Mike Johnson's 'alarming' ties to slavery-defending Christian extremists

How a 'radical strain' of Christian fundamentalism shaped Mike Johnson’s worldview

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville came under fire in MAGA media after comparing House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-Louisiana) Christian nationalist ideology to al-Qaeda's radical Islamist views during an early December interview with "Real Time" host Bill Maher.

But Carville didn't back down. The 79-year-old Democrat made it clear that while he is fine with Christianity in general, he believes that Johnson embraces a severe, far-right brand of evangelical Protestant fundamentalism that is anti-democracy and anti-freedom of religion.

Johnson defended his religious views during a late October interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, saying, "Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it — that's my worldview. That's what I believe, and so, I make no apologies for it."

The House speaker wasn't being overly specific, as five different Christians can have five different interpretations of scripture. Johnson's interpretation of the Bible is obviously quite different from how the Rev. Al Sharpton (a Protestant minister) or Sister Mary Scullion (an activist and Catholic nun who is well-known in Philadelphia) interpret it; to Sharpton and Scullion, the Bible makes a strong case for liberal activism.

In an article published on January 31, the Daily Beast's Roger Sollenberger takes a close look at Johnson's "Christian fundamentalist" influences and the "radical theological tradition" that has inspired him.

Those influences, according to Sollenberger, "have disputed some of the country's most important constitutional principles, including amendments that freed the slaves and extended basic rights to all citizens."

"Those questions are all the more pressing given how open leaders of this movement have been about using anti-democratic means to achieve their desired religious ends — and given Johnson's own prominent role in the GOP effort to overturn the 2020 election," Sollenberger explains. "While Johnson's legal endeavors to keep Donald Trump in office have been well documented, so too have his ties to that fundamentalist strain, known loosely as Christian dominionism."

Sollenberger elaborates, "In a definitional sense, Christian dominionism is the belief that Christians should hold 'dominion' over things like media, culture, and politics. In practice, it's a radical theology — unifying a number of fundamentalist ideologies—advocating for biblical interpretations of law and society and hardline views on issues like abortion and marriage. More broadly, Christian dominionism seeks to establish the United States as a Christian nation governed by biblical law. And several leaders in the dominionist movement have had a profound impact on Johnson personally — by Johnson's own admission."

Johnson's Christian nationalist "influences and associations," according to Sollenberger, include WallBuilder's David Barton and the Council for National Policy (CNP).

"Barton's group, WallBuilders, advocates for laws and legal interpretations premised on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible," Sollenberger notes. "And Barton's website once published an in-depth defense of biblical slavery, challenging aspects of the 13th Amendment…. In 2019, Johnson delivered a keynote speech to the Council for National Policy, an elite and secretive pro-Christian group that wields immense influence in conservative politics."

Sollenberger adds, "That group was co-founded by Gary North, an influential Christian dominionist who has endorsed biblical slavery."

Belmont University professor Adam Perez, who specializes in religious studies, warns that Christian dominionists are extremely authoritarian in nature.

Perez told The Daily Beast, "They read the Constitution the same way they read the Bible, the same biblical literalism. It's an ahistorical critique, and what that allows for is to say, 'Our reading of scripture and the Constitution is right, because functionally, we are authorized to be the people who interpret it for you.' They say they're reading it plain and literally, and that allows them to strip away nuance, close the circle of interpretation small enough that it feels totalizing and the interpreter has all authority."