find not one word from him about the Golden Trump.

Nor have Reverend Paula White’s views about the Golden Trump appeared. Not a word, indeed, as far as I can see, from any of the top Christian evangelical leaders who have boosted Trump. Nothing in the news, and nothing in their Twitter feeds. Even if the Golden Trump failed to trouble them, maybe they could have seen the magic wand as a blasphemy against their religion.

Donald Trump at the Values Voters Conference: Defender of the Faith?

Liberal Christians’ ridicule of the Golden Trump spreads across social media, with one Twitter user sarcastically commenting that, “If only there were some sacred text, one most people at CPAC claim allegiance to, that very explicitly warns against making golden idols.”

Often enough, what we don’t say matters more than what we do say. Silence is always ambiguous. Its meaning is never clear. Are these supposedly Christian leaders silent because they are not paying attention? Unlikely. Are they silent because they are appalled, but their political ambitions override their moral awareness? Possibly. Or, maybe, could it be that they lack any moral awareness at all? That would not surprise me. I don’t suppose we will ever know.

Still, the Golden Trump statue cries out for religious commentary, and yet we are not hearing it from the people who should be shouting about it the loudest. At this point, we run into the common law principle: “silence gives consent.” Are the Christian Right’s leaders on board with the Golden Trump? Sometimes it is good to be silent. Sometimes silence should alarm us.



P.S. Despite Trump’s America First philosophy, artist Tommy Zegan made the statue in Mexico. It took him six months.

P.P.S. I find it hard to believe that people like Reverend Jeffress read the same Bible I do. Otherwise, how does one call immigration, a subject on which the Bible repeatedly emphasizes a liberal and tolerant attitude, a “secondary” question? Yet these same people find abortion, on which the Bible is silent, to be central to the faith. To each their own, I guess, not my place to judge them. Yet the Bible teaches, “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).

P.P.S. I wrote an existentialist analysis of the rhetoric of silence in Chapter 7 of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign. Interested readers can find the book in large research libraries or for purchase. My point was that, when speech is called for and yet is not forthcoming, the silence means something.

Update March 4, 2021: it's now reported that the statue was made in China, but this information was withheld because of Trump's antipathy toward China. 

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

In his April 12, 1922 Munich speech, testifying of his “boundless love as a Christian and a man,” Adolf Hitler warped Christianity to support cruel public policies. Just like conservative American politicians today, Hitler identified himself with the group that has since become known as Christian nationalists. To persuade conservative Christians, Hitler talked about Jesus as a warrior, not a peacemaker; a fighter, not a man of love. Hitler didn’t just give his audience an excuse to be cruel; he said that Christianity required Germans to lash out. Hitler is gone, but those themes resonate today.


Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us There Are Two Different Christianities


Adolf Hitler was a public speaker of hypnotic power, one of the last great masters of the ancient art of elocution, who could captivate his audience with a stream of words. Alternately thoughtful and bombastic, pleading and demanding, Hitler planned and rehearsed every word, every phrase, every gesture, and every facial expression in meticulous detail. He used his powers to rally Germans to an evil cause and ultimately to destruction, leading conservative Christians to become his all-too-willing tools.

Eleven years before he became Chancellor of Germany, Hitler was already a major Nazi Party leader. Do Hitler’s Christian nationalist views echo in the United States today? I think they do. As we’ll see in a moment, Hitler cited Jesus’ life and actions to support his values. But Hitler’s framework was nationalism. Hitler stated his nationalist theme with these opening words, where he praised a historical German leader:

“Frederick the Great after the Seven Years War had, as a result of superhuman efforts, left Prussia without a penny of debt.”

Not just great efforts, not just human efforts, but “superhuman” efforts. It’s only one step from the superhuman to the supernatural. Would the audience think that Hitler planned to make superhuman efforts himself? Maybe so. Here is how Hitler introduced his twisted version of Christian theology a few minutes later:

“I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! Was great not as sufferer but as fighter.” 

Hitler preached a violent, angry Christianity that provided strength and power. To Hitler, Jesus, his “Lord and Saviour,” was a “fighter.” Indeed, we will see that, by the speech’s end, Hitler transformed Christianity into a struggle to rescue downtrodden Germans. He didn’t do this by building them up, but by blaming their supposed enemies. 

Hitler was raised in the Catholic Church. However, he did not practice Christianity in adulthood. All the same, conservative Christians formed Hitler’s support base throughout his political career. Hitler, in turn, reached out to them, spoke in their terms, and placed himself in their ranks. Hitler depicted himself as a minority figure who, like Jesus, was fighting for an unpopular but noble cause. 

In turn, it appears that Hitler would have had no use for the Jesus who said, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). The Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel was not a fighter. Likewise, Hitler seemed to leave no place for the Golden Rule: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” That surprises me not at all. In my many years attending church in conservative areas, I have only heard one sermon (out of hundreds) about the ever-so-liberal Sermon on the Mount, and not even one about the Golden Rule. No, Hitler had no interest in submission. Indeed, he directly contradicted Matthew: 

“As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”

Hitler wasn’t turning the other cheek, was he? Continuing, Hitler tied Christian duty to patriotism, and, in turn, patriotism to anger:

“For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited.”

That is, Hitler felt that the solution to German workers’ economic struggles was to blame Jews. Using the language of liberalism – “plundered and exploited” – Hitler’s rhetoric twisted the issue into a mass of unsupported denunciations. He told his audience that Christianity not only allowed but required that they crush Jews. By this point in the speech, Hitler had spun Christian mercy into its opposite. Yet, as he did so, he continued to speak words with which, apparently, many German churchgoers could identify.

Donald Trump at the Values Voters Summit: Was His Impeachment a Threat to Religion?


Thus began Hitler’s pseudo-theology of Christian nationalism. Throughout the speech, Hitler talked about a Jesus who was a fighter, not a healer. Hitler taught a theology of strength. According to Hitler, Jesus was an enemy of Jews, and that Jesus “summoned men to the fight against them.” Jesus, Hitler emphasized, started with a handful of followers – as did Hitler himself – and rose to prominence by power. Indeed, as this 1922 speech continued, Hitler praised Jesus for “His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”

Hitler concluded his speech by creating a new moral theology. Hitler’s religion did not speak for peace or Christian love, but, instead, for a new faith of strength and power:

“That is the mightiest of things which our Movement must create: for these widespread, seeking and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at least find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts.”

And with that comment, Hitler left the stage. Christianity had now vanished from his speech. Having left Jesus behind, Hitler announced a new nationalist faith. No longer guided by Christian values, Hitler subordinated Christianity, with its teachings of tolerance and love, to a new religion of nationalist triumph. Millions of German Christians followed him to the bitter end.

Germany was one of the world’s greatest nations, a center of art, music, literature, philosophy, and religion. If Nazism could arise there, it could arise anywhere. It could arise in the United States. Don’t ever think it couldn’t. In eleven years, Hitler’s powerful but evil rhetoric converted his great nation into a land of violence and hatred. When he cited his supposed Christian faith, Hitler gave his audience an excuse to commit wrongful deeds. How could it be wrong, Hitler implied, to be cruel in Jesus’ name? 

Reverend Paula White Prayed Against Trump’s Enemies


Do you think that Hitler’s themes – a Christianity of power and struggle, whose rhetorical purpose is to promote national strength and vengeance, not mercy – resonate in the Christian Right of today? Or not? More important, is it even possible to fight for Christianity while forsaking its teachings? Please feel free to make comments below.

Technical note: "Elocution" has meant different things during different periods of rhetorical history. For more insight into the public speaking methods that Hitler was taught, interested readers might look at Gilbert Austin's book Chironomia, or the Art of Manual Rhetoric. It's fascinating, but it's also heavy-duty reading. François Delsarte may have been a more direct influence on Hitler or his mentors.