Here’s the weekly roundup from A Public Witness. This week, we published a review of a new book by Matthew Boedy and remarks by Brian Kaylor during a No Kings rally.
Support our journalism ministry by upgrading to a paid e-newsletter subscription today!
Top 5 at wordandway.org
The MAGA Betrayal of Christianity. Rodney Kennedy argued that the quest for secular political power has led to a rejection of the clear teachings of Jesus.
Faith Leaders Join ‘No Kings’ March Against Trump Administration Agenda. Fiona André reported on an interfaith rally in New York City.
After Clergy Arrests, Religious Pushback to ICE Expands in Chicago. Jack Jenkins reported on clergy challenging ICE actions, including with a public letter titled “Jesus is Being Tear Gassed at Broadview.”
Review: We Call Ourselves Disciples. Robert D. Cornwall reviewed We Call Ourselves Disciples edited by Kamilah Hall Sharp and Joel Brown.
ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood Accused of Sexual Misconduct. The head of the conservative Anglican Church of North America faces allegations of sexual harassment, bullying, and plagiarism.
by Brian Kaylor, Word&Way Editor-in-Chief
I spent much of this week in Kearney, Nebraska, with hundreds of United Methodist clergy from across Nebraska and Kansas. They invited me to lead several sessions on Christian Nationalism. So we discussed what Christian Nationalism is, how mainline Protestants have advanced it, how it distorts the Bible, and what we can do in response.
During the annual conference of the Great Plains United Methodist Conference in June, they passed a resolution opposing Christian Nationalism that also committed the conference to providing education for clergy and others. It’s great to see a denominational group not just offering a much-needed word of condemnation but also working to offer practical insights and resources for clergy and congregations on how to address the dangers of Christian Nationalism and how to offer an alterative witness about what it means to follow Jesus.
Starting a conversation about Christian Nationalism can look really different depending on one’s context, like in urban versus rural churches or in mostly White communities versus those with large immigrant populations. However, we can all still work to challenge Christian Nationalist distortions of our faith. I hope we will not run away from such difficult conversations but instead lean in and address what I see as the greatest threat to democracy and the Christian witness in America.
Other News of Note
Josina Guess of Sojourners spoke with Rev. David Black, a Presbyterian pastor who was shot in the head with a pepper ball while praying during a peaceful protest outside an ICE facility in Illinois.
Rev. Kristin Loeks Jackson wrote for Anabaptist World about participating as a Mennonite minister in a prayer vigil outside an ICE facility in Illinois.
Several Catholic groups organized vigils across the country this week at ICE offices as “a national day of public witness for our immigrant brothers and sisters.”
A banner with a rainbow and the words “All Are Welcome” was vandalized on the lawn of a United Methodist church in Overland Park, Kansas.
Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas cited Ephesians 6:12 to attack transgender people, though he struggled with the argument.
“Christian Nationalism is nothing short of a weapon of mass destruction against core values of the gospel.” —Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, during an NPR report by Jason DeRose on Christians countering Christian Nationalism.
Nearly 500 years after the Church of England split from the Catholic Church, King Charles III of England joined Pope Leo XIV for a prayer service in the Sistine Chapel.
Obit: Phyllis Trible, who studied the Bible through feminist lens.
Obit: Morris Chapman, longtime Southern Baptist leader.
Mark Wingfield of Baptist News Global wrote about Manhattan churches working to use their buildings in creative ways.
A new art show in Los Angeles features Confederate statues that were knocked down in recent years, including one that was melted and remolded.
Brian Kaylor appeared on The Jim Wallis Podcast to talk about The Bible According to Christian Nationalists:
Photo of the Week
Thanks for reading!
I wish more on your side of the aisle would just pray outside ICE facilities, as in that beautiful photo.
Unfortunately, that's not at all representative. Here's a report on law and lawlessness according to the courts:
The anti-Trump world celebrated earlier this month when a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump from federalizing National Guard troops in Portland, Oregon. In ruling against the president, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut complained that Trump's descriptions of anti-government agitation and violence in Portland were so exaggerated that they were "simply untethered to the facts.”
Of course, the White House appealed. And now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Immergut, giving the president another victory in the courts.
The new ruling rests on very clear reasoning. There have been extensive and frequent attacks on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland. The president of the United States has the authority to protect federal installations. So Trump can order National Guard troops to protect a federal installation that is under attack. It's a ruling so based in common sense that it should be noncontroversial.
The key part of the decision is the judges' recitation of the factual background of the case. "Since June 2025, there have been regular protests at the Lindquist Federal Building, an ICE facility in Portland," the judges wrote. "Some of these protests have been peaceful, but many have turned violent, and protesters have threatened federal law enforcement officers and the building."
"Indeed, 'as a result of the destruction caused by protesters' and threats to the building," the opinion continued, "the Department of Homeland Security was forced to close the facility for more than three weeks, from June 13 to July 7." That, of course, "significantly impeded" the work of the federal government. And now, the judges noted, "While the facility is again currently operational, the windows on the building must remain boarded to prevent further damage to property or attempts at incursion and to provide security to those federal employees working inside."
The judges noted that the Portland city government did not seem overly concerned about the federal building's security. "On September 18, the City of Portland issued a Notice of Zoning Violation requiring the removal of wood coverings on the windows within 30 days," the opinion noted. And of course, there is more, also from the opinion:
On June 8, protesters placed wood, rocks, and a traffic barrier apparently to impede operations. On June 11, a man set fire to various materials protesters compiled to barricade a vehicle gate, and other protesters added to the pile of materials, increasing the flames. Protesters then placed a pole against the main lobby entrance. On June 14, a serious incident occurred when a group of protesters, including one who was carrying a firearm, advanced up the driveway of the ICE facility toward the main gate. They threw rocks and sticks at the guard shack and fired M80 fireworks at FPS [Federal Protective Service] officers. Protesters threw a mortar at the front entrance of the building, injuring an officer. Officers were forced to barricade themselves inside the building and protesters placed chains on the exterior doors. Eventually, the protesters attempted to breach the front door and broke the front door's glass. FPS officers were forced to deploy long guns but did not use them. The protesters continued to throw mortars at the building. The Border Patrol Tactical Unit deployed an armored tactical vehicle to the building and, working with an ICE Special Response Team, they eventually pushed protesters back to the street.
The opinion went on for quite some time, listing more examples. Protesters tried to light some sort of incendiary device near the guard shack. One threatened officers with a knife. One shot officers with a paintball gun. Another "shined a laser in an officer's eyes." Another "was arrested for assaulting an officer with a machete and a knife."
The protesters figured out that if they could damage the security card readers at the building's entrances, they could make it harder for anyone with business at the office to go inside. Three card readers were vandalized in June, the opinion said, and it took until mid-October to replace them. Meanwhile, employees had to wait in line to enter the building, during which time protesters took their photos for doxing purposes.
And on and on. As this happened, ICE and the feds learned they could not rely on the local police force, the Portland Police Bureau, to help. The opinion quotes an FPS official saying, "Normally, FPS would be able to rely on the PPB to assist with large scale law enforcement operations related to federal facilities in Portland. FPS has been informed by PPB, however, that they will only respond to 'life/safety' situations, but not anything immigration related. ... In June 2025, PPB Chief Bob Day spoke publicly about avoiding any actions that might show 'perceived or actual support' for immigration agents."
In response, the feds had to rely on ICE staff and a Department of Homeland Security group called the Special Response Team. The opinion notes that the FPS "deployed 115 officers from other regions, working on a 24/7 basis, to maintain order at the Lindquist Federal Building." On Sept. 26, the DHS sent a memo to the War Department requesting help in protecting the federal facility in Portland. The next day, Trump directed the Pentagon to protect the building.
The War Department then contacted the commander of the Oregon National Guard to request that the governor call out National Guard troops to protect the ICE facility. Gov. Tina Kotek (D-OR) refused. The War Department then ordered that 200 members of the Oregon National Guard be called into federal service for 60 days to protect federal facilities. The state of Oregon and the city of Portland immediately went to court in an effort to stop the deployment.
The state and city won a quick victory with Immergut's decision, cited at the beginning of this newsletter. But the appeals court, while noting that the president's decision to federalize the Guard is subject to judicial review, concluded that in this situation, Trump had a reasonable basis to act.
First, it concluded that Immergut just ignored most of the evidence of violent protests listed above. Then she declared that there was little or no evidence that Trump needed to act. Rather than reviewing Trump's decision, "the district court substituted its own determination of the relevant facts and circumstances," the appeals court said.
Second, the appeals court ruled that Immergut acted based on what Trump posted on social media, where he called Portland "war ravaged," rather than on the facts on the ground. "Even if the president may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis to support" Trump's actions, the appeals court decided.
Third, the appeals court decided that Immergut had ignored other facts that Trump had to consider in ordering the federalization of the Guard. For example, the appeals court noted that "the record reflects that 115 Federal Protective Service officers — nearly 25 percent of FPS officers nationwide — were diverted to Portland." Those officers were working 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, which is an obviously unsustainable situation. Of course Trump had to consider those factors in making his decision.
The appeals court also rejected other arguments — for example, the state and city argued that Trump's order violated the 10th Amendment, which the judges quickly put aside.
In its conclusion, the appeals court noted, "The undisputed facts show that protesters damaged a federal building, leading to its closure for over three weeks, attempted to burn the building down, placed chains on the doors, attempted to breach the front door of the building and broke the front glass door, threw objects at the building, including rocks, sticks, and a mortar, and launched M80 fireworks at federal officers, shined lasers at officers' eyes, and doxed federal officers." The judges then dryly added that "the federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant." So of course the president needed to act. That has been clear all along.