Don Lemon, a high-profile media personality, was arrested on orders from U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi, who accused him of violating the federal civil rights of worshippers. Lemon, an independent journalist, followed protesters into a church on Jan. 18 to cover the event.
The Trump administration, known for its vindictiveness and with little tolerance for outspoken critics, particularly Lemon, who has publicly condemned its policies and racism, appeared intent on making an example of him. We have repeatedly witnessed how political actors in the White House do not hesitate to wield power in punitive and targeted ways.
Also arrested were Trahern Jeen Crews, co-founder of Black Lives Matter in Minnesota; Jamael Lydell Lundy; and Georgia Fort — each with a public profile in their own right. Many other protesters and independent journalists were present in the church but were not arrested.
Federal Officials and the Framing of “Desecration”
Bondi wrote on X, “At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.”
One of the church’s pastors, David Easterwood, heads the local ICE field office. Given the high tensions following the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, combined with unrestrained hostility and the overwhelming presence of DHS and other so-called law enforcement agencies, protesters deliberately chose this church.
Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon posted on X that the investigation into Lemon and others centered on their “desecration of a house of worship and interference with Christian worshippers.” She added, “A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest! It is a space protected from exactly such acts by federal criminal and civil laws!”
The Southern Baptist Response
The church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, a conservative religious movement with a documented history of racism, including support for slavery, opposition to women in ministry, and homophobia.
Outrage quickly followed the disruption of a worship service. Southern Baptist leadership recoiled.
“I believe we must be resolute in two areas: encouraging our churches to provide compassionate pastoral care to these (migrant) families and standing firm for the sanctity of our houses of worship,” said Trey Turner.
Kevin Ezell, president of the convention’s North American Mission Board, added, “No cause — political or otherwise — justifies the desecration of a sacred space or the intimidation and trauma inflicted on families gathered peacefully in the house of God.” He later stated, “What occurred was not protest; it was lawless harassment.”
Church Disruptions Are Not New
I have served ministries in Chicago, Boston, and Washington, D.C., for more than 30 years, and I am perplexed by the assumption that churches are insulated from criticism once they enter public and political life.
When churches intentionally engage political issues or take positions that materially affect people’s lives, they open themselves to critique from those impacted. That critique has, historically, included disruption during worship.
Church disruptions are not new.
In 1969, civil rights leader James Forman disrupted services at Riverside Church in New York City to demand $500 million in reparations from white churches. The action, known as the Black Manifesto, forced religious institutions to confront their complicity in slavery and helped spur later anti-poverty and racial justice initiatives.
In December 1989, members of AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) organized “Stop the Church,” disrupting Mass led by Cardinal John O’Connor at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. One hundred eleven protesters were arrested. The demonstration protested O’Connor’s opposition to safe-sex education and condom distribution during the AIDS crisis.
During the Free South Africa Movement, churches were disrupted nationwide to pressure denominations to divest from apartheid South Africa. More recently, worship services have been confronted over the genocide in Gaza.
Church disruptions surface urgency. They challenge public policy positions and expose contradictions between stated theology and lived practice.
The Political Power of the Conservative Church
The conservative church — often described as white evangelical or charismatic — was a central force in building the political energy behind the Make America Great Again movement.
From conservative pulpits, pastors told congregants it was “God’s will” that Donald J. Trump be elected. They invoked King David—a biblical figure associated with adultery and murder — to argue that God anoints flawed leaders. These messages were delivered to parishioners across the country.
Within these circles, figures such as Charlie Kirk gained prominence, spreading ridicule of “wokeness,” DEI, Black people, and other people of color, particularly among young white evangelicals.
Theology, Power, and Hypocrisy
Behind closed church doors, right-wing and predominantly white evangelical institutions have shaped society in increasingly authoritarian ways.
Their theology asserts that leadership is divinely appointed. In practice, this often amounts to people in power declaring their own authority as God’s will, dressing it in scripture, and demanding obedience.
Those of us who resist bias and exclusion in the church have observed a troubling pattern: God is said to love everyone church leaders love and to hate everyone church leaders hate. That is not divine logic.
When Barack Obama left office and Trump took power, religious adviser Paula White-Cain claimed Jesus had “returned to the White House.” This was especially striking given the Obamas’ deep church roots and Trump’s lack of any meaningful church affiliation.
When Churches Enter the Political Fray
I am not arguing that churches should be indiscriminately targeted. I am arguing that once churches enter the political fray — seeking to shape public life and policy for the rest of us — they must face critique, even during worship.
Pastors who theologize politics do not receive immunity from accusations of hypocrisy.
The Question of “Tent” Ministry
Many pastors hold secular jobs alongside their church roles, a practice often called “tent ministry.” The pastor in St. Paul engaged in such a ministry.
This raises a critical theological question: Does the secular role contradict or complement one’s ministry?
Scripture asks whether one can serve two masters. In this case, the question is whether one can serve both ICE and the church.
How can a church claim to comfort and advocate for immigrants while actively arresting and deporting them? The protesters were calling out this contradiction.
Accountability Is Not Persecution
Pam Bondi and others appear primarily interested in protecting a right-wing religious base. They show little concern for the long history of church-based protest and moral accountability.
Churches are not exempt from political or theological critique once they enter public debate. Institutional churches — and pastors serving full time or through tent ministries — must be held accountable.
What happened on Jan. 18 in St. Paul was neither unreasonable nor inappropriate. The pastor opened himself to disruption by embodying a contradiction: serving ICE while claiming to offer sanctuary and compassion to immigrants.
Rather than expressing outrage, church leaders should ask why protesters felt compelled to act — and what that anger reveals about the gap between their theology and their practice.
Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler is the senior advisor for the Fellowship of Reconciliation–USA, director and chief visionary of Faith Strategies LLC, and pastor emeritus of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, D.C.
A longtime faith leader, activist, and strategist, Hagler is known for his work at the intersection of social justice, public policy, and moral leadership, advancing movements for peace, equity, and economic fairness across the United States and abroad.
This article originally appeared here.