A Testimony & Analysis
“…they came here because America is a beacon of liberty and opportunity….”
(Alina Habba)[i]
“…one little Word will fell him…”
(Martin Luther, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God)
In 1988 I attended the Republican National Convention as an invited guest. I was a right to life leader and had been working developing grassroots activism across the state of Iowa which had become the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. I had arisen as a high profile political activist and if I endorsed someone or something it carried weight. So I nominated a man born in India and a Hispanic woman to be delegates.
Unlike most evangelicals who entered the political realm in the 1980s, my pathway was quite different. My activism arose in direct reaction against the narrative pumped by the establishment media at that time that an unborn baby is “just a piece of tissue.” My friends and I, young mothers having babies, began to tell the truth, to unmask the lies, and to teach fetal development in the womb to the uninformed. Despite the deceptive rhetoric about “a woman’s own body,” the rapidly emerging science of neonatalogy was demonstrating that the baby in the womb was a unique living human. By 1985 we televised Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s ultrasound film The Silent Scream of an actual abortion procedure (I received a death threat after this showing).[ii]
The popular evangelical thesis that America is a Christian nation arose in the late 1970s and early 1980s, taught by Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority, Pat Robertson and his Freedom Council, and D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge. These men devoted their influential Christian media platforms to teach that America should “return” to its Christian faith through public policy, legislative and institutional changes. Meanwhile Dr. Francis Schaeffer published his belief that there was a “Christian consensus,” an influential but silent group of true believers who could become motivated to speak out for the right to life. As we began to work the grassroots and in the churches we wondered if this was true – would we find that hidden majority? Yes, we found it, but we discovered that it was already highly compromised and corrupted by the sexual immoralities that lead to abortions – adultery, promiscuity, fornication, etc.[iii]
At a political luncheon in 1987 I was sitting with a Presbyterian minister and Rep. Jack Kemp, who was running for President. They were excitedly discussing R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North and other well-known Reconstructionist leaders. This was the first time I encountered Theonomy. I immediately recognized the ramifications. This belief system, ostensibly Christian, has little to do with preaching the Gospel of Salvation, the Bible’s testimony about repentance of sin and forgiveness through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ our Redeemer. Instead it represents a governance system in which Church would rule the State, mandating compliance to their belief system.[iv] I also heard about the groundwork that the Coalition on Revival was laying to develop worldview documents during the late 1980s that would chart this course to Christianize the “spheres”[v] of American society. For the next three decades as I studied these issues in-depth I would become an outspoken opponent of “Dominionism” – which is defined as the idea that man can build the kingdom of God on earth by implementing Christian supremacy across the globe, including “making” America a Christian nation.[vi]
When I began to assume leadership responsibilities in the right to life movement a group of us sat down together to hash out our stance. Many of us came out of the hippie movement and the political Left when we were born again. One of our key leaders had once been a radical activist at the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago. We understood that the right to life was a basic human right, not originating from either the political Left or Right, but rather from God Himself. Our chief object was not political, although we did much grassroots organizing. We focused exclusively on life issues and sought to speak the truth through whatever doors opened. We set up both secular and Christian organizations to educate about medical facts. We reached deeply into diverse religious and ethnic groups and took every opportunity to speak with those in opposition to us, including a hostile press.
By this time the Democrat Party had silenced its right to life remnant, so we went with the Republican Party, particularly to focus working on its platform, a public document stating what it stood for. The Party apparatus was barely welcoming, and much of its leadership was downright hostile. Nevertheless, we became part of what was called the “Reagan Coalition” – the new grassroots voters that activists were bringing into the Republican Party. It would be an uneasy alliance. In the 1980s there were diversity controversies emerging in the Republican Party. I ran into many leaders who did not hide their racism. New people we brought into the Party were sometimes referred to in disparaging ways due to their skin color, ethnicity or religion. But these leaders couldn’t stop the grassroots special interest groups from growing. We witnessed the rising influence of the Log Cabin Republicans representing LGBT+ communities. For the first time, the Republican base was inclusive of the sort of diversity who were viewed as sinners in the eyes of evangelicals. At that time we evangelicals enthusiastically viewed this as an opportunity to share the Gospel with those we might otherwise not have occasion to interact with. And so we did.
By 1988, because we had fought so hard for the right to life to be on the Republican platform and had brought in so many new voters, we naively assumed we would be represented by delegates to the RNC. But we discovered that the approved “slate” of candidates was rich old white men whom we had literally never seen before.[vii] I determined to oppose this move with a diversity slate that would better represent the new people we had brought into the Party. So I nominated a man who had been born in India, who had become an American citizen and started his own successful business. He was the epitome of the American dream, yet not a professing Christian; his wife was a practicing Hindu. I also endorsed my best friend, a Hispanic evangelical who had worked tirelessly in her district to recruit new voters. Old Party operatives were furious and they pulled me aside to chastise me. Nevertheless, I stood up and made the nominations and the people voted in my candidates.
I was then invited to be my friend’s guest and we flew to New Orleans for the RNC Convention. The Hindu wife wore her beautiful saris for the occasion. This attracted attention and we soon found ourselves surrounded by Sikhs, Eastern Europeans, Native Americans and others colorfully dressed in their cultural garb representing various nationalities, ethnic and religious groups. Cuban exiles told us of their harrowing escapes from the Castro regime to come to America to live in freedom. Others told similar stories of fleeing religious persecution. These people were first generation American immigrants, excited to be new citizens. They had persevered and won a spot to become a delegate to the RNC that year.
The 1988 RNC event was not a religious convention and didn’t make any pretense at it despite the big influx of evangelicals into the Party. It was an operation put on by the Republican National Committee which heads the political Party. It was not a church service, nor a religious fellowship, nor a Christian gathering. It was a political convention sponsored by a political Party to confirm the nomination of a presidential candidate. The purpose of that convention was not to make America become a Christian nation. Some there may have held that agenda, but the wide diversity in evidence belied that expectation. The glue that seemed to hold the Party together was a belief in freedoms under the Constitution. The convention played Neil Diamond’s America over and over again: “Free, Only want to be free… Everwhere around the world they’re coming to America…. Freedom’s light burning warm….”[viii]
This newfound unity was all to come to a crashing end. When George Bush, Sr., took over the Party, it quickly returned back to its wealthy Country Club roots. This was to remain in effect for decades through Mitt Romney’s ticket. What we referred to back then as “the controlled Right” is now known as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). We grassroots activists were betrayed by those who were supposed to represent us. Over the ensuing decades it became clear that most elites in the Party no longer respected the Constitution, nor were they enamoured of folks like us – except when it came time to garner votes.
Over the next two decades when we young parents turned our attention to burgeoning education freedom issues, these elected officials and their foundation cohorts aggressively worked together against us. As we attempted to sound warnings about their insidious and deceptive government agendas we were stigmatized, castigated, caricatured, falsely accused, censored, suppressed, spied upon, lied about, blacklisted and shut down. It wasn’t just Leftists who were doing this. Our attacks especially came from the Right, including the increasingly compromised evangelical Right. Money, power and fame ensnared many evangelical Right leaders who were given magnificent platforms funded by wealthy donors who had corrupt agendas. Some of us were contacted by DC think tanks and offered large salaries if we would agree to stop talking about Jesus Christ and no longer oppose the New Age/New World Order.[ix]
During the past forty years the cries for America to “return to being a Christian nation” have increased exponentially, coming from a broader spectrum of the evangelical world. Critics have disparagingly referred to this phenomenon as “Christian Nationalism” in a slapdash attempt to mischaracterize all Christian believers as racists, xenophobes, extremists, etc. However, one thing is obvious – the very concept of “American patriotism” has been redefined to include Christianity by those evangelical leaders who have headquartered themselves in the Republican Party. They treat it as if it is their own Party, a fellowship of believers, an offshoot of Christianity. However, the Republican Party is a pluralistic pragmatic working group, a relationship of political compromises in order to get a job done. It is not a church. It is not a fellowship of believers.
This past week the RNC held its convention in Milwaukee. This was not a religious convention, but rather a political convention to nominate a president. Forty years after the Reagan era, the Trump-era grassroots coalition is much broader representation of American pluralism. It should not have been a surprise to evangelicals that all sorts of religions, ethnicities and social groups would be in attendance at this year’s RNC. The bottom line grassroots unity in evidence, once again, seemed to be an adherance to Constitutional freedoms.
Yet many evangelicals became outraged over a single prayer – which many mistakenly reported was a Hindu prayer (it was Sikh) – spoken at this secular political event that was widely televised.[x] Certain “influencers” spoke out afterwards, which resulted in a full-scale cancel culture operation. How dare the RNC permit a person of another faith to give a prayer? How dare the RNC exhibit this diversity on a public stage for the world to see? The spinning roller coaster took off down the social media track in a massive rush to judge.[xi]
In the heat of the moment few stood back to reflect on the bigger picture. First, why attempt to suppress a speech (prayer is speech) during an event that champions the freedom of religion and assembly under the Constitution? Why jump to the most extreme conclusion that this one public prayer was the Party’s endorsement of the speaker’s religion? Who were these “influencers” attacking this woman’s sex, her appearance, her dress, her color, her race, her background, her credentials, her religious views? What was their agenda?[xii]
More importantly, why did others, who are normally more sober-minded, jump into this frenzy with calls to “contact Republican Party leaders to lobby against this woman”? Did they realize they were asking Republican Party leaders to suppress the religious speech of one of the most high profile Republican attorneys in the nation – Harmeet Dhillon? Had they considered what she has done to courageously defend many who have been persecuted in recent years by the State? Have they watched her many interviews on conservative media platforms regarding the cutting-edge cases her law firm has represented? Have they noticed how she has stood against the cancel culture extremes such as disbarment, disenfranchisement, decredentialing, censorship?… The list could go on and on. Did they take the time to thoroughly research her family’s story, why they came to America? Did they look into her staunch support of the Constitution? Did they check her stance on Constitutional freedoms?[xiii] Do your homework!
Pause for a brief moment to consider these questions with sobriety: How are Christians supposed to respond to sinners and unbelievers? As a Christian what do you do when someone speaks up with a different religious belief, or prays a prayer you can’t agree with? Similarly, how do you respond to something you cannot countenance? Or speaks in favor of a sin that you know is unbiblical? First, with the personal acknowledgement that: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15), and “But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
Second, you don’t have to agree, and no one is requiring you to participate. You are autonomous; you can separate yourself in one way or another. If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ you can pray your own prayers. You should not be afraid – even if a pagan deity is invoked. If you are born again you know who you are in Jesus Christ.
Third, how do you respond? Do you censor the speaker? Rush to the podium and make this person stop? Pass resolutions to prohibit this type of speech in the future? Organize a campaign to disqualify them? Prohibit them from ever holding office in the Party? Launch a religious purity test for any future pray-ers on the podium? Establish a committee to pre-screen and pre-approve all prayers ahead of time? What version (or denomination) of Christianity will be you deem acceptable?
Can you see how far this could go? Once you adopt the view that America is a Christian nation, and begin to insist that others agree with your version of its Christian tenets, you are now on a slippery slope.
Significantly, those who call for a “return to America as a Christian nation” often avoid discussing the First Amendment, especially its fascinating origins history.[xiv] This Amendment was based on the biblical teaching that the Word of God is transmitted by speech, publishing and assembly. Public schools in America when I was growing up in the 1960s used to teach civics classes. This is where we studied the Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment. It reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This Amendment was very real for us in 1960s in America. These rights were publicly being exercised – for freedoms, for justice, against the war in Vietnam, etc. In my Christian home my parents and our church were committed to the best of the peaceable ideals of the Civil Rights Movement. Mom’s best friend was African-American, a gifted singer who was raising 10 children along with her handicapped husband. Mom was her accompaniest and one of our church ladies was her chief publicist. I witnessed firsthand the persecution that arose from taking this controversial stance and wrote about it HERE. My parents openly lived their Christian faith with a strong commitment to befriending those who were from different ethnicities and religions in our tiny W.A.S.P. (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) small town. They also shared their faith with Gospel music and acts of charity.
That earlier era differs dramatically from modern-day evangelicalism. Under Theonomy or other variations of Christian “Dominionism” that have arisen, there is skewed version of practicing freedom of faith, speech, press or assembly. Many evangelicals believe that they must stop others who disagree with them from exercising their First Amendment freedoms. Ironically, these are the same evangelicals who are currently chafing under the heavy censorship regime that emanates from Leftist Dominionists – those global elites and tech oligarchs who wish to exercise control over all of society with their own worldview. Thus there are two sides in this battle over who gets to suppress freedoms in the name of civic unity. In America there is not supposed to be a repressive mandate – from either the Right or the Left – to censor or suppress what we speak and publish.
There is no such call for this sort of repression of speech, press or assembly in Scripture. Rather, Paul asked for prayers that the Gospel of Salvation might have “free course” – “Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the Word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:” (2 Thessalonians 3:1). This “free course” is enabled by the freedom to speak, publishing the Word and assembling together for fellowship. This is that very freedom of speech protected under America’s First Amendment which has sent missionaries overseas for centuries, and led millions of people from other nations to flee to American shores. In this environment of freedom the Gospel should flourish – each of us have the right to share the Gospel with those who do not know it. Do we take advantage of our freedom to communicate the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ directly to others and say, “Here is what I believe”?
This freedom of speech, press and assembly is what differentiates the Gospel of the Kingdom[xv](“Dominionism”) from the Gospel of Salvation.[xvi] Dominionists insist that any person’s un-Christian religious beliefs must be eliminated from public view, modified, manipulated, censored, suppressed, legislated against, and worse. But under the freedom to preach and teach the Gospel of Salvation, we rather – as the Apostle Paul modeled for us – “persuade” others. Even in imprisonment Paul continued persuading non-believers to believe in the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ. Acts 17:17 records: “Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met him.” (Greek: διαλέγομαι dialégomai, dee-al-eg’-om-ahee; to say thoroughly, i.e. discuss in argument or exhortation, preach unto, reason with, speak.)[xvii] Why could we not do this today in the context of the great new pluralism in evidence in our society? Why can’t we do this today in the context of a political Party? I can testify that I did it in the 1980s!
The following verses are an example of the exemplary conduct of Paul’s ministry of truth in the midst of a pagan society and a hostile religious community:
Acts 18:14: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.”
Acts 19:8: “And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.”
Acts 19:26: “Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:”
Acts 26:28: “Then [King] Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”
Acts 28:23: “And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.”
2 Corinthians 5:11: “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.”
[i] Alina Habba, high profile Trump attorney, describing her parents’ flight to America to avoid religious persecution at the RNC, July 18, 2024. Her Wikipedia entry states: “Habba and her two siblings were born in Summit, New Jersey. Their parents were Chaldean Catholics who emigrated from Iraq to the United States in the early 1980s to escape persecution in their home country.[6][7]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Habba [bold added]
[ii] My testimony is recorded and published here: https://herescope.net/who-we-are
[iii] See our 2001 article “How Can There Be Revival Without Repentance?” https://herescope.net/2011/11/how-can-there-be-revival-without.html
[iv] “Who Invented Dominionism?” https://herescope.net/2011/09/who-invented-dominionism.html
[v] See our 2008 article “Seven Spheres of Influence”: https://herescope.net/2008/01/seven-spheres-of-influence.html We expanded our research on this topic for years. See also Al Dager’s groundbreaking book Vengeance Is Ours: The Church in Dominion (Sword, 1990) which documents the history of this group.
[vi] A summary of all of my writings can be found in this 2016 article: “7 Mountain Politics and Theology.” Follow the links and read the background articles contained in this overview article: https://herescope.net/2016/02/7-mountain-politics-and-theology.html. See especially these two overview articles: https://www.apprising.org/2011/01/26/what-is-dominionism/ and https://herescope.net/2024/04/dominionism-and-the-rise-of-christian-imperialism.html.
[vii] It is important to point out that we worked day and night for a number of years to get to the point where we could have influence and credibility in the Republican Party. We focused our work on the platform from grassroots all the way up to the national level. We ran into obstacles by the time it got to national – the same thing that happened in 2024 – where high level operative were able to subvert the voice of the grassroots. I point this out for all those who are critical – if you don’t like it then work to change it!
[viii] Listen and watch to two recordings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrgCxSSwBto and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCQ-GjHfbYw
[ix] This happened to us personally. During the decade of the 1990s we suffered through a serious persecution of homeschooling parents: https://herescope.net/homeschooling-under-fire. We began to publish a magazine titled The Christian Conscience, which we are currently scanning in to post in their entirety for a historical record of this time period: https://herescope.net/the-christian-conscience. We also published the whistleblower Charlotte T. Iserbyt’s history of education reform: the deliberate dumbing down of america: A Chronological Paper Trail: https://deliberatedumbingdown.com/ddd/
[x] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmeet_Dhillon: “2024 Republican National Convention
Dhillon performed a Sikh prayer, the Ardās, at the 2024 Republican National Convention.[49] It was met with backlash on social media by far-right political figures such as Lauren Witzke, Nick Fuentes, and Stew Peters.[50][51]”
[xi] Under the Gospel of Salvation we are to look for every possible channel where we may share the Gospel of Salvation with those who do not know Jesus Christ. If we begin by “biting and devouring” (Galatians 5:15) those outside of the born-again faith with social media diatribes, we sin grievously. The fact is that evangelicals are often the first to jump on the reaction train rather than waiting and responding in a sober-minded manner. We, of all people, should be taking a few measured steps back as we watch current events unfold and carefully weigh all reports, posts and articles in the light of factual truth, credible data and reliable information – especially making sure that is cross-referenced and fully verified. Here are just a few verses. “That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.” (Titus 2:2) “Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.” (Titus 2:6) “Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;” (1 Peter 1:13) “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” (1 Peter 5:8)
[xii] A few of the articles mentioning these unsavory attacks against Dhillon include: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/harmeet-dhillon-trolled-ardas-sikh-prayer-republican-national-convention-response-2567909-2024-07-17 and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/18/republican-national-convention-prayer-harmeet-dhillon and https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/republican-harmeet-dhillon-leads-sikh-prayers-at-convention-trump-present-6116294
[xiii] I went out to Gateway Pundit, which publishes daily about the persecutions against Christian believers and American patriots and found dozens of articles about Harmeet Dhillon and her courageous legal defense of these types of people, including articles like: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/listen-state-sen-jake-hoffman-attorney-harmeet-dhillon/ and https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/tucker-carlson-lawyer-harmeet-dhillon-stops-appearing-fox/ and https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/attorney-harmeet-dhillon-on-andy-ngo-attack-i-intend-to-sue-these-criminals-into-oblivion-i-dont-care-if-theyre-bankrupt-video/ and https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/pamela-geller-social-media-censorship-panel-cpac-pamela-geller-james-okeefe-jim-hoft-james-damore-harmeet-dillon-dan-gainor/ and https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/hate-crime-being-white-football-game-leads-legal/ and https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/california-teen-sues-doctors-over-double-mastectomy-at-age-13-mutilating-children-for-profit/ and the list could go on and on. Read these for yourself!
[xiv] See the atypical history recorded in the rare book by Leonard Verduin, That First Amendment and the Remnant, 1998 (Christian Hymnary Publishers). One interesting quote from Chapter 12, “The Remnant and the New World” is : “…when a settlement of Anabaptist was taking root in the ‘New World’ they informed their relatives, still living in Europe: ‘Here there is freedom of conscience, as is right and reasonable; what there should also be is freedom from slavery.’” (p. 330). Earlier in the book he explained, “The First Amendment was meant to make the generating of an ethnic faith impossible in the ‘New World.’” (p. 9)
[xv] Read “The Gospel of the Kingdom,” https://herescope.net/2008/02/gospel-of-kingdom.html
[xvi] See: https://herescope.net/2012/11/the-gospel-doctrine.html
[xvii] We wrote a satire about this, due to the changing evangelical doctrines: