Ten Reasons Why This Long-Time Republican is Voting Democrat This Year

A friend of mine recently wrote and said, “I am saddened you are voting Democrat.” Here’s my response in 10 bulletized statements. Much more could be said and has been said, so I want to keep this brief. 

  • I am not saddened to reject a person who paid hush money to cover up an affair with a porn star that occurred shortly after his son was born.
  • As a father, husband and man, I am not saddened to reject a serial adulterer and convicted sexual predator known for sensibilities like “I moved on her like a b–ch,” and you can “grab them by the pu–y.”
  • I am not saddened to reject an unsound person whose former Chief of Staff, two Defense Secretaries, National Security Advisor, and Vice President have said is unfit to be president again, dangerous, and ‘fascist to the core.’
  • I am not saddened to reject a subversive person who has openly expressed a desire to terminate parts of the Constitution and has shown his willingness to act on it. He attempted to overturn a legitimate election by pressuring state officials to ‘find votes,’ orchestrating fake slates of electors to falsely certify his victory, instructing the vice president to block the certification of electoral votes, and ultimately inciting a mob to storm the Capitol.
  • I am not saddened to reject a nascent authoritarian who suggested unleashing the military against “people within” because we “have some very bad people. We have some sick people. Radical left lunatic.” He then identified Pelosi and Schiff as “enemies within.”
  • In sum, I am a Christ follower, privileged to be “Christ’s Ambassador (2 Cor 5:20),” hence I am not saddened to reject a Galatians 5:19-21 demagogue whose vileness, lawlessness, malevolence and provoking of grievances and rage is antithetical to that calling.   
  • And for those utilitarian friends less concerned about character and uprightness, I am not saddened to reject a candidate whose proposed economic policies, headlined by an asinine proposed tariff plan, would likely lead, according to a WSJ survey of leading economists, to worse inflation, deficits, and interest rates than his opponent. To wit: Trump’s policies would add an estimated 7.75 trillion to the U.S. deficit compared to an estimated 3.95 trillion by Harris’s policies, neither of which our nation can afford, as we are still reeling from the unprecedented 8.4 trillion deficit from Trump’s first term.
  • Nor am I saddened to reject a candidate whose previous foreign policy merited an “F” through an ideological commitment to unilateralism and whose current vice-presidential candidate seeks Ukrainian surrender to Russia’s demands, including Russia’s retention of all conquered territory.
  • Nor am I saddened to reject a candidate who torpedoed the recent bipartisan border bill, which would have given the president new legal authority to close the border and reform a broken asylum system, because he didn’t want to give the Democrats a “win.”
  • Finally, I could still vote for a third party like I did in 2016.  But this year, I’m voting for Harris in part because the sensibilities of Trump and his disciples that have hijacked the Republican party need to end. Our country needs a sane and virtuous conservative party.  But before that can happen, the Maga spell born of outrage, anger, misinformation, and fear must be broken. And because none of the other arguments, whether about character or policy, seem to matter, a resounding defeat at the ballot box seems to be the only message they will receive.

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Prophesy

Thus says the Spirit of the Lord:

A woman named Harris shall arise in the land, clothed in power and might, sitting in a place of high authority. Her ascent shall be great, but her heart shall turn from truth on the day of her reckoning. When her hour of departure approaches, she will not yield her throne willingly but will strive against the voice of justice and the will of the people.

Behold, she will summon her counselors, those who whisper in secret, and together they will conspire to overturn the will of the land. They shall speak of fraud and deception, but their words will be without foundation. She will demand from the governors of the states, “Find what is missing! Change the numbers in my favor!” Yet, her demands will be rooted in lies, and many will see through her deceit.

She will raise up false electors, sending them with forged reports to declare victory where there was none. And she will call upon her closest ally, her faithful deputy, saying, “You have the power to stop this!” But the deputy, bound by righteousness, will refuse, knowing that to act would be to betray the law.

And lo, her followers, stirred by her words, will rise in anger. “Fight with all your might!” she will command. They shall march upon the nation’s seat of power, seeking to disrupt justice. Yet, the woman shall watch from her high place, unmoved by the cries of the innocent.

In the end, her schemes will fail. The truth will prevail. Her false electors will be exposed, her lies brought to light, and her attempts to seize what was not hers will come to nothing. She will be remembered not as one who led with justice but as one who sought to undermine it.

Does this sound unbelievable? Surely, it seems impossible that such a brazen plot to overturn the will of the people could happen in this land. Yet we’ve seen this before in history. Discarding the people’s vote for false electors speaks of a fascist regime. Pressuring governors to “fix” elections is the stuff of Lenin’s Russia, not our democracy. And inciting a mob to halt the peaceful exchange of power is the hallmark of dictators, not those who cherish liberty.

Some would call such actions treason. Some would call them a trial run for a future event—more organized, more resolute. Others might even call them demonically inspired. Perhaps they would all be right.

Then the word of the Lord came again:

On that day, when the woman rises in rebellion against truth, there will be those who bear the name of Christ but who shall turn their hearts to the lie. Though the deeds of darkness are revealed and the evidence made clear, her followers will close their eyes and stop their ears. “It cannot be so,” they shall say, “for she is chosen by God.”

Even as deceit surrounds her, they will excuse the falsehoods, pledging unwavering loyalty. “We stand with her, no matter the cost,” they will declare. Though righteousness calls them to account, they will not heed. They will prefer the lie to the truth and cloak themselves in it, saying, “This is God’s will.”

Their hearts will be hardened. They will reject correction and embrace darkness, believing they are doing the Lord’s work.

Does this sound even more unbelievable? Could those called by God to be His “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” support such a scheme and then, when confronted, double down? Surely not. This couldn’t happen.

Fortunately, this prophecy is a work of fiction. There is no “thus saith the Lord” about it. Yet if you change the name from Kamala to Trump and rewind the clock to 2019, you would have a prophecy that came 100% true. Donald Trump did every one of these subversive actions, and millions of his evangelical supporters said, “Amen.”

Here are the facts about Trump’s actions leading up to the January 6, 2020, attack on the U.S. Capitol, documented through sworn testimony in Federal Court:

  • False Election Fraud Claims: Trump cited baseless numbers, claiming tens of thousands of illegal votes, especially in Arizona, despite his own advisers, like AG Barr, telling him these claims were “bull****.”
  • Pressuring State Officials: Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger, urging him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn Biden’s win. He also pressured Arizona Governor Ducey, offering evidence of fraud that never materialized.
  • Creation of Fake Electors: Trump’s team organized fake electors in battleground states like Georgia, Michigan, and Arizona, who falsely certified his victory in those states.
  • Pressuring Mike Pence: Trump urged Pence to block the certification of electoral votes, despite being told by legal scholars and Pence himself that this was unconstitutional. Then when the mob erected gallows and breached the Capitol with chants like “Hang Mike Pence,” Trump reportedly responded, “So what?”
  • Involvement in January 6 Riots: Trump incited the crowd on January 6, urging them to “fight like hell” and falsely claiming that Pence could overturn the election. During the Capitol attack, Trump waited for over three hours before calling for peace, watching the violence unfold while others urged him to act.

How did many Christians respond when confronted with these facts?

  • Deny the facts: “Donald Trump may have been accused, but the charges are incorrect.”
  • Believe the lie: “There is compelling evidence of election fraud.”
  • Party first: “I will vote for the Republican candidate, no matter what.”
  • Platform first: “I vote based on a party’s platform, not personalities.”
  • Utilitarian ethics: “Trump was the lesser evil.” or “We were better off when Trump was president.”
  • Deflect by Demonizing: “The Democrats support abortion, homosexuality, and gender changes without parental involvement.”

But let’s imagine that the prophecy about Kamala Harris came true. Picture her leading a conspiracy to overturn a legitimate election—pressuring officials to “find votes” and inciting a mob to storm the Capitol. Visualize her Christian supporters waving flags of rebellion while she sits back, watching the chaos unfold. Then, millions of Christians stand by her attempt at insurrection, despite her actions mirroring the very behavior they claim to abhor in others.

What would those who turned a blind eye to Trump’s subversive insurrection then say?

  • Would they sympathize with Harris supporters who defend an alternate reality by promoting the lie of election fraud and the innocence of their leader in promoting an insurrection?
  • Would they condone a worldview where tribal allegiance dictates decisions, and where character, Christlikeness, and biblical obedience are set aside?
  • Would they endorse utilitarian ethics where the ends justify the means, and where those “ends” are justified through motivated reasoning devoid of absolute moral boundaries?
  • Would they agree with those who justify such actions by demonizing Republicans for their moral decay, corruption, and injustice?

Wouldn’t the very people who ignored Trump’s subversive insurrection become the loudest voices calling for accountability if Harris did the same? Wouldn’t their backlash be fierce, demanding her immediate removal from office, prosecution, and public disgrace? Wouldn’t they brand her a traitor, unfit to lead, and label anyone defending her as complicit in betrayal?

If your response to Trump’s insurrection differs from how you’d react to Harris doing the same thing, then you must ask yourself: is your loyalty primarily to the party and the person? Are my values dependent upon my politics through a situational ethic devoid of moral boundaries?  

Our calling as Christ-followers must flip the script of today’s politics-first worldview, a view that is even normative within much of the Christian community. Such strong partisanship has no place in the kingdom of heaven. As Christ’s ambassadors, we are, in the words of Tom Wright, to “colonize earth with the life of heaven” through followers who bear His name and likeness in our judgments, attitudes, and actions.

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Things I Would Say to My Grandchildren: The Tyranny of Good Intentions

One of our favorite shows used to be an action-packed TV series called 24. It followed counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer, who worked against the clock to thwart terrorist plots threatening the United States. Each season covered 24 hours in real-time, highlighting Jack’s intense efforts to thwart presidential assassination attempts, bombs, bioterrorism, cyber warfare, and conspiracies involving government and corporate corruption.

One of the show’s key themes was how Jack frequently crossed ethical lines in his urgency to save the U.S. from terrorist threats. He routinely used torture to extract information. He often killed without legal authority, taking the law into his own hands when he believed it was necessary. He assassinated terrorists and even former allies if he thought they posed a threat to national security. Throughout the series, Jack repeatedly ignored moral and legal boundaries, including disobeying his superiors’ direct orders to pursue his own course of action.  And we cheered him on.

Jack’s actions often sparked debates about morality, ethics, and the balance between security and human rights, which are central themes throughout the show. The moral justification for his extreme actions was rooted in the belief that the ends justified the means, particularly when faced with the imminent threat of mass casualties or national destruction. He was a utilitarian, where the moral worth of an action was solely determined by its outcome—in Bauer’s case, the greater good of saving lives, even if it required morally dubious acts like torture or killing.

The notion that the end justifies the means dates back thousands of years. It’s a form of consequentialism, one of the three main types of ethical thinking, and perhaps the most widely practiced form of decision-making. It was prevalent in ancient Rome, where the poet Ovid opined, “The result justifies the deed.” Niccolò Machiavelli, in the Middle Ages, taught that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of getting it is acceptable. More recently, Adolf Hitler said “In war, the victor is never asked if he told the truth.”

Last week, Christian influencer Josh Daws tweeted, “It’s okay to use deception in service of defeating the left. It’s not sinning in order to do good. It’s being righteously shrewd in order to do good. It’s also okay to enjoy it. Lighten up.” Josh is part of Founders Ministries, a Reformed Baptist group within the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States. Josh aims to help “Christians navigate the complex and rapidly changing cultural landscape through his biblically-based cultural analysis.”

Daw’s deception aimed to neutralize the recent salacious reporting about North Carolina’s Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson by deceptively asserting that it was fake. Robinson, who identifies as an evangelical Christian, has faced significant controversy for his past statements, including calling himself a “black Nazi” and making inflammatory social media posts involving Holocaust references. Recent reporting has uncovered inflammatory, racially charged, and lewd comments he has allegedly made while watching transgender pornography on the site “Nude Africa.”  Reviews of his archived messages found that he referred to himself as a “perv.”

“He’s one of the finest Christian men I know,” said Ricky Temple, precinct chair in the Harnett County GOP, when speaking about Robinson.  Bishop Wooden of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, N.C., remains willing to give Robinson his conditional support because he’s “trying to save babies, save children, save lives.”

David Lane, leader of The American Renewal Project, maintains that Robinson was a “brilliant” choice to lead the group’s push to get more evangelicals running for office. On their website, you’ll find a vision statement that includes the text: “If America is to be saved, Biblical values must be returned and embraced in the public square.” Despite their continuing support for Robinson, you will also find Proverbs 14:34 displayed front and center: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

Jesus said, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.”  The ethics of Christ’s kingdom are rooted in virtue and rule-based principles. They emphasize cultivating Christlike character through inner transformation and obedience to God’s command to love both God and neighbor.

These principles are not situational or dependent on outcomes. They reject the notion that the end justifies the means. Instead, they flip the script by having the means drive the ends. Following Christ is the goal, and our faithfulness to that calling defines success. Although some elements of consequentialism appear in His teachings, particularly in relation to the eternal consequences of one’s actions, at the heart of Jesus’ ethics is agape love—selfless and sacrificial—guiding how believers should live and treat others.

The Road to Misplaced Destinations

We’ve lost the plot when we reject Christ’s kingdom principles for a utilitarian worldview based on situational ethics. A prominent theologian, Miroslav Volf puts it well: “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 culture war acts like a railway switch, moving our journey along a different track and away from God’s intended destination. Its focus on winning, fighting for what’s right, and taking back the country for God is neither a biblical objective nor an outcome of Christ’s call to “Follow Me.” And when outrage, disgust, and division are used to promote “Godly” positions, scripture calls this “works of the flesh,” where those “who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Here’s the problem: the overlap between the culture war’s sensibilities and Christ’s Sermon on the Mount—or the fruit of the Spirit—is minimal, if not nonexistent. The culture war’s misguided objectives miss the mark, a term the Bible uses for sin. Its fight-driven mentality reshapes our hearts, and our affections become entangled in the battle. We ignore these shifts and downplay their impact, believing we’re pursuing a righteous cause. But as this “righteous” desire intensifies, the changes become entrenched, giving rise to an ends-justify-the-means mindset.

It’s an upside-down world where sin begets righteousness, and evil is praised for its utility. This worldview implies a God of limited power, who runs out of better choices and is forced to rely on morally corrupt vessels. With the nation’s soul at stake, any available tool—especially political power—becomes justified in the effort to preserve a once-godly nation. And in this upside-down world, the weapons of our warfare are best carnal and mighty through politicians thirsting for a fight.

The Road of Good Intentions

Good intentions can also flip that railway switch, moving our journey away from God’s intended destination. Consider King Saul from the Hebrew scriptures. Saul genuinely sought to do good, and many of his actions stemmed from seemingly noble motives. When he offered a sacrifice in place of the prophet Samuel, he thought he was securing God’s favor. When he spared King Agag’s livestock after defeating the Amalekites, his aim was to reserve the animals for sacrifices to God.

Yet Saul’s actions directly violated God’s commands, exemplified in the often-quoted verse, “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” God placed obedience as a fundamental priority, surpassing any personal judgment of “good.  Saul’s failure to follow God’s process serves as an example of how even well-intended actions fall short of God’s will when detached from divine obedience.

How often have you wanted to do “good” but blown it instead?  Maybe you misunderstand the other person’s needs or wants.  Or maybe the message was right, but how you conveyed it was wrong.  Or maybe your sense of the “good” was off the mark. This happens to us every day. Our good intentions do not automatically yield good results. Despite our best efforts, we’re fallible people. It’s an unavoidable aspect of the human condition. 

Then, how often have we sacrificed Christlikeness for the good of success?  Allowing compromises to creep in, even if small, to “win.”  Willing to ignore boundaries, like Saul, in pursuit of doing something “good?” Burning with righteous desire, only to find that our sense of good has switched us to a different track.  This is the everyday stuff of social media, and I’m reminded of G.K. Chesterton’s answer to the London Times question: “What’s Wrong with the World?” “Dear Sirs, I am.  Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton.”

A More Personal Road

In thinking about the future, I recently began reflecting on what I would want to say to my grandchildren. Much like life itself, the journey of faith is complex, and good intentions alone cannot safeguard against missteps. The culture around us exerts a shaping influence, often leading us to justify the means by focusing on the ends. I would urge my future generations to understand that the journey—the how—is more important than the what. Success is not defined by winning the battle or preserving a nation but by faithfulness to Christ’s call.

I’d want them to embrace core values, centering their lives on love for God and neighbor while remaining vigilant against the subtle ways culture can distort our loves. As much as I hope they are people of virtue and service, I’d also want them to be wise, knowing that even the desire to do good can lead us off track if we compromise our ethics.

Our best defense against these temptations is to hold fast to Christ’s principles. The way we follow Him matters more than the results we achieve. This is how we resist the world’s lure and stay true to God’s mission, knowing that faithfulness—not success—is the true measure of a life well lived.*

A Road of Encouragement

People occasionally ask me, “What is the purpose of this blog? ” Very simply, I believe that much of the evangelical church – my tradition – has jumped the track and is headed in the wrong direction. I believe that many, or perhaps most, want to do good and advocate for a society where people flourish.  But the culture war has flipped the switch, and despite their good intentions, the destination no longer looks like Jesus.

My message is simple. When Jesus tells us to follow Him, it means He gets to set the how, what, and why of our lives. “We are not our own,” and the priorities, destination, and means we use to get there are up to Him. 

This means that the things that profoundly mattered to Christ must matter most to us with the Sermon on the Mount front and center. We bear His name, and our goal must be to bear His likeness in our lives and the world around us. 

Our primary goal can’t be to make America great again. That’s a message far removed from the teachings of Christ. Our strategy can’t be to employ utilitarian tactics, like tolerating morally debased men for a questionable good. Our passion can’t be with a culture war that hijacks our loves and marginalizes things that matter to Christ. Our tactics can’t allow compromised choices based on a subjective desire to do good. Otherwise, we will reap what we sow, and the Christ of the gospel will become a moral stranger to us.

Our goal must be to bear His likeness through our salt and light mission.  Our goal must be to join God’s kingdom project in permeating our world with the life of heaven.  Our goal must be to become Christ’s Ambassadors, recognizing that God is making His appeal to the world through our words, deeds, and actions. And our goal must be, as the song of my youth went, “to be like Jesus” in our words, attitudes, actions, and even in our political decisions.

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Things I Would Say to My Grandchildren: The Tyranny of Good Intentions

The Monsters are Due on Maple Street

One afternoon on Maple Street, in a fictitious neighborhood near you, a peculiar event, marked by a shadowy figure, a roar, and a flash of light, disrupted the peaceful neighborhood. Although initially dismissed as a passing meteor, the sudden power outage prompted residents to discuss the situation, with suspicions arising regarding the cause. As tensions escalated, fueled by rumors of alien invasion and accusations of suspicious behavior among neighbors, fear and paranoia gripped the community, leading to tragic consequences.

Amidst growing unease, Charlie’s impulsive action of shooting a figure approaching them in the dark resulted in the death of Pete van Horn, further fueling suspicion and chaos. As accusations flew and trust deteriorated, the neighborhood descended into anarchy, with residents turning on each other in a frenzy of violence and hysteria. Unbeknownst to them, the true orchestrators of the chaos, alien observers, had only done one thing. They had only manipulated the neighborhood’s power, relying on the subsequent reaction of innate human fear and discord to fuel their plan for conquest.

As chaos reigned on Maple Street, the aliens witnessed the fruits of their strategy to conquer Earth by exploiting human weaknesses and divisions. Satisfied with the havoc they’d wrought, they ascended into their spaceship, leaving behind a neighborhood torn apart by suspicion, violence, and the realization of how easily humanity could be manipulated with fear. Through the lens of this microcosm, The Twilight Zone’s “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street” is a cautionary tale about the dangers of our innate biases, tribal mentality, and mob mentality when exposed to fear.

“Fear’s a dangerous thing, it can turn your heart black, you can trust. It’ll take your God-filled soul and fill it with devils and dust.” – Bruce Springsteen.

In this past month, Springfield, Ohio, has “received at least 33 bomb threats,” according to Ohio Governor DeWine. The threats began following false claims about the town’s Haitian immigrants stealing pets and causing crime. Threats of bombings and violence then surged following Trump’s debate remark about Haitians “eating the dogs.” Springfield schools were temporarily evacuated, and local Haitians expressed fear for their lives. The Republican mayor, who has repeatedly debunked the false claims, has received death threats.  

The woman whose social media post helped ignite false claims of pets being eaten in Springfield, Ohio, has retracted her story, admitting that the post was based on a rumor. Yet the beat of the lies goes on with JD Vance picking up the fear-stoking baton by saying, “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Vance then asserts, “I didn’t create 20,000 illegal migrants coming into Springfield, thanks to Kamala Harris’ policies,” knowing full well that the Haitians are there legally due to Biden’s policies. He further claims that murders went up in Springfield because of “Harris’s open-border policies,” when, in fact, there were more murders under Trump than Biden, and none of the Springfield murders in 2023 involved Haitians.

Notwithstanding the debunking of lies from a lack of evidence and repeated statements by Springfield officials, a September YouGov survey showed 52% of likely Trump voters thought the rumor was true or probably true versus 4% of likely Harris voters.

Russell Moore, the editor of Christianity Today, minced no words by saying: “The cruelty to and lying about Haitian immigrant families is satanic to the core. Children are terrified, and God is mocked. The time for repentance is now.”

The writers of The Twilight Zone saw fear as a powerful amplifier, able to magnify our weaknesses, biases, and tribalistic tendencies with remarkable efficiency. They understood how our cognitive and emotional faculties are hijacked when confronted by the fear of the unknown, loss, or of those different than us. In this state of heightened vulnerability, our judgment becomes clouded as we develop an “us versus them” mentality antithetical to scripture.

So when politicians intentionally amplify those fears, manipulating our inherent human weaknesses with fear, then Russell Moore’s judgment of “satanic” rings true as the Bible calls the devil a “liar and the father of lies.” And when such lies and evil become normative in society, we should take the advice of John Stott by not asking, “What is wrong with the world?’ for that diagnosis has already been given. Rather, we should ask, ‘What has happened to the salt and light?”

Here’s the deal and I like the way NT Wright frames it.  We are to be “signposts planted in hostile soil that show a different way to be human,” as “Jesus’s resurrection was the beginning of God’s new project…to colonize earth with the life of heaven” through followers who bear His name and likeness.

That means taking our call to be Christ’s ambassadors seriously. It means being a countercultural force in society, willing to be dissident from the ruling powers and alert to their subversive influence on our beliefs, priorities, and practices. It means, like Moore and other Christian leaders in Springfield and throughout the nation, taking a stand against the lies and violence levied toward people made in the image of God. 

Isn’t it time we say “enough” to those who would peddle fear?  Isn’t it time to stop listening to those who would manipulate the weaknesses of our innate nature toward their ends? Being intentional about fleeing informational echo chambers that continually feed us a diet of fear and outrage? Isn’t it time we become people of the Word and people of faith who show the world a different way to be human?

Variations of the phrase “do not be afraid” appear over 300 times in various forms throughout the Bible. The book of Proverbs says, “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.” The apostle John wrote, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” The Bible is clear: fear and anxiety and those who peddle it have no place in the kingdom of God for those who dwell in the “secret place of the most High.”

Listen to the plea of Jeremy Hudson, senior pastor of Fellowship Church in Springfield, Ohio,

“To my fellow Christians, I issue this challenge: Let’s follow Jesus’ example. Respond with care and compassion, as he did for the multitudes, and let no opinion leave our lips that lacks the concern he showed, even for those who disagreed with him…If it wouldn’t come from the mouth of Jesus, it shouldn’t come from ours, either.”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Monsters are Due on Maple Street

Am I Stubbornly Prejudiced or a Deluded Cultist?

An old friend of mine recently said I was “either stubbornly prejudiced or a deluded member of a cult.” My sin?   For saying that the “spirit of Trump wars against the Spirit of Christ, and I would have to deny the latter to support the former.”

The rationale for this decision has been given in my blog and by other evangelical leaders. As a Christ-follower, I just can’t cast a ballot for someone who had cheated on his wives and taxes, paid hush money to a porn star, tried to overthrow an election, convened a mob to march on the Capitol, promoted violence, extolled greed, peddled conspiracy theories, blackmailed an American ally, defamed POW and fallen warriors, mocked people with handicaps and found liable of sexual assault.

The Venn diagram between my faith and this convicted felon, pathological liar, and debased adulterer is an empty set.  I can’t see how I have any other option, given Jesus’ command to “follow me.”

Tammy and I often ask ourselves, ” But what if we are wrong.” The Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynman once said, “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”  I hundred percent agree. If there’s anyone who deserves a skeptical eye, it’s our own selves. Between the 1-2-3 punch of cognitive biases, motivated thinking, and tribalist blinding and binding, truth struggles to break through.  And that goes for me too.   

So, is it possible that I’m on the wrong side of the decision despite those facts? Some friends would say yes, denying the existence of those facts.  Other friends have chosen to overlook Trump’s flaws in deference to Trump’s former anti-abortion stance. As single-issue voters, they saw character deficiencies as second order through a utilitarian ethic where the ends justified the means if the ends meant restricting abortion. 

Yet abortion rates rose under Trump after declining 30% under Obama. Abortion rates even rose following the Dobbs decision.  And just a few days ago, Trump said, “My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” a “pro-life betrayal” that many, such as Andrew Walker, associate professor of Christian ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called “morally wrong.” Given a lifetime of betrayal, whether it’s his wives, business associates, workers, or friends, it shouldn’t be surprising that Trump, out of his perceived self-interest, has betrayed these people, too.

Yet despite losing the anti-abortion trump card used by many to overlook Trump’s copious sins, his continued support among those called to be Christ’s Workmanship persists.  Many in my social media accounts haven’t skipped a beat.  Nor have many popular evangelical leaders such as Al Mohler, Franklin Graham, and Dutch Sheets.  Some even extol his character.  It’s a selling point to them.

As I’ve pondered this, it seems like there are various reasons why people continue to support Trump despite his persistent, ungodly attitudes and behavior. 

Some are Genuinely In the Dark About Trump’s Nature

Many just don’t know. Some are simply uninterested in current affairs and don’t pay attention. Others see the world through a naïve but selective lens, where incoming news is filtered unintentionally,  an outcome of past decisions, or a current living situation severely limiting the type of news in their lives. 

Others don’t want to know. Their ignorance of Trump stems from willful decisions to avoid specific topics or informational news sources.  Academics call this an epistemology of ignorance – a deliberate lack of understanding. The Japanese proverb about the three wise monkeys calls this “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” The goal is to avoid information or engagement in relationships that won’t invalidate how they interpret the world.

Most, I Think, Have Some Degree of Knowledge but Process It Differently

Consider all the factors that go into evaluating a political candidate.  One’s personal values, beliefs, and specific policy issues, such as the economy, healthcare, or foreign affairs, all matter. A candidate’s character, track record, leadership style, and ability to address key national challenges also matter. So do party loyalty, endorsements, and debates.  Sometimes, a candidate’s stance on single issues, such as abortion or climate change, is all that matters. Social influences like family and peer groups can also play significant roles in the choice.

This decision process may seem complex, but it’s nothing new. We routinely face other challenging decisions. We’re used to evaluating the pros and cons of situations and then assigning weights to the various factors involved. It’s just a matter of crunching the numbers, and we do it all the time. 

But many decisions come with a bonus. Here, we don’t call balls and strikes in isolation.  Our human nature kicks in, building layers of cognitive, tribal, and even neurological filters through which information comes in and judgments go out.  Together, these filters modify our understandings, yielding differing epistemologies of knowledge, differing ideological/philosophical worldviews that define our life narratives, and a differing perspective on events through built-in algorithms like motivated reasoning.

We define and then see

Years ago, for example, a group of naïve scientists believed that providing a standard set of scientific facts to people with diverse views on climate change would bring them closer together. However, the exact opposite occurred: views diverged even further, with the most knowledgeable individuals distancing themselves the most from opposing perspectives. This phenomenon echoes a debate from nearly a century ago between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey about how truth is constructed. Lippmann argued that divided beliefs shape different worldviews, famously stating, “For the most part, we do not first see, and then define; we define and then see,” suggesting that our preconceived notions filter how we interpret facts, rather than facts reshaping our views.

There are few shared foundations

The likelihood of agreeing on a standard set of facts has become increasingly low. In today’s negatively polarized world, opposing groups view each other’s sources of information as illegitimate. One person’s “evidence” is another person’s “fake news,” and there is no common standard for adjudicating truth. In the recent book “One Nation, Two Realities,” Marietta and Barker state, “We are heading toward a post-truth political environment in which the objective truth is essentially irrelevant because everyone has their own version of it.”

Our teams “blind and bind”

The current tendency to “nut pick,” to normalize the most extreme views of the opposing side, deepens tribal divisions by creating distorted and polarized perceptions of the other group. It shields us from the more moderate perspectives of others and traps us in echo chambers where only our own views are validated. We become blind and bound to our tribes, as it reinforces our biases and strengthens our loyalty to our in-group by demonizing the out-group.

You witness this “truth” dynamic played out daily, especially in our politics and cultural disagreements. Take the following graph on immigration produced by the organization “More in Common.” They’ve found we’re much more alike and closer together than we think. Yet, we amplify partisan disagreements by viewing those on the other side as more extreme than they really are. All the while believing that we walk in “truth,” while the other side lacks “critical thinking.”

Hence, diverse viewpoints about Trump should be expected. You would expect many facts to be denied. You would expect in-group loyalty to be extreme, given the full-throated demonization of the other side.  You would expect differential worldviews to yield scholarly articles on each side of Trump’s policies. And you would expect even those with a centrist viewpoint to arrive at differing positions.

For example, I developed my own scorecard on Trump’s policies based on a centrist ideology. Overall, it’s a tough score, especially with respect to foreign policy.  Yet I’m sure I’m likely wrong on some accounts. My starting point is usually The Economist, which I then augment with various center-right and center-left credible sources. But I’m sure I’ve missed essential facts and insightful analyses. And I’m sure some of my cognitive biases are still in play, confirming a centrist worldview far from that of Trump’s.

But there’s no “team” perspective to shape my thinking. There’s no “other side” I must oppose. I don’t believe the world’s coming to a premature end. There’s no secret cabal of Satan-worshiping, child-trafficking elites controlling global institutions and the Democratic party.  And although it’s not perfect, my calls of balls and strikes use a strike zone independent of tribal design. Yet I’m sure I’m likely wrong on some accounts.

So What Would Jesus Do?

But even a fair and evidenced-based strike zone isn’t the complete standard for Christ-followers. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Follow Me,” He willed the entire life of believers to imitate his life and teachings. We march to the beat of a different drummer, in accordance with the biblical understanding of “You are not your own.”

NT Wright has said, “Jesus’s resurrection was the beginning of God’s new project…to colonize earth with the life of heaven.” Tim Keller sees Christ-followers as those “radically committed to the good of the city as a whole.”  Hence, “while awaiting the return of the King, we become part of God’s work of reconciliation, which is a state of the fullest, flourishing in every dimension – physical, emotional, social, and spiritual.”

Yet, answering the question, “What would Jesus do?” isn’t as simple as it sounds. His teachings and values transcend political parties and cannot fully align with any policy platform. His words, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” means that the vast difference between divine wisdom and human agendas is structural. We are fallen people who “see through a glass darkly.” While some policies from either side may advance human flourishing in ways that resonate with God’s Kingdom mission, others will fall short.

But we can be pretty sure what Jesus wouldn’t do.  He wouldn’t characterize those made in His image as “It must take some sort of stupid to want another four years of what we had.” He wouldn’t falsely mock the opposing party by sharing a video of a little girl banging her head on a slide, followed by Kamala Harris’s picture captioned, “This explains so much.” I see such statements and other demeaning memes commonly posted by professing Christians, notwithstanding Christ’s words: “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [a statement of contempt], shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.”

And I can’t imagine Jesus supporting a person engaged in a lifetime of defilement, given His teaching, “But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts: murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person.”

All of these defilements, except murder, characterize Trump to a “T.”  They are a feature, not a bug, a fundamental part of Trump’s identity and lifetime practice. 

What Should We Do?

I’ve heard many say, “I am not voting for a pastor.” I’ve seen others amplify a few cherry-picked sins by normalizing extreme opposing positions to laud their party, demonize the other, and justify the debasement of their candidate. 

Scripture reminds us that we are “Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us,” meaning our actions should reflect His values. If Jesus wouldn’t approve of something, why should we? Even if we find ourselves uncertain about specific decisions, isn’t Trump’s deeply flawed character, as demonstrated over a lifetime of words and deeds, a clear reflection of a defiled heart?

George Washington once said, “Character was the first essential of a man.”  My dad made character the priority of his discipline. The Psalmist said, “Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.” Jesus said, “By their fruit you will recognize them… Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.”

So, if I make good character a litmus test for my vote, am I a stubbornly prejudiced/deluded member of a cult?  Or am I merely a follower of Dad’s/Washington’s sensibilities?  Or perhaps I’m even a faithful ambassador of Jesus, mindful of my responsibility to make God’s appeal through my life, actions, and values?

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Am I Stubbornly Prejudiced or a Deluded Cultist?

Reclaiming the Church’s Kingdom Mission: 95 Theses for the Present-Day Church

What if a single revolutionary idea could completely transform how we see the world? That’s the power of a paradigm shift, a concept first coined in 1962 by Thomas Kuhn, an influential philosopher of science. According to Kuhn, scientific progress occurs through periodic revolutions that replace an existing scientific framework or paradigm with a fundamentally different one.

Phyllis Tickle, a renowned author and commentator on religion, contends that the church experiences significant paradigm shifts roughly every 500 years. The fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD changed the nature of the church. So did the Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation of 1517.

Many believe that the church is at another 500-year moment in its history. Like the church in Luther’s day, the current church is at a crossroads, evidenced by the meteoric rise of the “Nones”—individuals who check “none” or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religious affiliation. Once comprising about 5% of the population before 1990, they now approach 25% or even 30%, rivaling the total population of white evangelicals in America.

This is a significant and transformative shift. As the PEW survey authors noted, “We do not typically see a change of anything on that scale in a relatively short period of time.” Various explanations abound, but the data is clear: the politicization of American religion is the primary factor behind this meteoric rise in people saying, “no thanks.”

What if the church exhibited an unwavering commitment to Christ’s call to “Follow Me?” What if it embodied the likeness of Christ, showing the world what their God is like through their words, deeds, and attitudes: a church with a singular identity centered on Jesus, in whom “we live and move, and have our being?” Wouldn’t that be a game changer, not just shifting the priorities and actions of the church, but unleashing its salt and light influence in the world?

Five hundred years ago, Luther famously posted 95 theses on the Wittenburg church door. The following text proposes a new set of 95 theses in response to the syncretistic faith crisis of our current era with a new call for change.

  1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Follow Me,” he willed the entire life of believers to be an imitator of his life and teachings.
  2. Imitators of Christ are “Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.”
  3. Imitators of Christ are those who “proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God.”
  4. Imitators of Christ are “His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
  5. Yet, many in the church have exchanged this Christ-centered calling for the pursuit of temporal power, trading Christ’s Kingdom mission for a culture-war mission with a thirst for the fight.
  6. Political expediency has trumped Christ-like virtue by its alignment with un-Christlike rhetoric and tactics.
  7. It’s yielded a Galatians 5-type works-of-the-flesh praxis rather than a fruit-of-the-spirit witness.
  8. Political goals have trumped Christ’s teachings, leading to alliances and endorsements that betray the gospel.
  9. It’s yielded an unbiblical focus on political solutions rather than spiritual renewal and transformation.
  10. Political tactics have led to the pursuit of power through unrighteous means, rather than fostering trust in God’s provision, providence, and sovereignty.
  11. It’s yielded an “us versus them” mindset, contrary to Christ’s call to love our enemies.
  12. Rather than reflecting Christ’s humility and love, it’s adopted the world’s quest for dominance and control.
  13. Rather than prioritizing integrity, it prioritizes cultural narratives through a deceitful disinterest in truth.
  14. Rather than exercising its biblical mandate to be peacemakers, the church has sown division and strife.
  15. Rather than becoming Christ’s ambassadors of reconciliation, they have become agents of division.
  16. Rather than being a place of grace and healing, they have exercised apathy or disdain.
  17. Rather than fostering a practice of humility and virtue, they have adopted a win-at-all-cost mindset.
  18. By seeking first political influence and control, they have neglected the power of the cross, lost the vision of the kingdom, and forsaken their ambassadorial calling to show the world what their God looks like.
  19. They have forgotten that our citizenship is in heaven, not earthly nations.
  20. They have elevated the priority of political victories over their mission to make disciples.
  21. They have discounted the power of heart transformation by bowing to the allurement of coercive power.
  22. They have quieted their voice for peace and reconciliation in a world ravaged by conflict and division.
  23. They have dimmed the beacon of hope and love in a world filled with fear and hatred.
  24. They have rejected their scriptural calling to welcome the marginalized regardless of background or status.
  25. They have lost their prophetic voice for justice and mercy by becoming captive to political ideologies marked by barriers rather than bridges.
  26. They have neglected to mirror Christ’s sacrificial love – to put the needs of others above their own desires for power and influence.
  27. They have forgotten that true worship is measured by how we live our lives, not just by what we say or sing.
  28. Christians are to be taught the foundational principles of the Christian faith, emphasizing repentance and a commitment to choose Christ’s teachings over political power fueled by fear.
  29. The church must recover its prophetic voice, challenging injustices and advocating for the vulnerable, even at the cost of its own comfort and safety.
  30. The church must stand with the oppressed and marginalized, advocating for their rights and dignity.
  31. The church must recognize that our ultimate allegiance is to Christ, not to any political entity or leader.
  32. The church must prioritize Jesus’s call to love our neighbors and care for the least of these.
  33. The church must be willing to be uncomfortably challenged to love mercy, do justly, and walk humbly.
  34. The church must be a community of grace and forgiveness, reflecting Christ’s love and mercy.
  35. The church must be vigilant against the idols of power, wealth, and success, which can corrupt our witness.
  36. The church must reject any form of Christian nationalism that conflates faith with patriotism.
  37. The church must remember that its battle is not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces.
  38. The church must remember that its ultimate goal is to glorify God and reflect His love to the world.
  39. The church must remember that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.
  40. The church must recover its priority for the in-breaking of Christ’s kingdom, while we await Christ’s return.
  41. The church must recover its priority of salt and light in the world, re-presenting Jesus through its words, deeds, and attitudes.
  42. The church must recover its priority of Christlikeness in all its actions, even in the face of cultural opposition.
  43. The church must obey Christ’s injunction to “Follow Me” by being an imitator of his life and teachings.
  44. Christians are to be taught that Christ’s “Follow Me” cannot be understood as a one-time verbal confession.
  45. Christ’s “Follow Me” requires us to heed the teachings of the apostle James, who said, “Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror.”
  46. Christ’s “Follow Me” means that we “Renounce ungodliness and worldly passions” as we “Train ourselves for godliness,” living “self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.”
  47. Christians are to be taught that “Follow me” first requires “let him deny himself and take up his cross”
  48. Denying ourselves stems from “being crucified with Christ. [so that] It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”
  49. Denying ourselves means to “offer your bodies [all of our lives] as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God” as our “true and proper worship.”
  50. Denying ourselves means to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”
  51. Denying ourselves means to “throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles.”
  52. Denying ourselves means to set our “mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.”
  53. Christians are to be taught that following Christ requires that we abide in Him, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being ”
  54. Abiding in Him leads to the promise, “If any man is in Christ, there is a new creation, the old has gone, and the new has come.”
  55. Abiding in Him leads to the promise “that God, who began the good work within you, will continue his work until it is finally finished on the day when Christ Jesus returns.”
  56. Abiding in Him leads to the promise that “His divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of Him.”
  57. Christians are to be taught that following Christ makes us “Witnesses of the Lamb” through a whole life of worship and devotion to God.
  58. A whole life of worship and devotion to God means loving our enemies, helping the poor, clothing the naked, binding up the wounded, and blessing those who curse us.
  59. It means we wear the marks of love and unity, as instructed by the apostle John.
  60. It means we do “nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves [looking out] to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.”
  61. It means we “do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God.”
  62. It means we “live by the Spirit” as proven by the fruit of the Spirit, which is “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
  63. It means we “run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”
  64. It means we live “as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothed with compassion, kindness, humility.”
  65. Christians are to be taught that following Christ makes us dissident to culture, alert to its subversive influence on our beliefs, priorities, and practices.
  66. Being dissident to culture means rejecting the commercialization of faith, and a lifestyle marked by an appetite for worldly passions, power, and privilege.
  67. It means “Be[ing] humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too. You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.”
  68. It means refusing to accommodate or excuse any form of corruption, moral failure, abuse of power, or lack of accountability.
  69. It means avoiding the snare of people, media, or world systems that promote a constant diet of fear, strife, rivalries, and dissensions, which scripture calls the works of the flesh.
  70. It means knowing “that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
  71. It means guarding against the identity-changing influence of political entanglements and how their allurement to do good can pull us into their fold
  72. It means rejecting the spirit of populism that exchanges God’s perspective of people as image bearers for a Manichean perspective of us versus them.
  73. It means refusing to countenance exclusivist attitudes and practices that marginalize people from races, groups, or faith traditions that are different from us.
  74. It means rejecting the idolatry of nationalism, especially the fusion of Christian and national identities.
  75. Christians are to be taught that following Christ requires us to have a discerning spirit.
  76. A discerning spirit heeds the instruction of the apostle Peter. “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour.”
  77. A discerning spirit knows “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is beneficial.”
  78. A discerning spirit recognizes, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”
  79. A discerning spirit is one that “will no longer be immature like children. Won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. Will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth.”
  80. A discerning spirit is heedful that “A time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.”
  81. A discerning spirit is heedful that “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
  82. A discerning spirit begins and ends with love: “that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.”
  83. Christians are to be taught that following Christ means relying upon the power of the Spirit.
  84. Relying upon the power of the Spirit recognizes that “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”
  85. Relying upon the power of the Spirit recognizes that “His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.”
  86. Christians are to be taught that the goal of following Christ is to progressively make us Christ-like in attitudes and actions.
  87. Christlikeness is to “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.”
  88. Christlikeness adopts the posture, “For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.”
  89. Christlikeness testifies to “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”
  90. Christlikeness is found in those who “as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe [themselves] with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.”
  91. Christlikeness stems from making “every effort to add to our faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if we possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep us from being ineffective and unproductive in our knowledge of our Jesus Christ.”
  92. Christlikeness “Consider[s] how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.”
  93. Christlikeness imitates the servant heart of Christ, who “did not come to be served, but to serve.”
  94. Christlikeness is one who is merciful, poor in spirit, meek, able to mourn, a peacemaker, pure in heart, hungers and thirsts after justice, and willing to suffer persecution for justice’s sake.
  95. Christlikeness stems from those who, with “unveiled faces [as they] contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”

Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, which ignited the Protestant Reformation, primarily targeted the Catholic Church’s practice of selling indulgences—a practice Luther viewed as corrupt, unbiblical, and a significant deviation from the “faith once delivered to the saints.” His urgent call for a profound reformation of church practices and a return to scriptural integrity would transform the Church and alter the course of history.

These 95 theses address a contemporary, yet related, deviation from the “faith once delivered to the saints.” The church’s elevation of political power and cultural battles above the teachings of Christ is similarly corrupt and unbiblical. The true calling of believers must be to imitate Christ, reflecting His goodness rather than the “works of the flesh” that those battles produce.

The 95 theses critique the church’s alignment with un-Christlike rhetoric, tactics, and political goals, which have led to division, fear, and a loss of its prophetic voice and mission of reconciliation. They call for a return to Christ-centered values, prioritizing spiritual transformation, humility, love, and a commitment to justice and mercy for all, especially the marginalized and oppressed.

It’s been done before and can be done again. In the words of Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome: “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.”

Julian’s dying words in AD 363 were “vicisti Galilaee” (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!). What a tribute to the power of a Christ-like community. It was a force that couldn’t be stopped. It changed the world.

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Reclaiming the Church’s Kingdom Mission: 95 Theses for the Present-Day Church

Tell Me Where I’m Wrong

As I go hiking and fly fishing throughout the Northwest, I pass through rural areas where Trump flags are common. I’ve tried to put myself in their shoes but I’m sure I come up short. Miles’s law states, “Where you stand depends upon where you sit,” and I know that my seating is much different from theirs.

I can understand their pushback against intrusive governmental actions. I can understand their concern about cultural trends. I can understand them wanting to be seen and their voices heard in the public square.  We humans are incredibly diverse creatures, and diversity is the norm throughout all aspects of life with politics being no exception.

Trump supporters also include many who profess to be Christ-followers. Some of those supporters are my friends, people with whom we’ve shared life and raised children together. In these cases, much of our “sitting” has been alike, yet our “standing” on at least this one issue has greatly diverged.  I’m interested in exploring this divergence through a respectful discussion, so I’ll start by putting my cards on the table. This following text might seem harsh, but when I think of Donald Trump, the sin lists of the apostle Paul, especially in Romans 1:28-31 and Galatians 5:19-21, often come to mind. 

Romans 1:28-31 through the lens of Donald Trump’s own words

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness,

“I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f–k her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily.

In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.” Trump’s own words about a failed attempt to seduce Nancy O’Dell.

“I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Trump

evil,

with actual malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth” who “knows that these statements are patently and demonstrably false.” -excerpts from Trump’s lawsuit against ABC and ABC News George Stephanopoulos.

In April 2024, Donald Trump sued ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos for defamation when he said that Trump was found liable for rape. When the New York jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in a Manhattan department store dressing room, they did not find Trump liable for rape, which she had alleged. But according to Kaplan, the judge in the trial, Carrol “failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law,” but that “does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’”

Trump had previously countersued Carroll on the same issue – for Carroll accusing Trump of rape following the jury verdict for Carroll and against Trump. In dismissing the countersuit, Kaplan wrote, “The difference between Ms. Carroll’s allegedly defamatory statements — that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as defined in the New York Penal Law — and the ‘truth’ — that Mr. Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms. Carroll — is minimal. Both are felonious sex crimes.”

Expressing outrage over someone calling you out for rape when your defense is that you forcibly penetrated their vagina with two fingers rather than with your penis, speaks of depravity and is flat-out evil.

greed

“The point is that you can’t be too greedy.” Trump

“My whole life I’ve been greedy, greedy, greedy. I’ve grabbed all the money I could get. I’m so greedy.”Trump, January 28, 2016

Now compare that to a quote from Jonathan Edwards in “Christian Charity: “Christianity teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to be ready to every good work, to be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, to lay down our lives for the brethren, and to seek not our own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”

We’ve come a long way from Edwards’s time. Greed and sexual immorality were the two most addressed sin themes in the Apostle Paul’s corrective letters to the churches. And according to Trump’s own testimony, both are in Donald Trump’s wheelhouse and something he’s proud of.

depravity.

By the way, your daughter,” says Stern. “She’s beautiful,” responds Trump. “Can I say this? A piece of ass,” Stern responds. “Yeah,” says Trump. – Trump, in a Sept 2004 interview with Howard Stern

Do you think you could now be banging 24-year-olds?” “Oh, absolutely,” Trump says. “Would you do it?,” asks Stern. “I’d have no problem” – Trump In a 2006 interview with Howard Stern

I can’t imagine someone saying something like this.  I can’t even imagine someone thinking something like this. It’s the sort of stuff you would expect to find in a fictitious law and order TV show where they’re dealing with a certain type of base depravity. 

murder,

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” -Trump

“We will immediately stop all of the pillaging and theft. Very simply: If you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store,”Trump during a speech in Sept 2023 to California Republicans.

“These people should be executed. They are scumbags.” –Trump quote according to John Bolton, a Trump National Security Advisor, referencing Trump’s threat to throw journalists in jail to uncover their sources.

Although there’s no evidence for Trump personally committing murder, there’s plenty of evidence, like the statements above, for him advocating murder.

strife,

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections…They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.” -Trump

“They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

He is a Soros-backed animal who just doesn’t care about right or wrong.” –Trump’s characterization of Allan Bragg, the black Manhattan district attorney using a traditional racist trope about black people.

deceit

The 2020 Election was a total scam, we won by a lot (and will hopefully turn over the fraudulent result), but we must get out and help David and Kelly, two GREAT people.” -Trump, in a tweet on December 26, 2020.

The Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!” –Trump on May 3, 2021.

The 2020 presidential election, that election, the 2020 presidential election, was by far the most corrupt election in the history of our country…It was the crime of the century.” –Trump in a June 2021 speech before the North Carolina Republican Party.

The 2020 presidential election was the most extensively investigated in U.S. history.  No evidence of widespread voter fraud or irregularities was found in over 60 court cases challenging its legitimacy. A third of the judges in these cases were Trump appointments with many others appointed by previous Republican administrations.  Additionally, numerous audits, recounts, and investigations conducted by state election officials and independent organizations affirmed the integrity and accuracy of the election results.

malice

“Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” -Trump’s remarks about Carly Fiorina, a fellow Republican.

She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” -Trump’s remarks about Megan Kelly in 2015.

Unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man — he made a good decision.” –Trump’s remarks about Ariana Huffington.

“Has anyone ever seen ‘The Silence of the Lambs’? The late, great Hannibal Lecter. He’s a wonderful man. He often times would have a friend for dinner. Remember the last scene? ‘Excuse me, I’m about to have a friend for dinner,’ as this poor doctor walked by. ‘I’m about to have a friend for dinner.’ But Hannibal Lecter. Congratulations. The late, great Hannibal Lecter.” -Trump’s remarks at a New Jersey rally in May 2024 as part of a diatribe against migrants who will cause our country to be “doomed.”

They are gossips,

An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that @BarackObama’s birth certificate is a fraud. -Trump in a tweet more than a year after Obama released his long form birth certificate.

“How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ died in plane crash today. All others lived.” – Trump 2.5 years after Obama released his birth certificate

“I heard today that she doesn’t meet the requirements.” -Trump’s response when told about false claims on “social media” that Harris might be ineligible to serve as president and vice president

(Ted Cruz’s) father, you know, was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s, you know, being shot… I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible.” –Trump, in an interview on “Fox and Friends”

slanderers,

She said that I did something to her that never took place. There was no anything. I know nothing about this nut job…I think she’s sick, mentally sick”   –Trump’s testimony in the E. Jean Carroll New York court trial.

She was a wack job” -Trump, the day after a jury found him liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll

Donald Trump “repeatedly” described African nations as “s—hole” countries, according to Sen Dick Durbin.  Some Republicans in that meeting, when asked to confirm, “couldn’t recall. Others avoided the question.

Jesus said, “Whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council.” Raca was an offensive name meaning “empty-headed” and used to denigrate a person’s stupidity or inferiority. Jesus warned that such an attitude was tantamount to murder and deserving of the severest punishment of the law.

insolent,

Sleepy Joe,” “Crooked Hillary,” “Little Marco,” “Pocahontas,” “Low Energy Jeb,” and “Failed Presidential Candidate” are among the many personal attacks and insults Trump would use against his opponents.

“Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” –Trump in canceling a visit to honor American dead soldiers buried in the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, near Paris, in 2018

Fighting for the last penny is a very good philosophy to have. I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it. The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day. Who the f–k knows? I mean, really, who knows how much the Japs will pay for Manhattan property these days?” –Trump

arrogant and boastful;

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault.” –Trump on Twitter

When I came into office people thought we were going into nuclear war, OK, and now they’re saying wow…I would give myself an A+.”Trump during an April 26, 2018 interview on ‘Fox & Friends.’

I think I am actually humble. I think I’m much more humble than you would understand.” –Trump 60 Minutes, July 17, 2016.

I think Viagra is wonderful if you need it, if you have medical issues, if you’ve had surgery. I’ve just never needed it. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if there were an anti-Viagra, something with the opposite effect. I’m not bragging. I’m just lucky. I don’t need it. I’ve always said, “If you need Viagra, you’re probably with the wrong girl.” –Trump

they invent ways of doing evil;

When you prosecute the parents for coming in illegally, which should happen, you have to take the children away. Now, we don’t have to prosecute them, but then we’re not prosecuting them for coming in illegally. That’s not good.” –Trump

we did family separation. A lot of people didn’t come. It stopped people from coming by the hundreds of thousands because when they hear family separation, they say well, we better not go. And they didn’t go.”  –Trump

Of all the ways to address a vexing border issue, what sort of person would use children as pawns -and then be proud about it?  While some children have since been united with their parents, over 1000 remain separated.

they have no understanding,

I will tell you something. I watched those very closely, much more closely than you people watched it. And you had, you had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group – you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent.” –Trump

I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it…But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.” –Trump

Trump made extensive remarks following the violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.  The remarks were varied enough such that each side of the issue found snippets of his remarks useful, in either a positive or negative way.  But his main message converged to a “both sides” issue, giving a sense of equivalence between the white nationalist instigator of the rally and the people who were pushing back against such evil. 

no fidelity,

Well it’s interesting, because it’s possible that you know, maybe it would still be going on. I’m not sure” –Trump’s admittance in a 1994 interview with the New York Daily News that if he hadn’t been caught red-handed he likely would have kept on cheating on his first wife.

My life was so great in so many ways. The business was so great… a beautiful girlfriend, a beautiful wife, a beautiful everything. Life was just a bowl of cherries.” -Trump, same interview

Do you think adultery is a sin?” Trump was asked by the Post. “Very good question,” he responded. Trump paused and then said: “I don’t think it’s a sin but I don’t think it should be done.” The reporters pressed: “Would you do it?” After which, Trump coyly responded “I’ll let you guess.”

no love,

What if he’s a loser?” -Trump’s concern about naming his firstborn Donald Jr as documented by Ivana Trump in her book “Raising Trump.”

“It’s all in the hunt and once you get it, it loses some of its energy. I think competitive, successful men feel that way about women. Don’t you agree?”Trump

“Nice t-ts, no brains. A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10. Oftentimes when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world, I would say to myself, thinking about me as a boy from Queens, ‘Can you believe what I am getting?”Trump

no mercy.

“[John McCain]’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured, okay? I hate to tell you.” –Trump

When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades” –Trump

“I don’t like to have to ask for forgiveness. Why do I have to repent or ask for forgiveness, if I am not making mistakes?”Trump

Reflection

Much more could be said, especially for topics outside of this set of categories such as Trump’s many foolish comments. I’ll let those pass as they belong to another set of analyses addressing his policy actions and general competency. In the next few sections, I will provide a consideration, a mea culpa and then discuss some potential responses by those who would disagree with my sentiments.

Consideration Trump doesn’t fit into all 21 attributes of the Romans 1:28-31 list. As far as we know, he is neither a God-hater nor someone who flagrantly disobeyed his parents. Although various people have accused him of being envious, his remarks don’t confirm it.  Neither do the Romans 1 attributes totally define him.  Trump has made plenty of positive statements and constructive actions that are easy to find. Which then brings us to the mea culpa.

Mea Culpa – Picking and Choosing These aren’t a random sample of Trump’s remarks. Trump has also made many uplifting and positive statements in his speeches and tweets. 

I haven’t tried to construct a balanced analysis of his discourse, and I don’t think I should. It’s like the man who’s been caught cheating on his wife, offering, in defense, a listing of all the days that he didn’t cheat and suggesting she consider some balance or averaging of the events.  Too many of the Trump statements are that egregious. They need to be considered on their own.

Potential Response #1 Aren’t you concerned with abortion?  Many say that Trump is their first line of defense against abortion and that all other issues pale in comparison. 

Did you know that abortions rose steeply following the passage of Roe in 1973, leveled off in the 1980s, and then declined rapidly since 1990 during both Republican and Democratic administrations, with the steepest declines during Democratic administrations?  Did you further know that the only deviation from this trend occurred during the Trump administration when the trend reversed and abortions began going back up, continuing to rise even after the overturning of Roe? In plain language, abortions rose under Trump, not fell.

The reasons for this long pre-Trump decline are many and chiefly related to lower pregnancy rates and household health and economics.  Most (70%) women seeking abortions cite financial reasons, with about half of the women citing the lack of suitable or supportive partners. Hence, when societal conditions improve, abortion rates decline, according to analyses by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank. They’ve shown that the biggest factor moving the abortion needle is economic improvement, with restrictive regulations substantially behind. 

Given this, one would have thought Senator Mitt Romney’s Family Security Action, which, according to AEI’s analyses, would reduce abortion rates by providing a substantive child allowance for every newborn baby, would have been welcomed by the religious conservative right. Or even Biden’s allowance plan, which would have dropped the abortion rate considerably lower. But such a direct-payment program doesn’t fit into the Republican ideology, even given the expected lowering of abortion rates.

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.”

Potential Response #2 But what about…[fill in the blank]?

The term whataboutism first surfaced in Northern Ireland in the 1970s when both sides used it to up the ante of moral indignation when confronted with an accusation. The Russians then found it useful to match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined Western one.

Whataboutism is a logical fallacy (“tu quoque,” Latin for you also) used to avoid the issue while counter-attacking through an accusation of hypocrisy.  It acts like a mirror keeping the spotlight on the other while avoiding accountability for one’s beliefs or actions. It fosters a binary worldview of “we the good” vs “they the enemy.”  It’s a force multiplier for echo chambers through its avoidance of an honest engagement with opposing views. It promotes divisive tribalism because it’s always pointing at the other while being uninterested in the truth. 

Jonah Goldberg, the long-time conservative pundit, recently tweeted, “Conservatism claims to believe in serious notions of right & wrong. We (claim to) champion moral clarity. If your first response to every misdeed of your side is to criticize the other side for condemning it. That’s not principled conservatism, it’s hackery.” He went on “I’m not an expert on Christianity. But my understanding is that if you sin and are called to account for it, replying, “Yeah, but look at what the Muslims do,” is not a defense.”

Potential Response #3 Perhaps someone will find an erroneous citation. Others may assert that Trump just didn’t say those things, notwithstanding the veracity of the citation. Still others might say that those quotes were from a past Trump who is now different in temperament and beliefs. 

Yes, it’s possible that some of my sources got it wrong. Most of the quotes are from Trump, but a few were provided by others who were in the same place where they were given. Some of those quotes he has denied, making it a (s)he/he said issue.  But the sheer weight of them makes this argument untenable.  Many additional quotes were left out for brevity’s sake. And many of the most damning of the quotes are unassailable, often due to Trump’s revelry in them. 

It’s true that some of Trump’s beliefs have changed over the years. For example, Trump was once pro-abortion, then anti-abortion, and now takes a more moderate position. But the quotes span dozens of years, from the 1980s to the present day.

Plus, it’s not Trump’s practice to ask forgiveness or admit that he was wrong. His natural response is to double down or even triple down, despite incriminating evidence, repeating the verifiable lie again and again.

Hence, for those who refuse to believe that many of these quotes are true and who presumptively take Trump at his word, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary, I understand how they could remain unconvinced.  In a world of alternative facts, disconnected from traditional institutions and standards of evidence, any belief is possible. Here, Walter Lippman’s observation rings true, “for the most part, we do not first see and then define, we define and then see.”

Potential Response #4 How about the prophecies identifying Trump as God’s man for our nation? “No.” A fuller answer addressing how those prophecies most likely “miss the mark” in a manner scripture calls sin, or even belong to a different spirit from that of Christ, will require a separate post to accommodate the length of the response.

Potential Response #5 We need a fighter to bring back a Christian America

Much ink has been spilled, including some from me, over Aaron Renn’s characterization of today’s world as being negative from a Christian perspective. In his analysis, Christian morality has been repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good. Any subscription to Christian moral views or violating the secular moral order brings about negative consequences from the dominant culture.

Renn contrasts today’s “negative” world with pre-1994 society, which had a mostly positive view of Christianity. To be known as a good, churchgoing man made you an upstanding citizen. Publicly being a Christian was a status-enhancer. Christian moral norms were the basic moral norms of society and violating them could bring negative consequences.

Now, much could be said about the shortfalls of this so-called “positive world,” beginning with the legacy of Jim Crow. But what if we turned to scripture and used Galatians 5 as the standard by which we assign a world to be negative or positive?   Here, a positive world would be denoted by a nation or individuals venerating the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. A world venerating the works of the flesh would be negative and marked by sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, and orgies. Note the similarities between Paul’s Romans 1 and Galatians 5 lists. 

Jesus said, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How, then, will his kingdom stand?”  You can’t cast out our wickedness by wickedness. Darkness doesn’t dispel darkness; hence, Trump is incapable of being the answer.   

Light dispels darkness, and in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us how that’s done. It’s through Christ-followers who are citizens of God’s new kingdom, planting signposts in hostile soil that show a different way to be human. A people called to be salt and light and who honor and promote the fruit of the spirit in every square inch of their world while rejecting the works of the flesh.

Potential Response #6  But the depravity in America is so drastic that we need a drastic solution!

The Roman world of Christ’s time was harsh, depraved, and unforgiving. Suffering was common and sexual immorality, infanticide, and even child sacrifice were the norms. Patriarchy was absolute, allowing men total power over their wives and children. If any society needed cultural change, this was the one.

And then, along comes Christianity and what did they do? They didn’t vie for the levers of power, form moral interest groups to denounce the world, start a crusade against a thoroughly depraved culture, or raise up a “fighter” to confront the culture.

That last line is worth repeating. Neither the apostles following Christ’s death nor the early church raised or sought to raise up a “fighter” to confront their depraved culture.

What did they do? They reflected Jesus, showing by deed and example what His kingdom could look like and carried forth by the principles that he taught.

They opposed infanticide by rescuing the pagan children of Rome and raising them as their own – at their own cost, too. They opposed rampant adultery and licentiousness by showing godliness in marriage and life. They opposed the exercise of power over the weak by caring for the marginalized, the poor, and the infirm.

This pure power of their Christ-likeness rocked that world. In the words of Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome: “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.”

Julian’s dying words in AD 363 were “vicisti Galilaee” (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!).  What a tribute to the power of a Christ-like community. It was a force that couldn’t be stopped. It changed the world.

Final Thoughts

A scripted parchment with the words of Psalms 1 hung above Dad’s chair at our dinner table. Each time we ate, those words stared at me as my seat was opposite his. They set the atmosphere for that dinner table, if not for the whole home in general. We knew that “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly nor standeth in the way of sinners” was an instruction of the first order and that, in the words of the apostle Paul, “Bad company corrupts good character.”

This might sound harsh, and I apologize in advance to those who might find it so, but my 2 Cor 3:18 calling as a Christ-follower to show the world what my God is like is incompatible with supporting Trump. Other Christ-followers may think differently, and I accept that. 

But where I’ve landed is this: the Venn diagrams representing the fundamental tenets of my faith and Trump’s beliefs don’t overlap. And they can’t because this disconnect isn’t coincidental; it’s fundamental. The ethos embodied by Trump fiercely clashes with the ethos of Christ. They are at war with each other and his rhetoric, matched by his deeds, makes this clear. Consequently, the choice becomes binary: either align with him or uphold my faith and to support him would necessitate a denial of my spiritual convictions.

I’ll close with a recent comment by Ray Ortlund, a pastor I follow and enjoy on Threads.

The longer I live in the crazy world, with even some crazy Christians, I just want to go the distance and die with my integrity intact. 

Maybe I accomplish nothing else. Maybe I don’t leave the world in a better place.  But to live and die with integrity – that’s what I care about most.  And there isn’t an even close second.

By His grace, for His glory.”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Tell Me Where I’m Wrong

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’ll never 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, who, according to scripture, 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 differing 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”?