logo
The Rev William Barber's ‘moral movement' confronts Trump's America. Can it work?

The Rev William Barber's ‘moral movement' confronts Trump's America. Can it work?

Yahoo05-07-2025
On 2 June, at St Mark's Episcopal church in Washington DC, people packed the sanctuary – elders in denim jackets, seminarians in collars, organizers clutching clipboards. Some had come in from North Carolina; others walked from their homes just a few blocks away. The seats were full, so the crowd lined the aisles and leaned against the red-brick walls beneath stained-glass windows that cast streaks of light across the floor.
It was the first Moral Monday of the summer – a tradition of weekly, nonviolent protest that began in North Carolina in 2013 and now serves as the beating heart of the Rev William Barber's national movement to end poverty and systemic injustice. 'I am not afraid,' the congregation sang. They clapped in rhythm. They swayed in place. Their voices, layered and lived in, reverberated through the rafters: 'I would die for liberation, because I know why I was made.' It was part worship, part invocation, part warning. They folded into the center of the sanctuary as they sang covenants of nonviolence – pledges to neither resist arrest nor retaliate, to remain disciplined and dignified in the face of confrontation. One organizer stepped forward and asked them to consider the gravity of what they were saying. 'In every cell of your body,' he said, 'do you believe that?'
Barber, the co-chair of the revived Poor People's campaign, a national movement to challenge inequality in all its forms through moral protest and policy change, has spent years preparing people for moments like this. Barber draws on a tradition that views justice as a covenant rather than charity, as a sacred demand to confront moral rot. Right now, that means challenging the Trump administration's second-term agenda – and the Republican-controlled Congress advancing legislation that would slash Medicaid, food assistance and public education, while simultaneously giving tax breaks to some of the wealthiest Americans – or, what Barber has simply called 'policy murder', a wholesale dismantling of services for the poor and vulnerable.
But Barber's battle is both a moral rebellion against Trump's America and against the deeper architecture of inequality that has survived every administration. His movement doesn't simply resist a president. It challenges a political theology that weds nationalism to capitalism and cloaks exploitation in scripture. In Barber's view, Trump isn't the disease – he's the symptom of a nation that never fully confronted its sins. 'Jesus was not crucified because he was just talking about private sin,' he told me. 'He was crucified because he turned over the money tables. That's where government and religion had come into an unholy relationship, and were robbing from the poor.'
In a sermon the day before, Barber had turned to 2 Kings – to four lepers outside a besieged city, caught between certain death and uncertain deliverance. 'Why sit we here until we die?' they ask, before rising to move toward the enemy camp. That movement, Barber reminded his audience, is what made the miracle possible. The lepers rose to risk the unknown and found the enemy had already left, leaving behind food, shelter and silver. Deliverance had already come; it just took the marginalized to move first. The US is in its own such moment, Barber said. 'This is murder by policy,' he preached, pointing to the $1.1tn in proposed cuts to healthcare, food aid and climate infrastructure. 'We cannot stay here and die.'
Organizers passed protest signs around the sanctuary like communion: Fund Life, Not Death. Our Faith Demands Justice, Not Policy Murder. Handouts followed: 13.7 million people are at risk of losing health insurance. Eleven million at risk of losing food assistance. Billions redirected from public programs to tax breaks for corporations, defense contractors and deportation forces. Congress was deliberating over what Barber calls a 'big, bad, ugly, disgusting, deadly budget', and they wanted to take a moral stand.
The room was intentionally diverse – it's what Barber calls a fusion movement, rooted in the idea that poor and working people across race, religion and region have a moral force capable of reshaping the nation. They prayed. They assigned roles. Some would march. Some would risk arrest. All would bear witness. Slowly, deliberately, the congregation began to move. First, those in wheelchairs; then the people along the walls peeled off. Then, one section at a time, released with care – no rush, no clamor. They lined up two by two, like they were boarding an ark. It was a practiced procession, not chaos. The organizers had been clear: move like the black-and-white footage you've seen, like those who marched before you – with order, with discipline, with conviction.
'When politicians and priests bless policies that hurt the poor,' Barber said, 'that's when the prophets have to rise.' For Barber, this is the prophet's role: to expose, to indict and to force a moral reckoning in the public square. The structure of his movement's actions, the insistence on grounding resistance in both scripture and strategy, is shaped by a long religious protest tradition in the US. Now, under a second Trump term, with safety nets unraveling and rights under siege, that witness feels urgent again. As the movement experiments with decentralized leadership, more youth recruitment and a sharper digital presence, it will have to decide: is it a movement to awaken the conscience, or to seize the wheel? Can this movement still meet the scale of today's coordinated assault on democracy, rights and the poor?
Barber met the demonstrators at the corner of East Capitol St NE and 1st St SE, where the procession paused before the slow walk towards the steps of the supreme court. He stood with his cane in hand, a white stole slung over his shoulders that read: Jesus was a poor man. He joined the group like a hinge between past and present. No microphone. No grand announcement. Just a nod, a steadying breath, and then a turn toward the supreme court.
Passersby smiled and posed for selfies, unaware or unbothered by the stakes. The procession kept moving, singing as they went. The air filled with hymns and the weight of memory. At the court steps, the crowd swelled; marshals implored folks to move closer. They sang battle hymns through the speaker system, a thread of the sacred pulled taut across the concrete. The day was structured to echo the civil rights movement, orderly, solemn and visually potent.
When Barber took the mic, he drew on the movement's rhetorical authority as well. 'We gather here not in protest alone,' Barber said, 'but in prophetic power. We stand not just as people of faith, but as stewards of moral memory. Injustice has written itself into the budget lines, and silence is not an option when lives hang in the balance of a ledger.' Barber reminded the crowd that the country's wounds were not just policy failures; they were moral abscesses. 'There can be no healing of the soul of America without healing the body,' he said. Not while people are starving. Not while they're uninsured. Not while injustice is passed off as fiscal responsibility.
He said something similar in 2020, in the days after Biden was elected president and many people across the nation released what felt like four years of held breath. Biden called for unity; Barber pushed back. 'There has to be division before there can be healing,' he said. In Barber's theology, peace doesn't mean calm. It means justice. False unity, he warned, is not reconciliation – it's complicity. And that is the deeper challenge beneath Barber's movement: not just to resist one budget, or even one party, but to confront the country's underlying sickness: its habit of mistaking cruelty for order, and order for peace.
'They say they're cutting waste, fraud and abuse. But what they're saying is it's wasteful to lift people fraudulent to help them live, and abusive to make sure they have healthcare,' he said. For a moment, it felt like the church services I'd grown up in. Come on, Barber! a clergyman shouted. Yessuh! a resonant voice rang from the other side of the crowd. By the time Barber started whooping – stretching his syllables as his voice reached a thunderous crescendo – the crowd had been whipped into a passionate holler.
Barber told stories of movement members who died without care – Pam in Alabama, Jade in North Carolina – who called him not for comfort, but for commitment. Don't quit, they said. 'They had the courage to fight even while they were dying,' he said. 'We ought to have the courage to fight while we're living.'
Then he slowed and asked a simple question to those gathered: 'What will you do with the breath you have left?' The question hung in the air. He didn't wait for an answer. A few days later, he told me why it sticks with him. 'That was George Floyd's cry. That was my brother's cry – he died in his 60s, waiting on healthcare. That was the cry of people during Covid: 'I can't breathe.' That's what I hear when I say that,' he told me. 'The breath you have left – that's what you've been given. That's what you owe.'
Breath was a gift and a responsibility. 'We're not gonna sit here and let healthcare die,' he said. 'We're not gonna sit here and let living wages die. We're not gonna sit here and let democracy die. It's time to live. It's time to stand. It's time to speak. To protest. To live justice.' The line echoed down 1st Street. Whether it reached the halls of power was another question.
Barber has always insisted this movement isn't built for the news cycle. 'Movements are not driven by whether the media covers it,' he told me. 'They're driven by whether it's right. You don't build fusion coalitions because it's sexy, you build it because it's necessary.'
The spotlight matters, though. And as the glare has dimmed since 2020, so too has the movement's leverage in elite policy spaces. For Obery Hendricks, a professor in the department of religion at Columbia University, the tension is theological and tactical. Barber speaks from the Black prophetic tradition, a tradition that calls out injustice with moral clarity. But clarity alone isn't always enough. 'Too often, prophetic rhetoric is co-opted as performance,' Hendricks told me. 'It becomes poetry without praxis.'
But even when the national spotlight is not focused on the organization, that hasn't stopped the Poor People's campaign from lining up in moral opposition to what it sees as destructive policy across the country. 'People say, where's the movement?' Barber told me. 'We say, where are you? The movement is here. Maybe you're just not paying attention.' Fusion organizing in 2025 isn't theory – it's practice. Amazon workers marching with choirs in Alabama. Climate activists linking arms with veterans on Capitol Hill. Disability advocates and union reps shaping policy in North Carolina. Barber's once-local campaign is now connected with movements across the country, from Georgia's voting rights drives to Los Angeles's housing struggles.
Sometimes, the actions pay off. Inside of St Mark's, I met Emma Biggs, a childcare advocate from North Carolina who had made the trip to DC for the rally. She had joined similar protests before. In June of last year, she was among those who were arrested inside the state legislature while protesting a looming childcare shortfall. The state legislature had passed a stopgap funding bill by the time protesters were released.
To Vaughn A Booker, a scholar of religion and African American history at the University of Pennsylvania, though, the power of Barber's model lies more in its moral insurgency than the results it produces. 'He has this style that's like a preacher reading out the names on judgment day. He's not just naming problems. He's naming people, policies and outcomes,' Booker said. 'It lands differently when it comes from the pulpit.' And maybe that's the point. In an era of institutional drift, moral confrontation remains a kind of clarity. 'Moral discourse may not be a dominant mobilizer anymore,' he said. 'But that was always the case. The prophets didn't expect to win. They expected to witness.'
Barber echoed the sentiment. Bearing moral witness matters even when it doesn't automatically produce results, because failing to show up at all cedes ground unnecessarily. 'A moral fight is one that you have to engage, because not to engage is to risk damage that might not be reversible,' he said. 'If a group of politicians were going to crucify voting rights and crucify healthcare, then every crucifixion needs a witness.'
Not everyone will be reachable through scripture, though. Whereas nearly half of Americans attended weekly religious services at the height of the civil rights movement, only about 30% of Americans do so now, according to a recent Gallup poll. Barber sees the rising suspicion of moral language, and the growing distance from the church, but he doesn't see it as an obstacle; rather, he sees an opportunity. 'Young people are not leaving the faith because they don't want justice,' he told me. 'They're leaving because we've too often offered them religion without justice, and theology without truth.' So, he remains committed to preaching in public, to claiming a tradition that doesn't just soothe, but disrupts with the intent of building a kind of moral pressure. Barber believes the system has rotted at its core. It's why he often refers to a sickness in the country's body, a deterioration of its heart – but he also believes it has the capacity to be reformed, and is drawing on a prophetic tradition to push it towards change. 'He's operating within the system,' Booker told me. 'He's not outside of it burning it down. He's trying to get the system to live up to its stated values.'
Barber's strategy mirrors that of Martin Luther King Jr a generation before: not to write legislation personally, but to focus enough attention on a moral crisis that the system has to respond. The marches weren't meant to replace lawmaking, but to expose it – to show where justice had failed, and to make action unavoidable.
Barber began a labored walk to the Capitol. A woman caught up to him quietly and asked if he had a moment to speak. His eyes were forward, fixed on the entrance. 'If you don't mind,' he said gently, 'I'm trying to focus on what I'm doing.' She apologized and nodded, but had to say her piece.
She walked beside him and told him that the A was missing from DEI – the A for accessibility. So many movements, she said, leave out people with disabilities. People who walk with a limp. Barber smirked. 'Oh, people like me?' he said. The procession stopped and Barber, alongside a small group, descended down the elevator.
This is where conviction met cost. At the Capitol rotunda, the group prayed with the purpose of arrest. Suvya Carroll, a disability rights advocate born with cerebral palsy, clutched a Bible. Carroll told Barber she and her friend were there because 'people like us always get left out. But we believe this movement sees us.' As Capitol police moved in, she was arrested along with Barber and five others. Barber later reflected on Carroll's arrest in particular: 'That child looked the Capitol police in the eye and said: 'I'm ready.' And we all prayed. Right there, in the middle of that dome. And I thought, Lord, if this doesn't matter, what does?'
The arrest was symbolic – the third time Moral Monday activists had been detained since April – but it also surfaced a deeper truth. The witness came from many, but the weight still fell on one. When Barber turned toward the elevator, others followed. And once inside the rotunda, all eyes returned to him. As questions swirl around the future of his organization, a harder one remains: how long can a movement built on moral clarity lean on a single voice? Barber's voice remains central, but the campaign's future may depend on how well it distributes that moral authority across a broader base. If the theology is prophetic, the structure has to be plural.
Barber's protest is grounded not in outcome, but in obligation. He's asked: what will you do with the breath you have left? For Barber, that's not just a question. It's a way to keep moving. 'This country gets amnesia,' he told me. 'We forget. That's why prophetic work is not about a moment. It's about building a memory that resists the lie.' Even though he's become a brand, he's trying to build a witness. 'I don't want people to follow me, I want them to follow the truth,' he said.
'Prayer,' he likes to say, 'is never the end of protest. It's the beginning of a demand.' That day in the rotunda, his prayer echoed through marble. Maybe it reached no one. Maybe it moved someone. But it was heard.
That's the point of prophecy. Not certainty. Witness.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A $100 billion mystery is unfolding on tariffs and inflation and economists are cracking the case
A $100 billion mystery is unfolding on tariffs and inflation and economists are cracking the case

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

A $100 billion mystery is unfolding on tariffs and inflation and economists are cracking the case

Economists have for months warned that tariffs would cause an inflation surge, but as of July, there's little evidence of that in economic data, despite about $100 billion in tariffs already collected by the Treasury. Fortune asked economists to explain why. The possible reasons range from 'it's too soon' to 'consumers won't stand for it.' Since the first weeks of President Donald Trump's second term, when the president signaled a wholesale reimagining of the international trade system on a scale not seen in decades, mainstream economists have warned that prices would surge. The mantra, repeated by everyone from mainstream economists to factions of the GOP, has been clear: A tariff is a tax on consumers. Businesses said the same, with three -quarters of importers in a recent New York Fed study declaring they planned to pass on some tariff costs to customers. But halfway into the year and well into the most consequential reshuffling of trade in half a century, tariff-fueled inflation is missing in action. The tariffs are certainly in place: The Treasury so far has collected a record-setting $100 billion in customs duties, and is on track to pull in $300 billion this year. The tariffs are paid by U.S. importers—think Walmart and other retailers—when goods cross the border into the U.S. It takes some time to work their way into the system, but eventually higher prices get passed onto consumers. Those higher prices directly influence the overall price levels in inflation measures. Except there's a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, and coated in a puzzle. One place tariffs aren't showing up? In the inflation numbers. For four months, official inflation readings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have come in under expectations, with the latest inflation reading a relatively modest 2.4%. The president's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) this week released a brief arguing that import prices have actually been falling. Why doesn't the data show a tariff hit? Here's what leading economists told Fortune. Though tariffs have been discussed for months, they haven't actually been in place for that long. 'Regarding the impact of tariffs on prices, the timeframe used by the CEA is way too short to draw any definitive conclusions,' said the fiscally conservative National Taxpayers Union said in a critique on the study, which looked at prices through May. 'Trump's 10% nonreciprocal tariffs were only imposed in April.' Tariffs on steel and aluminum went into effect in March and increased in June, while Chinese imports have been subject to a 30% tax since March; dozens more 'reciprocal' tariffs, initially announced in early April, have now been postponed. Meanwhile, official government price data takes time to collect and release. As of mid-July, the most recent data for the Consumer Price Index and Personal Consumption Expenditures deflator, covers May. Immediately after tariffs were announced, importers rushed to bring in goods before they were subject to a higher rate. Businesses brought in so many goods, with no corresponding sales, that it briefly flipped the U.S.' GDP into negative territory. (In economist math, imports count as a negative to GDP.) That surge means that businesses could still be largely selling goods brought in under pre-tariff prices. 'Businesses stockpiled inventory, and presumably haven't had to raise prices on goods because they're sitting on the shelf. Eventually they will, and once they start to raise prices it'll start impacting consumers,' said Eric Winograd, chief U.S. economist at AllianceBernstein, to explain this theory. Uncertainty, in a word, is 'the most important reason' the hard data doesn't yet show tariff impact, according to Eugenio Aleman, chief economist at Raymond James. 'Business owners price their goods at replacement cost. If they have to buy the same good in the future, they have to increase the price [charged to the customer] if the price of the replacement is higher,' he told Fortune. The problem, though, is uncertainty. 'Everybody knows the prices that firms will pay for replacement goods will be higher, but nobody knows by how much. That uncertainty is keeping many firms from repricing their goods.' Businesses, particularly small businesses, could be choosing to eat the cost of tariffs for the time being. Unlike large businesses, they have a smaller client base and could be reluctant to hike prices, Aleman said. 'Maybe small firms are eating some large portion of the tariffs. Why? Because they can't afford to lose clients,' he said. One potential data point indicating this possibility is recent Commerce Department figures showing growth in proprietors' income—a proxy for small businesses—flatlining in May. Aleman stressed that more than one month of data would be needed to determine if this is the case. Recent Bank of America research shows the amount of tariffs paid by small businesses in May nearly doubled from 2022 levels. 'Small businesses may be, in some ways, more susceptible to tariff pressures than larger businesses, given their access to capital is more limited,' the note read. An added factor is the bully pulpit of Truth Social, which Trump has wielded freely at even the largest retailer thinking of hiking costs. 'If the president sees significant pass-through of tariffs via prices, you'll see a lot more public policy, probably via Twitter,' Jeff Klingelhofer, a managing director at Aristotle Pacific, told Fortune. Klingelhofer previously suggested that companies would take the brunt of the tariff impact because they're the only ones who could afford to, with consumers being 'tapped out' after years of high inflation. Former Federal Reserve economist Claudia Sahm also noted that companies today are less quick to hike prices now than they were during pandemic inflation, when Americans were flush with cash and eager to spend it. In 2021 and 2022, 'consumers up and down the income distribution, had some cash, and there were a lot of corporate earnings calls saying 'We're passing these [costs] through,' and the consumer could kind of handle it,' she told Fortune. Three years later, Americans have spent all the excess savings accumulated during Covid, and businesses 'realize if they increase prices dramatically, they could be losing customers,' she said. 'There is more hesitation. There is some raising of prices, but not the exuberance' of the pandemic. That's the position of Mark DiPlacido, policy advisor at American Compass, a conservative economic outfit that supports tariffs as a way to rebalance the U.S. economy. 'Foreign exporters have ended up absorbing a lot of [the costs], and businesses—very little has gotten to consumers at this point,' he said. Japanese carmakers, he noted, are slashing prices—sometimes nearly 20%—to compensate for the added costs U.S. buyers will pay. In other words, 'Japan itself and Japanese companies are eating the costs of the tariffs.' Every economist Fortune spoke with made some version of this point—that a tariff, rather than giving a blank check for a seller to boost prices, sets off a complicated negotiation between importers, exporters, and American end buyers. Finding the balance of which party pays how much will take time, and will be individual for each good and sector of the economy. 'Tariffs are a tax on imported goods,' Sahm said. 'Nobody wants to pay the tax, so who is the weakest link? Walmart can go in and tell their Chinese producers, 'You have to cut the price.' Maybe in the pandemic the consumers said, 'OK, I'll pay it—I'm not really happy about it, but I have the money.' The final answer, she added, 'can be very specific to the business, the industry, and also the general macroeconomic conditions.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio

The U.S. and EU Are Fighting Over Who Controls Big Tech
The U.S. and EU Are Fighting Over Who Controls Big Tech

Gizmodo

timean hour ago

  • Gizmodo

The U.S. and EU Are Fighting Over Who Controls Big Tech

President Trump just slapped 30% tariffs on goods coming from the European Union, escalating a long-simmering conflict over who gets to write the rules for Big Tech. The move came just after Brussels moved forward with more regulations, this time targeting the booming field of artificial intelligence. The latest flashpoint is the EU's new 'Code of Practice' for AI, a set of voluntary guidelines released Thursday aimed at addressing public safety concerns. While not legally binding, the code builds on the EU's landmark AI Act, and companies that don't sign on by the August 2 deadline risk intense regulatory scrutiny. OpenAI announced its intention to sign the code on Friday, while the tech lobby group CCIA, whose members include Google and Meta, has criticized the guidelines. The Trump administration has been openly hostile to the EU's attempts to regulate American tech companies. Trump has described the bloc's hefty fines as 'overseas extortion,' while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed they function as backdoor tariffs. This view has been amplified by Silicon Valley. In a January announcement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said his company was 'going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies,' specifically calling out European regulators. These tensions have crippled trade negotiations; in May, Trump administration officials told the New York Post that talks had stalled over the EU's refusal to abandon its multi-million dollar fines against U.S. tech giants. Under the 2022 Digital Markets Act (DMA), a landmark European antitrust law, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Meta were all deemed 'gatekeepers.' This designation brought with it a wave of fines and forced changes to their EU operations. Most recently, Meta was hit with a more than $200 million fine after the European Commission found its 'pay-or-consent' model breached the DMA. According to a Reuters report from Friday, Meta has decided to fight the findings and will not propose changes, meaning more fines are likely on the way. Despite Trump's pressure, the EU seems intent on maintaining its regulatory independence. Earlier this month, the European Commission's tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, told Politico that the bloc's rules on digital competition and AI were not up for negotiation. However, the EU has shown some willingness to compromise. The bloc recently dropped a proposed tax on digital companies from its upcoming budget, a move seen as a win for the Trump administration. The question now is whether these new tariffs will backfire and provoke an even tougher crackdown. In response to the first round of tariffs in April, EU President Ursula von der Leyen was open about targeting Big Tech with countermeasures if talks failed. While the bloc delayed a set of retaliatory measures that were set to go into effect this past Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron has made it clear that the EU's most feared weapon is still on the table: the anti-coercion instrument. 'With European unity, it is more than ever up to the Commission to assert the Union's determination to resolutely defend European interests,' Macron wrote on X. 'This implies speeding up the preparation of credible countermeasures, by mobilizing all the instruments at its disposal, including anti-coercion, if no agreement is reached by August 1st.' Along with the President of the European Commission, France shares the same very strong disapproval at the announcement of horizontal 30% tariffs on EU exports to the United States from August 1st. This announcement comes after weeks of intense engagement by the Commission in… — Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) July 12, 2025The anti-coercion instrument is considered the 'bazooka' in the EU's arsenal. While traditional tariffs hit physical goods, this tool allows the EU to impose trade restrictions on services from a country it deems is using economic coercion. If the U.S. is found to fit the bill, American tech giants that provide digital services, like Apple, Google, and Meta, could be uniquely vulnerable. Ultimately, both sides are fighting to protect their own interests: the Trump administration wants to defend American dominance in the global tech industry, while the EU wants to regulate digital platforms on its own terms. As negotiations continue, they will not only decide the fate of the tech companies caught in the middle but will also set the rules for global tech sovereignty for years to come. But for Big Tech companies caught in the crossfire, the message is clear: this is a war over digital sovereignty, and the rules of the internet's next era may be written in Brussels as much as in Washington.

What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's support
What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's support

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's support

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's affiliation with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – commonly called the CREC – drew attention even before his confirmation hearings in January 2025. More recently, media reports highlighted a Pentagon prayer led by Hegseth and his pastor, Brooks Potteiger, in which they praised President Donald Trump, who they said was divinely appointed. As a scholar of the Christian right, I have studied the CREC. Hegseth's membership in a church that belongs to the CREC drew attention because prominent members of the church identify as Christian nationalists, and because of its positions on issues concerning gender, sexuality and the separation of church and state. The CREC is most easily understood through three main parts: churches, schools and media. The CREC church is a network of churches. It is associated with the congregation of Doug Wilson, the pastor who founded Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson grew up in the town, where his father was an evangelical minister. Wilson co-founded the CREC in 1993 and is the public figure most associated with the network of churches. Christ Church operates as the hub for Logos Schools, Canon Press and New Saint Andrews College, all located in Moscow. Logos is a set of private schools and homeschooling curriculum, Canon Press is a publishing house and media company, and New Saint Andrews College is a university, all of which were founded by Wilson and associated with Christ Church. All espouse the view that Christians are at odds with – or at war with – secular society. While he is not Hegseth's pastor, Wilson is the most influential voice in the CREC, and the two men have spoken approvingly of one another. As Wilson steadily grew Christ Church in Moscow, he and its members sought to spread their message by making Moscow a conservative town and establishing churches beyond it. Of his hometown, Wilson plainly states, 'Our desire is to make Moscow a Christian town.' The CREC doctrine is opposed to religious pluralism or political points of view that diverge from CREC theology. On its website, the CREC says that it is 'committed to maintaining its Reformed faith, avoiding the pitfalls of cultural relevance and political compromise that destroys our doctrinal integrity.' CREC churches adhere to a highly patriarchal and conservative interpretation of Scripture. Wilson has said that in a sexual relationship, 'A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.' In a broader political sense, CREC theology includes the belief that the establishment clause of the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The most common reading of the establishment clause is that freedom of religion precludes the installation of a state religion or religious tests to hold state office. The CREC broadly asserts that the government and anyone serving in it should be Christian. For Wilson and members of CREC churches, this means Christians and only Christians are qualified to hold political office in the United States. Researcher Matthew Taylor explained in an interview with the Nashville Tennessean, 'They believe the church is supposed to be militant in the world, is supposed to be reforming the world, and in some ways conquering the world.' While the CREC may not have the name recognition of some large evangelical denominations or the visibility of some megachurches, it boasts churches across the United States and internationally. The CREC website claims to have over 130 churches and parishes spread across North America, Europe, Asia and South America. Like some other evangelical denominations, the CREC uses 'church planting' to grow its network. Plant churches do not require a centralized governing body to ordain their founding. Instead, those interested in starting a CREC congregation contact the CREC. The CREC then provides materials and literature for people to use in their church. The CREC's expansion also owes a debt to Wilson's entrepreneurship. As the church expanded, Wilson founded an associated K-12 school called 'Logos' in September 1981, which since then has grown into a network of many schools. In conjunction with its growth, Logos develops and sells 'classical Christian' curriculum to private schools and home-school families through Logos Press. Classical Christian Schools aim to develop what they consider a biblical worldview. In addition to religious studies, they focus on classic texts from Greece and Rome. They have grown in popularity in recent years, especially among conservatives. Logos' classical Christian curriculum is designed to help parents 'raise faithful, dangerous Christian kids who impact the world for Christ and leave craters in the world of secularism.' Logos press regularly asserts, 'education is warfare.' According to the website, Logos schools enroll more than 2,000 students across 16 countries. Logos also has its own press that supplies the curriculum to all of these schools. On the heels of Logos' success, Wilson founded the Association of Classical Christian Schools in 1993 as an accrediting body for like-minded schools. The ACCS now boast 500 schools and more than 50,000 students across the United States and around the world. Additionally, Wilson founded New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. New Saint Andrews is a Christian university that takes the classical Christian approach to education championed by Wilson into higher education. The New Saint Andrews College is consistent with other CREC institutions. It considers secularism a weakness of other universities and society more generally. Its website explains: 'New Saint Andrews has long held a principled and clear voice, championing the truth of God's word and ways, while so many other colleges veer into softness and secularism.' The school is governed by the elders of Christ Church and does not accept federal funding. In addition to the Logos Press, which produces the CREC school curriculum, Wilson founded Canon Press. Canon Press produces books, podcasts, a YouTube channel and assorted merchandise including apparel and weapons, such as a flamethrower. The YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers. Books published by Canon include children's picture books to manuals on masculinity. A number of books continue the theme of warfare. The politics page of the press contains many books on Christian nationalism. Christian political theorist Stephen Wolfe's book 'The Case for Christian Nationalism' is one of the most popular among books on Christian nationalism. The website has dozens of books on Christian nationalism and media dedicated to the construction of a Christian government. Author Joe Rigney, a fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and an associate pastor at Christ Church, warns of the 'Sin of Empathy.' Rigney claims that empathizing with others is sinful because it requires compromise and makes one vulnerable in the fight against evil. As the church network has grown, it has drawn attention and scrutiny. Wilson's 1996 publication of a book positively depicting slavery and claiming slavery cultivated 'affection among the races' drew national attention. Accusations of sexual abuse and the church's handling of it have also brought national news coverage. Vice's Sarah Stankorb interviewed many women who talked about a culture, especially in marriage, where sexual abuse and assault is common. The Vice reporting led to a podcast that details the accounts of survivors. In interviews, Wilson has denied any wrongdoing and said that claims of sexual abuse will be directed to the proper authorities. Hegseth's actions as secretary of defense concerning gender identity and banning trans people from serving in the military, in addition to stripping gay activist and politician Harvey Milk's name from a Navy ship, have brought more attention to the CREC. I believe that given Hegseth's role as secretary of defense, his affiliation with the CREC will likely remain a topic of conversation throughout the Trump presidency. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Samuel Perry, Baylor University Read more: The term 'lone gunman' ignores the structures that enable violence How Christian nationalism played a role in incorporating the phrase 'so help me God' in the presidential oath of office Talk of 'Christian nationalism' is getting a lot louder – but what does the term really mean? Samuel Perry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store