The Iowan Idol Smasher and Christian Political Action

In many circles, Christian Nationalists are easily identified by their stance on blasphemy laws. A man who believes in enforcing them is often considered a Christian Nationalist, regardless of whether he affiliates as such or not. Much of the rhetoric surrounding these laws can just as easily be applied to the destruction of idols. It should be no surprise, then, that the collapse of the recent Iowan Idol was almost exclusively attributed to Christian Nationalism.

Satan Enters The Capitol

The controversy started when a group called the Satanic Temple placed a display in the Iowa Capitol building. The display featured an image of Baphomet along with the 7 tenets of Satanism. Oddly enough, the display was approved by Iowan legislators, who believed they had no legal basis for denying the demonic exhibit. Representative Brad Sherman dissented, calling for clarifications that would prevent such a blasphemous statute from setting foot in a capitol building.¹ But it quickly became clear that not all representatives were on the same page.

Rep. Jon Dunwell quickly became one of the loudest voices in support of the Satanic display. A politician and a pastor, his X post explaining his rationale for the display quickly went viral. Dunwell noted that although he was personally opposed to the satanic imagery, he was “guided by the First Amendment.” Finally, Dunwell explained that even though he was a follower of Christ, he would never allow his obedience to his Savior to become a “direct part” of civil government.

“My faith is never imposed upon others, nor should it ever become a direct part of government. It is always a response to the person and work of Jesus Christ. I don’t want to mix the kingdoms! Government is a poor arbitrator of religion.”
Jon Dunwell, 12/8/2023²

It did not take long before Dunwell’s viral post became a topic of hot debate. Iowan Governor Kim Reynolds soon weighed in, calling the idol “absolutely objectionable.” On December 12, 2023, Reynolds posted some images of herself at a prayer gathering in the Iowa capitol.³

Two days later, prayers were answered. Michael Cassidy, both a Christian and a veteran, went to the government building and knocked down the display, placing Baphomet’s head in the nearby trash can.⁴ Cassidy noted in an interview that he had been outraged by blasphemous statue and that his own conscience was captive to the word of God. The reaction of other Christians, however, ranged from uncertainty to outright opposition.

Christian Nationalism And The Reactions

Even an innocuous event such as this can set off a firestorm that highlights the divides in our political camps. Soon after the destruction of the demonic statute, Jenna Ellis began to question the ethics of such a move. This was not the first time Ellis has voiced her opposition to Christian Nationalism, but her arguments were nonetheless surprising, especially when she compared Christian Nationalists to Black Lives Matter. In contrast, Andrew T. Walker, a seminary professor who had also previously voiced his opposition to Christian Nationalism, seemed to have a much more level-headed response. Shortly after the display was erected, Walker presented an argument that Satanists have no right to a satanic display on Capitol grounds.

“First of all, as Christians, we should be very clear: There is zero theological right for Satanic displays because there is no theological right to worship Satan.”
Andrew T. Walker, “Satanic displays have no place in government buildings” ⁵

In fact, Walker further clarified that he could not even argue for a political right to satanic displays on government property. “Satanism, whether real or pretend, is an outright celebration of evil, darkness, and perversity. So, in my view, there should be no Satanic displays in government buildings.” Though Walker has yet to adopt the Christian Nationalist label, his arguments strongly reflected the very political theology he previously spoke against.

After the statue had been beheaded, Walker continued to argue that the idol smasher was resisting an unjust situation. Still, he called into question the proper grounds for civil disobedience: the primary argument used by Jenna Ellis.

The Politics Of Idol Smashing

I’m well aware that many on the Christian Right have already offered a post-game analysis. Toby Sumpter⁶ and Doug Wilson⁷ both argue that the Iowan Idol Smasher is in the right – that even performative gestures to the rule of law would not be necessary for Cassidy. The idol simply had no right to be there. David Harris, president of the newly founded TruthScript, had a similar opinion.

“It’s worth noting that there are both theological and political paradigms at play.
For example, if a Christian was anti-Covid protocol (especially the jab), didn’t buy into the mainstream narrative of the 2020 election, and would affirm the statement, ‘rebellion to tyrants is obedience to Christ,’ it’s fairly easy to guess what their perspective on Cassidy will be.”
David Harris, “3 Principles for Idol Smashing” ⁸

But sound arguments of this nature had no impact on Jenna Ellis, whose opinion of Christian Nationalism was largely shaped by January 6 conspiracy theories. Three days after the defacement of the idol, Ellis’ comments were featured in a Newsweek article, as she put fellow Christians on blast.

“[Christian Nationalists] openly, but purposefully, vaguely advocate undermining the Constitution and rule of law, replacing it with a theocracy, including blasphemy laws, and criminalizing other religions and their practice.”
Jenna Ellis, reported by Anders Anglesey, “Jenna Ellis Rages Against Christian Nationalism” – Dec 17, 2023⁹

Further in the article, Jenna’s conspiracy-saturated perspective led to even more tortured comparisons. Ellis claimed that Christian Nationalists were the “new BLM” – that “tearing down statues and destroying property” connected these opposing movements. Yet Ellis’ fearmongering declarations miss the mark. Cassidy’s idol-toppling stunt is far more comparable to the man who refused to wear a mask during authoritarian COVID lockdowns. Only a browbeaten propagandist would even think to equivocate this fairly insignificant incident to years of BLM rioting.

Would Ellis have reacted so passionately if Cassidy had merely “unintentionally” spilled his coffee on the Baphomet display? Would Ellis have also been so ardently opposed to Christian Nationalism if we had just placed “Kick Me” post-it notes on state idols? I only ask because the limiting principle for protecting a false god is simply unknown to Christian history.

The Bible is quite clear that idols are not to be created by God’s people (Leviticus 26:1, for example). The Bible is also incredibly clear that idols from foreign nations were to be destroyed (Deuteronomy 7:25,26) and not brought into their houses. So, for Christians to try to find any sort of doctrine for protecting an idol, they would be hard-pressed to find biblical support. Throughout the church’s history, Christians have always refused to take part in the creation or worship of idols. This is not a recent doctrinal development.

But in many ways, Cassidy’s actions against the demonic display ought to be interpreted as primarily political action. Christian theology has always understood that the believers’ reactions to graven images can range from physical destruction to mockery or even to complete disregard. Cassidy could have simply hidden a small fart machine in the display and joined the rest of the online world in jeering the Satanists’ idol. But he didn’t. Cassidy simply walked up and destroyed a statue that had no right to exist. At that moment, Cassidy wasn’t fulfilling some universal moral obligation – as if all Christians are duty-bound to destroy every idol they visualize. No, Cassidy’s actions were political. He wasn’t fighting democratic lawmakers or an orderly judicial system. He was fighting a bureaucracy. The same sort of paper-pushing, executive bureaucracy that could issue a mask mandate for places it didn’t even control.

There wasn’t a single Iowa representative in the building who was legally capable of granting a demonic idol a right to exist in the state capitol, but it still showed up. Politicians argued and passed petitions to bring down a statue they didn’t even create, and the display stayed up. Incompetent magistrates tied their own hands in red tape, praying for the bureaucracy to magically change its mind, and the display stayed up.

But when the Iowan Idol Smasher arrived, the display came tumbling down.

The Iowan Idol Smasher and Christian Political Action

Satan Enters The Capitol

Christian Nationalism And The Reactions

The Politics Of Idol Smashing

Sources:

Author Information:

Government

Leadership

Right-Wing Dissident

Leave a Reply Cancel reply