Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Evangelicals, it's time for dialogue work — the ‘Christian’ way

Evangelicals, it's time for dialogue work — the ‘Christian’ way
Getty Images

Trippie is an Evangelical Pastor at Restoration Church in Buffalo. Dan is also an adjunct Professor of Ethics at Liberty University and holds a Ph.D. in Ethics from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Recent tragedies in Buffalo have prompted him to organize workshops offering opportunities for dialogue across divides.

In Buffalo, New York, we know the trauma of social breakdown and tragedy firsthand, but we also know the healing that happens when neighbors come together across their differences. Over the course of this past year, we have suffered an extreme blizzard with devastating loss of life; the ruthless, racially motivated murder of ten of our fellow citizens; and the firebombing of a pregnancy clinic by an extremist pro-choice group called Jane’s Revenge. In the wake of these events, Western New York evangelicals have shed countless tears alongside our neighbors. But through trauma and tears, we have been reawakened to the vision of our leader, Jesus – “Blessed are the peacemakers."


Recently, a group of evangelical leaders in our area met to relearn and practice an ancient art form – dialogue. This fall, I received a surprise call from a rabbi offering support. Rabbi Melissa Weintraub co-directs an organization, Resetting the Table, whose very mission is to build healing and transformative communication across divides. In the Evangelical community in Buffalo, we were hungry for this work.

Among the many misconceptions afloat about evangelicals is the idea that we are resistant to building bridges with our fellow Americans. These misconceptions are rooted in long-standing media distortions of our community. Type the word ‘evangelical’ into mainstream media search engines, and you will likely find a flat and demonizing caricature. Evangelicals are represented primarily as a sinister voting bloc, duped with crazed conspiracy theories, and fomenting white supremacy and hate. Extremists are highlighted as stand-ins for Evangelicalism in America today. Nuances around important questions — like what the role of Christianity in public life should be — are lost in studies and articles that conflate wide-ranging Evangelical beliefs and internal debates with the most virulent forms of Christian nationalism. These media portrayals are not without cost; 43% of Democrats say they have “unfavorable” impressions of evangelicals – more than any other group in American society.

In fact, evangelicals are a richly diverse community consisting of an estimated 25% of the American public and embodying enormous viewpoint, racial, socioeconomic, and geographic diversity. 1 in 3 American evangelicals are people of color. Structurally we are decentralized; evangelicalism has no bishop, presbytery, or ruling body. Instead, we are a tapestry of denominations, institutions, and integrated movements. We uniquely span the rural/urban divide. Our opinions are manifold and complex, not captured by the simple story of what percentage of us voted Republican in the last election.

We are bound by shared foundational beliefs: one, that the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word. Two, that God is the author of life, Christ came to redeem life, and life in Christ is abundant life. Three, that Jesus’ resurrection is “good news”; therefore, we must share our faith. The word “evangel” literally means “the heralding of good news.”

Around the unifying power of these beliefs, lie many differences. Despite our voting patterns, we are deeply impacted by the political polarization infecting the rest of our culture. We are divided on issues ranging from race relations to vaccine mandates to gender roles to abortion law. Like many faith communities in the U.S. today, we face corrosive tensions on these issues that many of our pastors feel ill-equipped to navigate.

When Resetting the Table approached us, we were inspired by a dual aspiration: One, to mobilize regional evangelicals to contribute to healing across divides in Greater Buffalo, in the face of tragedy and pain that risks separating us further from one another. Two, to surface our own internal differences and hard conversations, both because that is the Christian way and because it is what our community and country need.

And so, we brought together twelve ideologically and racially diverse evangelical and Southern Baptist pastors in Western New York for a two-day training with Resetting the Table. This is what we found. Our views on guns, immigration, separation of church and state, and abortion were almost as wide-ranging as the U.S. electorate. Yet the training deepened and actualized our capacity to honor each other’s dignity without backing away from our honest differences. The commitment to dig beneath these flashpoint issues to affirm the dignity in each other, even as we came at issues from rival places. That is a spirit we need to restore in our public life.

I believe evangelicals could be a force for national healing. Today’s polarized climate could offer an opportunity for evangelicals to return to a proper understanding of ourselves. After all, our doctrinal distinctiveness is fixed in a belief that God speaks to humans through inspired words. We are no strangers to the power of dialogue.

To my own community, I call on us to live up to our theology of human dignity – to see how honoring our disagreements is a way to honor our fellow-image bears of God. Maybe as we learn to listen again to those within our walls and beyond them, we can be a force for breaking down the ones dividing our nation.

To the broader public, I invite you to try to see Evangelicalism in the U.S. in all our diversity. Courageous, mutually transformative conversations can only occur when all parties feel free to speak their minds without retribution or surrendering their own convictions.

If American democracy is to endure, we must all relearn this lost art of dialectic. When we do, we will see we are not each other’s enemies, even when we vehemently disagree. And we will surely find more ways to work together, in service of our collective human flourishing.


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less