Topic: WorldNetDaily
Count Michael Brown as among the WorldNetDaily columnists eager to downplay the right-wing extremism of new House speaker Mike Johnson, which he did in his Nov. 15 column:
There are few things more frightening to leftist Americans than a Christian conservative who has political power. That's why the unexpected, out of the blue rise to power of Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., sent shock waves through the left, as if to say, "These religious fanatics are trying to take over the country! Soon they'll be imposing the Christian version of Shariah on every American! Danger!"
Johnson even had the temerity to say this in an interview with Sean Hannity: "I am a Bible-believing Christian. Someone asked me today in the media, they said, 'It's curious, people are curious: What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?' I said, 'Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That's my worldview.'" Oh, the horror!
To be sure, countless political leaders in American history, including many of our presidents, also extolled the Scriptures. In the words of Abraham Lincoln in 1864, when presented with a Bible by "loyal colored people" in Baltimore, "In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it. To you I return my most sincere thanks for the very elegant copy of the great Book of God which you present."
When Johnson's ties to the right-wing New Apostolic Reformation were noted, and that Johnson has a certain flag hanging outside his office, Brown served more downplaying:
This would be the "Appeal to Heaven" flag, of which Rolling Stone says, "Historically, this flag was a Revolutionary War banner, commissioned by George Washington as a naval flag for the colony turned state of Massachusetts. The quote 'An Appeal to Heaven' was a slogan from that war, taken from a treatise by the philosopher John Locke. But in the past decade it has come to symbolize a die-hard vision of a hegemonically Christian America."
I first heard about this flag with the publication of books by Dutch Sheets, "An Appeal To Heaven: What Would Happen If We Did It Again?" (2015) and Jennifer LeClaire, "The Next Great Move of God: An Appeal to Heaven for Spiritual Awakening" (2017) – yes, a spiritual awakening, not a Christian takeover. The concept was that American leaders in the past looked to God for mercy and help in times of need, recognizing that our only appeal was to heaven. The same must happen again in our day – there must be a fresh move of God, another great awakening – if our nation is to survive. Our only hope is an appeal to heaven!
[...]
The truth to be told, reports of the nefarious activities of "NAR" are grossly exaggerated, both in terms of numbers, influence and goals. (I write this as someone who knows many of the alleged leaders of "NAR"; for a more accurate assessment, go here.) And while I certainly have differences with some of the leaders referenced in Rolling Stone (see a statement I co-authored here and note my book "The Political Seduction of the Church"), most of the Christian leaders I know who work in politics are no different than their colleagues on the left.
Both are working within the political, democratic system to advance their values and goals. Those on the left have their vision for what is best for America, while those on the right have a different vision. But I do not personally know a single, significant, evangelical leader who wants to impose a theocracy on America. Not one.
As for Christians working to change the educational system, that's exactly what the left has been doing for decades, with disastrous results. But that's what every group does. We seek to convince others that our convictions and beliefs and values are in the best interest of the nation, and we do our best to live those values out and to influence others. What is so wrong about that?
What Brown won't make clear, however, is that he has been a longtime apologist for the NAR. Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett note how Brown lashed out at them for writing a book critical of the NAR, even denying that any such thing existed (though his own organization uses the term); they sum up what Brown did in a way that sounds familiar:
In short, Brown's article was careless. He didn't interact with the reasons we've presented. He didn't acknowledge the evidence we've brought to bear. Rather, he mischaracterized and oversimplified our case.
And Brown has done the very thing he accused of us. He puts all critics in the same basket: they all misunderstand what NAR is. This can be seen in the way he opens his article. He gives a lengthy description of NAR from a critic of the movement. But he doesn't identify the critic; he doesn't produce his source. The implication is that this critic speaks for all NAR critics.
Pivec wrote in 2023 of Brown's continued dishonesty about NAR: "In short, by denying the existence of NAR and directly supporting individuals like Mike Bickle, Brian Simmons, and Bill Johnson, Brown has compromised his claim to represent the charismatic/Pentecostal mainstream, squandered the opportunity to offer a well-informed and realistic appraisal of NAR, and relinquished all moral authority to speak for most continuationists. ... The more Brown defends NAR leaders and portrays them as mainstream charismatics, the more he alienates mainstream charismatics who know better—and that number is growing." Brown tried to defend Bickle a couple weeks earlier after he was accued of sexual misconduct.
Brown unsurprisingly concluded by once again whitewashing Johnson's extreme brand of Christianity:
Without a doubt, Johnson is a deeply committed, Christian conservative (for his views in his own words, go here.) And without a doubt, he would love to see more Americans embrace the best aspects of our national Christian heritage.
But, aside from praying for God's intervention in our nation – this is something every generation has done – he is committed to working within the political process. Even his attempts to challenge the results of the 2020 election were done in this spirit, ultimately stepping back from that pursuit as the courts refused to reexamine the elections.
In today's climate, however, Johnson is the most dangerous speaker of the House we have ever had, part of a conspiratorial plot to take over the nation and impose a fundamentalist version of Christianity over every American.
You can expect this fear-mongering, alarmist approach to become more shrill in the days ahead. Be prepared to respond with patience and with truth. Perhaps, over time, our fellow-citizens will realize that the alarmists are just crying wolf.
Is that like how his fearmongering about LGBT people has been repeatedly exposed as hateful and alarmist?
