The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory

We tried out a new section this year in our annual Christmas letter by providing a brief description of the notable books for the year. Although we are just one month into the new year, I’ve already read one of the books I’ll surely pick for next December’s letter.

“The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory,” by Tim Alberta, starts out by recounting a personal story about the unexpected death of his dad and his journey back home to pay tribute to his dad’s life. His dad had been the pastor of a large evangelical church outside of Detroit.  Tim had grown up in this church and called it “home.” 

Following the day’s services, where Tim had provided a heartfelt tribute, he and his wife, while resting in the living room of his parents’ home, were given a handwritten note from one of his dad’s friends and a long-time elder of the church.  This note, composed and delivered on the day of his dad’s death, excoriated Tim for not supporting Trump.  Tim’s criticisms of the president amounted to treason against both God and country. There was an evil plot to undermine God’s ordained leader and Tim was a part of it.

The in-your-face note sickened Tim despite the elder promising to “pray” for him.  His dad, his hero, had just abruptly left this earth and this was neither the time nor place for such a note. It was flat-out disrespectful, to both his dad and him.  As my dad used to say in his typically understated way, it was “uncalled for.”

Tim passed the note to his wife, the calmer of the two within their marriage, who then shrieked, flung the note into the air, and loudly asked, “What the hell is wrong with these people?”

Tim and I are dissimilar in many ways. I came from Alaska, and Tim from the East Coast. I’m retired with grown kids and Tim still works and has younger children. Tim’s a nationally known journalist, and I was a fishery scientist and science administrator.

But we also have a few things in common. We both came from well-adjusted families with good parents.  We are both evangelicals who are outspoken in our faith. We both “grew up” in church.  And in the past few years, we both have embarked on a search for answers, Tim through his reporting and me through my blog, to the more general question: what has happened to our faith tradition? 

“The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory” provides a fascinating insight into the current state of the evangelical church. Tim answers his wife’s question by weaving together the stories of a diverse group of evangelical leaders representing different perspectives about the state of the church. It’s not a condemnation of churches or conservatism, but a chronicle of the politicizing of the evangelical movement in America by an insider who, like me, is still a devout evangelical Christian.

As I read the book, several repeated topics appeared, and I’ve organized them into a list of seven themes that together provide a useful summary of the book as well as a detailed answer to the question his wife first asked. Entire articles could be written on each of these themes, which have long been debated throughout American history. I’ll leave those for another time.

For now, I’ll lean heavily on points made by Alberta to provide a brief perspective on how I (and likely Tim) believe the evangelical church is currently missing the mark. Note that I’ve used the word “we” rather than “they” to describe the following seven areas of deficiency, given that I’m still part of that tradition and given that in times past I’d likely embrace at least a few of these shortcomings.

We’ve normalized the currency of fear  

The book of Proverbs says, “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.” Bruce Springsteen, although no modern prophet, provides a more graphic characterization of that snare: “Fear’s a powerful thing. It’ll turn your heart black you can trust. It’ll take your God-filled soul. Fill it with devils and dust.”

Yet fear’s been a constant ingredient of American Christianity. I still remember the feeling of torment by the church sermons of my youth, especially those meant to “scare the hell” out of us. I remember the feeling of hopelessness because I inherently understood that if I had unforgiven sins the second before Jesus came, I would go to hell. Given the uncertainty of Jesus’ return, the fear of unforgiven sins became a constant torment which was then compounded by the threat of the unpardonable sin.

The “fear of neighbor” has been another constant since the Pilgrims first landed in America.  The Puritans hung four Quaker “Boston martyrs” over fears about differing religious beliefs. Concerns about moral decay fueled additional unjust hangings based on accusations of witchcraft which proved false. Fears over the loss of America’s civil and religious liberty inspired 19th-century Protestants to form the nativist Know-Nothing Party in defense of traditional religious and political values from the growing and subversive immigrant Catholic influence.

(Note that the fear of immigrants continues today, with 65% percent of white evangelical protestants saying that they fear immigrants are eroding the nation’s character and traditions. Fifty-one percent completely or mostly agree with the statement “Immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background”)

In the early 1980s, partisan fear helped launch the Christian interest group Moral Majority. They said America was “floundering to the brink of death” through the onset of moral decay. Liberal Issues such as abortion, divorce, feminism, and gay rights were attacking American families and destroying traditional values.   

Now fast forward thirty years and you will learn from Alberta’s reporting that many in the church believe that not only is America still racing down that road to imminent death, but that your children are being groomed, your guns will be confiscated, medical treatments questioned, faith banned, and that America is on the road to nazi Germany through the IRS attack on churches. “They” (global cabal?) have also seized control of American political parties, manufactured a deadly virus to control the population, aborted babies to create a deadly vaccine, and are banning faith from public life.  Clearly, the barbarians of the godless, socialist, left are at the gate and just one step away from destroying the Christian way of life. 

This constant and sustained diet of fear has led evangelicals to recently assert that they are the most persecuted group in America. The world is out to get them, they believe, and destroy their way of life. Their champion, God’s chosen vessel, is under constant attack. And if you were able to extract yourself out of that partisan echo chamber, you would find that all of those narratives were at best, half-true.

Now compare these fabricated persecution narratives with the mindset of the early church. They experienced real persecution, the type that led to public martyrdom. Yet they showed grace and kindness through a posture of faith. They honored Christ’s teaching: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” They followed Peter’s admonitions of “repay evil with blessing,” but “Even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.”  They knew the story of the apostle Paul who had taught the same message and then practiced what he preached.

The early church believed the passage my mom taught us as kids: “God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” Then they practiced what they believed, living a life where faith triumphed over fear.

Hebrews 12:1-3 says “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a huge crowd of witnesses to the life of faith, let us strip off every weight that slows us down, especially the sin that so easily trips us up.” 

Given that fear is one of those sins that weigh us down and trip us up, isn’t it time we strip it off?

We’ve exchanged fact-based truth for lies

“But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You’re gonna have to serve somebody

Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody”

This was the opening song of Bob Dylan’s first gospel album after converting to Christianity in the 1970s.  It was a big deal in my day, especially within my fundamentalist circle.  One of the cultural “bigs” of the other side had crossed over to ours.  Plus, it spoke our language that you either served the “world” or God. 

Dylan could as well have sung, “You gonna be discipled by somebody” (or some philosophy). It may have lacked the same easy-to-sing cadence, but it conveys a similar message as service and discipleship are joined at the hip, often two sides of the same coin. Serving Christ, for example, means we will arrange our lives around the practices, life, and truths of Jesus so that we can be like Him, changed into His image. When we do that, we are called His disciples. 

But discipling is an equal opportunity taskmaster. We are constantly being formed by the world around us.  Every day we encounter influential people and messages, all vying for our attention. Those “influencers,” along with our family, peer group, sociocultural environment, and many other factors, create a complex fabric through which we see ourselves, develop our identity, and create our life stories. Then the stories we end up with reveal our values, aspirations, and what we see as meaningful.

This penchant for storytelling is an innate part of our nature. Our stories serve as a fundamental mode of cognition, a feature of our neurological system built to impose story structure on life experiences.  And even when those life experiences don’t make sense, our storytelling mind keeps on working, able to “churn out true stories when it can but will manufacture lies when it can’t.” 

Alberta documents how millions of evangelicals still believe that the 2020 election was stolen as part of a demonic plot against America.  They explain away the 60+ election court cases lost by the Trump legal team by asserting a global cabal had seized control of American institutions including the courts. They assert that the COVID-19 virus had been manufactured to control the population and that the COVID vaccine was made from aborted baby parts with Christian leaders such as Francis Collins in the know.  Many continue to assert that Trump is the legitimate president and will be returned to office before the end of Biden’s first term. 

None of these stories are founded on evidence.  All of these fabrications are the fruit of a long-term discipleship campaign from a powerful media messaging machine. Ministries and nonprofit organizations, driven by political agendas, then pile on, finding it profitable to bombard the mail and social media of church-going evangelicals. Many of them sell and stoke evangelical fear about the cultural decline of America.  Others provide selective historical evidence to promote the myth that the United States was founded as a “Christian nation.”

Pastors can’t compete with the multiple hours each day given to these ideological messaging machines. An hour on Sunday neither provides sufficient time for producing spiritual formation nor sufficient time to counter the machines’ messages. Recall how the apostle Paul repeatedly admonishes us to “put off” so that we can “put on” Christ.  That’s because we must first be discipled from certain attitudes and beliefs before we can be discipled into a Christ-likeness spiritual formation. 

When that spiritual formation doesn’t happen, discipling will still occur, but the church now marches to the beat of a different drummer.  Michele Margolis, in her book “From Politics to the Pews,” shows how politics rather than religion has now become a first cause for people’s beliefs. Our religious language then becomes a type of mask used to justify issues we’ve evaluated based on political rather than scriptural criteria.  And lies and misinformation become just another tool because in this deeply divided world, where everything lies downstream of politics, the ends justify the means.

We fabricated the story of America.

While making a speech to the Republican National Convention, Alberta recounts how Vice President Mike Pence took a passage from Hebrews 12 and then revised it to say,” Let’s run the race marked out for us. Let’s fix our eyes on Old Glory and all she represents.” 

For those of us who grew up in Sunday School or with moms who daily made us memorize the Word of God, this was flat-out idolatry.  “Old Glory” isn’t Jesus, the subject of the uncorrupted and sacred passage of scripture.  The race “marked out for us” points towards an eternal, not political, destination.

America isn’t the new Israel, God’s chosen nation, or anything remotely related to that. Scripture calls nations like America “as a drop of a bucket and are counted as the small dust of the balance.”

Yet many believe that God’s plan for America is connected to God’s plan for Israel.  America, they say, echoing the Puritan John Winthrop, is a city on a hill, the new Israel established by Godly men adopting Godly principles and designed to live by God’s chosen laws. 

It’s true that most of the founding fathers were religious. Some were professing Christians, and four might be considered evangelical. But that doesn’t mean that they wanted to form a Christian nation.  Many of them came from families that had fled religious persecution. This persecution had come from the church – from other Christian traditions similar in tradition and doctrine.  They didn’t want that repeated in America, forced to live under the thumb of someone else’s “Christian Values.” 

Other founding fathers and pastors thought differently, believing America should be declared a Christian nation. They favored theocratic rule over government, the legal system, and cultural institutions. The relationship between church and state should not be separate but connected, with the former ruling the latter.

Those favoring a Christian nation lost the day. The Constitution became a secular document bounded by the no establishment doctrine and the no religious test of Article VI. Rather than ensuring America would be Christian, the framers chose to guarantee that all sorts of beliefs, whether religious or secular, were welcome in the public square. 

But the spirit of the opposing side lives on through an ideology called Christian Nationalism and through pseudo-historian proponents like David Barton – a debunked yet highly popular speaker throughout much of evangelical America. Barton shows up in several places in Alberta’s book, and rightfully so, because the nostalgia about a mythic America, which Barton preaches, is a powerful drug and underlies much of the cultural anxiety on the right about a lost American heritage and Christian identity.

Folks like Barton skillfully pick and choose through the Founding Fathers’ statements, especially from those who favored a Christian nation. The separation of church and state was a myth, they say, according to their historical narrative. Those Fathers wanted a Christian government to regulate all aspects of society – even cultural institutions traditionally outside of governmental control. And they used an extrabiblical narrative about America’s special relationship with God to justify their views.

But Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden, perhaps the three most venerated Christian historians of the past 50 years, present a completely different story.  In their book “The Search for Christian America,” they write “We feel that a careful study of the facts of history shows that early American does not deserve to be considered uniquely, distinctly, or even predominately Christian if we mean by the word “Christian” a state if society reflecting the ideals presented in Scripture.  There is no lost golden age to which American Christians may return.”

There’s a difference between patriotism and nationalism.  You can care for America without worshiping a fabricated story of America’s origins or elevating its role in the world through an errant interpretation of scripture. Barton’s mixing of Christianity, nationalism, and mythic-based nostalgia binds the gospel to a culturally centered agenda. It uses fear plus the abandonment of evidentiary truth to create a we-versus-them world where the ‘them’ becomes a threat. Then, when those fires of fear constantly stoke an apocalyptic narrative that “they” are stealing the true America that “we” define and control, it weakens the church by corrupting its mission, sabotaging unity, and flat-out disregarding the scriptural admonition to “think of others as better than yourselves. Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too.”

We’ve exchanged the gospel for political power

Suppose there was a politician who called immigrants rapists, insulted the appearance of their opponents, openly flirted with white nationalists, disparaged an entire people group through a proposed entry ban to America, willingly characterized his daughter as a “piece of a$$” and even once said “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father…,” boasted about moving on a married woman “like a bitxx,” believes he’s entitled to “Grab ’em by the pxxxy” because “You can do anything,” paid hush money to a porn star to keep quiet during a campaign, convicted by a court for rape, caught in over 30,000 demonstratable lies during his presidency, and violated his oath to uphold the constitution by attempting to overturn an election.

Now, suppose one of America’s leading evangelical pastors, Robert Jeffress, joined with other leading pastors to become the chief apologists for this politician. That’s impossible, you might respond, because God hates sin and how could any anointed man of God be an apologist for such rampant and deliberate sin? 

Jeffress, I’m sure, would object and say that he, too, hates sin. But if you pressed him further, as Alberta did, you’d find his focus was on the three big sins of the culture war. You’d hear a resounding silence about Trump’s many sins, from the infidelity, the rape, to the stolen election lies. After all, if your way of life is under siege, as Jeffress believes, then all bets are off. Overcoming evil with good just doesn’t cut it.  You need to fight and if you find a good enough fighter, then all can be forgiven.

Like yeast leavening a lump of dough, this all-holds-barred fighting mindset has changed the nature of faith across a large swath of the American church. It has led pastors like Jeffress to trade their pulpits for campaign stages, turning God’s house of prayer into a den of ungodly men and women selling their political wares. It has led those pastors to hit the airwaves of one-sided media to promote an unholy fusion of Christianity and partisan politics. It has discipled the laity into a new set of secular values where the ends justify the means and winning with vice trumps losing with virtue. 

Alberta’s story about Steven Strang, the publisher of Charisma, hit close to home. For decades, Charisma entered our home via a yearly subscription from my mom.  We attended a Pentecostal church so Charisma’s articles and news about the Charismatic world were of interest.

Strange’s interview with Alberta is simply remarkable, one of those moments you never believed possible.  Strange calls Trump “our hero,” and sees his moral shortcomings, some of which are vile under any standard, religious or secular, as a plus, not a minus.  Christianity, according to the gospel of Strange, needs a Trump-like man to defeat the forces of evil in this world. Evidently, God was out of other options which is why God raised Trump up. Healthy Christianity, he says, just isn’t going to “move the needle.”

Now contrast Strange’s anemic view of Christianity with two of the many verses mom taught us when we were small: “Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us;” and “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence.”

Jesus said, “For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”  Applying this teaching to the church at large, what does it profit the gospel of Christ if we triumph in earthly power but disdain the principles and power of God? For the “message of the cross may be foolishness to some, but it is the power of God that is “mighty to save.”

We revised the mission of the church

“These impious Galileans (Christians) not only feed their own, but ours also; welcoming them with their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted with cakes… Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity and, by a display of false compassion, have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. Such practice is common among them, and causes contempt for our gods.”

Those were the words of Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome. The early church had chosen to live as exiles in the fallen and depraved world of ancient Rome, a world that Revelation likened to a type of Babylon.  They saw themselves as citizens of an eternal kingdom and, hence, a countercultural force within this earthly realm. Their loyalty was to their heavenly kingdom and Jesus was their model. 

The Great Commission, as they understood and lived it, wasn’t about opposing a secular worldview.  It wasn’t about taking a stand against a depraved culture.  It wasn’t about beating back the forces of secularism.

It was about going forth and making disciples through baptism and instruction.  It was about exhibiting a complete gospel transformation that would show the world what their God was like.

It wasn’t about fighting for a culturally-shaped selected set of “Christian values. It was, in the words of Theologian NT Wright, a calling “to be instruments of God’s new creation, planting signposts in hostile soil that show a different way to be human.”  

And the outcome?  Listen to Julian’s dying words in AD 363: “vicisti Galilaee” (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!

But for many today, the church is on a different mission. The country is in a state of crisis and Christians must stop the cultural decay. The soul of the nation is on the line, they say, and churches can no longer afford to stay neutral. A love-your-enemy strategy isn’t enough as the point of no return is fast approaching.  It is an all-hands-on-deck fight and all available tools, especially political power, must be used to preserve this once-godly nation. And in this upside-down apocalyptic world, the best weapons of our warfare are carnal and mighty through politicians thirsting for a fight.

Yet the kingdom of heaven comes through a crown of thorns, not with a sword. Nor through the might of worldly power but through the upside-down power of the cross.  Peter chose to swing the blade, but Jesus chose the path of submission, marked by service and humility with a singlemindedness towards His Father’s mission.   

The church today is at a crossroads with two different understandings of what it means to press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling within the public square.  Two pathways lie before them, each with two different missions and two different understandings of Christian values.

The Book of Revelation describes the mission of a church when confronted with a culture like ours.  It calls us to be “Witnesses of the Lamb” through a whole life of worship and unwavering devotion to God. The authenticity of our witness is in the fruit of our worship, known through our attitudes, behavior, and deeds. Hence, our mission in the world, as faithful witnesses of the Lamb, is to reflect Christ’s image through a lifetime grounded in worship.

But this witness shaped by worship must also embody a dissident type of spirit in the face of a fallen culture. It requires keen spiritual alertness of how Babylon’s influence can subtly impact the church’s priorities and values. For when our worship is rightly oriented, we will reject Babylon’s values. Hence, the pull of whole-life worship combined with the push of our dissidence describes the overarching mission of the church.

We’ve marginalized the teachings of Christ. 

Jesus told us to love our enemies, help the poor, clothe the naked, and bless those who curse us.  He said to be not afraid.  He taught us Godly character by example, through His practice of humility, service, compassion, and kindness. He singled out love and unity as the two marks of His divinity and, hence, the marks His followers should wear.  He illustrated the nature of divine love through the parable about the Good Samaritan: it was through our care for the stranger, the alien, and those we considered our enemies that our love passed the test of a Christ-like nature.

Alberta interviews Miroslav Volf, the prominent theologian, who believes that “the Christ of the gospel has become a moral stranger to us. If you read the gospels, the things that profoundly mattered to Christ marginally matter to most evangelical Christians.” This current-day crisis in the church, he says, stems from the evangelical preoccupation with the culture war which marginalizes things that matter to Christ.  Volf again: “If you say anybody’s conduct can be excused because God has a larger plan and uses flawed vessels, then what is left of an actual Christianity at that point? 

The church’s current panic about socialism, CRT, and anything related to the social gospel reveals the dominion of partisan ideology. The constant fixation on fear affixes our eyes upon the angry sea instead of the Jesus who can calm the seas. The constant barrage of outrage might help swell the Sunday morning attendance and increase the church’s political power.  But such attitudes are called, according to Galatians 5, the “works of the flesh,” and ”those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

If the teachings and life of Christ profoundly mattered to Christians, would they condone a constant barrage of vicious personal attacks, use of vulgarities, and violent innuendo inside of their church, home, or offices?  Would they condone blatant abuses of power at their local school? Or the rampant practice of lies and hate speech outside of the political realm?  Or an adulterous and sexual braggadocio in front of their children and their children’s friends?  And for those who call Jesus their “Savior,” how could they condone demeaning and insulting attacks against marginalized foreigners and then “pray” to a God who calls those foreigners made “in His image?”

But what if those blatant works of the devil lead to political power so that “Christian values” may be preserved? What if those works of the devil can turn back the cultural doomsday clock that is three minutes to midnight?  What if those works of the devil can restore America back to its God-ordained mission that’s part of His end-time plan? 

Yet Jesus came into the world, according to John 3:8, to destroy the works of the devil. So when those in the church rationalize the repeated and flagrant rejection of Christ’s teachings to preserve “Christian Values” so that America can be its God-ordained “city on a hill,” isn’t that a repudiation of the mission and life of Christ?

We would do well to listen to James 3:11-13, “Can clean water and dirty water both flow from the same spring? Can a fig tree produce olives or a grapevine produce figs? Does fresh water come from a well full of salt water?”

We’ve pledged allegiance to the wrong kingdom

“The devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. “I will give it all to you,” he said, “if you will kneel down and worship me.”

 “Get out of here, Satan,” Jesus told him. “For the Scriptures say, ‘You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’

Now many like Eva, Keith, Dave, Karen, Dianna, Gerry, and a host of others whom I’ve previously mentioned in my blog have stayed pure to their calling. Although thoroughly evangelical with some politically conservative, they have all refused to bend, bow, or burn the pure gospel for a counterfeit message that the culture war demands.

But when a portion of a church, which may be the majority of the white evangelical church, creates manipulative narratives through a constant discipling of fear and nostalgia; exchanges the teachings of Christ for a situational ethical worldview, replaces the power of the gospel with a thirst for political power, and exchanges the mission of the church to fight a cultural war, haven’t they essentially accepted Satan’s wager that Jesus refused?

John Dickson, a professor at Wheaton interviewed by Alberta, believes the church is at another 500-year moment in its history. The fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD changed the nature of the church. So did the Schism of 1054 when Pope Leo IX excommunicated the entire eastern half of the Church, and patriarch Michael Cerularius did the same for the western Church. The Protestant Reformation began in 1517 and not only further changed the church, but it laid the seeds of change for the foundation of the modern world.

The next change could go either way, but I’ve cast my vote for a positive change. My hope and prayer is that the 21st-century church will return to the focus of the early church, where their attitudes and actions were centered on the life and teachings of Jesus. It would mean that the preoccupation of the cultural war would have to end. The church would have to again become countercultural, shunning political power and the alliances such political power demands. They’d have to hold political associations at arm’s length, wary about the change of identity they impose. The preoccupation with “biblical worldviews,” which is easily malleable according to cultural sensibilities, would have to be exchanged for a Jesus “worldview” that privileges the timeless Sermon on the Mount.

In short: the church would have to change kingdoms, reject Satan’s wager, take up its mantle as a countercultural force, and end the 1600-year flirtation with Christendom.

Yet looking across the landscape of the church today, it’s hard to find a pathway for this change. The culture war lives loudly across American Christianity, and those who oppose this war pay a price. As a result, many American pastors or theologians choose to stay quiet rather than speak up and face widespread shunning, financial loss, or even the angry mob that puts their families at risk.  This week, for example, the conservative senior pastor of Parkside Church in Cleveland was canceled from several high-profile Christian media venues because he advised a grandmother to attend her grandson’s wedding to a transgender person. He said that she should be clear about not “affirming of his life choices,” but perhaps “your love may catch them off guard.”

WWJD? Wouldn’t he likely do the same thing and receive the same response given his treatment by the religious leaders of His day who criticized Him for being a “glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners?”

In the meantime, the beat goes on. This week, a Super Bowl ad featured people washing each other’s feet in a poignant display of humility and service.  But when it showed a protestor washing the feet of a woman outside a family planning clinic, then the knives came out from the religious right. In the same week, a group of prophets associated with Kenneth Copeland, an evangelist known from my past church tradition, hit the road for Donald Trump.  Asserting that Donald Trump remains the U.S. president, and those who persecute him face death, they declared and decreed that Joe Biden was the antichrist and guilty of treason. Ancient Faith Radio, a media ministry aimed at Orthodox Christian listeners, received an “eruption” of hate and misogynistic responses for hosting a panel on female deacons. A convoy of people arrived at the Texas border to “Take Our Border Back.” One of the supporters called the convoy “God’s army,” saying, “This is a biblical, monumental moment that’s been put together by God.”

We need courageous Christian leaders to rise up and draw a line in the sand and say, “Enough.”  We need those willing to flip the script and elevate Jesus rather than a syncretistic gospel that’s more political than Jesus.  We need those who would prioritize a Sermon on the Mount-based spiritual formation while rejecting the church’s Christendom-type pursuit of earthly power.

We need a modern-day version of Luther’s Wittenberg Door-like declaration that begins by elevating Jesus:

“When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Follow Me” (Mt 16:24), he willed the entire life of believers to be an imitator of his life and teachings.”

And then rejects Satan’s wager through a set of admonitions targeting spiritual formation and gospel priorities:

 “Christians are to be taught that following Christ makes us dissident to culture, alert to its subversive influence on our beliefs, priorities, and practices.”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | 2 Comments

The Remarkable Words of Jonathan Edwards

It is not merely a commendable thing for a man to be kind and bountiful to the poor, but our bounden duty, as much a duty as it is to pray, or to attend public worship, or anything else whatever. And the neglect of it brings great guilt upon any person. This is a duty to which God’s people are under very strict obligation.”

Jonathan Edwards penned those remarkable words over 250 years ago in a sermon called “Christian Charity.” And despite sitting through 5000+ sermons over the past six-plus decades, I was today years old before I ever encountered such forceful instruction about attending to the needy. All my life I’ve been taught that prayer, church attendance, and daily bible reading formed the foundation of Christian living.  Such disciplines formed the path of faithfulness and kept us from going astray. They were non-negotiable. 

Being “kind and bountiful to the poor” fell into the “should do” bin, not the “must do.”  It wasn’t a first-order mandate like prayer and devotions. Yes, “good Christians” donated to the poor.  But a failure in this matter was like a venial type of sin.  It wasn’t crippling to the faith, such as a failure to read the Bible. 

Edwards’ sermon is long and full of scripture, drawing heavily from both the Old and New Testaments.  The first half of the sermon lays out the Christian obligation to needy individuals.  The second half deals with 11 objections “sometimes made against this duty.”  Here are some of his main points in Edward’s own words.

Our charitable obligation goes beyond family, community, and nation to include strangers and sojourners.

“Here by thy poor brother is to be understood the same as in other places is meant by neighbor…to mean not only those of their own nation, but even strangers and sojourners…The Pharisees indeed interpreted it to signify only one of their own nation. But Christ condemns this interpretation.”

Loving your neighbor means bearing burdens and sharing the afflictions of all, even pilgrims and strangers.

“The rule of the gospel is that when we see our brother under any difficulty or burden, we should be ready to bear the burden with him…When our neighbor is in difficulty, he is afflicted; and we ought to have such a spirit of love to him, as to be afflicted with him in his affliction. And if we ought to be afflicted with him, then it will follow that we ought to be ready to relieve him. Because if we are afflicted with him, in relieving him, we relieve ourselves.”

“We should behave ourselves one towards another as brethren that are fellow travelers. For we are pilgrims and strangers here on earth, and are on a journey. Now, if brethren be on a journey together, and one meet with difficulty in the way, doth it not become the rest to help him.”

A lack of generosity to the needy comes from the wickedness of our hearts and is equal to embezzling from God

Men are exceedingly apt to make objections against such duties, which God speaks of here as a manifestation of the wickedness of their hearts…[and] he hoards up his master’s goods for himself, guilts of robbing his master and embezzling his substance.”  

(Just as an aside, I have heard dozens if not hundreds of sermons about “robbing God” over my lifetime. But all of those sermons connected robbing God with a failure to pay tithes to the church.  And having served on church boards much of my life, the Venn diagram intersection between attending to the needy and paying tithes is, in my experience, pretty small.)

Our wickedness causes us to hide our eyes, to choose not to see poor and needy individuals.

But the uncharitable are very unapt both to see the proper objects of charity, and to see their obligations to this duty. The reason is, that they are of that sort spoken of here by the wise man, they hide their eyes. Men will readily see, where they are willing to see. But where they hate to see, they will hide their eyes.”

It’s important to stop and note that Edwards was perhaps the most famous theologian/pastor of our nation’s history. He is best known for his formative role in the religious revival known as the “Great Awakening.” He helped launch the age of Protestant missionary expansion in the 19th century.

Edwards also owned slaves.  Multiple slaves, in fact. Some say that Edwards was merely a man of his age.  George Whitefield, one of Edwards’s few peers, not only owned slaves but strongly advocated for slavery.  Yet other famous theologians of that time like John Wesley and Charles Spurgeon spoke out strongly against slavery.  Although English in residence, their influence ranged widely including the American colonies prior to the Revolutionary War.   

Later in life, despite still owning slaves, Edwards began a journey towards abolitionism.  He began to understand how it was wrong to “disfranchise” people born free. He began to read the Bible differently, seeing theological arguments in defense of slavery as wrong.  He began to extend the biblical concept of “neighbor” to all. Although he never completed that journey, his son Jonathan Jr. and protégé, Samuel Hopkins did and became important figures in the abolitionist movement. 

It’s ironic that Edwards, who spoke out against an unwillingness to see the poor, had a profound inability to see the disenfranchised African Americans who lived around him and in his home. He attributed a failure to see as being willful, something people choose.  But he never recognized his lack of seeing until late in life. 

Perhaps that’s because “not seeing” is more often an unconscious part of our human nature than a willful decision. Our experience tells us Walter Lippman’s observation rings true: “For the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define and then see.” Like Edwards, we’re susceptible to being blinded by our culture and we don’t know it.

Our obligation to charity isn’t canceled because an individual isn’t completely indigent

“It doth not answer the rules of Christian charity, to relieve those only who are reduced to extremity, as might be abundantly shown…we are commanded to love and treat one another as brethren…Now is it the part of brethren to refuse to help one another, and to do anything for each other’s comfort, and for the relief of each other’s difficulties, only when they are in extremity?”

Our obligation isn’t cancelled by an ill and ungrateful spirit of a poor individual

Suppose you run across a person who “deserves not that people should be kind to him. He is of a very ill temper, of an ungrateful spirit, and particularly, because he hath not deserved well of them, but has treated them ill, has been injurious to them, and even now entertains an ill spirit against them. But we are obliged to relieve persons in want, notwithstanding these things, both by the general and particular rules of God’s Word.”

Our obligation isn’t cancelled just because a poor individual’s shortcomings and/or failings are his/her own fault

Edwards rejected the argument “He has brought himself to want by his own fault” as a reason to deny benevolence.  Our obligation to give, he asserted, wasn’t canceled by the lapses or misjudgments of the poor.  A rigid ideology of “personal responsibility” didn’t trump the gospel.  Our obligation to give wasn’t canceled if the need arose from a person’s laziness or wastefulness – as long as there’s been a stop to such behavior.  And even if there hasn’t been a stop, we’re still on the hook for family members since they are innocent.  Here are Edward’s words.

“If we should forever refuse to help men because of that [an oversight or failing], it would be for us to make their inconsiderateness and imprudent act, an unpardonable crime, quite contrary to the rules of the gospel, which insist so much upon forgiveness…if they are come to want by a vicious idleness and prodigality, yet we are not thereby excused from all obligation to relieve them, unless they continue in those vices.”

Our obligation isn’t cancelled even if an individual’s need for help should be addressed by others

“if a man have children or other relations, to whom it most properly belongs to relieve him, yet if they will not do it, the obligation to relieve him falls upon others. So for the same reason [e.g., the Good Samaritan teaching of Christ] we should do the more for the relief of the poor, because others neglect to do their proportion, or what belongs to them.”

In Summary

  1. Being kind and bountiful to the poor is our bounden duty, as much as it is to pray, or to attend public worship, or anything else in our Christian faith.
  2. Our charitable obligation goes beyond family, community, and nation to include strangers and sojourners.
  3. Loving your neighbor means bearing burdens and sharing the afflictions of all, even pilgrims and strangers.
  4. Failure to be charitable comes from the wickedness of our hearts and is equal to embezzling from God.
  5. Our wickedness causes us to hide our eyes, to choose not to see the poor.
  6. Our obligation to poor individuals doesn’t depend upon whether or not:
    • they are completely indigent;
    • they exhibit an ill and ungrateful spirit;
    • their need if their fault, arising as a result of their significant shortcomings and/or failings;
    • their need for help should be better addressed by others.

WWES (What would Edwards Say)?

Since, 1987, the Times Mirror Company and then the PEW organization have conducted 11 separate in-depth and large-scale surveys of the American political spectrum.  These surveys are intended to yield typologies, a set of voter profiles that identify specific segments of the electorate.  The 2021 survey found nine distinct groups of voting profiles: four leaning Democratic, four leaning Republican, and one independent.

About 10% of the public and 23% of republicans comprise the far-right typology.  PEW labels them Faith and Flag Conservatives as they are highly conservative and highly religious voters. About half are white evangelicals and the median age is 57.  Most support school prayer while opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.  They believe the United States “stands above all other countries in the world” and military solutions should trump diplomatic ones.  They reject the notion of white privilege and believe that white Americans face more discrimination than African Americans.  Illegal immigration tops their chart of national issues.  Not far behind, however, is their belief that the government should provide less benefits to the needy.

I wonder how Edwards would react to this data.  Would he once again exhibit a culturally formed blindness like he did with slavery?  Or would he burst forth with righteous authority, spouting out phrases like wickedness in heart and robbing God as he did in his 1732 sermon?  I’d put my money on the latter. I can even imagine him writing a new sermon called “Selfish Christians in the Hand of an Angry God.”

Yet the animus against immigration isn’t just from the extreme right.  It’s a feature, not a bug for most white evangelicals – those, who, according to the National Association of Evangelicals, “take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.”

Yet it’s heartening to see that nearly half or 49% of white evangelicals (my tribe) disagree with this statement.  Many have not bent or bowed to this sort of polarizing narrative. 

Many take the Bible seriously, practicing the open-handedness of Deuteronomy 15:7-8 – a verse quoted by Edwards in the opening paragraph of his sermon: “If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.”

Many see open-handedness as inclusive of those outside of tribe and nation, like in scripture.  They see some form of a pro-immigration posture as merely consistent with Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisee’s restrictive application of Leviticus 25:35 to those solely within one’s nation: “And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner.”

Last Thoughts

Immigration is a topic I repeatedly come back to in my blog as it sits in the middle of a tug-of-war for the future of the American Church. I believe our immigration posture is an indicator of the state of American Christianity.  And perhaps even an indicator of the state of one’s heart. 

I realize there any many serious concerns with current immigration policies, even by some with hearts culturally unencumbered. A new thoughtful policy that weighs competing interests, values, and operational challenges is needed. 

But how we approach this issue is a tell.  Are we willing to engage with each other, listening to the arguments of either side?  Are we evidence-based, willing to think for ourselves, and then change our beliefs when the data debunks tribal narratives?  Are we willing to challenge our tribal identity and the resultant worldview that owns our cultural narratives about immigration?  Are we willing to privilege gospel verities, putting the thumb on the scale of Christ’s teachings?  Are we willing to become like Jesus, showing the world what our God is like?

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Remarkable Words of Jonathan Edwards

The B-I-B-L-E: Can That Be the Book For “We”?

As a young boy, my friend Tommy and I would hold a weekly competition for church voice supremacy. Now this wasn’t a formal contest, sanctioned by some adult or official in the church. This was of our own doing, a contest for just the two of us, chico v chico. 

The rules were simple.  It was game on once group singing began during the portion of junior church called “song service.” With lungs bursting and mouths open wide, sound would gush forth with a fury fellow singers called “noise.” Melody was second order and pitch and intonation didn’t count.  Decibels were the goal and lots of them at that.  

Our favorite song was “The B-I-B-L-E, yes, that’s the book for me, I stand alone on the Word of God, The B-I-B-L-E.” Although the song was short in length, we’d routinely sing it through multiple times.  And by the last repetition, I’m told, we would both be beet red in the face, no longer singing but full-on shouting.  An early onset of biblical literalism, faithful to Psalms 47:1 “Shout to God with loud songs of joy!”

The origin and author of this familiar song are unknown, but it’s been found in hymnbooks since the 1930s and a great example of how kids were introduced to basic church doctrines through song.  “Standing alone” on the Bible was one of our tradition’s fundamental faith tenets, reflective of Martin Luther’s famous declaration of Sola Scriptura which means “by scripture alone.”

Phrases like “the Bible says” and “according to Scripture” peppered our discourse.  We saw this Bible-centric focus as essential to our faith, serving both an authoritative and exclusionary role. It contained the final word of truth and we held fast to it, reminiscent of the opening scene of Gladiator where General Maximus Decimus Meridius cries out “Hold the line.”

A Bible-centric America

According to PEW’s recent survey data, about half of America believe the Bible should influence U.S. laws.  That percentage jumps up into the low 70s for either white or black protestants and even higher to 84% for white evangelicals.   

When Biblical influence comes into conflict with the will of the people, then 27% of Americans, or roughly 50% of white or black protestants and 65% of white evangelicals side with the Bible over the will of the people.  Re-sorting the data by political parties yields 40% of Republicans and 15% of Democrats would choose the influence of the Bible over faithfulness to the Constitution.

Which View?

Yet it’s not clear what this Bible-first priority means in practice.  Many Christians believe that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith, morals, and truth.  They echo the apostle Peter’s famous declaration “We must obey God rather than men.” They see the defiance of the prophet Obadiah who hid hundreds of prophets in opposition to Jezebel as a biblical example to follow. They say such choices are merely “putting God first,’ something any faithful Christian would do. To them, choosing the Bible over the will of the people just seems right from a perspective of faith.

Fair enough.  But it’s still not clear what sort of actions must trump “the consent of the governed,” a hallowed phrase from the Declaration of Independence.  Now this is a document most white evangelicals believe to be divinely inspired with this enshrined phrase coming from its most famous part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Some, like Representative Lauren Boebert, avoid this contradiction by saying putting God first means that “the church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church.” Leaving aside the constitutional difficulties with this statement, the first and obvious questions are “what church and what should they direct?”

What if we asked the black protestant church to direct the government?  If a high fidelity to the Bible provides the standard for trumping the will of the people, then they’ve got the goods. Black protestants are just as likely as white evangelicals to assert that “The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.”

If we did that – accepting the outcome of biblical truth based solely on how seriously the Bible is taken as the repository of truth – white evangelicals would be in for quite the ride given black evangelical perspectives. Views about the “Christian” response to dealing with marginalized segments of our society would all have to change. Rather than favoring laws to prevent the entry of refugees, as most white evangelicals do, people of “biblical truth” would now oppose such laws. 

Perspectives about ethics would have to change, elevating the importance of immorality as a deal breaker for elected offices.

Perspectives about justice and protecting the innocent would have to change.  The graph below shows the percentage of Americans, sorted by race and belief in biblical literalism, who believe freeing the guilty is a worse judicial injustice than convicting the innocent. (Note to bible literalists: one of the six things God hates are “hands that shed innocent blood (Prov 6:17))

Perspectives about racial issues, i.e., opinions about reparations, monuments, racial dialog, and enforcement policies, would have to change

Who’s in Charge?

I could go on, but you get the picture.  A strong belief in and fidelity to the bible doesn’t guarantee congruent outcomes. Even by those who take scripture “literally, word for word.” None of us see through a glass clearly.  None of us, like the apostle Paul, have attained perfection and are hence without error. We all bring life experiences and cultural values to our biblical understandings, myself included. Those values affect our perspectives, suggesting that “where we stand depends upon where we sit.” Hence frequent appeals to biblical authority when said with a sense of certainty, should raise a red flag of caution.

We expect our “theology” to drive beliefs and actions and have convinced ourselves that it does.  And to a limited degree that’s true.  But we also live in a polarizing age where politics is now a first cause for people’s beliefs. Religious beliefs are not exempt as they too can lie downstream of politics.  We evaluate issues based on political criteria and then justify them using religious language.

Denominational Babel

With over 33,830 denominations worldwide, each with their own set of doctrines, we’re never going reach complete agreement in our interpretations of scripture. Protestants sharply disagree about whether or not man has free will.  Many protestants are cessationists, believing tongues, prophecy, and healing ceased with the Apostolic Age. Yet over 27% of world Christians who identify themselves as charismatic or Pentecostal believe the opposite. There are at least seven distinct atonement theories of Christ’s crucifixion, each yielding different understandings of how men and women become reconciled to God.  Heck, we can’t even agree on what books should constitute the Bible with 66 books in the Protestant, 73 in the Catholic, 79 in the Greek and Russian Orthodox, and 81 books in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. 

Should we then throw up our hands and abandon the notion of biblical truth? Not in the least. Contending for the faith is a scriptural mandate. The core of the issue is in how we contend and the outcome of our contending.

Whether Catholic or Orthodox, Calvinist or Armenian, the Bible shows us how to contend.  Micah 6:8 and Philippians 2:3 call us to walk in humility, considering others before ourselves.  Eph 4:2-3 instructs us to “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” 1 Cor 16:14 says to “do everything in love.”

The “we see through a glass darkly“ message of 1 Cor 13:12 changes our perspective.  It reflects the obvious – that we are fallen, fallible, people fraught with biases and “blind and bound” by the groups we are in. Only the God of Isaiah 46, who knows the end from the beginning, sees clearly.  Our claims of clarity then miss the mark when we rigidly appeal to “bible truth.” Certainty and humility are non-intersecting and unless our truth claims pass through humility, they become even more susceptible to error.

A Modest Proposal

We could unpack this further, but it’s not really necessary.  We know the way.

But it’s a way that’s narrow, not broad, as it requires dealing with our human nature through an honesty about ourselves and our tribal associations.  So here are a few suggestions on how to appeal to scripture in our statements and arguments while being faithful to the “glass darkly” insight of scripture, recognizing that we all make such appeals, myself included (as I’ve done so in this blog). 

  1. Be wary of a knee-jerk protection of tribal narratives. Then be doubly skeptical about ourselves, recognizing our innate susceptibility for self-deception.
  2. Be mindful that other faithful Christ followers read the Bible differently – and might even be right.
  3. Consider others before ourselves (Phil 2:3), funneling all our words and deeds through love with humility. 
  4. See the Bible as unveiling the story of God, rather than as a rulebook to be prooftexted (as Shakespeare once penned, “Mark you this Bassanio, the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose).”
  5. And then may others say, when all things are said and done, that they witnessed a fruit-of-the-spirit-first demonstration of Christ-likeness in both our conversations and appeals to scripture.

Back to the Survey Question

So, is a “Bible-is-the-final-word” over the will of the people’s viewpoint faithfully Christian?  My answer: theoretically “yes on occasion” but practically speaking, “likely not.”  Here’s why.

Five Strikes

A “Bible-is-the-final-word” over a will-of-the-people viewpoint requires a sense of certainty about one’s understanding of scripture. In doing so, it:

  • Avoids the biblical teaching of our own fallibility and inherent human limitations.
  • Cancels the value and contributions of others – those, scripture says, we are to consider “before ourselves.”
  • Implies that other viewpoints are anti-biblical, including those based on differing understandings of scripture by Christians equally committed to scripture. 
  • Limits the “God who works in you [e.g., others too] to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose.”
  • Skirts the scriptural admonition to live mutually and reciprocally with “one another” – an admonition to believers mentioned 100 times in the New Testament.

Three Buts

But what about “putting God first” and prioritizing faithfulness to “Biblical Values?”  Answer: of course we should prioritize gospel verities.  We should walk in unity so that, in the words of Jesus, the “world will know that you [The Father] sent me [Jesus] and have loved them even as you have loved me.” We should exhibit the fruit of the spirit (peace, forbearance, kindness, gentleness) rather than the works of the flesh (divisions, dissentions, strife, and enmity).  We should do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.  All of these are first order gospel priorities.  All of these require demoting ourselves while elevating others.  And all of these add weight to the will-of-the-people side of the scale.

But what about the “obey God rather than man” passage: don’t we serve an audience of one? But do we really know which side God is on, especially when people of “faith” reside on both sides of a policy issue – and they almost always do?  If “men were angels,” as Madison penned in Federalist Paper No. 51, perhaps it would be more clear.  But we are not angels, prone to missing the mark in our opinions, actions, and attitudes. Hence the value of a constitutional form of government with checks and balances and a “will of the people” bottom line.

But what if you believe that the issue is so indisputable that there can only one possible Christian faith-based policy stance?  Abortion is the quintessential example of this objection as many people see this issue through a lens of moral certainty.  Here the will of the people is irrelevant for many. Restricting abortions through restrictive legislative action is the only acceptable outcome.

Yet other paths can reach the same destination.  Other legislative actions like child allowances, a love-your-neighbor move, offers the possibility of reducing abortions on a scale roughly equal to that expected from restrictive actions like the repeal of Roe.  Here are two paths, each yielding similar outcomes in the protection of the unborn child. Yet each promoted very differently in the public square, especially with respect to its connection with Christian faith. Makes you wonder whether it’s a Bible-is-the-final-word issue or my political-perspective-is-the-final-word.

“Most of us are not really approaching the subject [scriptures] in order to find out what Christianity says: we are approaching it [them] in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party.” ― C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity

Bottom Line

I worry that a “Bible-is-the-final-word” over a will-of-the-people viewpoint in today’s constitutionally formed society works like a gateway drug to becoming beguiled with the slippery slope of authoritarianism. Believing people on the other side of a policy issue have no say or vote in the matter violates core principles of liberty. It falls short of basic civic, moral, and scriptural standards.

Even worse, it violates basic scriptural admonitions through its sense of certainty, lack of humility, and failure to contend with our human weaknesses. It fosters discord and strife, erecting a wall of division between people within the body of Christ. In short: it privileges “me,” reinforced by those “like me,” at the expense of a harmonious “we.” These are all fatal errors and we would do well to heed Christian writer G.K. Chesterton’s response to the London Times question: “What’s Wrong with the World?”

Dear Sirs,

I am.

Sincerely yours,

G. K. Chesterton

The Way Forward

“And yet I will show you the most excellent way…Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking…”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The B-I-B-L-E: Can That Be the Book For “We”?

Six Graphs and Six New Year Reflections

Graph 1 – The two main political parties in America exhibit near equal distain for each other. Extreme partisanship amplifies this polarization even further.

It’s worth spending time considering these data. Only 8% of Republicans believe Democrats are honest and 11% of Democrats return the favor.  Those shockingly low numbers then seem generous compared to the extreme elements of each party where the perception of honesty drops to one percent.   

These data (and graphs below) come from a mixture of national surveys, interviews and focus groups led by a partnership between an organization called More in Common and the polling company YouGov. More in Common’s “mission is to understand the forces driving us apart, to find common ground and help to bring people together to tackle our shared challenges.”

Although levels of distain may be roughly equal, Christian representation in the two extremes are highly unequal. At one extreme, Christians make up 23% of Progressive Activists.  At the other extreme, Christians make up 87% of Devoted Conservatives.  When the data are restricted to Protestant respondents, the disparity in representation remains: 13% vs 56%.

Graphs 2 and 3 – Such distain creates a profound perception gap, formed by understandings often imagined and centered around falsehoods. Take the teaching of history, for example.  According to Democrats, only 38% of Republicans believe Rosa Parks and MLK should be taught as examples of Americans who fought for equality. The true percentage is 93%. According to Republicans, only 45% of Democrats believe that students should learn how the Declaration of Independence and Constitution advanced freedom and equality.  The true percentage is 92%.

Graph 4 – Then the more media news people consume, the larger the overall perception gap.

Graph 5 – Yet not all media outlets are the same with respect to the perception gap. 

Graph 6 – Thankfully, there’s a glimmer of hope. If you you can de-emphasize political party, areas of common understandings emerge.

The Way Forward

In 2014, a man at Stirling Station in Perth, Australia accidentally tripped and became trapped in between a train and the platform.  As the man struggled to free himself, CCTV footage captured the phenomenal moment where fellow commuters banded together to push the train to one side, eventually helping the man to free his leg.  It was a powerful picture of people working together to rescue a trapped person through a love of neighbor focused with purpose and amplified by unity.  

Now imagine a church willing to rescue a trapped, polarized, nation through exemplifying a Christ-like love of neighbor. Exchanging a partisan-defined and culture war-oriented “biblical worldview” for a Sermon-on-the-mount-directed inner nature (e.g., blessed are the meek). Pushing back against a polarizing spirit by a fruit of the spirit-directed walk in life. Faithful to scripture’s call to “be in one accord” as we are “completely humble and gentle; patient, bearing with one another in love. Making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

Six Points of Reflection As We Start a New Year

  1. We must recognize that we all bear some measure of culpability for the current, unholy, state of America.  I’m reminded what the Christian writer G.K. Chesterton once responded when asked by the London Times: “What’s Wrong with the World?” Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton
  2. We must recognize the shortcomings in our understandings – that where we “stand depends upon where you sit” – and then commit to become part of the solution rather than the problem. When people isolate within their tribes (the big sort) and are blind to their biases, uninterested in other people’s stories, and ensorcelled by their historical and cultural narratives, they no longer “see” their culpability for this epidemic of polarization.  And if you can’t “see” it, you don’t think any action is needed. A great example is a friend’s Facebook post where he posts a picture of Lincoln with the words “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Although a Christian, he has built a career fostering polarizing division through attacking the MSM, the Democrats, and those outside of the conservative narrative.
  3. It’s worth repeating the preceding step as we won’t move forward without first reckoning with our innate blindness and then committing to change. Walter Lippman once famously said: “for the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define and then see.” We subconsciously pick and choose our facts so that “what is alien will be rejected, what is different will fall upon unseeing eyes…more often without knowing it, we are impressed by those facts which fit our philosophy.” Translation: we’re hard-wired to live in tribal echo chambers and unless we purposefully and actively challenge them, polarization R us.
  4. Christ followers must 100% embrace a “ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18)” or they fail.  It’s simply our gospel calling, our vocation, according to the apostle Paul.  It must encompass and define everything we do – at all times, irrespective of persons, tribe or party.  Just having moments of reconciliation misses the mark.  There are no justifiable exceptions. Political polarization cancels this calling of reconciliation and is, as such, flat out sin. And the fact that America is currently highly polarized, given its large percentage of Christians, means that the church has flat-out failed.  We have to be clear about this.  Highly polarized Christians are simply not following the teachings and example of Christ.
  5. We must actively oppose America’s culture wars. The fruit of this war – fear, outrage, fighting and division – are called out in Galatian 5 as “works of the flesh.” These attributes of polarization oppose Christ’s mission of reconciliation. And “those who live like this,” according to the apostle Paul, “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
  6. We must then privilege the fruit of the spirit – the mark of a Christian, the evidence of Christ within us, which is the hope for the world. 
Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Six Graphs and Six New Year Reflections

On George Washington’s “First Essential in a Man”

After 57 years of living in Juneau with its limited road system, Tammy and I still enjoy driving, putting over 35K total miles a year on our two vehicles, a pace we maintained even during covid.  Most of those miles are day trips with occasional longer trips to see family and friends.  Assuming we average 55 miles/hour with the bulk of these miles on freeways, then 37K miles/year equates to 670 car-hours or nearly two hours of car time per day. 

So, what are we doing during that time? If alone, I’m usually thinking about the flyfishing ahead or the hike I’ve just completed.  Or perhaps nothing at all, just taking in the scenery of the Pacific Northwest.  (Fun fact: have you ever heard of the “nothing box theory? It posits an explanation for the vegetative state men exhibit at times through their capacity to think about nothing).  But if we’re together, Tammy hand sews bindings on quilts while I drive as we both listen to a variety of podcasts from across the political and religious spectrum.

The Mohler Interview

One of the recent podcasts featured interviews with Ruth Graham and Al Mohler.  Graham is a religion reporter for the New York Times with an evangelical background and Wheaton college education. Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and perhaps the most visible and influential Baptist leader today.  He was recently in the news for his statement at the Family Research Council’s Pray Vote Stand Summit that it’s “absolutely necessary” for all Christians to vote in the 2022 midterms and that any Christian who votes “wrongly” is being “unfaithful” to God.

Partway through Mohler interview, a fascinating interchange took place regarding the proper priorities of Christian voting in the mid-term elections. 

Astead Herndon: “For something like the midterm elections, what do you charge Christians to do this November?”

Al Mohler: “Well, I’ve spoken to that. Christians in the United States, who have the ability to vote, will vote one way or another. Even not voting is no abdication because you just strengthen and weight the vote of those who do vote. There’s no refuge from political responsibility here. I would say we need be good stewards of the vote. And that means we’ve got to know, in our minds, what is first and primary. And that’s going to be the sanctity of every single human life and what leads to the strengthening of marriage and the family as the basic building blocks of civilization.”

At this point, I reached out and stopped the podcast signaling a discussion would be forthcoming. Either one of us will often do this, either to provide feedback or just to explore a topic further. 

I asked: what should be our priorities as Christians when entering the ballot box?  What should we emphasize when evaluating candidates, recognizing that nobody’s perfect?  Do Mohler’s two priorities accurately reflect the Christian faith perspective?

Foundations

I think about priorities a lot, both now and in times past.  In my old position as a science administrator, we prioritized character through advocacy of core values and achievement through a mission focus.  We made character foundational as we were “people first and mission always.”

We considered Einstein’s most remarkable quote to be true: “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.” We then made that perspective foundational to our science organization.

“When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?”  Those words, penned by the Psalmist long ago, spoke of the foundational importance of truth, justice, and character. They were the guardrails which help shape a society’s moral order. They kept society safe, protecting it from existential harm.

Our founding fathers understood this Biblical principle, deeming virtue, the acts of good character, as indispensable to a successful nation.  To them, character was foundational.  They saw it penetrating every nook and cranny of a person’s life and affecting everything they did and said.  It was like yeast permeating a lump of dough and Mohler’s failure to prioritize character would have been unthinkable to them. 

To wit: George Washington once declared that “a good moral character is the first essential in a man” and John Adams said “The people “have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge– I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers.”

But What About…

Fair enough, some might say, but then ask: “what about the sanctity of life?”  Shouldn’t that too be a priority in Christian judgments? 

Overturning Roe was long considered the holy grail of the anti-abortion movement.  But setting aside the moral debate for now, restrictive actions such as anti-abortion statutes can only move the needle so far. Hence, the potential impact of repealing Roe was always deemed to be limited (an estimated 12.8% decline in abortion rate) due to the (1) widespread use of pill-based abortion, (2) ability of women with means to travel for an abortion, and (3) prevalence of abortion within populous states where abortion is less restricted. 

(Note that since the repeal of Roe in June, an estimated 10,570 legal abortions have been reduced representing a decline in the abortion rate of 6% in just under five months.  This is a net calculation, integrating abortion rate declines in states with new post-Roe restrictions with abortion rate increases in states protecting abortion.  It also also doesn’t account for self-managed abortions (pills rather than surgery) which now account for more than half of all U.S. abortions and likely to increase in usage.)

Moving the Needle

If you really want to move the needle, then the underlying conditions driving abortion rates must be addressed and this is where a pro-life position really gets defined. 

Let’s start by looking at abortion data from the two organizations in America who compute abortion statistics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compiles voluntarily reported data from most state health agencies.  The Guttmacher Institute collects data from every known provider of abortions and computes abortion estimates for non-responding providers.  While the Guttmacher Institute supports abortion rights, its abortion data are widely used by organizations on both sides of the issue.

Note that abortion rose steeply following the passage of Roe in 1973 but then leveled off and began a rapid decline until recent years.  If you juxtapose presidential administrations over this map, you will see that since 1990, abortion declines have occurred in both Republican and Democratic administrations with the steepest declines during Democratic administrations.  The only deviation from this trend occurred in recent years when abortions increased during the Trump administration. 

The reasons for this decline are many and chiefly related lower pregnancy rates and household health and economics.  Most (70%) women seeking abortions cite financial reasons as part of the why with about half of the women citing the lack of suitable or supportive partners. Regions with higher child mortality rates exhibit higher abortion rates. Hence, when societal conditions improve, such as when Spain and Italy provided cash transfers to expectant mothers, abortion rates declined.  Abortion rates likewise declined as day care services became available. 

An Acceptable Cost

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, recently developed a model of abortion rates using data from 23 countries. The biggest factor moving the abortion needle was a decrease in real per-capita purchasing power where a 2% decrease led to a 10% increase in the abortion ratio.  The next biggest factor was switching from abortion on demand to banning abortion which led to a 6% decrease in the abortion ratio.

Given these relationships one would think Senator Mitt Romney’s Family Security Action, which, according to AEI’s analyses, would reduce abortion rates through providing a substantive child allowance for every newborn baby, would be welcomed (or at least seriously considered) by the conservative right.  For Republicans, it just doesn’t get any better: conservative family and marriage provisions plus abortion reduction!  

At first Romney’s plan was well liked across both sides of the aisle. Support soon faded even though Romney’s plan would slash child poverty by an estimated one-third. Support from the White House cooled as Democrats preferred Biden’s plan (which would have dropped the abortion rate considerably lower – by some estimates roughly equivalent to that expected from the repeal of Roe). But the strangest thing was the even cooler reception by prominent Republicans, one of whom said, “I don’t know how many Republican votes there would be for just a direct-payment program, which in my mind is not the direction we want to go.”

Lamenting over this triumph of ideology, the conservative institute’s author concluded: “The simple reality is that conservatives arguing that a rise in single parenthood is an unacceptable cost of a child allowance are necessarily arguing, as a corollary, that some of those children being aborted is an acceptable cost of the current policy regime.”

Martin Luther King once said “Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, and the social conditions that cripple them, is a dry-as-dust religion.”  Borrowing MLK’s language perhaps we can say that “Any person who professes to be anti-abortion but is unconcerned with health and the financial conditions that invite them, has a defective “pro-life” position.

You Make the Call

So when Mohler says: “what is first and primary. And that’s going to be the sanctity of every single human life…” does he mean that he will be voting for Biden, since Biden’s child allowance plan could possibly reduce abortions by an amount equivalent to the repealing of Roe?

Or when Mohler calls out anyone who votes “wrongly” is being “unfaithful” to God, is he calling out people like Marco Rubio and organizations like Focus on the Family who have come out strongly against child allowances given the expected drop they would bring to abortion rates?

One final question.  If opposition to direct payments based on one’s political ideology leads you to treat abortion as an acceptable cost, is reducing abortions really the first and ultimate priority?  

A Christian Political Perspective Prioritizes Peacemaking

Few issues divide Americans more than abortion. Yet, despite irreconcilable ideological differences, there’s still the potential for common ground. Legislation to improve women’s health and financial status, for example, could likely produce outcomes beneficial to each side. For the left, it could address their goal of promoting the flourishing of all members of society, independent of race and gender.  For the right, it could address their goal of reducing abortion rates in America.

Imagine such a win-win solution through less partisanship and more collaboration. Then consider the extended benefits of people willing to reach across the aisle to find common ground. It lowers the temperature of American politics. It confronts the us vs them narrative that turns our neighbor into an enemy. It lessens the power of echo chambers and the division those chambers bring. All the while adding to the flourishing of people’s lives. You would think then that the quest for such a solution would be a prioritized Christian virtue, pursuant to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount calling of “Blessed are the Peacemakers, no?”

Peacemaking, along with other character traits in the Beatitudes, are part of the instructions that teach Christ-followers about “how we should then live” in this world. Their upside-down vision of human flourishing defines the ethos of the kingdom of heaven. They prepare us to serve in our “salt and light” mission.  But for those who reject or ignore these instructions, the warning is clear: “if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything?” 

A Christian Political Perspective Misses the Mark Through Partisan Exclusivity

There is more than one way to peel an orange, crack an egg, or, in Mark Twain’s language, to skin a cat. Policies from both sides of the aisle can often lead to complementary outcomes despite differing legislative pathways.  An “unfaithfulness” test which hitches one’s wagon exclusively to the Republican party and its policy platform unnecessarily shuts the door on another sides’ potential to yield beneficial outcomes. 

Such partisan exclusivity misses the mark and leads to scriptural error. Listen to what the great Christian ethicist Paul Ramsey once said: “the identification of Christian social ethics with specific partisan proposals — ones that clearly are not the only ones that may be characterized as Christian and as morally acceptable — comes close to the original New Testament meaning of heresy.” 

A Christian Political Perspective Misses the Mark Without Prioritizing Character 

The Venn diagram between character and Micah 6:8’s call to walk humbly, do justly and love mercy overlaps extensively.  So does the Venn diagram between character and loving our neighbor – the second commandment which is like unto the first. Likewise for the intersection between character and the Fruit of the Spirit, which is the outward evidence of an inward transformation of “those who belong to Christ Jesus [and who] have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” Christ’s modeling of kindness, mercy, submission, and compassion elevates the importance of character even further.

Good character doesn’t equate to the totality of Christian life. But Christian life, when faithful to the teachings and example of Christ, necessarily yields good character.  Then doesn’t the lack of character, or even a lack of its prioritization, risk, to use one of Mohler’s words, being “unfaithful” to core tenets of the Christian faith? 

Last Thoughts

Earlier this month we marked the fourth anniversary of my father’s passing.  Although I’ve written frequently about my mom and her focus on our spiritual formation, dad was her equal partner.  A scripted parchment with the words of Psalms 1 hung above his seat at our dinner table. To him, masculinity stemmed from being a Godly man – like a “tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season.” Character, born of a faith-filled life and witnessed by the fruit of the spirit, served as a foundation in life. It wasn’t an option, an afterthought, or a second-order issue of life. Character was, in both the view of my dad and in the words of George Washington, “the first essential in a man.”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on On George Washington’s “First Essential in a Man”

 “Truly He Taught Us to Love One Another”

The British geneticist and evolutionary biologist Haldane once famously said: “I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.” Haldane’s quip follows from a selfish gene’s cost/benefit analysis, calculated from the odds of gene sustainability given a particular sacrificial action. Hence, its willingness to sacrifice for two siblings who are (on average) 50% identical by descent, or four nephews at 25%, or eight cousins at 12.5%.

Brothers help brothers because they share common genes. People help distant others when reputational benefits accrue.  Hence, sacrificial-like actions like “giving the shirt off your back” may be mutually beneficial and not strictly sacrificial when the recipient is in one’s tribe.  But all bets are off for those outside the tribe where a sacrificial action offers no chance of a beneficial return. 

Christ’s Countercultural Ethic of Love

“Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” That message, delivered by the angels in announcing the birth of Christ, foretold the coming of a new way of living complete with a different calculus for giving.  Like the blindfolded Lady Justice, divine love confronts the selfish gene through a blindness to differences in tribe, community, and nation.  Just as Jesus came to serve and sacrifice for us, we do the same for others as defined by Christ’s all-encompassing concept of neighbor.   

  • “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. – 1 John 3:16-18
  • “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?  Are not even the tax collectors doing that?  And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? – Matthew 5:43-47.
  • “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and Love your neighbor as yourself. You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. Do this and you will live. But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” In reply Jesus said: A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers…a priest passed by…so to a Levite…But a Samaritan…”

The Scandal of the Good Samaritan

The Good Samaritan parable teaches us about the centrality and scope of divine love. Loving God and loving our neighbor, with the latter equaling the former, forms our highest calling. Jesus then adds a scandalous twist by using a societal outcast, a pariah outside of the Jewish race, to demonstrate the nature of such love.  Samaritans were the cultural arch enemies of the Jews. Jewish people considered them unclean foreigners and went to extraordinary lengths to avoid them.  The two groups didn’t mix and the antipathy was mutual. 

Jesus doubles down when he compares the faithfulness of the Samaritan to the unfaithfulness of two religious leaders to illustrate His main point. Love is known through action and faith by our deeds. And the proof of the pudding comes when our actions and deeds reflect the gospel’s new way of living irrespective of tribe, community, or nation.  

The Test

Theologian NT Wright describes this radical, countercultural, notion of love as: “Jesus came to earth to bring something new, through the launch of a kingdom that was not of this world. As citizens of that kingdom, we are to be instruments of God’s new creation, planting signposts in hostile soil that show a different way to be human.”

So here’s a test for the degree in which we have rejected the selfish gene and instead said “yes” to be an “instrument of God’s new creation.” When the other is the stranger, the immigrant, the substance abuser, and the homeless; or the genderly different, the racially different, the mentally different, the politically different and the theologically different, do we still love in the same manner as we do for members of our own tribe?  To wit: are we willing to give the shirt off our back, speak generously about them, and seek their flourishing through concrete actions which attend to their needs?

Three Outcomes

But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.  

My long-time political tradition, influenced largely by my long-time faith tradition is the political group least welcoming to legal immigration.

But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.

Under United States law, a refugee is someone who: Is located outside of the United States, Is of special humanitarian concern to the United States, Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.  My long-time faith tradition, despite the clarity of scripture and their past history of generosity, is now the religious group in the United States least welcoming to refugees.

But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.

Despite key evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham and Russell Moore decrying a family separation immigration policy, calling it out as an issue of “grave moral concern,” white evangelical Protestants have been the religious group most supportive of separating children from their parents when apprehended for illegally crossing the Southern border.

Countercultural Christ-likeness

Christ-like love defeats ideology.  The Good Samaritan didn’t know the backstory to the injured man.  He could have assumed the man’s injury stemmed from poor choices and then just walked away like the others.  He could have justified that action citing “individual responsibility.”  But the Samaritan wasn’t interested in assessing blame, just achieving an outcome in accordance with his faith. 

Christ-like love defeats a me first mindset.  The Samaritan refused to privilege tribe, community, or nation.  A man needed help and the Samarian only saw the need. He then matched observation with action by giving significant portions of his time, treasure and talent to care for the injured man, paying the innkeeper two denarii (roughly two days wages) up front with a promise for more if needed. 

Christ-like love nuances earthly law.  A rabbinical purification law around the time of Christ decreed that “the daughters of the Samaritans are menstruants from their cradle” (Mishnah Niddah 4.1). These restrictions applied to Samaritan men by implication of association.  Hence, the Jewish law deemed every Samaritan to be avoided as unclean. Jesus’ response showed nuance, considering both the earthly and heavenly realms yet with the thumb firmly placed on the heavenly realm scale.  He forbade his disciples from preaching in Samaritan towns consistent with rabbinical law.  Yet he engaged the Samaritan woman and honored the Samaritan man consistent with his Kingdom mission.

Christ-like love exchanges a closed fist for an open hand. The Samaritan was likely unaware of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 25:35: “for I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty, and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” This passage occurs amid a weighty teaching where those with a closed fist and lacking in generosity risk eternal punishment.  But the Samaritan likely knew the Hebrew scriptures which are rife with verses about extending an open hand to a stranger or foreigner such as Deut 10:19 “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Christ-like love defeats walls of division.  The Samaritan’s assistance to the injured man required him to breach a wall of division between his people and the Jews. We as followers of Christ have the same wall-breaking vocation.  In Ephesians, the apostle Paul writes about Christ’s mission as: “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations.” This means that “there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Christ-like love trumps tribal identity. We are made for community, to belong to one another.  Our human nature draws us towards people like us.  We seek familiarity. Our communities give back by providing vital support and protection.  They create identity and meaning. Hence, many of our individual differences are formed, in part, from the force of our culture and community peculiarities. Although the gospel doesn’t dispose of this individuality, it does create an overarching ethic defined in scripture and witnessed through the life and teaching of Christ.  And in the inevitable conflict between cultural affinities and our Christ-like calling, Christians privilege the latter at the expense of the former – like Christ’s example of the Samaritan.

But whatabout

But won’t immigrants take away jobs, lower wages, increase crime, introduce terrorism, overload the welfare state and increase our budget deficit?  And whatabout protecting the American way of life, the rule of law and national sovereignty given the unprecedented levels of immigration?  Shouldn’t taking care of Americans and resolving their problems come first? All valid questions so let’s briefly consider them further.

Many of the economic, terrorism, and crime issues go away if one is willing to examine the data.  Immigrant incarceration rates for violent and property crimes are less than the U.S. average.  A displacement effect by immigrant workers is rarely observed according to most economic research.  Immigrants, in fact, tend to create more jobs than they take.  Terrorism rates by refugees and immigrants are extremely small and many orders of magnitude less than rates by tourists: “the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year.” 

Immigration levels today are less than those in 1910. Illegal immigration peaked around 2007 and has been falling steadily since.  So why, as the graph below shows, do white evangelicals currently express such a high concern about “immigrants invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background?

Two things can be true at once: we can help needy Americans and help the needy from places far away.  Any nation, especially one like ours which declares an affinity for Christian principles and which provides over $30 billion of subsidies to corporate oil and gas interests each year, can surely find a way to support one of the highest priorities as taught by Jesus: to sacrificially love our neighbor – someone outside of our tribe, community, and nation – just like the Samaritan man in scripture.

Last Thoughts From O Holy Night (v3)

Truly He taught us to love one another;

His law is Love and His gospel is Peace;

Chains shall he break, for the slave is our brother,

And in his name all oppression shall cease,

Sweet hymns of joy in grateful Chorus raise we;

Let all within us praise his Holy name!

Christ is the Lord, then ever! ever praise we!

His pow’r and glory, evermore proclaim!

His pow’r and glory, evermore proclaim!

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on  “Truly He Taught Us to Love One Another”

Respect for Marriage Act and The New Sola’s of the “Faith”

The U.S. Senate recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) creating a raging fire storm across Christian Twitter. Much of the incoming targeted David French, an evangelical center-right commentator and one I often quote in this blog.  French began his commentary by confessing how he had flip-flopped on this issue over the years before finally landing in support of RFMA.  His supportive rationale stemmed, in part, from a desire for Americans of different faiths and socio-political locations to live and work together in peace and harmony.  He saw this legislation as necessary in a pluralistic society by protecting both religious liberty and the dignity of all Americans including LGBT families. (For a more in-depth description of the legislation, click here)

Al Mohler Weighs In

Then the fiery arrows began, launched by evangelicals who questioned French’s Christianity, compared his support for the bill to slavery, and demanded church discipline or expulsion.  Theologian Carl Trueman laments how evangelicals no longer “own the country” and sees French as an accommodating force towards that end. Prominent evangelical leader Al Mohler proclaimed French’s views to be “hogwash” and “dangerously wrong. ” He said French’s “view would undermine any stable public morality based on any objective moral truths” and then ended his piece with an apocalyptic warning: “This is how conservatism dies, and this is how marriage is surrendered.”

(Yet some of the same certain people advocating for “stable public morality”…have also told America that a vote for a thrice-married, multiple adulterer who faces multiple, corroborated claims of sexual abuse, and who appeared in Playboy Video Centerfold: Playmate 2000 Bernaola Twins was an urgent moral imperative.)

Yet French’s view is in the mainstream of America’s tradition. French’s question: “when should we import our religious values into civil laws and how should we choose between competing religious and moral values when deciding that law” is the same one asked by our founding fathers before inserting the no establishment clause in the constitution.  Rather than insuring America would be Christian, they chose to “guarantee that Christianity and other religions, including various versions of secularized beliefs, all should be permitted influence in public discourse.”

Jake Meander’s Response

Jake Meander, editor of Mere Orthodoxy, tries to thread the needle. The two sides, he believes, reflect good faith differences in what a “prudential” posture should look like. He laments on how these issues have become “hopelessly constrained and conditioned by the culture war.”  More “interesting and vital questions that the post-boomer church in America will have to take serious” he says, “get “backgrounded.”

At the top of Meander’s more interesting list is whether or not we should separate a kind of privatized religious morality from the real public morality that governs common life together.  To wit: is Christian morality only valid for Christians or should Christian morality dictate human morality?

In the meantime, Meander thinks French gets the morality questions wrong.  He sees the subtext of French’s position as “an under-developed doctrine of creation, which allows for Christian morality to exist at a remove from questions of public order and common life.”  Here, “Christian morality exists atop the world, as it were, and tells individual Christian people how to live in the world. It guides Christians in how to engage with the world when they step down into it. But it doesn’t itself shape the world in any sort of direct, tangible way; the world is governed by other laws.”

Sola Conservativism

The most striking feature of Meander, Mohler, and Trueman’s (MMT) responses is what they don’t say.  Trueman never mentions the ekklesia’s salt and light calling for influencing society and changing culture.  Mohler says even less, with nary a word spoken about the power of the gospel and the church’s Kingdom mission. Conservatism is all he offers, where virtue is the “conserving the permanent things.” Meander mentions the role of individual Christian engagement, but then dismisses this as something not “tangible.”  

Nobody mentions Jesus, nor the life-changing power of the cross to bring about societal change. Nor the witness of the early church in changing a truly depraved culture through the “faithful presence” of Christ-like followers.

Meander, Mohler, and Trueman (MMT) seem to espouse similar versions of a faith and culture worldview driven by a top-down legislative role in God’s redemptive story.  Their eggs are placed into the basket of state power while the basket of a salt and light witness by those called to be “His workmanship” stays empty.  They’ve reengineered the straight and narrow to have guardrails of politically conservative values. And any Christian who votes “wrongly,’ according to Mohler, is being “unfaithful” to God.

This is at best a category error through its omission of gospel verities.  But it’s even worse as it changes the essential nature of Christianity through its privileging of a conservative ideology wedded to political power over Christ’s calling for the church to join in His “Kingdom” mission.

To be clear, MMT’s basic sin isn’t a desire to see Christian influence in governmental policy and legislative acts.  Most Christians, outside of those culturally disengaged like the Hutterites, believe government can have some type of role in the promotion of faith-based moral values.

MMT’s sin is a form of secularism, arising from a first-order reliance on political power and ideology. It disregards the faithful presence of Christ-like people as the first-order biblical response to reforming moral shortcomings. It disremembers that Christianity is cruciform-shaped, centered about a King whose throne was a cross.  And like Peter walking on water, it detaches our eyes off of Jesus and the culture changing gospel message he brought. 

Sola Christendom

In response to Mohler’s accusations of lacking “objective moral truth,” French provides examples of moral positions he has taken in recent years, promoting values like honesty, kindness, just treatment of citizens through by a worldview privileging Micah 6:8 and the fruits of the spirit.

French sees a nation’s religious character as defined by the “interaction between the individual faith of the citizens and the institutional expression of the nation’s values. A functioning “Christian nation” is going to combine both a robust private practice of faith with a government that is committed to basic elements of justice and mercy. In other words, when determining the identity of a people and nation, by their fruits you shall know them.” 

Yet both Meander and Mohler see French’s moral universe as annulling Christian moral values. Here’s Meander: “That Christian moral norms would supply the moral content that actually defines our common life in the world is to him [French] anathema and to most in the historic church so obvious as to be banal.” 

Meander asks: “is Christian morality only valid for Christians or should Christian morality dictate human morality.” He then uses the divergent perspectives of C.S. Lewis and J.R. Tolkien to explain why he chooses the latter. Lewis had argued for two marriage institutions in the United Kingdom, church and civil.  Tolkien strongly objected, saying that “Christian morality is the correct way to run the human machine.”

Meander gives the game away when he pairs his rejection of French’s moral universe with the welcoming of Tolkien’s yearning for a society dictated by Christian values. To paraphrase a James Bond movie’s title, the world of faithful presence is not enough. To wit: the promotion of essential Christian values (e.g., fruit of the spirit) and the advocacy of essential Christian living (salt and light mode of influence) is apparently an under-developed doctrine of creation which doesn’t “itself shape the world the world in any sort of direct, tangible way.”  The “world is governed by other laws” and we need to make those laws Christian. 

MMT may believe that some form of Christendom must provide the solution for cultural regeneration. But in doing so, haven’t they’ve merely affirmed Kierkegaard’s observation that “Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it?” 

Isn’t it Time?

Isn’t time we stop living in a flattened world where the power of the Spirit must step out of the way so that the big guns of political power can shoot away?  Doesn’t such reliance on a top-down, ideologically driven, state-focused, moralistic world suffer from, in the words of the apostle Paul, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

Isn’t it time we escape from an under-developed doctrine of creation, caused by the “blinding and binding” of our political tribes. Which then leads us to prioritize the secular over the culture changing message of the cross? 

Isn’t it time that we recognize, in the words of Grenz, that “At the heart of the biblical narrative is the story of God bringing humankind to be the imago dei, that is, to be the reflection of the divine character, love, where we show the world what our God is like.”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Respect for Marriage Act and The New Sola’s of the “Faith”

We Can Make a Difference

In the world of “believe it or not,” the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) recently rejected a statement condemning “the destruction of property and the infliction of bodily violence against political opponents.”  Yep, you heard this right.  A statement condemning violence based on “a growing number of personal threats to public officials” could only muster 25% support within this leading Calvinist denomination, even though the alleged attempted assassination of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh had just occurred.

A pastor from Florida with Cuban roots argued that it was sometimes appropriate to “pick up the sword.”  Others appealed to the American Revolution saying the statement “would condemn the very existence of this country,” adding “it’s important to be very, very clear about this in the kind of country we live right now, with a … growing tendency for an overextended federal power.”

Fast forward five months and we recently witnessed a brutal attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul Pelosi by an attacker wanting “the truth” and threatening to break Nancy Pelosi’s kneecaps if she lied to him. Not finding Nancy home, he used his hammer to beat Paul severely and fracture his skull. In the charging documents, he told the police “much like the American Founding Fathers with the British, he was fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender.”

it wasn’t long before the inevitable lies and conspiracy theories showed up in my social media feeds.  I saw an image of a pair of underwear with a hammer, and the caption said, “Get it now: Paul Pelosi Halloween costume.” Another photo showed a hammer attached to a person’s belt with the caption “Open carry in San Francisco.”

Self-proclaimed Christians were among those who posted these photos and some were even friends. Several of them follow Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point Faith who responded to the attack by saying, “If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out.”

Thankfully true Christianity was on display too.  Like the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bart Barber, who said “I’m praying tonight for Paul Pelosi, and I invite Southern Baptists to join me in doing so.” “What happened to him is reprehensible.”

The Commonality of Violence

The tolerance or even welcoming of violence by many in the Christian faith isn’t a one-off event or a case of a few bad apples or something contained to a particular Calvinist denomination. Of the 75% of white evangelicals believing that God has granted America a special role in human history, 27% of these agree that violence might be necessary in order to save America. 

Violence against abortion clinics are on the rise with assaults up 128% in 2021. The January 6 insurrection event showcased people using Christianity to justify their attack against a Constitutional process.  There, Ali Alexander, the founder of the Stop the Steal movement, said that if Biden became president, he and his supporters would return to “occupy D.C. full of patriots,” adding, “We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.”

Following the 2022 mid-term election, Nick Fuentes, a self-described Christian conservative and American nationalist, concluded that he and his followers are in the minority.  His remedy: a “dictatorship” “to take control of the media or take control of the government and force the people to believe what we believe.”

To be fair and without appealing to a both-sides type of whataboutism, violence on the other side also contributes to this poisonous atmosphere of hate and distrust.  Following the leaking of the draft Supreme Court Dobbs opinion, violence against anti-abortion pregnancy resource centers and pro-life groups became widespread, even occurring in areas close to home in Seattle. Pregnancy centers in Kirkland, Lynwood, and Everett Washington associated with Care Net of Puget Sound were vandalized in July of this year.  So were churches in Bellevue and Olympia Washington.

Stochastic Terrorism

Ever heard of the term “stochastic terrorism?’  Todd Morely from the Small Wars Journal calls it “a quantifiable relationship between seemingly random acts of terrorism and the perpetuation of hateful rhetoric in public discourse, accompanied by catastrophizing and fear generation in media sources.” 

David French uses the analogy of a funnel to explain the link from widespread hateful or apocalyptic speech to violent action. “At each new step from rhetoric to action, engagement narrows and intensifies. Lots of people might “just” talk. Fewer people actually act. But the more people who talk, the more people who act. We can easily recognize this reality in extremist movements. They rarely spring from healthy communities.” 

According to an October 2022 NBC News poll, roughly 80% of both Democrats and Republicans see the other side as enemies, posing a threat, if not stopped, of destroying American as we know it. Kalmoe and Mason’s February 2020 polling found that 11 percent of Democrats and 12 percent of Republicans agreed that it was at least “a little” justified to kill opposing political leaders to advance their own political goals.  Then in February 2021, the same polling team found a fifth of Republicans and 13 percent of Democrats—or more than 65 million people—believed immediate violence was justified.

We Can Make A Difference

As I’ve written before, I grew up learning scripture.  Mom would post verses on the refrigerator door and then hold us captive each mealtime for memorization drills.  Sometimes we memorized whole chapters and other times selected verses.  I can still remember many of my ABCs, a set of verses where the first word of each verse started with one of the letters of the alphabet. 

Her favorite verses and ones she’d routinely test us on dealt with behavior.  At the top of the list were verses such as Ephesians 4:32 “and be ye kind one to another…” and Philippians 4:8 “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure…”

Another fav was Psalms 19:4 “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.”  She encouraged us to recite this verse daily, a practice I still often do today.  Because Lord knows I need to.  I make mistakes each day, saying words and thinking thoughts that “miss the mark.”

This holiday season, lets focus on “keeping Christ in “Christian” rather than the culture keeping Christ in “Christmas.”  May the “words of our mouth and the meditations of our heart” reflect the Christ in us as we “put off” the works of the flesh such as outrage and division and be people outwardly known by the fruits of the spirit. 

Let it be through us that future surveys will show a drop in the rhetoric about enemies and a rise in kindness and generosity. That we, the church, might be known as peacemakers in these highly polarized times, faithful to “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on We Can Make a Difference

The Rise of the Nones

Have you ever heard of the nones?  They are one of the latest hot topics in the area of faith and culture.  Nones, or people who check “none” or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religious affiliation, once comprised about 5% of the population prior to 1990.  They now approach the 30% level, rivaling the total population of white evangelicals in America. And the closer you look, the more profound the impact, with the greatest declines occurring among the youngest generations where as little as 8% of white Millennials identify as evangelicals. 

This is a big deal, a true sea change, spawning a lot of thoughtful thinking because, in the words of the PEW authors, “we do not typically see change of anything on that scale in a relatively short period of time.” The significance of this trend, the abruptness of the change, and the need to understand the underlying why makes this one of the most relevant, important, and needed conversations within the church today.

Yet there’s more.  In a different but related survey, the Gallup team recently sent another set of shock waves throughout both church and society.  They found that the percentage of Americans affiliated with a church is now below 50%.  And like the previous data, it’s the speed of change that’s most remarkable, changing from 68% to the current 47% in just 20 years. 

Losing our Religion

Russell Moore recently jumped into this conversation with an article entitled “Losing our Religion.”  He is a familiar voice in faith-culture discussions as the former president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public-policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, and his current position as the editor in chief of Christianity Today.

Russell begins by noting several potential causes for these trends such as liberalizing sexual and cultural norms, decreased fertility and more societal mobility. Yet the impact of sexual sins cuts both ways with nearly every survey of disaffiliating people emphasizing the scandals within the church—most notably the sexual abuse cover-ups and predatory behavior. But the preponderance of data, according to Moore, shows that the politicization of American religion is a main factor behind people dropping their religious affiliation.  

Former Southern Baptist President J.D. Greear, concurs, seeing the problem as cultural, not doctrinal, from a church that’s been hijacked by politics in recent years.  So do others like Jonathan Merritt, himself a millennial and the son of a former Southern Baptist Convention president: “in the minds of many millennials, the evangelical church seems to be known more for what she’s against than for what she’s supposed to be for: bringing light, hope, and great good news to a hurting world.  More American than Jesus, circling the wagons to maintain the status quo than in engaging the challenges and opportunities of our changing world and leading Christians into the future.  As a result, in the public square, the American church has lost her prophetic voice—and now she is losing her future. Millennials are streaming out the door.”

Moore observes that some of the nones even come from those leaving come from the ranks of the committed, those from the inner circle and most committed to traditional church teachings.  Such people are “walking away from evangelicalism…not that people think the church’s way of life is too demanding, too morally rigorous, but that they have come to think the church doesn’t believe its own moral teachings.” He concludes by saying ” we are losing a generation – not because they are secularists, but because they believe we are.” 

Research Support for Moore’s Hypothesis

Michele Margolis in her book “From Politics to the Pews” supports Moore’s contentions by showing how politics rather than religion is now a first cause for people’s beliefs.  Ryan Burge, a pastor/sociologist who has written extensively about the “nones”, agrees noting that “half of Republican Muslims who attend services once a week or more identify as Evangelical.” When everything lies downstream of politics, says sociologist Paul Djupe, “people are going to start to evaluate issues based on those political criteria and not religious criteria” especially when churches take political stands. Church attenders on the margins become the most likely to leave.  

Although technically a “both sides” issue, much of the harm from today’s politically infused faith comes from the right-leaning side of the church. Rising none rates are more common in red than blue states and the more the Christian Right engages in culture war conflicts, the steeper the rate climbs. In the book “Secular Surge,” John Green and colleagues document how many of the “nones” came to reject the faith as a backlash to the religious right. They then backed up this finding through a series of controlled longitudinal experiments measuring people’s religiosity before and after exposure to differing mixtures of religion and politics. 

Is It Worth the Cost?

“And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?”  Jesus asked this haunting question just after calling people “to deny yourselves, take up my cross and follow me.” It’s a call to purity and singleness of purpose, a repeated theme throughout scripture.  To wit: the admonition “Thou shalt have no other God’s before me” leads the ten commandments.  God’s covenant with Israel, when entering the promised land, required avoiding other nations and purging their idols.  The apostle James saw singlemindedness as a measure of our heart’s condition.

But are “gain the whole world” and “lose your own soul” a necessary binary and must these two domains be independent?  What if we could find a middle way, connecting the two for good, accruing gains in the eternal domain through gains in the worldly domain?  Where, for example, the power of the state could be used to advance the eternal domain through policies promoting verities important to the Christian faith?

Who is Discipling Who?

But here’s the problem. We are an impressionable people influenced by the company we keep.  Our yearning for community, for connecting with others, is part of our nature and hardwired within us. It causes our brain to engage in self-reflectance – to take the measure of beliefs, values and attributes of others.   

Our self-reflectance system, through its assessment of the beliefs and values of others, opens the door to an exchange of beliefs.  We think that exchange goes both ways.  But the force of community puts the thumb on the scale through a subversive process mostly unknown to us.  Like the Trojan Horse in Greek Mythology, the weight of community slips through our subconscious and then takes over our identity to align our values with theirs.  This new orientation, achieved through belief harmonization, fulfills our yearning to be liked, loved, and included. 

But with that fulfillment we become new people, discipled into a new way of life.  As our identity is remade, our nature becomes changed through a syncretistic mixture of conflicting kingdoms. We are what we love, and our loves tell a new story of a devotion no longer solely focused on Jesus. 

This syncretistic mixture then blemishes our faith and changes our witness, with outcomes often inconsistent with the gospel. Here’s J.D. Greear, the former Southern Baptist Convention President: “Whenever the church gets in bed with politics, the church gets pregnant. And our offspring does not look like our Father in Heaven.” Pastor Tony Campolo puts it a bit more graphically “Mixing politics and religion is like mixing ice cream and manure; it really doesn’t affect the manure much, but it really messes up the ice cream.”

Messy Ice Cream: Situational Ethics

Seventy percent of white evangelicals in 2011 believed that a public official who “commits an immoral act in their personal life” would be unable to “behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.” Follow up surveys saw this shift dramatically drop upon the emergence of Trump as the leader of the Republican Party, dropping to 28% in 2016 and then 16.5% in 2018.

When primed to think about Trump, only 6 percent of the survey participants said that an elected official who acts immorally in private is incapable of being ethical in public life. But then when primed to think about Bill Clinton, that percentage rose to 27 percent — a 21-point increase.

Question: Will the triumph of a political-induced moral relativism over scripture’s call to be “be holy in all your conduct” slow or hasten the exit of those from an emerging generation because they “think the church doesn’t believe [or follow] its own moral teachings.”

Irreconcilable Polarization

Such situational ethics makes more sense if you sincerely believe that life as you know it will soon end due to the actions of the “other side.” Now that’s the prevailing view of most Americans according to an October 2022 NBC News poll.  To wit: 80% of both Democrats and Republicans see the other side as enemies, posing a threat, if not stopped, of destroying America as we know it. Such affective polarization – the emotional dislike and distrust of people on the other side – creates a binary world of we the good, they the enemy.  It cancels Christ’s call to unity and spurns His two great commandments.  It’s flat-out sin and one of the clearest examples of the Galatians-defined works of the flesh. 

We see examples of this polarization every day in our lives.  In our Facebook feeds, in our discourse with friends and family, and even from our faith leaders such as the thinly disguised declaration by Al Mohler at a highly partisan conference that it’s “absolutely necessary” for all Christians to vote in the 2022 midterms and that any Christian who votes “wrongly” is being “unfaithful” to God.

Yet all of this could instantly go away if Christians on all sides chose to “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.” Exchanging their weaponized “biblical worldview” for a life solely lived under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  Faithful to “a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.  Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” Such unity, undergirded through the fruits of the spirit, is what some call the church’s greatest calling.

Question: Will this apocalyptic mindset of casting one’s opponents as “enemies” – which is really a triumph of the “spirit of the age” over the “spirit of Christ” – slow or hasten the exit of those from an emerging generation “not because they are secularists, but because they believe we [the church] are?” 

Culture Over Faith

Every two years two conservative evangelical organizations, Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay Research, conduct a survey “to take the theological temperature of the United States to help Christians better understand today’s culture and to equip the church with better insights for discipleship.” They just released the 2022 survey and the results are simply astonishing.  According to their data, 65% of American evangelicals deny original sin and 43% deny Jesus’ divinity. Yet over 90% of evangelicals are against extramarital sex and abortion.

The first and obvious question is are these really committed Christians, or are we seeing evangelicals-in-name-only? We know that the label of evangelical is more and more becoming a cultural rather than a theological statement. With a significant percentage of practicing Muslims self-identifying as evangelicals as well as an increasing number of non-church going people, a simple evangelical identification is no longer instructive.

But no, the survey only included deeply committed evangelicals, people strongly agreeing with the following four statements: (1) The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe; (2) It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior; (3) Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin; and (4) Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

Recall that Jesus said “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”  Now Jesus is talking about money, but “treasure” can also mean something precious.  We often hear “follow the money” when getting at the core of an issue. But perhaps we should also “follow the heart” because out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Question: When a church is “known more for what she’s against than for what she’s supposed to be for,” with a heart more interested in cultural “sins” than the resurrected Christ “in whom we move and have our being,” will it slow or hasten the exit of those from an emerging generation?

Avoiding the Elephant

The Servant Christian Foundation, concerned that people, especially young Americans, were growing hostile toward faith and leaving Christianity, recently engaged a marketing firm to find a solution to this “nones” problem. After extensive market research, they found, to no one’s surprise, that although many Americans like Jesus, they don’t think much of His followers. Their solution: a 100 million dollar national media blitz for Jesus with one of the goals “to redeem Jesus’ brand from the damage done by his followers, especially those who say one thing and then do another.”  

I’m sure at least some or even much good will come out of this campaign.  Jesus said that if “I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me” and, in Renn’s language, America is still a positive world when it comes to Him.  But what then happens to those responding to the call?  They need a place to learn and grow but wasn’t it the deficiency in those places that sparked the ad campaign in the first place? 

Yet many of the respondents will meet faithful Christ-followers who have refused to go astray.  By avoiding the thorns of a cultural war-oriented faith, they’ve retained the good soil of pure Christianity.  But the market research show an additional but painful story, one these exiting “nones” know too well. And until we address these deficiencies which are extensive within the church, aren’t we just “doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result?”

I’ve previously presented some of this data but it’s worthwhile to present some more. For like a fog bank diminishing our ability to see, the data keeps telling a story of cultural sensibilities diminishing the salt and light mission of the church.  And like a bad penny that always turns up, we often find Christian Nationalism front and center in this data.

Let’s revisit, for example, one of the previous graphs in this post, showing the percent of Americans who say it’s more important to overcome opponents that to solve common problems.  When we take the same data and sort it according to a Christian Nationalist score, we see a strong association between this polarization measure and Christian Nationalism.

Then when you peek under the tent of this Christian Nationalism associated polarization you find the darkness of a social dominance orientation which privileges people like themselves while seeing racially others as a detriment to our nation.

Final Question: If the church and those gifted for ministry within the church keep avoiding the elephant in the room, avoiding the foundational sin of a politicized gospel, will that slow or hasten the exit of those from an emerging generation? 

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments