By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Lance Wallnau, a close Trump ally and Christian nationalist, is less concerned about the numerous scandals surrounding Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, than he is about the public disclosure of those scandals. This reflects the broader Christian nationalist movement’s strategy, which aims to concentrate power in the presidency to bypass Congress and impose a far-right Christian worldview on the nation. Key appointments, such as Russell Vought to the OMB, are central to this plan, aiming to replace federal employees with Christian nationalists. The ultimate goal is to fundamentally reshape American governance according to this theocratic ideology, potentially with dire consequences for democratic institutions and civil liberties.
Read the original article here
Trump’s ascent to power has fueled concerns about the emergence of a Christian “deep state” actively working to dismantle the Constitution. The notion that Trump himself is a devout Christian is largely dismissed by many as purely performative, a strategic tool to garner support from evangelical voters. His administration, however, has been significantly influenced by individuals and groups pushing a far-right Christian nationalist agenda.
This agenda, often associated with groups like Project 2025, aims to shift power away from Congress and concentrate it in the presidency, effectively creating a system that resembles a dictatorship. The appointment of individuals like Russell Vought, architect of Project 2025, to crucial positions like the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), highlights this alarming trend. Vought’s belief in a “post-constitutional moment” and his disregard for the separation of powers signal a clear intention to bypass legal constraints in the pursuit of a “biblical worldview.”
The influence of figures like Pastor Mark Wallnau and Pete Hegseth further underscores this concern. Their strong ties to the Christian nationalist movement, which envisions a government enforcing far-right Christianity globally, suggest a concerted effort to leverage Trump’s power for theocratic goals. This includes aligning with figures like Doug Wilson, who openly advocates for replacing secular governance with one dictated by evangelical Protestantism. The strategic use of governmental power, particularly those capacities that can be enforced through force, is central to this plan.
The implications are deeply unsettling. Many fear a dramatic shift toward a theocratic state, where religious beliefs are forcefully imposed on the population and fundamental constitutional rights are undermined. The claim that the U.S. was founded on Christian values, while referencing English Common Law, is a point of contention for many who interpret that foundation differently. This argument, however, tends to ignore the complex historical realities of the nation’s founding and its diverse population.
These concerns are not unfounded. The very narrow Republican majority in Congress raises questions about the feasibility of achieving such sweeping changes through traditional legislative processes. The possibility of bypassing legislative processes raises concerns about the power consolidation within the executive branch and further jeopardizes the checks and balances inherent in the American system of government. The lack of clear checks on this power, coupled with the apparent disregard for constitutional norms, paints a disturbing picture.
The discussion around the Second Amendment often arises in this context. While some view it as a safeguard against government overreach, others see it as a tool that could be used to suppress dissent in the pursuit of a Christian theocratic state. The question of who exactly will exert ultimate power within such a theocratic framework is further complicated by internal divisions within various Christian denominations. These concerns extend beyond domestic politics and raise global implications, including the potential for increased international tensions.
There are, of course, dissenting voices. Some argue that the alarm surrounding these developments is largely fueled by media sensationalism and fear-mongering. They point to Trump’s past failures and ineptitude as evidence that he and his allies lack the competence to fundamentally alter the American political system. They argue that the narrow Republican majority in Congress makes significant constitutional changes highly improbable. This view casts doubt on the idea that these individuals are masterminds capable of pulling off such a large-scale power grab, deeming them more likely to be incompetent bottom-feeders than evil geniuses.
This contention, however, does little to alleviate the underlying concerns. The potential for harm, however unlikely, and the clear actions of some individuals within the administration, coupled with the power they hold, warrant a critical examination of the situation, regardless of the level of competence among those seeking to affect change. It remains crucial to assess the risks associated with a concentrated power base pursuing a demonstrably anti-democratic agenda, regardless of the ultimate outcome’s likelihood. The danger doesn’t lie solely in the success of their plans but also in the process of undermining the essential pillars of American democracy.