Sexton is executive director of the Arizona Faith Network and an ordained pastor in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Campbell is lead pastor at Desert Springs Bible Church and author of “ Disarming Leviathan: Loving Your Christian Nationalist Neighbor.”
As pastors in Arizona, we are concerned about the toxic polarization that has taken hold in our state and the weight it is adding to the souls of our neighbors. A video recently surfaced that showed violent rhetoric toward an Arizona public servant. It deserves the rebuke of Christians in our state — and all people of goodwill.
Maricopa County Republican Party official Shelby Busch told an audience that if Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, a Republican, were in the room with them, she would “lynch him.” This was not only a call to violence. It is a term that carries a particularly disturbing connotation in the history of our country.
The troubling mention of 'Christian disagreements'
Violent rhetoric of this kind has no place in Maricopa County or anywhere in Arizona. With hate crimes on the rise and violent threats against public officials — especially election officials — at a dangerous high, this type of language is reprehensible and contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
Furthermore, Busch stated that there was a difference between Richer, who is Jewish, and other public officials because other officials can have “Christian disagreements.” To be clear: No matter what types of disagreements Arizonans have, our religious tradition calls us to resolve them peacefully. Disagreements should never be resolved through violence, regardless of their extent.
Beyond the danger of this call to violence, the rhetoric of “Christian disagreements” implies that Christians can treat non-Christians with less respect or dignity. This is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, who calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves.
We can't manipulate religion to divide people
Busch’s comments can also give the impression that non-Christians should not serve in public office. This could not be further from the truth.
While we believe in strongly expressing our Christian beliefs in the public square and advocating for policies that reflect our values, religious tests for officeholders are a violation of the First Amendment.
What’s more, we would embrace any politician who serves the public with integrity, honesty and fairness, regardless of their faith tradition.
To demand that public officials adhere to a single interpretation of a single religion is a betrayal of foundational American values.
Faith's tenets are love and compassion
The combative environment in Arizona politics stems largely from the lies about the 2020 election — and the demands that Arizona officials overturn the will of the people.
When individuals are willing to throw aside the results of a free and fair election — and silence the voices of the majority of their neighbors — these elements cultivate a dangerous environment for our democracy.
We are tired of this divisive violent rhetoric that manipulates our religious values, distorting the core tenets of compassion and understanding that define our faith.
As local church pastors, we invite our community to reject the path of violence and follow the way of Jesus, a path of peace, grace, love and truth. As the Apostle Paul wrote to Christians living under the Roman Empire (Romans 12:17-18), “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.