Tim Dunn is a business owner in Midland, Texas, and serves on the boards of non-profit organizations. He and his wife of 46 years have six children and 20 grandchildren. He responded to questions from Lone Star Standard to discuss political labels, his views on Texas politics, and his faith.

You wrote an op-ed in your local newspaper to say you are a Christian, but not a "Christian Nationalist.” How are they different?

I consider the terms to be functionally incompatible. The term “Christian” has referred to believers in Jesus since the First Century AD. It initially related to a mixed Jewish-Gentile congregation at the church at Antioch, and applied to the entire assembly of believers in Jesus Christ. “Christ” means “anointed one” and refers to the promise God made to Israel to send an anointed servant and leader to redeem His people, as well as the nations. Those who embrace this term inherit a rich and ancient biblical tradition. 

“Christian Nationalist” is new to me. I only began to investigate this label because I heard some political people planned to apply it to me. It has no fixed definition. I saw a poll that said 78% of Americans, like me before I looked into it, have no idea what the term means.

Why should a person who is a Christian avoid the label “Christian Nationalist"?

I don’t think the term squares with biblical teaching. It makes “Christian” an adjective—in other words, subjugated to something else. A Christian should not subjugate his or her belief in Christ to other beliefs. Christ should always be first and central for Christians. 

Also, the term is rooted in rejection of the core Judeo-Christian ethic of loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. I learned the term was first used in the late-1940s by antisemites. I presume most people are like me and had no knowledge of this twisted history, and no inkling that having this label attached to you can be intended as a smear.

You have stated that you are a Pluralist. How does this label fit into the debate?

Part of the claim is that “Christian Nationalists” desire autocracy or tyranny. If that is true, then it is not pluralistic, which is yet another way it conflicts with my beliefs. 

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic of self-governance and pluralism. E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) was adopted in 1792 to appear on the Great Seal of the United States. Our republic’s separation of powers and dispersal of authority is a recognition of the foibles of human nature and the inevitable harm that flows from a concentration of power. 

Christianity itself is pluralistic. The Bible claims each believer in Jesus is a part of one body—the Body of Christ—with one head, who is Jesus. In other words, many members, one body.  This is a good metaphor to describe what is meant by a pluralistic community. 

Based on this, I am a Christian, and I am also a Pluralist. To be clear, I am not a Christian-Pluralist, which would create the same problem we already discussed.

How does government fit in the discussion?

We should embrace our American heritage, which rejected the tyranny of autocracy in favor of a system of self-governance. The proper role of government in a self-governing society is to create boundaries within which we make our own choices, and live with the consequences of those choices. 

What is transpiring currently is the opposite. Overbearing bureaucracies try to impose upon decisions that Americans have long made for themselves. This includes how we should speak and what kind of fuel we are allowed to use to cook our food. We should resist any such concentration of power, regardless of what label it goes by or whom among us holds the power. 

I would say that advocates for systems that exceed the boundaries of self-governance are decidedly not Pluralists. Perhaps they accuse anyone who opposes government overreach of being authoritarian to deflect from their own tendencies toward authoritarianism. 

How should faith and politics mix in a pluralistic society? 

Our political views inevitably stem from what we believe and where we place our faith. 

And everyone has some form of faith. This is true even if you are an atheist, which is faith that our finely-tuned and exquisitely designed world somehow created and maintains itself. Therefore, faith and politics are by definition intertwined.

Then how do you view the notion that religion and politics should not be mixed?

Politics always has a moral basis, and that comes from belief. So, in actuality they can’t be separated. But political authorities should be subject to moral laws, not above them.

Historically, some authoritarians have sought to consolidate religious beliefs around themselves as a means of increasing their power. Some rulers declared themselves divine, as with the Pharaohs of Egypt and the Caesars of Rome. Later, monarchs declared themselves heads of religions, as with Henry VIII over the Church of England and with the Sultan over Islam. 

I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, who said “My kingdom is not of this world,” and that He came to serve rather than to be served. He teaches us that our ultimate fulfillment comes from embracing reality, and from serving and loving one another through the application of what is real and true. 

America was founded by those who believed Judeo-Christian tenets, such as “love your neighbor as yourself,” which is a major reason it has been self-governing, and flourished. Jesus was the opposite of a tyrant. 

Perhaps the polar-opposite to this view are the Marxists. They have cleverly defined anything involving non-materialist views as “faith,” and any materialist view or explanation, no matter how implausible, as “science.” Then they appeal to the opinions of like-minded scientists to define morality and impose their policies. Their notions of right and wrong are predictably fluid, depending upon what leads to greater control. 

Is Marxism worse than other forms of autocracy?

I believe all tyranny should be avoided. I don’t want a Marxist tyranny. I don’t want a tyranny of elites either, regardless of what name or cause they wrap themselves in. 

The reason George Washington deserves his status as an American Great is because he had the opportunity to be a tyrant and declined. He thought that allowing America to advance under self-governance—an ethic it developed while functioning as an English “opportunity zone“—was worth the risk. It worked out pretty well, at least compared to the alternatives, though self-governance is always a work in process. 

What is the correct approach when people of faith disagree with those of another faith, or with non-believers?

Since humans are finite, we will never have exhaustive knowledge. So our best alternative is to listen carefully. Listening is not just hearing what someone else says, it is working to see what they see. 

We all function based on mental models, which are always incomplete. But through listening and working to see what others see, we can adjust them and get closer to reality. As a Christian, the best way to adjust my mental models is by listening to God. But interestingly, the Bible indicates that we are greatly hindered in listening to God if we cannot first listen to one another. This makes sense–if I can’t listen to someone I can see, how am I going to listen to someone I cannot see?

Some have used other labels for you. For example, some media claim you are a “school choice” advocate and oppose public schools. Are those descriptions accurate?

No. It has been fascinating that for over a decade, media in Texas have cited me as a leader in the “school choice” movement, even though I have never made a public statement of support and never led an organization dedicated to school choice.

I attended a public school and would like to see public education serve Texas students with excellence. But, I also helped start a private school in my hometown in 1998. It is a not-for-profit organization now serving over 700 students. We are proud to have helped form a highly interactive community of families who pitch in to provide a high-quality program that is affordable for families. 

So, while I have not participated in the movement for “school choice,” I applaud any effective effort to help public schools be excellent. I think to the extent that occurs it will likely be due to efforts at the local level. 

Former Speaker of the Texas House Joe Straus said recently that you told him in a 2010 private meeting that only a Christian should be the Speaker. That claim has circulated for years. Is it true?

It is not. Like the school-choice claim—it is a narrative in search of facts.

Here is what happened. Joe Straus was the newly-elected Republican Speaker in 2010, having ousted the prior Republican Speaker primarily with support from Democrats.

In our meeting, he said I should support him because he was conservative. 

I told him I was fine with any Speaker elected without influence from the Democrats, but asked him to release his support from the Democrats and be elected only by Republicans. That is still my position today. 

I don’t remember knowing Straus was Jewish prior to the meeting, nor would I have cared. I have no hesitation to support a political candidate who is Jewish. There is overwhelming evidence for anyone who wants to look that I support the Jewish people.

Can you give an example of the evidence?

There is abundant evidence that I am an immense supporter of Israel. In addition, I have been to Israel six times. I love Israel and its people. 

On a personal level, when I teach the Bible I attempt to do so through Jewish eyes, because it is a Jewish book. Jesus Christ was a Jewish Rabbi while on earth, and I believe He will return and fulfill His promises to Israel. Since I have devoted my life to a Jewish Rabbi, it only makes sense that I support His family, His people.  

What do you think is behind the claim?

I think the false story is pushed by people who want to avoid discussion about the reality that the Texas House is run as a coalition government, where Republican Speakers invite substantial Democratic influence as a part of their base of power. 

I’ve consistently expressed my view that Republican House Speakers in Texas should depend solely on Republican members to win the office. This is important to reflect the overwhelming desire of Texas voters, a significant majority of whom are Republicans.

Is your concern that the minority Democrats are given too much ability to influence the Speaker?

Yes, and there is ample evidence that this is the case. Just look at the recent rushed and unprecedented impeachment by the Texas House of our Republican Attorney General. It was led by the current Republican Speaker with the full support of Democrats.

One Republican representative described the unsworn, secret testimony that preceded the impeachment as “hearsay within hearsay within hearsay.” The allegations were basically just the same talking points that were used in the previous failed election campaigns against the AG. Senate Republicans acquitted the AG and called the House action a waste of taxpayer funds.

Another example of coalition government is the habit of Republican Speakers assigning Democrats to chair important House committees. I am not aware of any other state legislature that allows this. Congress certainly doesn’t. 

Two recent documentaries by Texas Scorecard [“The Texas Heist” and “Hubris”], explain how this came to be and why the arrangement is important to the massive lobby industry in Texas. It appears that Republican voters have had enough and are demanding a change in how the Texas House is managed, although the lobby interests are fighting hard to defeat them. 

Do media labels or other public relations pressures affect whether or how you engage in politics?

It does not affect whether I engage. I have learned that people use personal attacks and false labels when they cannot defend or desire to divert attention from their own views. The same applies to media, which often claim to be non-partisan, but rarely are. 

It does reflect how I engage. I recognize that being on the receiving end of disparagement and false claims is the ongoing price of being involved, so I organize my activities accordingly. It has probably only helped me become more effective. 

The Bible is full of political figures who faced the same sort of thing. So it is certainly nothing new. I do my best to seek the wisdom of God in how best to participate in our great American experiment in self-governance, which I believe is the greatest governing system in history.