A 2025 Reflection: What if We Took Jesus Seriously?

Posted on January 1, 2025 by steve.ignell

Imagine living in a house on a bluff overlooking the ocean. Floor-to-ceiling windows connect you to the ever-changing Alaskan scenery. Comfortable furnishings, accompanied by high ceilings and in-floor heat, create an inviting sanctuary away from the pressures of work. 

Maybe you’ve built it yourself. Or with a group of friends like we did in Alaska.  After thousands of hours of sweat and toil, you’re finally enjoying the fruits of your labors. People come and feel at home.  It’s the dream house that you’d never dreamt of having.

But then cracks appear, doors no longer properly close, and the floor begins to sag. Like whack-a-mole, one problem gets fixed, and another appears. Experts come and discover a compromised foundation. Their geotechnical tests reveal shifting ground. The problem is deep and unseen, but the eroding soil is slowly but surely destabilizing your entire home.

Bringing it Home

Church leaders today assert that America has strayed from its moral compass, plunging it into a freefall unimaginable to previous generations. They warn that the nation’s foundational values are crumbling, leaving its future precariously teetering on the edge. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, believes, “Our nation is facing a crisis that threatens its very existence. We are in a moral decline of shocking dimensions.” Echoing these sentiments, Pastor John Hagee declares that “[America’s] future hangs in the balance. Our moral and spiritual foundations are rapidly being destroyed. Our arrogance is producing a socialist state that is becoming our god.”

These leaders see Christ’s parable of the wise and foolish man as instructive for our country. They say our nation’s moral and spiritual decay is likened to the parable’s shifting sand. America’s teetering on the brink of collapse, and only a return to foundational Christian values can save it. As Franklin Graham has said, “Without Christ as the solid rock on which to build, the nation will falter like a house on shifting sand.”

But read Matthew 7:24-29 again.  Jesus is not addressing those in the “world.” It’s an inside-the-tent sort of teaching directed at “us” and not to “them.” The shifting sand is due to the actions of the faithful, and the standard is adherence to His Sermon on the Mount teaching. 

The Sermon on the Mount challenges superficial righteousness by emphasizing inward transformation over outward appearances. Jesus addresses the heart behind our actions, proclaiming blessings to people embodying attitudes and virtues aligned with God’s kingdom. He calls those who are poor in spirit, meek, merciful, and peacemakers as salt and light. They are carriers of His Kingdom’s message to the world.

As a guide for Kingdom living, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount establishes foundational principles for every aspect of life, including love for enemies, forgiveness, generosity, selflessness, and humility. Serving as a blueprint for radical discipleship, it calls believers to embody Jesus’s ethics, offering society a glimpse of God’s ultimate restoration and the hope of the Gospel. At its heart, the Sermon presents a vision of countercultural living rooted in the values of God’s in-breaking kingdom. These are the essential “biblical principles” for the church, which is the Sermon’s primary audience rather than the world.

Spiritual Geotechnics

What if we took Christ’s teaching seriously? Seriously enough that we’d be willing to examine how well we’ve built our faith’s “house” on His Sermon’s teachings. We could call it a spiritual geotechnical test with questions drilling down into the “foundations” of those teachings.  One part would be self-reflective, using behavioral scenarios to help assess our compliance.  Another part would use friends and co-workers to provide an independent 360-degree-type assessment. I’m reminded of Haggai, where God tells the Israelites to “Give careful thought to your ways.” This would be that in a modern-day setting.

Some questions could assess adherence to the Sermon’s values like humility, mercy, purity, and peacemaking. We could ask: “How often do you seek to bring peace in conflicts, even when it extracts a personal cost?”  Or, “Have you ever denigrated someone with a different political or theological view from yours?”

Other questions could assess our response to challenging or unfair situations. We could ask, “When someone unjustly treads on your liberty, how do you respond?” Or, “What is your response when people unjustly insult you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of your faith?”

Still, others could use scenarios to assess Sermon verities such as loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, and going the extra mile. We could ask, “Your coworker publicly criticizes you unfairly, yet later needs your help with a critical project: how do you respond?” Or, “During a team meeting, a colleague dismisses your idea and takes credit for a solution you suggested earlier; how do you respond?”

We’d then ask friends and co-workers the same questions about ourselves to provide accountability and a more complete perspective.

If we’re honest, this would be a tough test.  None of us would ace it, as we all fall short of the mark.  Yet some would get many questions right.  Friends like Steve, Karen, Dave, Keith, Betty, Jack, Bill, and Rachel have all taken Jesus’ command to “Follow Me” seriously, and then matched that desire with intentional spiritual formation.

Ecclesiastical Geotechnics

Now, let’s imagine giving that test to the American evangelical church. Does the church put into practice the verities of this Sermon?  Do they model Christ’s teachings in their engagements?  Is their behavior in the public square reflective of Jesus’s ethics and Sermon on the Mount commands? Do they show through word, deed, and attitude that they are “Christ’s Ambassadors as if God was making His appeal through us [them]?”?”

We could use many of the same questions, such as “How often does the evangelical church seek to bring peace in conflicts, even when it costs the church personally?” Or, “Is the evangelical church a bulwark against division and cruelty through a “Beatitudes” posture that privileges the meek, merciful, and peacemakers?  Or, “When someone unjustly treads on the church’s liberty, how do they respond?” Then, the same questions would be asked of those outside the church, who would assess the church’s adherence to the Sermon on the Mount verities. 

Now, many leaders within the church would call this assessment unfair. They’ve said, “The world is no longer receptive to a soft-spoken [meek] approach.” They’ve criticized the “winsomeness” of fellow leaders like Tim Keller by saying, “In a hostile culture, we need to be more assertive and less concerned with being liked,” In this current polarized climate, they say, a more confrontational or assertive stance must be taken. It’s a negative world for Christians, and you need people able and willing to fight.

So, who is right? Is it those like Tim Keller, who view the Sermon on the Mount as “a vision of what life should look like when it is completely transformed by the grace of God,” or the many evangelical leaders criticizing his winsomeness when “moral and spiritual foundations are rapidly being destroyed?”

Public Witness Geotechnics

Let’s bring this even closer to home. Now imagine giving that test to our political decisions. In doing so, we seek to assess the alignment between the candidates and policies we support and Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. In essence, we are saying that Christ’s teachings are the primary foundation of our “biblical values,” which shape not only our personal lives but also our voting and engagements in the public square. After all, if “all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction,” shouldn’t Christ’s most significant teaching address every part of our life, including political decisions?

But we’re electing a “commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief,” said pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.  Former Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. chimed in and said, “We’re not electing a pastor; we’re electing a president.” Echoing that same sentiment, Franklin Graham, an evangelical evangelist, said, “We’re not voting for a Sunday school teacher. We’re voting for someone to lead the nation.”​

Christ’s House Building Code

This is where our worldview matters. It writes the script for how we “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”

What if Christ’s teachings became the central basis of our worldview? What if His message about the Kingdom of God became so foundational to our faith that everything else was secondary—much like the apostle Paul, who resolved to know nothing “except Jesus Christ and Him crucified”?

N.T. Wright views the Kingdom of God as a transformative vision for life on Earth, centered on allegiance to Jesus, the King who restores all things. The Kingdom is both a present and future reality—already breaking into the world through Jesus’ ministry and His followers, yet not fully realized. With Jesus’ coming, everything has fundamentally changed, calling individuals to embrace its values and reorient their lives around its principles.

Embracing the Kingdom’s principles transforms faith from a private belief into a public witness. It calls Christians to a life of radical obedience and action, transcending worldly systems and priorities and placing God’s mission above cultural or political allegiances. Living in the Kingdom means aligning every aspect of life with its ethics. It means engaging “every square inch” of our world with Christ’s vision of countercultural living, where we love our enemies and honor meekness, humility, and mercy. In summary, the Kingdom of God is not merely an aspect of faith but the lens through which Christians understand their purpose and “biblical values,” as known through the Sermon on the Mount.

Here’s the Deal

When we, the church, fail to model the principles and ethics of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount in our values, actions, and attitudes, cracks form, doors falter, and the structures of our society start to fail. Our failure to “put them into practice” creates shifting sand. We are the salt and light of the world; hence, the onus is on us, not the world, to establish firm foundations. 

When the church rejects the principles and ethics of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount in its voting and public policy decisions, cracks emerge, doors falter, and the structures of our nation weaken. It’s the church’s failure to champion a public square that “puts them into practice” that leads to shifting sands. This means that the utilitarian worldview of Christian leaders who separate their political values from Jesus’s Kingdom ethics is one of the most destructive forces in our nation.

An Example from Scripture

Last Sunday, our church sermon focused on the moment King Saul faced a dire crisis. The Philistines, armed with overwhelming strength, were threatening Israel. Saul’s fearful troops began to scatter as they anxiously waited for Samuel to arrive and offer sacrifices to seek God’s favor. Overcome by fear and impatience, Saul took matters into his own hands, offering the burnt sacrifice himself, a role God had reserved for Samuel. When Samuel arrived, he rebuked Saul for his disobedience, emphasizing that his actions, though seemingly well-intentioned, demonstrated a lack of trust in the ways of God. As a result, Saul forfeited the enduring legacy of his kingdom.

This story serves as a powerful metaphor for the modern church’s engagement in the public square. Like Saul, many in the church genuinely seek to combat the evils they perceive in society but resort to methods that stray far from the path God has outlined. Instead of embodying Christ’s teachings, particularly those in the Sermon on the Mount—principles of humility, love for enemies, self-lessness, and peacemaking—the church often adopts tactics based on fear and impatience, with rules of engagement rooted in worldly power. These choices, while well-intentioned, result in disobedience to the mission Christ entrusted to His followers: to influence society through faithfulness to His example, not through the pursuit of temporal power or divisive strategies. Saul’s failure is a cautionary tale, reminding us that God’s purposes should not be pursued through unfaithful means.

Something Has to Change

A prominent theologian, Miroslav Volf, recently said, “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 Christians.”

A new paradigm shift is needed to show the world what our God is like through the words, deeds, and attitudes of people who take Jesus’ teachings seriously and their calling to be “Christ’s Ambassadors.”

In essence, we need a new set of 95 Thesis nailed to the door of the American church, which begins with

“When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Follow Me,” he willed the entire life [both personal and public] of believers to be an imitator of his life and teachings.”

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

“For They Know Not What They [We] Are Doing”

Posted on December 2, 2024 by steve.ignell

In the midst of Jesus’ suffering, when others would have cried out in anger, He offered His persecutors a prayer of forgiveness: “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

The first part of Jesus’ statement seems to make the most sense. Forgiveness was a central part of Christ’s teachings and His “Prayer.” But the second part is another story. Surely the persecutors knew what they were doing. They were deliberately eliminating a threat to the religious and political order. They were purposefully following the will of the people and Rome.  But yet, the One who looks at the heart and knows our innermost thoughts said otherwise. 

Perhaps Jesus perceived that they misjudged the spiritual and moral consequences of their actions. Perhaps they misunderstood that He was truly the Son of God. This was Aquinas’s viewpoint who believed that the persecutors acted out of ignorance rather than intentional malice. Others see Christ’s words as a call for self-reflection, encouraging believers to recognize how they might unknowingly participate in wrongdoing.

The Hive Switch

In the early 1970s, British social psychologist Henri Tajfel conducted a study in which he divided a group of schoolboys into two arbitrary groups. The participants were asked to distribute points or rewards between members of their own group and those in the other group. Even though group assignments were random, without imparting any personal benefit, participants consistently favored members of their group over those in the other group.  Jonathan Haidt calls this the hive switch, and we all have it.

Tajfel’s findings revealed that by simply assigning people into groups randomly, out-group discrimination and in-group loyalty could be achieved – even when there were negligible differences between the groups. Building on this, psychologist John Turner showed that people will automatically categorize themselves into groups.  They will then adopt behaviors that align with perceived group norms, enhancing self-esteem by adopting their new in-group identity. This process of self-categorization leads to biased judgments – and it’s unknown to us.

Around the same time, psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment which examined the impact of group identity in a power-based environment. After randomly assigning participants as “guards” or “prisoners,” he observed that guards quickly adopted authoritarian behaviors while prisoners displayed signs of emotional distress. The excessive role conformity arising from two randomly picked groups quickly led to harmful behaviors, requiring Zimbardo to end the experiment prematurely. 

It’s Hardwired Within Us

We were made for community.

Scripture, science, and life experience all attest to this essential feature of our human nature. Our neurological system is wired to focus on caring and fostering empathetic social connections. We innately develop the ability to understand and anticipate others’ thoughts. We continuously develop social skills, even while resting. Those skills allow us to gauge the beliefs and values of those around us. We then incorporate these beliefs subconsciously, creating an alignment between them and our own. Above all, we seek harmony—driven to be liked, loved, and included.

We were made for community.

Our community-oriented nature can strengthen society by fostering cooperation. It can help us work together to achieve common goals. This desire for harmony enhances trust. It enables us to rely upon others, share resources, and build social networks that promote resilience. Alignment with group values and norms encourages adherence to social rules, creating stability and order within communities and reinforcing a sense of belonging that enhances well-being and mental health.

We were made for community.

Our community-oriented nature can also fracture society through in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. It can generate divisions and foster prejudice against those perceived as “outsiders.” Our desire to harmonize can stifle critical thinking or in-group correction, as individuals suppress their judgments to conform to group norms. It drives us to seek out like-minded people, leading to echo chambers, the biasing of certain ideas, reinforced polarization, and hindering open-minded discourse. It can harm others.

We were made to be tribal.

Belongers or Believers?

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Our community-driven nature does much more. In Religion for Realists, Samuel Perry argues that our community orientation drives values and behaviors too. In fact, our desire for harmony within a group often influences our values more than the beliefs we claim to hold. In sum, we are driven by the need to belong more than by the doctrines we profess—even in matters of faith.

For most of us, those are fighting words and attack some of our most deeply held understandings. Aren’t we, first of all, thinking people?  Isn’t our faith, beliefs, and opinions a product of choices that we ourselves make?  Don’t we, as individual thinking actors, have agency over our affairs, faith included? 

Perry, a data-driven Christian sociologist, goes one step further.  He asserts that “religion isn’t fundamentally about faith or the content of one’s faith. At the level of cognitive and emotional processes, it’s about our relationship to in-group and out-group members.  Religion is sacralized “us-ness.” It orients us within our in-group, and it clothes “our people” and “how we do things” with transcendence and eternal cosmic significance. 

Those are fighting words too, and now I’m rolling up my sleeves. This might be true for those who treat Christianity as a social club – like a faith-based Rotary Club. We’ve all known those who seem to be in “it” for social and personal benefits. But that’s “them” and not “us,” no?

But let’s just take, for the sake of argument, that it’s true. Then if belonging trumps believing, we would expect inter-alia (1) faith-based values to change according to the political winds; (2) in-group norms, sensibilities, and practices to overrule essential Christian beliefs; (3) to see the prioritization of in-group clout and political power over a countercultural Christianity marked by authentic gospel living. Let’s take them one at a time.

If belonging trumps believing, we expect faith-based values to change according to the political winds. Consider:

  • 56.3% to 33.6% – the percentage drop of Republican evangelicals who believed God appointed the president of the United States following the election of Biden in 2020.
  • 60% in 2011 to 16.5% in 2018 – the percentage drop of white evangelicals who believed that a public official who “commits an immoral act in their personal life” would be unable to “behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.”
  • The leading predictor of where Christians place Jesus on a left-right political spectrum is their own ideological identity and in the last election, party identification of religious Americans was the strongest predictor of who they considered to be the most religious candidate.

If belonging trumps believing, we expect in-group norms and sensibilities to trump essential Christian beliefs. Perry shows how people can hold many seemingly contradictory ideas in tension for the sake of status and harmony within their group. Hence, the disconnect between religious beliefs and behaviors is common, perhaps even normative, when our group-based relationships are on the line.  Consider:

  • How else could you have those who proclaimed a gospel of universal love while attending racially segregated churches? 
  • Or colonial missionaries who curried favor by the state for forcing conversions, cultural erasure, or the subjugation of indigenous peoples under the justification of spreading the Gospel.
  • Or those who, under the banner of “biblical authority,” solely address the “sins” of their opposing party while turning a blind eye towards rampant immorality from those in their religious community or political party.

If belonging trumps believing, then we would expect to see the prioritization of in-group clout and political power over a countercultural Christianity marked by authentic gospel living. Consider:

  • “We kind of gave him…a mulligan. You get a do-over here,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. [We] “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists. And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground that is willing to punch the bully.”
  • “I’m looking for a leader who’s going to fight,” said Baptist pastor Jeffress. Regarding Trump’s “shit-hole countries” comment, Jeffress opined, “Apart from the vocabulary attributed to him, President Trump is right on target in his sentiment.” And with Trump’s payoff of Stormy Daniels, Jeffress said that everyone “knew they weren’t voting for an altar boy.”
  • Evangelicals are 37.5% less likely to see personal character and 58.3% more likely to see immigration as the most important factor in choosing a candidate – data reflective of the political party most of them belong to.

This abandonment of character, thirst for political power, revision of morality, and selective vision all point to Perry’s conclusion that “We are social beings driven by group status, and the currency for status is showing you are ride-or-die committed.”

A Few Caveats 

But belonging versus believing is not a binary: we’re all a mixture of the two.  Not every evangelical prioritizes group-driven values over personal beliefs: some keep their identity and values pure. And finally, the close association between political parties and evangelical sensibilities doesn’t imply directional causality.  You can’t assume that one’s Republican membership automatically leads to a reduced interest in personal morality. 

Yet throughout history and even today, leaders have harnessed religion’s focus on belonging to advance their agendas. They recognize what many fail to see: religion’s social essence often subconsciously elevates group identity, priorities, and norms in place of personal beliefs and values. By exploiting the dynamics of in-group loyalty and fear, they amplify outrage, encouraging people to substitute culture war priorities for essential gospel principles.

These leaders exploit the fact that human behavior—whether in religion or politics—is largely driven by instinctive emotions rather than thoughtful reasoning. Cognitive biases further reinforce these gut-level instincts, rationalizing actions that align with emotional and social impulses rather than thoughtfully grounded theological beliefs. Understanding this, they create messages that ignite in-group cohesion, often prompting believers to act in ways that undermine the life-changing power of the gospel. Their strategy is to be transformational, turning good people into those who “know not what they are doing.”

Four Take-Home Points and a Conclusion

  • The Power of Group Identity: Studies by Tajfel, Turner, and Zimbardo demonstrate that humans naturally and subconsciously align with group norms, often at the expense of critical thinking or personal beliefs. This reinforces the idea that group identity significantly influences moral and social behavior.
  • Belonging Over Believing: We view ourselves as the architects of our religious journeys—autonomous individuals shaped by ideas that cultivate a personal faith, which in turn informs our actions and beliefs. Yet, the data show otherwise – how social identity, group dynamics, and authority subconsciously drive individuals to often act contrary to those personal beliefs.
  • The Politicization of Religion: Religious values are increasingly and subconsciously intertwined with political and cultural identities. This trend raises concerns about the ways religion is used to amplify group loyalty, sometimes undermining its foundational principles of love, justice, and integrity.
  • The Role of Bias in Decision-Making: Human cognition tends to justify instinctive, group-oriented behaviors. This subconscious process can produce motivational biases that skew moral and ethical judgments, reinforcing in-group loyalty at the expense of faith-based virtues and values.

A new paradigm shift is needed—one that consciously “puts off” the influence of tribal loyalty through “putting on” of Christlikeness, showing the world what our God is like through the words, deeds, and attitudes of people who take seriously their calling of being “Christ’s Ambassadors.” We need a church with a singular identity centered on following Jesus, in whom “we live and move, and have our being.”

In essence, we need a new set of 95 Thesis nailed to the doors of many American churches, which begin with “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.”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on “For They Know Not What They [We] Are Doing”

A Thanksgiving thanksgiving

Posted on November 28, 2024 by steve.ignell

Doing “church” in my youth felt like being part of a team sport—an immersive, full-body experience shared in community. It was filled with energy and enthusiasm, radiating from the pulpit and echoed in the pews. We sang and prayed with vigor in a prayer movement composed of three parts: personal prayers done out loud together, a formal prayer vocally and sometimes loudly affirmed by the congregation, and an altar-time prayer involving sound, kinesics, and spatial movement. Preachers preached with vigor too, marked by passion, volume, and action. Even with a horn, at times, when Pastor Davidson picked up his trombone and blew.

No service was complete without testimonies, the part of our Pentecostal liturgy where people stood up and gave short speeches. A “praise report” or a thanksgiving report was the norm, detailing some healing or victory over a “trial.” Or just a general statement of thankfulness, grateful that their name was “written in glory.” Sometimes we had “pop up” testimony times, named after the action of corn kernels randomly popping up on the stove.  In his book Pentecostal Spirituality, Steven Land calls these testimony services a time of theological reflection, developing in the hearers of these stories “virtues, expectancy, and attitudes…to sanctify and form them as a body of witnesses.”

Although I’m still in the same denomination, it’s been decades since we’ve “done” testimony service.  We have new liturgies now, which are simplified, quieter, and less participatory. But should a testimony service ever again arise, I’d sure be tempted to “pop up” and express my thankfulness for science and the people of science who have devoted their lives to changing the world we live in. Now, that would be a head-turner, especially if you time-traveled back to my youth when parts of science were distrusted and considered a thing “of the world.”

I recently listened to a podcast that described how just one institution, Bell Labs, became the engine of change for our society today. In an electronic age marked by cell phones, televisions, computers, and the internet, it’s pretty amazing how these products owe some portion of their success to just one entity, Bell Labs. (Fun fact: my major professor, Bob Fagen, once worked at Bell Labs before becoming a world-renowned behavioral ecologist). Then, when you consider the many additional dimensions of science such as medicine, agriculture, and infrastructure systems, one can’t help but express wonder and gratitude for the life-enhancing legacy of science.

Consider the following worldwide statistics.  Worldwide undernourishment has dropped by 33% in the past 20 years. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from 33% to 10% in the past 25 years, while the mortality rate of children five and younger has been halved.  That alone has saved an estimated 122 million lives.  In the past 50 years, life expectancy rates have risen by 20 years, primarily due to infant and maternal mortality reductions. During that same period, literacy rates doubled, now exceeding 85% of the world’s population, and vaccinations have become normative, with rates also exceeding 85%. And through just the covid vaccine alone, an estimated 20 million lives have been saved in the past four years.

Can I hear a big Amen?  We should celebrate these increases, testifying to the improved flourishing of people made in the image of God. The world of our grandparents has markedly changed for the better, at least from a health perspective. And a significant portion of this is due to science, by the joint effort of people and institutions working together through diverse actions and policies to make a difference in our world. [End of testimony]

Thanksgiving is perhaps my favorite holiday of the year. Before starting the meal, we’ve often paused to reflect on what we’re most thankful for. Most of the time, heartful stories about family and faith dominate our thankful thoughts.  It’s hard to beat that, especially when they are sitting across the table from you! 

This Thanksgiving season, I will add science to the shortlist of things for which I am thankful.  The benefits of science in prolonging life and improving human experiences reflect God’s common grace, showcasing his care for creation and his desire for human flourishing. These advancements provide a foretaste of the kingdom’s full restoration, where suffering and death will ultimately cease, aligning with the hope inaugurated by Jesus’ resurrection. By contributing to healing and justice, science mirrors God’s redemptive work, enabling humanity to participate in his Kingdom’s purposes. Furthermore, it calls believers to steward creation wisely and share these benefits equitably, demonstrating the Kingdom ethic of compassion and justice.

Much more could be said and data given, but I’ll close with the following three graphs. 

Can I hear one more Pentecostal Amen this Thanksgiving season?

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on A Thanksgiving thanksgiving

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

Posted on October 30, 2024 by steve.ignell

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 , , | Comments Off on Ten Reasons Why This Long-Time Republican is Voting Democrat This Year

The Prophesy

Posted on October 15, 2024 by steve.ignell

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 , , , | Comments Off on The Prophesy

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

Posted on September 28, 2024 by steve.ignell

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

Posted on September 25, 2024 by steve.ignell

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?

Posted on September 7, 2024 by steve.ignell

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

Posted on August 13, 2024 by steve.ignell

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 a 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

Posted on May 14, 2024 by steve.ignell

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