Six Graphs and Six New Year Reflections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Way Forward

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

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

Six Points of Reflection As We Start a New Year

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

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

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

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

The Mohler Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foundations

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

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

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

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

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

But What About…

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

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

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

Moving the Needle

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

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

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

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

An Acceptable Cost

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

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

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

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

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

You Make the Call

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

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

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

A Christian Political Perspective Prioritizes Peacemaking

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

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

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

A Christian Political Perspective Misses the Mark Through Partisan Exclusivity

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

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

A Christian Political Perspective Misses the Mark Without Prioritizing Character 

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

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

Last Thoughts

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

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

 “Truly He Taught Us to Love One Another”

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

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

Christ’s Countercultural Ethic of Love

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

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

The Scandal of the Good Samaritan

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

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

The Test

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

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

Three Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countercultural Christ-likeness

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

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

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

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

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

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

But whatabout

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

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

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

Two things can be true at once: we can help needy Americans and help the needy from places far away.  Any nation, especially one like ours which declares an affinity for Christian principles and which provides over $20 billion of subsidies to corporate oil and gas interests each year, can surely find a way to support one of the highest priorities as taught by Jesus: to sacrificially love our neighbor – someone outside of our tribe, community, and nation – just like the Samaritan man in scripture.

Last Thoughts From O Holy Night (v3)

Truly He taught us to love one another;

His law is Love and His gospel is Peace;

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

And in his name all oppression shall cease,

Sweet hymns of joy in grateful Chorus raise we;

Let all within us praise his Holy name!

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

His pow’r and glory, evermore proclaim!

His pow’r and glory, evermore proclaim!

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

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

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

Al Mohler Weighs In

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

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

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

Jake Meander’s Response

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

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

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

Sola Conservativism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sola Christendom

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t it Time?

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

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

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

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

We Can Make a Difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Commonality of Violence

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

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

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

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

Stochastic Terrorism

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

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

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

We Can Make A Difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rise of the Nones

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

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

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

Losing our Religion

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

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

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

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

Research Support for Moore’s Hypothesis

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

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

Is It Worth the Cost?

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

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

Who is Discipling Who?

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

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

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

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

Messy Ice Cream: Situational Ethics

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

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

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

Irreconcilable Polarization

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

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

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

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

Culture Over Faith

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding the Elephant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Manifold World of Biblical Values

In my last post I introduced a fascinating debate occurring on the center right about strategies of public engagement given a perceived change in the standing of Christianity in American society. At the center of this debate are a series of questions about the status of the sustained relevance of Christianity: (1) does society have a negative view of Christianity; (2) what does being a Christian really mean; (3) What are Christian moral views; (4) Is Christian morality expressly repudiated in today’s society and (5) will subscribing to Christian moral views necessarily bring negative consequences in today’s so called negative world?

I began by addressing the first two questions, noting how society’s view of Christianity depends upon the type of Christianity it experiences.  Pure Christianity “filled to the measure of all the fullness of God” creates an attractive ekklesia marked by spiritual fruit “against which there is no law.”  A combative Christianity focused on “enemies” and aligned with outside interests in the “fight,” becomes an unattractive Christianity marked by works of the flesh. The proof of the pudding comes through dozens of studies providing empirical evidence for these divergent outcomes. 

The remaining three questions focus on biblical values and the reception of those values in modern society.  And like society’s view of Christianity, these questions yield markedly different answers depending upon what we mean by Christianity. 

A Personal Story

Some years ago, an employee at my former job transitioned to a transgender female. Apparently, this was the first such public transitioning in our agency so several of our east coast leadership came to assist, seeing it as a teachable moment for the agency. Although they had ultimate control of the day, I provided the opening remarks and hosted the meeting.

The staff knew something was up. We had not conveyed the intent of the meeting, but every seat in the windowless conference room was filled with people standing and spilling out into the hallway. It was the biggest crowd we’d ever seen with many of the 500 or so staff and contractors in attendance or watching remotely. There was a buzz in the air with a palpable sense of expectation.

It was an honor and privilege to lead this meeting. I advocated for acceptance, insisted we were our “brother’s keeper” and what happened to any one of us mattered to all of us. I spoke about the privilege of serving one another through a posture of generosity, kindness, inclusion, and empathy. Such statements were easy to say as all of them were part of a core values talk I routinely gave.   

The fallout from our meeting was overwhelming. Many came up to us in the days and weeks following to thank us, saying they had never been so proud to be part of an organization. Many knew I was a Christ-follower. It was one of the more significant days of my life.

I was recounting this event with a friend I’ve known since college. Our conversations often turn towards cultural issues so it wasn’t surprising when the topic of transgenderism came up. As I shared, my friend listened. But the more he listened, the more he became seriously troubled. What I saw as an easy decision, he saw as a difficult one. While I viewed it as a posture of love, he viewed it as an abandonment of truth. Whereas I imagined a reflectance of Jesus, he imagined the accommodation of sin.

The Discord in Biblical Values

An alumnus of River Valley High School in Marion County, Ohio recently told students, in a high school graduation speech to “choose a spouse” and when they do, “I also strongly suggest to make sure to choose biblical principles, you know a male with a female and female with a male.” 

Gordon Conwell’s Ruth Melkonian-Hoover sees biblical values through a different lens: “there is an urgent need for evangelicals—leaders and laity alike—to fully apprehend the “moral components of the immigration issue—honoring the Biblical values of ‘welcoming the stranger,’ keeping the families together, considering the justice implications of migration nationally and globally, and acknowledging the conditions in other societies that lead to immigration in the first place,” as has been done before.”

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod views “Upholding biblical values” as a quartet of beliefs: the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, the sanctity of human life, constraining sexual activity within confines of marriage, and the exclusivity of males for the role of pastor and the exercise of authority in the church.”

Compassion, a Christian child advocacy ministry, lists generosity, courage, love, respect, hope and peace as their understanding of biblical values.  Such values emanate from those who are Christian as defined by “someone whose behavior and heart reflects Jesus Christ.”

Awake America Ministries, “a trusted source for Biblical insight on Capitol Hill and issues that affect churches and believers across the nation,” puts out a Quick Reference Guide to Voting Biblical Values. Their view of biblical values, given that “the vote of every Christian should be based on the principles of Scripture,” is eight-fold: Life is a sacred gift from God, Marriage is between one man and one woman, personal identity – who God created and intended us to be, stewardship – God owns everything and we are to responsibly manage his possessions, work is honorable and noble and it is our purpose – even before the original sin; role of government, individual rights and responsibility, great commission.

Reconciling the Discord

Like ships passing in the night, “Biblical values” mean different things to different people.  To that Ohio alumnus, it meant a short list of gender understandings.  To the Christian university professor, it meant loving one’s neighbor when that neighbor is an immigrant or a stranger.  To Awake America Ministries, it meant a set of conservative policy choices they believe are supported by scripture.  To me, it meant Christ-likeness, heeding the apostle Paul’s injunction to “clothe yourselves with heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness.” To my college friend it meant confronting the culture with his understanding of truth. 

Such diversity in “biblical values” seems unreconciliable.  Not only do our theological convictions differ, so do our culture and personal histories.  These two dimensions – called our theological and sociological locations – profoundly shape our understandings of faith and are central to the stories we build for our lives.

But what if we could start afresh with some basic or first principles, formed by the gospel and independent of culture. And then see if we can arrive at a few central understandings of biblical values, faithful to the core tenets of the gospel? 

Of course, many any of our first principles will vary.  But perhaps it’s worth a try and for sake of moving forward, let’s start with a small set of core scriptures and gospel teachings which create the foundation for my biblical values: (1) a comprehensive integration of Old Testament laws given in Micah 6:8; (2) the sufficiency of Christ’s two great commandments; (3) the centrality of Jesus’ life and teachings; and (4) our calling to reflect Christ as measured through the fruits of the spirit.

First Principles: The Comprehensiveness of Justice, Mercy, and Humility

Did you know that most of us can distinguish roughly one million different colors? This amazing accomplishment occurs through three color receptors in our eyes.  Working together, those three receptors boil down the vast diversity of incoming light into its three central components. The receptors then provide electrical signals to the brain so it can deliver a one in a million answer. 

Just like the eye parses color through three types of lenses, God condensed His 613 Old Testament (OT) laws into the three biblical standards of Micah 6:8: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

These three requirements – to love mercy, act justly and walk humbly – form the beginning of my benchmark or checklist when evaluating an issue or when considering consider what my “Biblical” view should be. Like a statistic is deemed “sufficient” if it captures all the information within a data set, these three requirements are likewise deemed sufficient through their capture of the entirety of OT law. Omitting or diminishing any one of the three leads to a deficiency in biblical values – a type of moral blindness – just like the diminishment of one of the color-sensing receptors in our eyes leads to colorblindness. 

Benchmark #1Micah 6:8 tests our heart.  Do we really “do justice” or would we rather just believe in justice, an easily spoken abstract idea rather than sacrificial and concrete acts focused on others?  Do we really love kindness, a costly state of the heart, rather than a less demanding and often selective practice of performing kind acts? Do we really “do” humility, where humility encompasses every aspect our life and thoughts. Or is our focus on “showing” humility, an externally assessed mode of “walk” we control.

The 800 lb gorilla

Our human nature then throws a monkey wrench into the mix. Like the tip of an iceberg, our failure to act justly or show mercy becomes is easily seen and receives our greatest attention.  But like an iceberg’s undersea portion, a failure to walk humbly has an outsized influence in ways mostly hidden to us.   

I’m reminded of the well-known experiment where subjects were asked to watch a short video with six people – three in white shirts and three in black shirts – passing basketballs around. A reward will be given to those subjects keeping an accurate but silent count of the number of passes made by the people in white shirts. At some point, a gorilla strolls into the middle of the action, faces the camera, thumps its chest, and then leaves, spending nine seconds on screen. Most subjects never see the gorilla when queried following the video.  They are so intent upon their counting mission that they become oblivious to the obvious. 

Our lack of humility acts in the same way. We naturally focus on the visible virtues and aspects of our lives.  But most of us miss the gorilla in the room – how we are naturally disposed to think we’re right and to be certain about that “rightness.”

This lack of humility, made known through by our sense of certainty, is an inescapable outcome of pride, the “one vice no man of the world is free.” And it’s unfortunately a driving factor in our conversion of life experiences into the meaningful narratives which guide our lives.

It’s because our “rightness” gets built into our stories and usually without our awareness. Such stories prepare us for the complexities of life, like a flight simulator teaching a pilot to fly.  They connect us together with likeminded people.  They teach us about values through the example of our forebearers.  And they enable us to efficiently live in a world overwhelmed with sensory input. But all this efficiency comes at a price and makes our stories like a two-edged sword.

Our stories must be instinctive for this efficiency to work, as Kahneman and others have shown.  We do that through mental shortcuts to simplify the complexity in our lives. The cost of these shortcuts however is truth, through compromised judgements now embedded into our stories.  We self-judge ourselves to be evenhanded, but we’re riddled with biases we can’t perceive.   

Our stories are shaped by the communities we join.  Our need to belong creates a new set of values, through a transfer of identity we don’t comprehend.  We protect our reputation in these new tribes by defending their values which have now become ours.   Our cognitive biases then finish the job through a motivated reasoning that binds and blinds.    

Qualifying Principle 1: Humility, Humility, Humility. Because our assertion of “biblical values” cannot be separated from our culturally-infused narratives, how should we then live? Perhaps we should listen to the words of St Augustine “If you should ask me what are the ways of God, I would tell you the first is humility, the second is humility, and the third is humility.”

Qualifying Principle 2: Circumspect in our Language. Given our human disposition to apply motivated reasoning to fit preexisting narratives, held with a sense of rightness sans humility, let us be careful in how we use the words “biblical values.”  To wit: the categorical assertion of “biblical values” when applied with an air of authority too often turns “gospel values” into “my values” which then “misses the mark” – another word for sin.

Qualifying Principle 3: Precautionary Towards Christ’s Mission. A spirit of humility leads to a precautionary gospel protective of Christ’s mission. This mission-first focus, when mindful of the diversity across the traditions of the faith, constrains biblical values to privilege first order faith essentials, adhering to St Augustine’s maxim of: “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. 

First Principles:  The Constraints of Love x Love

We often reduce the complexities of life into two-dimensional sets of maxims.  Wise parents balance authority and affection.  Good relationships arise from self-awareness and empathy.  And years ago, while working late into the night to help wire a friend’s house, the electrician abruptly announced that life consisted of “motion and direction.” 

Over the years, I’ve gotten great mileage from that last binary observation, especially in the workplace as a manager. But each of these reductionistic aphorisms eventually break down as the complexities of life refuse such simplistic answers.

Yet when the expert in the law asked “what must I do to inherit eternal life,” he received a binary answer that endures two thousand years later: to love God and love our neighbor with the second commandment as unto the first.  On those two commandments alone, Christ said, “hung all the law and the prophets.” Jesus then made it universal when he defined neighbor as those from a different tribe, race or culture – the ones we naturally reject. 

With just these two commandments, Jesus transformed the entirety of scripture into an interconnected mandate of love. Loving God amounts to loving others with our faithfulness to the former predicting our practice in the latter.  Hence the proof of our heaven-ward love is measured by our love for one another, especially for those who are different than us.  

This gospel of Jesus Christ is good news and our worship of Him and our care for others are two sides of the same coin.  When Jesus launched His ministry, he stood up in Nazareth and said: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Jesus was announcing the coming of God’s kingdom, the dawning of a new world order. Where the proclamation of His kingdom was mixed with hearts of compassion and an attitude of service, all joined at the hip and inseparable.

Benchmark #2: Our love for God and neighbor forms the two goalposts of our life.  Our devotion to Christ connects them together forming a Christ-centered path for our life. Any biblical worldview must be faithful to these boundary conditions, with our worship of God involving a love of people, and with the depth of that worship measured by the depth of our compassion for the marginalized.

First Principles – The Centrality of What Would Jesus Do?

Years ago, while building our home, just a day before sheet rock was scheduled, the weather service forecasted an impending severe windstorm. We had just framed the house according to engineered plans, so I’m sure everything would have been fine.  But to allay any concerns about the possibility of wind-driven uplift, I worked late into the night installing additional straps and hold-downs.

Each hold-down, affixed with an epoxied anchor bolt, can withstand 28,000 pounds of force. Now take dozens of them tied into 120 yards of concrete and you have a half million pounds of immovable weight ready and able to take on the southeastern Alaska winds. And when those winds showed up, repeatedly and with great force, I slept well every night knowing that the anchoring system would hold.

When we confess “Christ is the solid rock I stand,” we afix ourselves to Christ making him the foundation for each part of our life.  From our actions to aspirations, every square inch of our lives becomes attached including those things we call “biblical values.”

Such biblical values, when connected to Christ, incorporates a new kingdom ethic and countercultural way of living. They focus on character and the attitudes of the heart.  They arise through an alignment involving every aspect of our life – our thinking, behavior, perspectives, goals, and worldview –with both the teachings and example of Christ.  They make the Christ in us clearly visible to the world, seen within and through us.

NT Wright puts it this way: These qualities [habits of the heart] —purity of heart, mercy, and so on—are not, so to speak, “things you have to do” to earn a “reward,” a “payment.” Nor are they merely the “rules of conduct” laid down for new converts to follow. They are, in themselves, the signs of life, the language of life, the life of new creation, the life of new covenant, the life which Jesus came to bring.

In U.S. constitutional law, the court can apply three different standards when determining if a law infringes a fundamental constitutional right.  Their very highest standard is called strict scrutiny and requires the law to be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest with the least restrictive means.  A law is struck down and deemed unconstitutional when it fails to meet this very high bar. 

Benchmark #3 Strict Scrutiny WWJD Test: In a spirit of humility and with an acute sense for the distorting power of our cultural narratives, are we willing to subject our assertions of Biblical values to a strict scrutiny-like test for What Would Jesus Do?  To wit: are our biblical values narrowly tailored such that they satisfy the compelling biblical interest of reflecting Christ’s nature in the least restrictive or most easily understood manner?  Hence, are we willing to deem anything falling short of a Christ-directed countercultural way of living, of a misalignment with Christ’s Sermon on the Mount ethics, unChristian and struck from our public witness?

First Principles – Spiritual Fruit

Over lunch the other day, Tammy asked a good friend of ours and a theologian by training why the “Christ in us” was so often invisible to our surrounding society. We had been discussing our calling of “image-bearers,” bringing a redeeming love into all the world. It’s a calling of vocation where we become part of God’s kingdom project for the present renewal of creation, as we await the final renewal still to come.

Like in Christ’s parable of the sower, the answers were many and all relevant to the question.  Such invisibility can arise from those who are “Christians in name only” like the seed quickly eaten by the birds along the path.  For others it arises from a superficial faith, a faith without root and hence withers under life’s pressures.  Still others get entrapped by the thorns of competing desires yielding a distorted faith that eventually takes over.

This latter category is particularly common and driven by a host of causes.  Materialism or consumerism hijack people’s loves because you can’t serve both “God and mammon.” Cultural allegiances kidnap Christian imaginations, changing one’s identity to conform to the tribe. Political ideologies exchange gospel verities, privileging a host of unbiblical notions such as individualism, authoritarianism, and populism. Christian Nationalism, formed from a mythic view of America’s origins, seduces many of the devout, turning their focus away from the “good soil” of a pure Christianity to be entrapped in the thicket of “guns, god and country.” 

Yet one category in the parable remains: “Others fell on good soil and yielded fruit: some one hundred times as much, some sixty, and some thirty.”

That’s it.  It’s what God wants from us, at least according to Jesus, and hence a governing basis for any of our biblical values. An inward transformation that yields an outwardly visible people of God principally known by a demonstration of spiritual fruit.  Listen to the words of Jesus: “This is to My Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, proving yourselves to be My disciples.” The apostle Paul then teaches what that looks like calling out love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Benchmark #4: Fruit Any of our values, beliefs, behavior and attitudes lacking in or inconsistent with biblically defined fruit fail the most essential and easiest to understand test of Christianity. 

A Modest Proposal

Let’s go back to the original question: What are Christian moral views? One obvious answer is “many,” of course, given the diversity within Christianity with over 33,830 denominations worldwide – unless we are willing to recuse some of these denominations, a task well above our pay grades.  Here, Miles Law “where you stand depends upon where you sit” rings true given our diverse cultural and religious backgrounds.

But what if?  What if we found common ground to at least reduce the dimensionality of the “many, by creating a small set of principles or standards derived from central themes of the Christian faith?  Like a fence enclosing a large pasturing region, such principles could allow for diverse theological and sociopolitical beliefs given the inherent complexities of life’s issues and challenges while honoring our calling to be “ambassadors for Christ.”

Using the four central themes of the Christian faith I’ve laid out in the preceding sections, perhaps we can ask the following questions given an issue or belief: are our views

  1. Presented in humility, circumspect in language, and willing to listen to competing views?
  2. Precautionary towards Christ’s mission?
  3. Honoring of Augustine’s maxim: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity?
  4. Able to pass a “strict scrutiny” type of WWJD test, i.e., laser focused on reflecting Christ’s nature?
  5. Steeped in kindness and privileging acts of service, especially for the marginalized?
  6. NOT promoting beliefs, behavior and attitudes lacking in or inconsistent with biblical fruit?

If we can say “yes” to all of these for any particular issue, then we’re likely on the right track.  And if those outside of our tribe say “yes” too, then we have certainly warranted the label “Christian.”

Final Thoughts

Jesus said “blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”  The Apostle Paul said “Christ within us [is] the hope of glory,” at least as long as that gospel stays pure.

We need a revival of pure Christianity, a Christlikeness that invades ‘every square inch” of our life.  Where cultural change organically occurs through the faithful presence of Christ-like followers. Full of people who look like Jesus in every walk of life.

Exchanging a worldview formed by fear and ruled through power for a worldview formed by the cross and precautionary to His mission: centered in Jesus with Christ-like servant hearts and a listening spirit; choosing unity over division, love over disdain, and kindness over outrage. Marked by spiritual fruit as we show the world we are “God’s picked representatives of the new humanity, purified and beloved of God himself, be merciful in action, kindly in heart, humble in mind. Accept life, and be most patient and tolerant with one another, always ready to forgive if you have a difference with anyone. Forgive as freely as the Lord has forgiven you. And, above everything else, be truly loving, for love is the golden chain of all the virtues (Colossians 3:12).”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Manifold World of Biblical Values

The Sin of Winsomeness

I still remember the phone call which launched one of the key changepoints of my life.  It was October 2002 and I was sitting along mom’s bedside in a Wisconsin intensive care facility.  Dad was next door, still in intensive care but doing much better.  At least his alarms were quiet unlike moms.  Both had contracted Legionnaire’s disease and if it hadn’t been for an improbable but minor car accident, neither of them would have made it.  Following the accident, they had been taken to a nearby hospital just to be checked out and within a few hours that initial check-out turned into a month-long life or death ordeal. 

This chapter in their life’s story had a mostly happy ending although mom, known for her singing, lost her vocal timbre.  My folks eventually made it back home and I did too, now in a new position as the deputy director of a medium-sized governmental fishery science laboratory. 

I hadn’t sought the position.  In fact, I hadn’t even applied until the third time it was offered.  I knew it meant a change in responsibilities, from a practicing scientist to the administration of science, from a player to a coach.  I had much to learn but the learning curve had already started. I had previously dealt with administration responsibilities as a science project and task leader. I knew my past experience in construction would prepare me well for the challenges of facilities oversight. 

Being a manager, however brought new challenges and learning opportunities.  With limited leadership training or supervisory guidance, the ball was in my court.  But those challenges became a blessing as it brought me to Kouzes and Posner’s book The Leadership Challenge and their five-step framework for exemplary leadership.  

Something clicked after reading their first step called Model the Way.  I had been wrestling with how to incorporate my faith into this new position. I had seen how some choose to openly display their allegiance to Christianity. Whether a t-shirt with a message or a Bible strategically placed, those options neither fit my style nor something I observed to be productive. 

Years ago, Kuyper’s famous statement “There’s not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is Lord over all, does not exclaim, ‘Mine’!” had also “clicked.” Kuyper was pushing back against the natural tendency to compartmentalize our lives.  He saw every aspect of a person’s life as interconnected, under the teachings and lordship of Christ. Hence, every part of our lives, to paraphrase the apostle Paul, was like a living letter from Christ. Written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, known and read by everyone.

The text of our living letter is in the language of the fruits of the spirit, the outward evidence of an inward work of the Spirit.  The apostle John says it this way: “let’s not just talk about love; let’s practice real love. This is the only way we’ll know we’re living, truly living in God’s reality.”

Modeling the Way means finding your voice as a leader – to know what you stand for, what motivates you and what you value.  I immediately saw the development of core values as a vehicle to connect my faith to the workplace.  To embed virtues, Christian virtues such as the fruits of the spirit, into the work environment.

I recognized back then the necessity of virtue, a message David Brooks later articulated in his book the Road to Character.  And how such virtue not only informs a leader’s actions and behavior, but also affects the atmosphere of the organization.  Leaders may exert less influence within an organization than one would think.  But in the area of organizational culture and climate, leaders have a profound influence. 

The Culture Debate

Fast forward 20 years where there’s a fascinating debate occurring on the center right about the proper role of faith in a pluralistic society.  At the center of this debate is the notion of “winsomeness,” a set of virtue driven practices seen by many on the right as outdated, no longer relevant or useful for today’s “war.” The debate is respectful and each article worth reading. 

It starts with James Wood’s article on “How I Evolved on Tim Keller.” Wood expresses a loss in confidence “that the evangelistic framework I had gleaned from Keller would provide sufficient guidance for the cultural and political moment.” Wood relies upon Renn’s breakdown of the present century into three stages of secularization – positive, neutral and negative with respect to Christianity – as a foundation for his analysis.

David French responds to Wood’s critique by asserting Keller’s winsome, missional, and gospel-centered’ approach is still relevant to the society we live today.  French concludes by saying: “We live in an age of negative polarization, when the cardinal characteristic of partisanship is personal animosity. In these circumstances, a Christian community characterized by the fruit of the spirit should be a burst of cultural light, a counterculture that utterly contradicts the fury of the times.”

Rod Dreher of “The Benedict Option” then weighs in twice, affirming Renn and Wood’s critique.  When you live in the negative world where “Christian morality is expressly repudiated,” says Dreher, so that Christians cannot “close one’s eyes to the fact that there are enemies, and wish to do us serious harm.” He believes the moment of winsomeness has past, leaving Keller and by association French “yesterday’s man, fighting yesterday’s war.”

Renn’s Three Stages of Secularization

Renn’s analysis has two general themes: how the standing of Christianity has changed in recent years and the right strategies of public engagement given those changes. Here is his central thesis:

Within the story of American secularization, there have been three distinct stages:

  • Positive World (Pre-1994): Society at large retains a mostly positive view of Christianity. To be known as a good, churchgoing man remains part of being an upstanding citizen. Publicly being a Christian is a status-enhancer. Christian moral norms are the basic moral norms of society and violating them can bring negative consequences.
  • Neutral World (1994–2014): Society takes a neutral stance toward Christianity. Christianity no longer has privileged status but is not disfavored. Being publicly known as a Christian has neither a positive nor a negative impact on one’s social status. Christianity is a valid option within a pluralistic public square. Christian moral norms retain some residual effect.
  • Negative World (2014–Present): Society has come to have a negative view of Christianity. Being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in the elite domains of society. Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good and the new public moral order. Subscribing to Christian moral views or violating the secular moral order brings negative consequences.

Many readers are likely nodding their head, at least for part of Renn’s analysis.  Yes, they say, secularization is on the rise.  American adult church membership is now below 50%.  About half of U.S. adults believe Christianity’s influence on American life is decreasing (53%) with this sense of decline greatest among white evangelicals.

But does society have a negative view of Christianity, as Renn asserts?  Is Christian morality expressly repudiated in today’s society as both Renn and Dreher lament?  And will those who subscribe to Christian moral views face negative consequences in today’s so called negative world?

Let’s take their first question.  Most Americans hold to a positive view of religion, believing it does “more good than harm” than “more harm than good,” a finding that transcends all age groups.  But do these positive views still hold up if the word “religion” is exchanged with “Christianity?” 

Renn says “no,” asserting without evidence that the prevailing view towards Christians is now negative. Most white evangelicals would likely agree with 66% of them believing that their religious beliefs are in conflict with mainstream culture. They further believe there is “a lot of discrimination against them,” even exceeding levels historically faced by marginalized communities.  To wit: most Americans believe blacks and women face a great deal of discrimination whereas most white evangelicals disagree; most white evangelicals believe Christians face a lot of discrimination whereas most Americans disagree. 

But what if this gap in social perceptions really measures a gap in understandings about Christianity?  What if Renn et al. are correct for at least a specific type of culturally infused Christianity but wrong for a Christ-likeness infused faith?  And because of an in-group perspective which, in the words of Haidt, “binds and blinds,” all they can see is the former?

Which Christianity?

You see, there’s a bigger issue in play.  Those questions Renn, Dreher, Wood (RDW) and others are asking – such as what are Christian moral views or will subscribing to Christian moral views necessarily bring negative consequences in today’s so called negative world – depend upon a more fundamental question: What does being a Christian really mean?  To wit: when DRW assert that the culture’s view of Christianity has changed in the past three decades that being known as a Christian is a social negative, what do they mean by Christianity? 

The study of religiosity in general and Christianity in particular have long faced similar questions.  The scope and practice of Christianity is enormously broad with differences that are real, extensive and consequential in terms of beliefs, behavior, and outcomes. 

In the 1950’s sociologist Gordon Allport tackled this question by parsing religiousness into two orientations.  The first, intrinsic orientation, is where one’s internalized religious devotion becomes the central guiding motivator of life. The second, extrinsic orientation, is where religious motivation arises from social acceptance, security or status within a community or from fulfilling personal needs through achieving comfort or protection from personal troubles.

But even this breakdown of religiosity was too simplistic.  In 1991, Batson and Schoenrade created a third orientation called quest to describe people who treat religion as a search for truth, not as a means or end. Others measures soon followed, such as religious fundamentalism and doctrinal orthodoxy, each showing a different “brand” of Christianity as witnessed by a differing range of belief, attitudes and behaviors of “Christian” people. 

RDW’s Brand of Christianity

When RDW say “Christian,” however, they are not referring to an intrinsic Christian orientation.  Their “orthodox Christians” are “those who hold to traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and the nature of marriage.”  Any who are “winsomely teaching Biblical principles” instead of speaking about gender ideology are cowards. All who “tend to downplay flashpoint social issues such as abortion or homosexuality” but instead emphasize “priorities such as helping the poor and select forms of social activism” practice an “evangelicalism that takes its cues from the secular elite consensus.”

Core gospel teachings or admonitions of Christlikeness rarely show up in RDW’s arguments. Dreher briefly espouses a love your enemies gospel mandate and, at least for Dreher, I believe that avowal is genuine.  But like a flywheel returning to its original course, he quickly puts the spotlight back on “Christian enemies.” We cannot hate our enemies, he says, but being “winsome world Christians” is a failing strategy for the world that exists today. We have enemies and “winsomeness is not going to prepare the churches for what is fast coming to us.” We “must read the signs of the times and act,” because “you’d have to be crazy to look around our country today and not be afraid of what’s happening.”

Here’s The Problem: A Focus on Enemies Changes our Hearts

Again and again, Dreher returns to his notion of “Christian” enemies.  “The idea they will embrace us,” he says, “or even tolerate us, if we just be sweet is no longer viable.  I don’t advocate at all hating our enemies. Neither did MLK.  But King also recognized that he and the movement he led really did have enemies, and those enemies were willing to do violence to them.”

Yes, King had many enemies.  But unlike RDW, he didn’t dwell on the threat they posed. King viewed his enemies through the lens of the gospel, not through fear. “And when you come to the point that you look in the face of every man and see deep down within him what religion calls “the image of God,” you begin to love him in spite of. No matter what he does, you see God’s image there. There is an element of goodness that he can never sluff off. Discover the element of good in your enemy. And as you seek to hate him, find the center of goodness and place your attention there and you will take a new attitude.”

When we become fixated upon our enemies, something within us changes – as King understood and Allport’s research has shown. In-group/outgroup dynamics organically develop and organize our social perceptions. The Pauline perspective of “neither Jew nor Greek” gets exchanged for a them versus us mindset.  We then sort our affections around “us”-minded communities with religious dogmas amplifying this divide through creating an innate sense of moral superiority.

We become “principled theologians” where we instinctively protect sacred values. In the words of William James, “it turns us into intuitive prosecutors, on the lookout for norm violators as we set boundaries of acceptable thinking.  We easily assign blame and assess penalties, seeing such prosecution as a virtuous upholding of the “social order.”

A Focus on Enemies Changes our Identity

To his credit, Dreher repeatedly warns against “capitulating to apostasy or to hatred” in the fight against Christian’s cultural enemies. Society needs virtuous Christian communities in exile he says to prepare for coming persecution. According to his much-discussed book “The Benedict Option, “if they are not to be conquered, [Christians] must learn how to fight on culture war battlefields like none the West has seen for fifteen hundred years.”

But in our drive to force change – to fight in defense of our “faith,” the outcome is different than we expect. Although we seize the levers of power in support of righteous causes, we find those levers work both ways. The change is insidious as our loves misalign, away from the heart of the kingdom. It’s because our loves are informed by what we are devoted to and our devotions are drawn to the battle.

The battle within the culture war is perhaps the biggest hinderance to the gospel. And once the dogs of war have been unleashed, it’s hard to call them back. The battle pulls us towards our sociopolitical allies, like a tractor beam in a Star Wars movie. Our values change as our identity transforms through an assimilation process that “binds and blinds.” We become citizens of a different kingdom with a syncretistic identity we now defend.  We are what we love and our loves tell a new story of a devotion no longer solely focused on Jesus. 

A Focus on Enemies Changes our Faith

Gordon Allport’s most famous and lasting research finding was that Christianity both “makes” and “unmakes” prejudice. This paradoxical finding seems counterintuitive when considering the teachings of Jesus.  After all, as I wrote above, doesn’t pure religion, or an intrinsic orientation of Christianity, do good and oppose harm?  

Nonetheless his paradox endures when faith becomes mixed with fundamentalist or authoritarian sensibilities. Such individuals, at least within the evangelical tradition, are the most statistically likely of all ethnoreligious groups in America to discount stories of both domestic violence and rape and in doing so rationalize men’s violence against women, to exhibit a hostility towards members of groups different than them, and to exhibit prejudicial views towards racial and ethnic out-groups, Muslims, and those with alternative sexual orientations. 

Yet the same scientific studies show the opposite to be true when our faith is pure.  When you account for the influence of fundamentalism and/or rightwing authoritarianism in people’s responses, leaving an intrinsic religiosity that’s pure – “filled to the measure of all the fullness of God” – those same studies then show Christians truly loving their neighbor, even when those neighbors differ greatly from them.

So how does this happen? What is it about fundamentalism and authoritarianism which changes the outward witness of Christianity so profoundly?

Fundamentalists are those who adhere to a rigid belief in inerrant truth. Policing those beliefs creates a focus on threats to those beliefs, leading to amplified ingroup/outgroup distinctions. Authoritarianism is a personality type known for its rigid moralizing of society and is manifested three different ways: by submission to authority, opposition to value-violating actions in society, and intolerance of out-groups. And here’s the problem: both fundamentalism and authoritarianism are prevalent within those highly orthodox in their faith. 

Now threats and enemies are part of everyone’s life but how we respond to them is a tell-all story.  We need the shield of faith and the clothing of love to keep our human nature in check. But we sink in our faith when our gaze is consumed by the angry seas the culture war brings. Galatians 5 tells the tale of the tape, about the battle within us between “flesh” and “fruit” and how the culture war sides with the flesh.  

Conflict and hate are two works of the flesh born of culture war’s outrage and fear.  Fighting, competitive opposition, conflict, and group rivalry are four works of the flesh arising from an ingroup/outgroup mindset. With the rise of these “works” comes the loss of spiritual fruit as scripture says you can’t have it both ways.  It changes our worship through distorting our loves, even corrupting our faith so that “anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

The proof of the pudding comes through hundreds of studies showing the consequences of an enemy-driven focus. Including the rise of the non-religious (from a baseline of roughly 5% to the current level of nearly 30%), due in part to a backlash from the fight-forward religious right.  

Christianity is a Fruit Forward Faith

Yet those same hundreds of studies show an opposite result for a fruit-forward Christianity centered on love. Our spiritual fruit is a “show and tell” testimony to the extent in which we have “put on” Christ. It opens a window into the heart for “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.  Yet as critical as fruit is to the church’s outward witness (re: Keller’s “winsomeness”), it’s just as essential to the spiritual formation of an ekklesia called to reflect Christ.

Spiritual fruit acts like an indicator, an observable yardstick assessing the formation of Christ’s followers.   On the one end is the Spirit and the other end is the flesh with godliness at stake and “we are His workmanship” on the line. It serves as a guardrail, an external feedback mechanism, to keep us from going astray.  And like a canary in a coal mine when the works of the flesh displace the works of the spirit, we know we’re in deep trouble. Because an absence of fruit emits an unmistakable signal about an urgent need for change.  

The purpose of fruit is to spread a plant’s seed by its attractiveness to birds and other animals. Hence the metaphor of fruit as applied Christ’s followers gives us insight into God’s plan for the church. Our spiritual fruit is an external witness to “This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit.” It bears witness to the “Christ within us, the hope of glory” as “Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit.” It’s a witness to our spiritual health as “every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.”

Penultimate Thoughts

A fight-forward Christianity is a deficient Christianity delivering an upside-down “Christian” witness marked by works of the flesh.  But the worst of its features is the opportunity cost for an “alive in Christ” Christianity to bring about change. 

You see there’s a different type of Christianity arising from those with gaze affixed, to the One in whom “we live, and move, and have our being.” Such an unencumbered focus, free and clear of the cultural fight, yields a Christianity reflective of His nature. That “reflective of His nature” serves as a welcoming beacon to a fallen world without hope.

The early church faced the same type of choice in a world more broken than ours.  They chose a fruit-forward message that became unsurprisingly winsome culminating with Julian the Apostate’s, the last pagan emperor of Rome, dying words in AD 363 “vicisti Galilaee” (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!). 

Tim Keller’s Jesus-Centric message follows their historic path through a faithfulness to a fruit-forward gospel. It’s a gospel applicable across all ages, cultures, and walks of life without any negative downside.  To wit: in all my years of working within a secular culture, I have never been chastised for a faithfulness to Colossians 3:12 “cloth yourself with compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience.” Or for a Colossians 3:14 injunction to “put on love,” or a Micah 6:8 “Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God,” or a Good Samaritan orientation of Luke 10’s injunction to “love your neighbor.”  There are just no societal negatives to “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” 

A Better Perspective

Two different Christianity’s, delivering two different outcomes, yielding two different worldviews. Translating this into the language of Renn, it means America is simultaneously positive and negative in how it views Christianity, differentiated by the nature of that Christianity: 

  • Positive World: Society at large has a mostly positive view of a fruit-forward Christianity. To be known as a Christ-like person is to be known for a practice of virtue, born of Christ’s nature. Publicly being a fruit-forward Christian is widely seen as a positive breath of fresh air within a dark and hate-filled world.
  • Negative World: Society at large has a negative view of fight-forward Christianity. Being known as a fight-forward Christian is to be known for a privileging of power through an end-justifies-the-means weighted moral compass. Publicly being a fight-forward Christian is widely seen through polarized lens, an ally to one tribe and an enemy to the other.

So you want to change the world?

And Jesus said: “let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven,” Jesus didn’t limit such glorification, as declared by a watching world, to a Renn style “Positive World.”  He saw such acclaim from others as a natural outcome of His followers being “salt and light,” a fruit-forward witness of the Jesus within them irrespective of society and circumstance. Being known as “His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.” Establishing, using French’s language, a Christian community characterized by the fruit of the spirit [and] a counterculture that utterly contradicts the fury of the times.

Postscript: I’ll be addressing Renn’s second declaration “Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good” within today’s so-called “negative” world” in my next several blog posts along with a conclusion to this topic. The answers, once again, will depend upon what Renn means by “Christian” as well as his definition of “moral norms.”

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Sin of Winsomeness

To Do or Not to Do is Not the Question

We’ve all heard the venerable proverb “actions speak louder than words.” It’s often attributed to Abraham Lincoln who said those exact words in 1856.  But the general sense of this phrase has shown up in one form or another throughout history.

John Pym, the English parliamentarian said in 1628 “A word spoken in season is like an Apple of Gold set in Pictures of Silver,’ and actions are more precious than words.”  In 1698, Thomas Manton, in his Book of Sermons said “So they would give him Glory, praise him with their Lips, and honour him with their Lives. They would make that their Work and Scope, that this may be the real Language of their Hearts and Actions, which speak much louder than Words.”

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in his tale of Kavanagh, a story about romance set in the mid-1800s, added an interesting twist to this verity when he said “for we judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done.” Longfellow’s observation about the human condition, now slightly changed, has endured through the ages.  We judge ourselves by our intentions, but we judge others by what they do.   

A Biblical Worldview Cares About Outcomes

Our speech discloses the state of our heart for “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”

Our behavior and outward attitudes reveal the transforming work of the Spirit for we are judged by our fruit, not our intentions: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Our deeds display the reality of our faith for “faith without deeds is dead.”

Our actions announce the truthfulness of our love because “Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?”

Our “doings” show off the depth of our faith since “Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.”

Even Jesus’ two great apologetics were based upon actions, not the force of a logical argument. How were people to know the reality of His divinity?  By the outward witness of love and unity from His followers. 

A biblical worldview of racial injustice must care about outcomes

Four questions. First, given the biblical emphasis on outcomes, why is racial reconciliation so difficult?  First, and a big part of the answer – as I addressed in my last post – is the triumph of culture over faith. I wrote: “When people isolate within their tribes and are blind to their biases, uninterested in other people’s stories, preferring instead to sustain a historical and pernicious cultural narrative, they no longer “see” racial injustice.” And if you can’t “see” it, you don’t think any action is needed. 

Second, given the biblical emphasis on outcomes, shouldn’t our posture be precautionary towards love, where restorative action takes precedent over presuppositional beliefs? The Good Samaritan didn’t know the backstory to the injured man.  He could have assumed the man’s injury stemmed from poor choices and just walked away like the others.  But the Samaritan wasn’t interested in assessing blame, just achieving an outcome in accordance with his faith. 

Third, given the biblical emphasis on outcomes, how do we handle scripture’s call for justice to the “oppressed?”  When Isaiah says to “Seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow,” doesn’t that mean to tangibly take up the “cause,” plead the “case,” and defend the oppressor?

Fourth, given the history of the church as an enabler of racial injustice, mustn’t the outcome of true repentance include restitution to the injured party?  I’m reminded what Steve Pecota, my former pastor, once wrote “there can be no reconciliation without forgiveness and forgiveness requires repentance.”

Repentance starts with a reckoning, by acknowledging how we have “missed the mark.” It becomes outwardly manifested through a biblical principle of restitution, by making amends to the offended party. Attempts at racial reconciliation without the complete package of forgiveness, reckoning, and restitution will leave our nation’s sepsis of division unresolved – like sewing up a wound without first cleaning out the filth. 

Jesus taught reconciliation as conditional upon agreement, with the thumb on the scale given to the aggrieved party and the burden resting on the offender. White Christians who commend racial reconciliation while stridently opposing black perspectives aren’t seeking agreement in good faith.

Wouldn’t a biblical worldview suggest the very opposite?  Wouldn’t it start with a repentant spirit while leaning into the offended party?  Carefully listening in a spirit of humility ever ready to accommodate, where the coin flip under uncertainty goes towards the historically marginalized? And then ensuring that the fruits of the spirit characterize one’s speech, behavior, attitudes, deeds, actions, and doings in these interactions. 

Impediments to Biblical Worldview: A Magical Gospel

Many Christians believe that if we can just get folks saved, we’ve done our job.  People become good people through a miraculous transformation and then go to heaven. As the quartet song I sang in my youth goes “just a little talk with Jesus makes it right.”

Billy Graham rejected a magical gospel where problems are solved and troubles go away by people getting “saved.”  In his experience, converted hearts didn’t automatically yield converted actions.  He rejected the notion that if there was racial division, then get people just needed to get saved.  Or if there was marital strife and abuse, getting born again would fix it all.

Although many of Graham’s core beliefs remained unchanged over the course of his life, many others shifted as he grew in faith and understanding.  Our emphasis, he believed, should be on spiritual fruit: “the one badge of Christian discipleship is not orthodoxy but love.”  Rich Warren put it this way: “The point of life is learning to love – God and people: life minus love equals zero.”

“Learning to love” is a life-long commitment which scripture calls discipleship, my faith tradition calls sanctification, and theologians call spiritual formation. Such spiritual formation is the process of being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ for the glory of God and for the sake of others. It involves a daily transformation so that we, in the words of Wesley, are “habitually filled with the love of God and neighbor…having the mind of Christ and walking as he walked.”

Such spiritually formed people, a la Graham, are those who manifest Godly affections through both belief and action.  Truth is to be done as well as believed.  They see love as a verb, measured through actions assessed by the other.  Through that, they see racial reconciliation as a mandate of the gospel, measured by outcomes rather than intentions, and assessed by those historically disadvantaged rather than themselves.

Impediments to a Biblical Worldview: Faulty Theology and Church History

Here’s an excerpt from a recent Twitter thread from Dr. Anthony Bradley, a professor at Kings College, who provides an insightful response to a fellow pastor promoting a hyperbolic and nostalgic view of the gospel and church history:

“Evangelicals need to stop teaching their children bad history. Stop lying to them about the role of regenerated Christians in owning slaves, defending slavery, & defending and promoting Jim Crow…Tell them the truth: regeneration will not end racism in America. People not being racist ends racism whether they are Christians or not.

For all of US history, many white Christians have been regenerate and racist. Only unbiblical theology can’t concede that historical fact. This is the problem with the tautology that “the gospel will make everything alright” & that if people just “believed the gospel” issues like race would disappear. That’s not how the gospel works. Ex: Lots people who believe the gospel are terrible & abusive spouses and parents.

“The gospel” is not magic pixie dust that we can through on human action & make things go away. The noetic effects of sin don’t disappear b/c of the gospel. You can be regenerated & lead the KKK or run an apologetics ministry, owning massage parlors & sexually assaulting women…

The reason conservative evangelicals struggle so much with race & church history is that they’ve been fed bad systematic theology & church history.  Proof texting Bible verses doesn’t mean that you’re stringing those verses together properly…the sidelining of dogmatics, systematics, and biblical theology is sabotaging Christian ethics as the intersection of culture and public policy.”

Impediments to a Biblical Worldview: An Individualistic, Gospel

Dallas Willard, in his book, The Divine Conspiracy, laments how “the Christian message is thought to be essentially concerned only with how to deal with sin: with wrongdoing or wrong-being and its effects.  This reduces the Good News to a “gospel of sin management.” It places us at the center of gospel rather than God’s story, where “The aim of God in history is the creation of an all-inclusive community of loving persons, with Himself included in that community as its prime sustainer and most glorious inhabitant.”

Soong-Chan Rah explains how a truncated, sin management focused gospel stems from an alliance between faith and culture.  “The cultural captivity of the church has meant that the church is more likely to reflect the individualism of Western philosophy than the value of community found in Scripture. The individualistic philosophy that has shaped Western society, and consequently shaped the American church, reduces Christian faith to a personal, private and individual faith.”

This rejection of biblical community in favor of Western individualism helps erode the bonds between sisters and brothers in Christ. Pleas by Christians of color about the continuing legacy of racism fall on deaf ears because of this individualistic perspective: the only sins that matter are personal ones and those have been forgiven.  Hence they can neither “see” the reality of racism or accept evidentiary claims of systemic racial injustice because of presuppositional filters formed by culture.

The choice before the church in every age is always: will our identity be shaped by Scripture or by our culture.  By the biblical story or the cultural story? As Lesslie Newbigin, the famed missiologist, once said “the only hermeneutic of the gospel, is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it.”

Impediments to a Biblical Worldview: A Shallow Gospel

Promise Keepers swept through Christian spaces in the 1990s, calling men to honor Christ, build strong families, and live godly lives. McCartney included racial reconciliation as the sixth promise of a Promise Keeper: “committed to reach beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.” McCartney believed “there is a spirit of white racial superiority that has oppressed, suffocated and strangled men and women of color.” His commitment to end racism stemmed from obedience as early on he felt God saying “you can fill that stadium, but if men of other races aren’t there, I won’t be there either.”

The Promise Keepers pathway to racial reconciliation relied upon a revival of individuals. Speakers denounced the sin of racism; white men were challenged to repent and then reach out cross racially and ask for forgiveness.  Racial reform would occur indirectly through redeemed men, not through directive action.  Human nature was the problem and repentance, personal responsibility, and friendship formed the solution. Walls must be broken though and cross-racial relationships established for things to change. 

In the three years of its heyday, men filled stadium after stadium from the west to east coasts with enthusiasm.  By 2000, however, 10 years after its start, its decline was in full swing.  McCarney saw the drop as a backlash for focusing on racial reconciliation rather than “the gospel.” The magnitude of the push back gave him a “first glimpse of the seething giant of racism lurking within the Christian church.” It grieved him that when speaking in a church, he typically encountered “wild enthusiasm while I was being introduced, followed by a morgue like chill as I stepped away from the microphone.”

C.S. Lewis once said “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.” Lewis wasn’t talking about any so-called “manly” attributes.   He was talking about the heart, warning about emotions which haven’t been anchored to immutable values through disciplined practice.

Lewis attributed this condition to modern society, but it could also be said of those who have embraced a shallow gospel consisting of saying the right words without the deep roots of discipleship. As Promise Keepers found, such a revival-centered, emotionally oriented, gospel without the much-needed anchoring of spiritual formation just wasn’t enough to defeat the power of culture and create men who embraced true racial harmony. 

Penultimate Thoughts

We revere Wilberforce for his dogged perseverance in seeking laws to abolish slavery.  We laud Martin Luther King today for his non-violent pursuit for rectifying a century of racial injustice in “the home of the free.”  Their sacrifice is now part of story about the culture changing force of the gospel. 

Yet most white evangelicals objected to King’s civil rights campaign on both political and theological grounds.  Their individualistic gospel hermeneutic saw his focus on justice as a denial of the sufficiency of the gospel. “The problem was not skin but sin,” they said.  America’s race problem was a grace problem and “Christ was the cure.”  Just preach the gospel and racial issues will vanish over time. 

Today it’s the same book with different bookmarks.  Racial inequities persist despite nearly 60 years of colorblind” laws.  Patterns of discrimination persist despite the appearance of race-blind policies.  These inequities and patterns are systematic, crossing multiple areas of life, 

Still much of the white evangelical church, like the past, refuse to “see” these inequities, entrapped in a culture that keeps them isolated, blind, and uninterested in knowing the truth.  Others “see” the differences but choose instead to “pass by,” constrained by gospel focused on sin and uninterested in outcomes. 

A Full Gospel

There’s an old saying that when all you have is a hammer, then everything becomes a nail.  A theology predominantly focused on individuals going to heaven yields a one-dimension view of Christianity that is overly privatized, horizontally limited, spiritually anemic, and operationally compartmentalized.  

But the plan of salvation and the gospel are not the same thing.  One gets you into heaven, the other joins God in the renewal of all things.  In NT Wright’s language, Jesus came to earth to bring something new, through the launch of a kingdom that was not of this world. As citizens of that kingdom, we are to be instruments of God’s new creation, planting signposts in hostile soil that show a different way to be human. 

This different way to be human invites us, in Jacobsen and Sawatshy’s words, to “mimic God’s own graciousness in our lives.  It calls us to become so enveloped in God’s graciousness that we become conduits of God’s grace and love for others. [This] goes to the very core of the gospel.  It is what makes the gospel good news.”

Theologian Alister McGrath once said, “a theology that touches the mind, leaving the heart unaffected, is no true Christian theology.” Stanley Grenz, drawing from the evangelical tradition, then added a third dimension saying “theology must then add the ‘hand.’ Thus, a truly generous orthodoxy arises when orthodox confession leads to a transformed heart to generosity in life.” 

So what should generous orthodoxy look like in the area of racial injustice?  Drawing upon writings from my last five posts, shouldn’t it be a gospel that:

  • “Sees” others as created in the image of God, carrying the stamp of divine creation on them.
  • Compels us to love through being quick to listen, slow to speak, and charitable in opinion, knowing that understanding conditions us for love.
  • Reaches out to people different than us, willing to cross group lines and establish meaningful relationships, recognizing that where you stand depends upon where you sit.
  • Sees “Learning to love” as a life-long commitment to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.  A daily transformation empowered by the Spirit so that we are “habitually filled with the love of God and neighbor…having the mind of Christ and walking as he walked.”
  • Creates a “biblical worldview” defined by acts of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and generosity.
  • Honors scripture through speaking up for the oppressed, the marginalized, faithful to Isaiah’s admonition to “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
  • Is “on guard” against the power of self to deceive through one’s innate biases, to adopt a tribal identity that changes our affections and actions, and to embrace cultural narratives that distort the gospel’s focus.
  • Understands the need for humility and a commitment to diverse faith communities as it protects against theological error while creating an environment conducive to spiritual formation.
  • Stops ignoring or downplaying racial disparities, recognizing all lives aren’t valued the same way.  Hence the church must address systematic racial, economic, health care and opportunity inequity, as well as recognize the systems that work against the fair treatment of all people.
  • “Sees” the struggle of others clearly through a heart that cares, clothed with a compassion that causes one to stop, reset their priorities, and then undertakes concrete action which extend healing and restorative actions in support of the other.
  • Refuses to hide behind a colorblind or individualist half-gospel, but sees racial reconciliation as a mandate of the gospel, measured by outcomes rather than intentions, and assessed by those historically disadvantaged rather than themselves.

Now that’s a full gospel, no?  

Posted in The Joshua Challenge | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments