When Activists Become Experts — A Christian Response to “Demystifying Christian Nationalism.”
On July 20, a panel gathered at Wenatchee Valley College as part of Channel Z’s Demystifying Christian Nationalism series.
The event itself was titled Keep White Christian Nationalism Out of NCW’s Ballot. Channel Z advertised it as an opportunity to “hear from a panel of experts” about the danger of white Christian nationalism and its influence on local elections.
By the end of the evening, the rhetoric had escalated even further. One panelist declared:
“This is not a campaign; it’s a crusade.”
Panelists were presented as people who could help the community understand the movement, its beliefs, its influence, and the people associated with it.
There is just one problem.
If you are going to “demystify” a movement for the public, shouldn’t someone on the stage actually be capable of explaining that movement on its own terms?
Imagine attending an event called Demystifying Progressivism. The organizers invite four conservative activists who spend the evening arguing against progressivism. They play the most inflammatory clips they can find, offer their own interpretation of what each speaker “really means,” and then present that interpretation to the audience as established fact.
No progressive is there to say, “Actually, that’s not what we believe.”
No one challenges the interpretation.
And somehow, by the end of the evening, this is called “demystifying.”
Would anyone call that a neutral educational forum?
Probably not.
And if the organizers did, progressives would be entirely justified in laughing at the description.
They would call it what it was: political advocacy.
That does not automatically make everything said at the Demystifying Christian Nationalism panel false. Some claims were supported, and some deserve serious discussion.
But many others followed a troubling pattern: a short video clip or quotation would be presented, followed by a panelist’s interpretation of what the speaker supposedly meant. Instead of clearly distinguishing between the original statement and the panelist’s interpretation, the distinction was not always clear.
For example, one panelist presented what was described as the “architecture” of Christian nationalism. The audience was told that Christian nationalism rests on three necessary pillars: dominionism, “otherness,” and end-times theology.
Underneath those pillars, the panelist placed what they described as the movement’s foundation: a particular form of faith they called “Christian narcissism.”
What happened next is worth noticing.
The panelist openly acknowledged:
“I like to call it Christian narcissism.”
In other words, this was their own terminology. But almost immediately afterward, the audience was told:
“You can’t have Christian nationalism without Christian narcissism.”
In a matter of seconds, a term introduced as the panelist’s own description became a necessary component of Christian nationalism itself.
That’s quite a promotion for a term that had been introduced moments earlier with, “I like to call it…”
Apparently, all it took to turn a personal definition into established fact was one PowerPoint slide and someone being introduced as an “expert.”
Perhaps that framework represents the panelist’s sincere analysis. But an audience attending an event devoted to Demystifying Christian Nationalism should be told where an established definition ends and a panelist’s personal analytical framework begins.
If the purpose of an event is genuinely to “demystify” an ideology, the first responsibility should be to define that ideology as accurately as possible and allow its proponents’ arguments to be understood as they themselves intend them.
Only then should those arguments be criticized. Otherwise, you are not demystifying your opponent’s beliefs.
You are defining their beliefs for them—and then attacking your own definition.
And that leaves a fairly obvious question:
Was Christian nationalism actually being demystified, or was the audience simply being taught what to think about it, and how to view the people associated with it?
Who Were the “Experts”?
That brings us to the people chosen to do the demystifying.
Channel Z’s own promotional material described the speakers as a “panel of experts.” At the end of the event, the organizers again thanked the panelists for volunteering their time to share their “expertise and knowledge” on what they called “incredibly complex and challenging topics.”
But expertise should mean something.
The panel consisted of local investigative journalist Dominick Bonny, Meliesa Tigard of Confluence Indivisible, Noemi Sanchez of Yakima Community Aid, and Mars Hinojos of Votamos Ganamos.
Their experiences may give them valuable perspectives. But perspective and expertise are not interchangeable.
Missing from the stage was anyone who actually represented the movement being examined. There was no theologian invited to explain the doctrines being discussed from within those Christian traditions, no academic scholar specializing in Christian nationalism to challenge or qualify the definitions being offered, and no representative from Grace City Church to answer the claims being made about the church.
Ironically, Mars later warned that if civic education only reaches “everyone I already agree with,” then “I’m only lying to myself.”
On that point, we agree.
That doesn’t automatically make the panelists wrong.
But it does make the word “demystifying” increasingly difficult to defend.
When a panel assembled to explain a movement consists entirely of speakers presenting arguments against it, the audience is not hearing an examination of competing claims. They are hearing one side make its case.
There was also a certain irony in being warned about the dangers of dividing society into “us and them” during a presentation largely devoted to identifying a political “them” and discussing how to defeat the movement politically.
That naturally raises another question:
What expertise did these speakers have in the particular subjects on which they were speaking?
This matters because the panelists were not merely sharing opinions. Throughout the evening they ventured into definitions, history, law, psychology, medicine, theology, election statistics and even genocide.
Expertise carries responsibility.
When someone says, “In my opinion,” the audience understands that they are hearing an opinion. But when someone says, “By definition,” or “Research shows,” the audience reasonably assumes that the statement rests on established evidence and can withstand scrutiny.
Unfortunately, that standard was not always met.
“By Definition”
Meliesa Tigard told the audience:
“The quotes reveal an attempt to erase the LGBTQ, and that, by definition, is the first level of genocide.”
No It isn’t.
Under the United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide refers to specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not among the four protected group categories listed in the Convention.
Perhaps Tigard was referring instead to Gregory Stanton’s Ten Stages of Genocide.
But that doesn’t rescue the claim either.
Stanton’s first stage is classification: dividing people into categories of “us and them.” It is not “erasure.”
That distinction matters because Tigard did not merely argue that rhetoric against LGBTQ people could contribute to dangerous social conditions. She told the audience that what she was describing was, “by definition,” the first level of genocide.
It does not match the definition in the UN Genocide Convention, nor does “erasure” correspond to the first stage in Stanton’s framework.
Apparently genocide received a new definition and someone forgot to notify the United Nations.
“That’s a Real Statistic”
Another example came from Mars Hinojos, who made two remarkably specific claims within the span of about a minute.
While discussing local politics, Hinojos first claimed that properties wanted for data centers around Quincy had been assessed “extremely low” and made an accompanying claim involving roughly 25% of what was being offered for those properties.
Then came an even more specific claim about Wenatchee voter turnout:
“Voter turnout here in Wenatchee is incredibly low. For the 7,000 registered voters for a non-presidential election, we only had 700 of those 7,000 go out and vote. That’s a real statistic.”
These are highly specific factual claims, so I tried to verify them.
I could not independently substantiate Hinojos’s specific claim that properties sought for data-center development around Quincy were systematically being assessed “extremely low,” nor could I verify the accompanying 25% figure.
There have been disputes over individual data-center assessments in Grant County. That means it would be equally inappropriate to conclude from the available evidence that no property has ever been undervalued.
But that is different from substantiating the broader claim presented to the audience.
Official Washington state data show just how substantial data-center assessments in Grant County have become. In 2006, before the data-center boom, the county’s ten largest taxpayers had a combined assessed value of about $313 million. By 2025, that figure had climbed to more than $6.1 billion. Seven of the ten largest assessed properties were data centers, six of them in Quincy.
Those figures do not establish whether the particular properties Hinojos had in mind were undervalued. They do, however, underscore why a specific allegation involving “extremely low” assessments and a 25% figure deserves a specific source.
The voter-turnout claim is even more difficult to reconcile with the official numbers.
Hinojos told the audience that Wenatchee had “7,000 registered voters” in a non-presidential election and that only 700 of them voted.
But Wenatchee isn't a town with 7,000 registered voters.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the city itself has 35,547 residents. More importantly, Chelan County's official November 2025 general-election report lists 21,622 registered voters in the City of Wenatchee. Of those, 6,095 voted—not 700.
And this wasn't some presidential-election turnout surge. It was an off-year municipal election.
For another comparison, just months earlier, 11,024 votes were cast on the Wenatchee School District levy in the February 2025 special election.
So where did “7,000 registered voters” and “700 voters” come from?
Perhaps Hinojos was referring to some other district, election, or geographic area. If so, she didn't identify it.
Which leaves us in the unusual position of being assured:
“That's a real statistic.”
Apparently the only remaining mystery is which statistic it was.Which leaves us in the unusual position of having been assured that “that’s a real statistic” while still trying to figure out which real statistic it was.
The audience shouldn’t need a scavenger hunt to find the source.
Which is particularly unfortunate considering the same presentation had warned the audience that “misinformation is rampant.”
When Reporting Becomes Interpretation
The problem wasn’t limited to definitions and statistics.
Investigative journalist Dominick Bonny offered another example while describing an August 2020 Wenatchee School Board meeting involving people he associated with Grace City Church.
Bonny described a contentious scene in which people showed up to protest issues including sex education, COVID restrictions and a classroom resource concerning gender identity.
He then said:
“They created a ruckus, and, you know, I thought to myself at one point they really don’t like Maria Iñiguez. I think it has something to do with her being a female as well as Latino, Latina.”
Notice the change.
“They created a ruckus” is a claim about an observable event. It can potentially be checked against video, meeting records and eyewitness accounts.
“I think it has something to do with her being a female as well as Latino” is different.
Bonny is telling the audience what he believes motivated the people involved.
Maybe he is right. Maybe additional evidence exists to support that conclusion. But none was presented alongside that particular claim.
And once again, that distinction matters.
Reporting can establish what someone said or did.
Establishing why someone did it requires additional evidence.
To Bonny’s credit, he prefaced this particular claim with the words “I think.” That makes clear that the audience was hearing his interpretation rather than an established fact.
But that raises a larger question about the evening itself:
How much of what the audience heard consisted of documented facts—and how much consisted of critics explaining what they believed their opponents were really thinking?
Demystifying—or Mobilizing?
There is another problem with treating this event as a neutral effort to understand Christian nationalism.
The organizers themselves told us what they wanted the evening to accomplish.
At the beginning of the event, the audience was told that the gathering was intended to be a “launchpad” for increasing community engagement and organizing more effectively.
Mars Hinojos’s presentation eventually turned explicitly toward electoral action—educating voters, engaging the community and electing candidates.
And near the conclusion of the evening, the moderator said:
“We’re here because we care about our communities, and we want to know how we can organize or mobilize to dismantle or deconstruct the white Christian nationalism that targets each of our communities.”
There is nothing inherently wrong with political advocacy.
People have every right to organize against Grace City Church, Christian nationalism, conservative candidates, or anything else they oppose.
But political advocacy and neutral public education are not the same thing.
If the purpose of the evening was partly to organize people to oppose a political movement, that should be understood when evaluating the event.
In fairness, Channel Z’s own event advertisement did signal that political purpose. It asked how local elections could be protected from candidates associated with white Christian nationalism and encouraged attendees to register to vote and get involved in local elections.
So the criticism here is not that Channel Z secretly engaged in political advocacy.
It is that an explicitly adversarial political event was simultaneously presented as an exercise in “demystifying” its opponents through a “panel of experts.”
And perhaps nothing captured the tone of the evening better than what happened after the audience was shown a compilation of alarming clips.
The panel repeatedly warned about the dangers of political fearmongering.
Then, after the presentation left audience members with what the moderator called “heavy emotions,” the program stopped for a guided breathing exercise.
Apparently fear becomes less dangerous when followed by a 4-7-8 breathing exercise.
I considered fact-checking the breathing exercise too, but in the interest of keeping this article under five pages, we’ll assume they got that one right.
With our breathing safely under control, we can return to the journalism.
Because disagreement with Christian nationalism is not the problem.
Criticism of Grace City Church is not the problem.
Political organizing against candidates you oppose is not the problem.
The problem is failing to clearly distinguish interpretation from fact, making specific factual assertions without showing the audience their source, and then presenting the discussion under the authority of expertise.
A Christian Response
Christians should not be afraid of scrutiny.
And Christians should not be afraid of false accusations either—so long as they are actually false.
If someone accuses Christians of wrongdoing, our first response should not simply be outrage that the accusation was made. We should examine ourselves honestly. If the charge is true, we should repent. If it is false, we should answer it with the truth.
That same standard applies to Grace City Church, Christian nationalism, or any Christian political movement. If Christians make false claims, misuse political power, or misrepresent their opponents, they should be challenged.
But if accusations are going to be made against Christians, especially accusations involving words like “genocide,” “narcissism,” “white supremacy,” or “extremism,” then those making the accusations should be held to the same standard of evidence they demand from everyone else.
To Mars’s credit, the audience was eventually given one piece of advice worth remembering:
“Do not become a mirror of what you hate.”
That may have been the most useful advice offered all evening.
If we object when our opponents misrepresent us, we should not misrepresent them. If we demand evidence for accusations made against us, we should provide evidence for accusations we make against others. And if we object to having motives assigned to us without evidence, we should extend the same courtesy to our political opponents.
The standard should not change depending on who is holding the microphone.
One Final Question
Throughout the evening, the phrase “white Christian nationalism” was repeated again and again, often while discussing Grace City Church.
But Grace City doesn’t call itself a white Christian nationalist church.
So if you’re going to attach “white” to the label, shouldn’t someone eventually have to prove the “white” part?
After all, this was supposed to be an evening of demystification.
Labels are easy.
Evidence takes a little longer.
Otherwise, we’re right back where we started:
Are you explaining what they believe—or telling the audience what to believe about them?
~The Watchman
A Note on Accuracy
NCW Heritage Council strives to quote people accurately, verify factual claims, distinguish fact from commentary, and provide enough context for readers to evaluate the evidence themselves.
If you believe this article contains a material factual error, misquotation, or important missing context, please contact us with the specific statement and supporting evidence. We will review good-faith correction requests and correct or clarify material errors when appropriate.
Read our full Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy →
Sources & Documentation
NCW Heritage Council believes readers should be able to examine the evidence behind our reporting for themselves.
This page contains primary sources, government records, election data, and other materials used in our article:
“When Activists Become Experts — A Christian Response to ‘Demystifying Christian Nationalism.’”
Where possible, we have prioritized original video, government records, official organizations, and primary-source documents over secondary reporting.
The Event
Channel Z — Demystifying Christian Nationalism Series
Channel Z’s event page advertises Keep White Christian Nationalism Out of NCW’s Ballot, describes the speakers as a “panel of experts,” identifies the panelists and their organizations, and explains the event’s electoral and organizing focus.
Source: Channel Z official website
The page identifies the panelists as:
Dominick Bonny — Local Investigative Journalist
Meliesa Tigard — Confluence Indivisible
Naomi Sanchez — Yakima Community Aid
Mars Hinojos — Votamos Ganomos
Channel Z also advertised the event as an opportunity to hear about “the danger of this movement” and encouraged attendees to register to vote and become involved in local elections.
Full Event / Video: Channel Z’s website and published event video.
Genocide Claim
During the panel, Meliesa Tigard stated:
“The quotes reveal an attempt to erase the LGBTQ, and that, by definition, is the first level of genocide.”
We compared that statement with two major sources.
United Nations Genocide Convention
Article II of the Convention defines genocide as specified acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
The Convention lists five categories of prohibited acts and does not list sexual orientation or gender identity among its four protected group categories.
Source: United Nations — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Gregory Stanton’s Ten Stages of Genocide
Because the panelist referred to a “first level” of genocide, we also examined Gregory Stanton’s Ten Stages of Genocide.
Stanton identifies Stage One as:
Classification
It is followed by symbolization, discrimination, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, persecution, extermination and denial.
“Erasure” is not identified as Stage One.
Source: Genocide Watch — Gregory H. Stanton, Ten Stages of Genocide
Wenatchee Population & Election Data
During the panel, Mars Hinojos stated:
“Voter turnout here in Wenatchee is incredibly low. For the 7,000 registered voters for a non-presidential election, we only had 700 of those 7,000 go out and vote. That’s a real statistic.”
We attempted to identify the election being referenced.
Wenatchee Population
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the population of the City of Wenatchee at 35,547 as of July 1, 2025.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau — QuickFacts, Wenatchee, Washington
November 2025 Election
Chelan County’s official election turnout records provide registered-voter and turnout figures for the City of Wenatchee.
Source: Chelan County Elections — November 2025 General Election District Turnout Report
February 2025 Special Election
As an additional comparison, the February 11, 2025 special election recorded 11,024 votes on the Wenatchee School District No. 246 Proposition No. 1 alone.
The countywide special election included 40,427 registered voters and 15,570 ballots counted.
Source: Washington Secretary of State — February 11, 2025 Chelan County Special Election Results
We have not identified the specific Wenatchee election matching the panel’s description of 7,000 registered voters and 700 votes cast. If such an election or district was intended, we welcome documentation identifying it.
Quincy & Data-Center Assessments
During the same portion of the presentation, Hinojos discussed property assessments involving data-center development around Quincy.
Our article does not claim that every data-center property has been correctly assessed or that no property has ever been undervalued.
Rather, we were unable to independently substantiate the specific broader claim and accompanying approximately 25% figure presented during the panel.
For context, we consulted Washington State Department of Revenue material examining the economic and property-tax effects of data centers in Grant County.
The state’s data show the enormous growth in assessed value associated with data centers in Grant County and Quincy.
Source: Washington State Department of Revenue — Data Center Workgroup materials
We also reviewed Grant County material concerning individual assessment disputes. The existence of individual disputes is why our article distinguishes between “we could not substantiate this specific claim” and “this claim has been conclusively proven false.”
Source: Grant County official records
María Iñiguez
Our article discusses Dominick Bonny’s comments concerning María Iñiguez and an August 2020 Wenatchee School Board meeting.
The Wenatchee School District confirms the spelling of her name and states that Iñiguez was appointed to the Wenatchee School Board on January 14, 2020, before being elected to an unexpired term in November 2021.
Source: Wenatchee School District — María Iñiguez biography
Original Quotations & Video
Whenever possible, quotations attributed to panelists in the article were checked against the recorded panel and transcript.
Readers are encouraged to watch the original material themselves rather than relying solely on our interpretation of it.
Video clips embedded in our article are intended to allow readers to hear the relevant statements in the speakers’ own words and context.
Corrections & Challenges
We welcome factual challenges.
If you believe a quotation is inaccurate, a statistic has been overlooked, important context is missing, or one of our factual conclusions is unsupported, please contact NCW Heritage Council and identify:
The specific statement you believe is incorrect.
Why you believe it is incorrect.
The original document, video, government record, or other evidence supporting your correction.
If material evidence establishes that we made a significant factual error, we will correct or clarify the article.
Our standard is simple: quote accurately, show the evidence, distinguish fact from interpretation, and correct material mistakes.
