How a Look at Sex in the Old Testament Offers a Way out of the LGBTQ+ Maze

I recently watched another Hollywood movie where the heroine achieves happiness and self-actualization by acting upon her sexual impulses. This is probably one of the most dominant themes produced by Hollywood today. It is also widely accepted at all levels of American society.

First, we are told to believe that the ultimate goal of life is personal happiness. That means, if something makes you happy, do it.

Second, we are told that finding happiness requires acting upon our personal desires, especially our sexual desires. The implication rings out like a drum beat in a marching band: self-denial is pathological; sexual proclivities must be acted out. It is the key to personal fulfilment.

Both of these premises, which seem to have acquired near universal acceptance in our society, are antithetical to the Christian faith.

Which is why it is always good to be reminded of what the Bible says about human sexuality and romantic relationships.

My good friend, Richard Whitekettle, has written one such article explaining (again) the biblical view of sexual intercourse and why it matters today.

Richard is an Old Testament professor at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is an accomplished biblical scholar and a careful thinker who can be hilariously funny when he wants to be.

My friend not only writes hard-core academic stuff, he also publishes popular articles analyzing current social issues. He recently published an article on human sexuality in The Aquila Report, which carefully lays out God’s original design for male/female relations according to the book of Genesis.

The article is titled “How a Look at Sex in the Old Testament Offers a Way out of the LGBTQ+ Maze.” Below is an excerpt (emphasis mine):

Love is not what valorizes a human sexual relationship in God’s eyes. Love, of course, is related to the idea of a deep and lasting bond between two human beings. But given how widespread the mantra “love is love” has become in valorizing various types of human sexual relationships, it needs to be mentioned separately. The rightness and goodness of a human sexual relationship is not to be found in the subjective feelings of the two human beings. Rather, it is to be found in the objective characteristics of God’s design for human bodies, minds, and relationships. If one is to find love in a sexual relationship, it will not be found in any structure of sexual relationship one chooses. Instead, it will be found by placing oneself within a sexual relationship designed by God.

Click here to read the entire piece.

Eric Metaxas Encourages Violence While Dietrich Bonhoeffer Rolls Over in His Grave

Are American church/state relations in 2022 comparable to German church/state relations in 1933 when the Nazi party began its rise to power?

Eric Metaxas thinks so, and he wants to warn the American church of the existential threat it now faces.

Metaxas’ new book, Letter to the American Church (Salem, 2022; 139 pp., $22.99), begins by declaring that “the parallels [in the American church] to where the German Church was in the 1930s are unavoidable and grim” (ix). These “parallels” are most clearly seen as the evangelical church remains silent in the face of America’s own Nazi-like atrocities.

America’s atrocious sins, which are allowed to flourish in the face of evangelical silence, are comparable to Nazi preparations for the Holocaust. These sins are listed as abortion, globalism, Critical Race Theory, transgenderism, creeping communism, and the state-directed church closures ordered during the covid-19 pandemic, all of which express an “atheistic Marxist ideology” otherwise known as cultural Marxism (xii, xiii, 13-15, 91).

The only solution to society’s slide into increasing moral chaos, according to Metaxas, is for a new crop of Dietrich Bonhoeffer-like church leaders to rise up and protest – violently, if need be (more on this below) – against the country’s drift toward cultural oblivion. Metaxas’ biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer figures as the major source for this book’s political arguments, despite the very negative reviews Metaxas’ biography received from Bonhoeffer specialists. (see here, here, and here).

According to Metaxas, Bonhoeffer described a three-point solution to both Germany’s and America’s problems in his essay, “The Church and the Jewish Question.” They are [1] as the conscience of the state, the church must loudly protest against government wrong-doing; [2] the church must assist the victims of immoral state policies; and [3] if the state refuses to change its course, then the church must embrace political activism, shoving “a stick in the spokes” of the “rumbling machine of the state” (39).

The body of Letter to the American Church excoriates evangelical leaders for withdrawing from their obligation to agitate for public morality and, instead, cocooning themselves in an exclusive focus on evangelism. Metaxas’ attacks against “the idol of evangelism” (75-85) provide an important reminder (very positively, in my view) of the inherently offensive nature of the gospel and how easy it is for preachers to avoid difficult subjects like sin and judgment in order not to “offend” their listeners.

Unfortunately, Metaxas conflates his (a) justified critique of timid preachers who knowingly compromise the gospel message with (b) a highly dubious attack against evangelical leaders who will not rally their congregations to become outspoken, right-wing, Republican political agitators. Aside from Metaxas’ remarkable blindness to his own political, as opposed to truly Christian, partisanship, his apparent ignorance of American church history is surprising.

I can only assume that in wanting to write “a book for the moment,” Metaxas has restricted the horizons of his historical interest to the rise of Donald Trump and events subsequent to the 2016 presidential election. His complaints about evangelicalism’s political lethargy not only ignore the long, activist history of the Religious Right – a movement that finally threw its weight behind Trump’s campaign and carried him to victory – but seems to know nothing about the long history of evangelical activism in progressive politics, represented by people like Jim Wallis and the Sojourners’ community.

But then, Metaxas suggests that all Christians with a progressive political bent have been deceived by Satan, so their activism only contributes to the cultural Marxist dangers threatening America.

Metaxas also appears to be unaware of the wide stream of American dispensational evangelicalism-fundamentalism, going back at least to the early nineteenth century, that actively discourages Christians against political activism. Shunning politics hardly originated with those contemporary pastors now intent on putting out the fires of political divisiveness consuming their congregations.

But Metaxas is clearly in favor of churches dividing over partisan politics. In an obvious reference to MAGA-enamored churchgoers leaving congregations where their politics are not sufficiently affirmed, Metaxas says, “Many Christians are abandoning such churches for the few that are alive to the situation, where the pastors are less timid about saying what needs to be said” (36).

Certainly, the most disturbing aspect of Metaxas’ book is its subtle yet clear justification of violence for political ends. The argument is carefully, if subtly, constructed.

First, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is Metaxas’ model of Christian virtue not only because he openly criticized the Nazi regime – along with many others; Bonhoeffer was not alone in doing this – but because Bonhoeffer participated in a plot to assassinate Hitler. It is Bonhoeffer’s willingness to embrace violence as a political weapon, the very definition of terrorism, that makes Bonhoeffer a hero to Metaxas. And this is the exemplary aspect of Bonhoeffer’s life that Metaxas clearly wants his readers to emulate, for “Bonhoeffer understood that to eschew violence whenever possible did not mean that it was always possible” (109).

Though he never says it explicitly, the unavoidable implication of Metaxas’ argument, from beginning to end, is that faithful Christians will do whatever it takes to change society and move it in the right-wing direction of Metaxas’ preferred political agenda. This includes resorting to violence, if need be.

Metaxas lays the “biblical” groundwork for his call to violence-when-necessary with several specious arguments.

He begins by describing his Manichean view of the world. Everything is black or white. Anyone who dissents from his verdict on the evils destroying American society is categorized as “demonic,” a tool of Satan (96, 101, 113-114, 117). The American culture wars are a fight of good against evil, of divine forces against demonic opponents. As Metaxas draws up the battlefield, people like Jim Wallis (a Christian active in progressive politics) and Andy Stanley (a pastor combatting political division within his church) are on the Devil’s team.

Furthermore, Metaxas seems convinced that if society is in decline, then it must be the church’s fault. A faithful, protesting, politically active church would presumably carry the day and turn the tide of spreading immorality.

Metaxas anticipates the inevitable objections to his promotion of political violence by distorting the biblical view of God with his own (ironic!) version of “cheap grace,” the very problem Bonhoeffer famously attributed to the German church under Hitler.

According to Metaxas, God is not looking for believers who concern themselves with purity. Rather, God is seeking courageous, even reckless devotees who are willing to risk incurring guilt as they sin on God’s behalf. This component of Metaxas’ argument is so shocking that a few quotations are warranted to make the point:

Page 110 – To love unreservedly – which is God’s call to us – is to risk everything, our lives and our reputations. Bonhoeffer’s view of God’s real grace made it possible for him to trust Him completely. As long as he earnestly desired to do God’s will and acted from that motive, he knew the God of the Bible would see his heart and grant him grace, if it happened that he had erred.

Page 118 – (Bonhoeffer understood that) God was calling His people to something far above merely avoiding sins and keeping their noses clean. . . Being a Christian is not about avoiding sin, but about passionately and courageously serving God.

Page 120-21 – God is not a moralistic fussbudget or nitpicking God who is lying in wait. When we tell a lie for a larger good, He does not swoop in and say “Aha!” and condemn us. If we know who God truly is, we know that He is not against us, but for us. He is not Satan the accuser, looking for what sins He can find to condemn us. He is the gracious and loving God who sent His own Son to die so that we could be forgiven and saved. And when He sees us act in a way that is not calculated to protect ourselves but that is rather magnanimous and self-sacrificing for the sake of another, He rejoices.

In any other context, Metaxas’ words might sound innocent enough. But tied as they are to Bonhoeffer’s willingness to commit murder, Metaxas’ urgings for courageous Christians to behave radically, even to the point of knowingly engaging in sin, take on an ominous significance.

Since Bonhoeffer believed that God would forgive his role in Hitler’s attempted murder, Christians today should also understand that God will forgive them for whatever violent acts they commit in their “godly” efforts to redeem our society.

There is much more to criticize in Metaxas’ new book, but these are the most salient problems, in my view. I am sure that Metaxas would insist that I am wrong when I accuse him of fomenting political violence. He has constructed his book in such a way as to provide himself with “plausible deniability.”

But in today’s world, more specifically, in today’s America, my mind is not the only one that will read Metaxas’ book as a call-to-arms with a get-out-of-jail-free card neatly included.

So, beware the author who tells his readers that political violence can be the answer, describing it as a courageous act of the truly spiritual person who will be forgiven by God.

Telling the Truth About Israel Can Get You Fired. Just Ask Katie Halper.

Katie Halper is an independent journalist and political commentator. Until last week, Ms. Halper was a visiting host on the news program The Hill.

That is, she WAS a regular guest on the show until she was summarily fired for reading her editorial spot explaining the details of Israeli apartheid.

Yes, Israel IS an apartheid state. It has always been an apartheid state, since day one. There is NO non-apartheid phase in Israel’s history because Israel was founded as a Jewish supremacist state.

If this is new information to you, then I encourage you to read my new book, Like Birds in a Cage: Christian Zionism’s Collusion in Israel’s Oppression of the Palestinian People (Cascade, 2021).

But the pro-Israel, pro-Zionist public relations machine works very hard to hide this fact from the rest of the world.

They have been working particularly hard in recent years since Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem have all published their own reports extensively cataloguing the ins-and-outs of Israel’s comprehensive, systemic, apartheid regime.

I will let Ms. Halper explain it all for you:

Why ‘Bring Your Bible to School Day’ May Not Be Such a Great Idea

My friend Dr. Rob Dalrymple writes a blog at Pathos.com. He also hosts the DetermineTruth podcast.

I encourage you to subscribe to both of them!

Rob recently wrote a blog post about the Focus on the Family initiative encouraging students to bring their own Bibles to school. Below is a short segment from the Christian Broadcasting Network explaining this nation-wide action.

Rob has given me permission to reproduce his blog post here at HumanityRenewed. Like Rob, I am also skeptical about the motives, the wisdom, and the possible consequences of this Focus on the Family endeavor.

No neither Rob nor I are anti- Bible reading!

But we are anti-. . .  well, read the post below to discover what we are concerned about. . .

Rob’s blog post follows immediately after this 3:33 CBN explanatory video:

Bring your Bible to School Day: Maybe Not Such a Good Idea

On the positive side

I suspect that bringing a Bible to school and having it out so that others might see it—which I suppose is the point of “bring your Bible to school day”—might well provide an opportunity for conversations.

Others might ask, “what is that?”; or “what church do you go to?”; “why do you read that?” Such opportunities to have a conversation about the Bible, Jesus, or the kingdom of God is awesome.

I imagine that there are many Christian students who want to have conversations with others but they do not know how to go about it. There is likely a measure of fear—which is quite understandable. Starting a conversation about Jesus is not easy.

This may well be one of the primary benefits of encouraging students to bring their Bibles to school. Namely, it gives students an opportunity to overcome their fears and express their faith.

(I suspect that a “Bring your Bibles to work campaign” might have the same level of consternation among adults). In fact, why don’t they start a “bring your Bible to work day” also?

This campaign, then, may well help in the spiritual maturation of students.

In addition, I am sure that one student’s courage to bring their Bible to school might also encourage others to do the same.

On the neutral side

Shouldn’t we bring our Bibles every day?

As I watched and read through some of the promo materials for this event, I was a bit surprised that this was being billed as a 1-day a year event.

If, after all, the Bible is central to the Christian life—and I definitely believe that it is—then shouldn’t we always have a Bible at school/work? Shouldn’t every day be “bring your Bible to school/work” day?

Now, I suppose a valid response to this query might well be that we would love to have our students bring a Bible every day, but in order to do so, we must get them to do it one day first.

And this is fine, but maybe the campaign should be: “starting on Oct 6 we are encouraging students to bring their Bibles to school every day”? Or perhaps, “bring your Bible every Thursday”?

Don’t most kids use their phones these days?

Also, do kids even have Bibles? I mean actual, physical, paper Bibles.

I am sure they know that there are plenty of good Bible Apps available for download. And I bet they would prefer using them instead of carrying a Bible.

Now, although it may be more conspicuous, a conversation could still arise from someone coming up to a student, who is reading their Bible on their phone, and asking “hey, what ya reading?”

This approach, in fact, might even be more effective.

After all, not only does reading the Bible on your phone still present an opportunity for a conversation, it may be less likely to turn people away. What I mean is this: I suspect that many students will not engage a student if they see them reading a Bible.

But, if a student has the Bible on their phone, no one knows what they are reading until they ask.

On the flip side

Although I would affirm that the idea for the campaign is fine, I am actually quite concerned for a number of reasons.

NB: I am not saying that I would not encourage students to read their Bible while at school. I am just not sure that this campaign is the right way to do it.

Lack of emphasis on discipleship

For one, I saw nothing in the promotional materials for this campaign that stressed the fact that proclaiming the Gospel is something that we do with our lives.

Sure the presence of a Bible might alert someone else that you profess to believe in the Bible. But I would hope that we don’t need to bring a Bible to alert others that we profess to believe in the Bible.

How so?

For one, we must understand that there is no inherent human right that demands that all persons should be allowed to “bring their Bibles to school.” It may well be a legal right of all Americans. But it is not a legal right in other countries. And I don’t suppose that we should be kicking down the doors of the UN demanding that Christian students in N Korea be permitted to bring their Bibles to school.

In addition, I suspect that many of the same proponents of the “Bring your Bible to School day” campaign would be outraged if a similar campaign to “Bring your Quran to School day” was endorsed by the Islamic community in the US.

After all, if bringing your Bible to school is an inherent right, then is it not also a right for Muslims to bring their Quran to school? If we say “yes” to the former and “no” to the latter, then we are espousing Christian nationalism.

This campaign also demonstrates a lack of awareness of the global church.

One website asserted that it was important to bring your Bible to school because “we should not be ‘undercover’ Christians.” The article went on to claim that “Jesus says to us in the book of Matthew to shine your light, don’t hide [it] under a bowl.”

Now, this might seem like a good response, but it both radically distorts the meaning of Jesus’ words and it shows no awareness of what life is like for millions of Christians around the world—let alone in the history of the church.

To claim that we must bring a Bible to school, work, or any other public setting because Jesus commanded us to let our light shine and not to hide it is an affront to millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world who will be imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for doing so.

Sure bringing a Bible to school in America may well be a means of bearing witness to Christ. But in some countries of the world may well be the means of assuring your death.

Sure the idea behind this day sounds great. And I would encourage students to do so. I would not encourage them to do so, however, without discipling them. Without encouraging them to have a love for others that is modeled on Jesus’ love for us. At the end of the day, I cannot endorse this campaign because it is lacking with regard to a proper focus on discipleship and, more importantly, it is shrouded in the garb of Christian nationalism.

NB: I must say that I chuckled when I saw that the promotional materials made sure to include homeschooled students in the message: #noneleftbehind. I know that we don’t want to leave kids out, but it just seems unnecessary for kids to bring their Bibles to the table so mom may know that they are Christians.

American Stopped Being a Democracy Long, Long Ago

Early in September Christ Hedges published an essay at ScheerPost titled, “Let’s Stop Pretending America is a Functioning Democracy.”

I encourage you to read Mr. Hedges’ recounting of the many ways American democracy has been undermined over the decades. You won’t be wasting your time.

Recently, Chris Hedges was interviewed by Jimmy Dore and asked to explain what he meant by his claim that the USA is not a democracy. The clip is titled “Your Democracy Was Stolen Long Before January 6.”

Check it out below:

Corporate Price Gouging Is a Major Factor in Higher Prices

Two journalists, Joh Schwarz and Ken Klippenstein, at The Intercept have an important article explaining the role of corporate price gouging in the current struggle with inflation.

The article is titled “CEO Says He’s Been ‘Praying for Inflation’ Because It’s an Excuse to Jack Up Prices.”

Only such a rare, candid moment could explain the capitalist system in a nut shell.

Just as nothing will cause a heartless CEO to find religion as quickly as the prospect of a higher profit margin!

Halleluiah! Praise God! And pass the plate.

By his own admission, this corporate big-wig admits that, along with the current international supply-train issues, corporate price gouging is another major factor in driving up prices for American consumers.

Here is an excerpt:

As corporate profits reach record high, Iron Mountain executive tells Wall Street inflation is great for “the bottom line.”

THE CEO OF Iron Mountain Inc. told Wall Street analysts at a September 20 investor event that the high levels of inflation of the past several years had helped the company increase its margins — and that for that reason he had long been “doing my inflation dance praying for inflation.”

The comment is an unusually candid admission of a dirty secret in the business world: corporations use inflation as a pretext to hike prices. “Corporations are using those increasing costs – of materials, components and labor – as excuses to increase their prices even higher, resulting in bigger profits,” Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Clinton, recently argued. Corporate profits are now at their highest level since 1950. . .

. . . It wasn’t a one-off comment by the Iron Mountain CEO, William Meaney. On a 2018 earnings call, he invoked a Native American ritual, telling participants that “it’s kind of like a rain dance, I pray for inflation every day I come to work because … our top line is really driven by inflation. … Every point of inflation expands our margins.”

Iron Mountain’s CFO Barry A. Hytinen also said on an earnings call this past April that “we do have very strong pricing power” and for the company, inflation is “actually a net positive.”

Click here to read the entire article.

How Americans Are Propagandized by Pro-War, Corporate Media

Ray McGovern is a retired CIA analyst who for many years gave US presidents their daily CIA briefings. He is also a specialist in the internal

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern (Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)

affairs of the former Soviet Union – now Russia.

Mr. McGovern’s latest article at the Antiwar.com website is titled “Brainwashed for War with Russia“. He helpfully unpacks the step-by-step process of misinformation, distortion, and out-right lies that have been fed to the American public by our corporate media about the war in Ukraine.

The facts are simple but largely unknown by the average American.

First, he USA instigated this war by provoking Russia.

Second, the American news media is controlled by the military-industrial complex which wants to sell more weaponry to an every expanding war in Ukraine.

Therefore, we are propagandized to hate Putin, to cheer for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, and to remain catatonic as the US congress approves tens of billions of dollars in additional military aid to Ukraine.

Below is an excerpt from McGovern’s article (all emphasis is mine):

Thanks to Establishment media, the sorcerer apprentices advising President Joe Biden – I refer to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security adviser Jacob Sullivan, and China specialist Kurt Campbell – will have no trouble rallying Americans for the widest war in 77 years, starting in Ukraine, and maybe spreading to China. And, shockingly, under false pretenses.

Most Americans are oblivious to the reality that Western media are owned and operated by the same corporations that make massive profits by helping to stoke small wars and then peddling the necessary weapons. Corporate leaders, and Ivy-mantled elites, educated to believe in U.S. “exceptionalism,” find the lucre and the luster too lucrative to be able to think straight. They deceive themselves into thinking that (a) the US cannot lose a war; (b) escalation can be calibrated and wider war can be limited to Europe; and (c) China can be expected to just sit on the sidelines. The attitude, consciously or unconsciously, “Not to worry. And, in any case, the lucre and luster are worth the risk.”

The media also know they can always trot out died-in-the-wool Russophobes to “explain,” for example, why the Russians are “almost genetically driven” to do evil (James Clapper, former National Intelligence Director and now hired savant on CNN); or Fiona Hill (former National Intelligence Officer for Russia), who insists “Putin wants to evict the United States from Europe … As he might put it: “Goodbye, America. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

Absent a miraculous appearance of clearer heads with a less benighted attitude toward the core interests of Russia in Ukraine, and China in Taiwan, historians who survive to record the war now on our doorstep will describe it as the result of hubris and stupidity run amok. Objective historians may even note that one of their colleagues – Professor John Mearsheimer – got it right from the start, when he explained in the autumn 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault.”

Historian Barbara Tuchman addressed the kind of situation the world faces in Ukraine in her book “The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam.” (Had she lived, she surely would have updated it to take Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine into account). Tuchman wrote:

Wooden-headedness…plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts.”

Six Years (and Counting) of Brainwashing

Thanks to US media, a very small percentage of Americans know that:

Click here to read the entire piece and discover what most American’s don’t know about Ukraine.

Caitlin Johnston: The Trouble with ‘Western Values’ is that Westerners Don’t Value Them

The Australian blogger/journalist Caitlin Johnston encourages her readers to reproduce and circulate her writing free of charge. Regular readers of this blog will know that I cite Ms. Johnston regularly.

Here is one of her recent articles pointing out the hypocrisy pervading so much of Western — read American — foreign policy. The piece is titled “The Trouble with ‘Western Values’ is that Westerners Don’t Value Them.”

The anti-democratic actions that Ms. Johnston discusses are bipartisan in nature. Both parties are equally guilty. Both Democrats and Republicans are in lock-step in their calls for censorship and the silencing of anyone who criticizes and opposes US foreign policy.

When was the last time you saw a major news network host a guest critically analyzing the war in Ukraine, explaining how the USA provoked Russia’s attack and why Russia will eventually win?

Here is Caitlin’s article:

Have you ever noticed how those who shriek the loudest about tyranny in foreign countries are always the same people calling for the censorship and deplatforming of anyone who criticizes the western empire?

It’s a ubiquitous mind virus throughout western society. Anyone — and I do mean anyone — who aggressively and consistently criticizes the foreign policy of the US and its allies in front of a sizeable audience gets branded a Russian agent by empire apologists, and this consensus is accompanied by the steadily growing opinion that Russia’s operatives and useful idiots should be banned from western platforms.

Defenders of the western empire won’t admit to wanting all empire critics silenced, but that’s what you get when you combine (A) the fact that they view everyone who criticizes the empire with sufficient aggression as a Russian agent with (B) their opinion that those given to Russian influence ought to be censored. Whenever I criticize the foreign policy of the western empire I get its apologists telling me I’d never be allowed to criticize my rulers like that if I lived in a nation like Russia or China, when they know full well that if it were up to them I wouldn’t be allowed to criticize the western empire here either. They are the same as the tyrants they claim to despise.

The trouble with “western values” is that westerners don’t value them. They think they value them, but all that reverence for free expression and holding power to account with the light of truth goes right out the window the second they see someone saying something that sharply differs from what their rulers and their propagandists have told them to think. Then they want that person silenced and shut down.

In truth, the most forceful critics of the western empire actually embody these western values infinitely more than empire apologists do. It is the critics of empire who value free speech and holding the powerful to account. It’s the brainwashed bootlickers of the US-centralized empire who are calling for censorship and shouting down anyone who directs fierce oppositional scrutiny toward the most powerful people in the world.

People tell me “Move to Russia!” or “Move to China!” depending on what aspect of the empire’s global power agendas I happen to be criticizing at the moment, and I always want to tell them, no, you move to Russia. You move to China. You’re the one trying to suppress dissent and criticism of the powerful. I’m the one who is living by western values as they were sold to me and demanding normal scrutiny of the most powerful empire that has ever existed. You don’t belong here.

In school we are taught that our society values truth, free speech, equality, accountability for the powerful, and adversarial journalism, then we grow up and we see everyone rending their garments because institutions like CBS News or Amnesty International let slip one small report which doesn’t fully comply with the official line of our rulers. We see Russian media banned and censorship protocols expanded to the enthusiastic cheerleading of mainstream liberals. We see astroturf trolling operations used to mass report and shout down those who scrutinize the establishment line about Ukraine on social media. We see Julian Assange languishing in Belmarsh Prison for the crime of unauthorized journalism.

It’s obvious with a look around that the “western values” we’re all told about are not actually terribly common in the west. Look at the west’s major media platforms and they virtually never platform anyone who is meaningfully critical of the real centers of power in western civilization. Look at western governments and they continually dance to the beat of oligarchy and empire regardless of how people vote in their supposedly free democratic elections. Look at the internet and it’s actually very difficult to find authentic criticisms of imperial power unless you already know where to look.

Some of us bought into those western values we were taught about in school, but it’s not the people you’ve been trained to expect. It’s we marginalized outsiders who are adamantly opposing censorship, propaganda and the empire’s war on the press while continuously working to shine the light of truth on the mechanisms of power from the fringes, while we are being yelled at and accused of treason by mainstream sycophants who have far more in common with the autocrats they claim to oppose than with the western values they purport to uphold.

There is No Such Thing as Healthy Nationalism

Advocates for American nationalism, including explicit Christian nationalism, are becoming louder and more numerous in this country, a development that every follower of Jesus can only criticize and resist.

I am increasingly convinced that there is no such thing as an “acceptable” brand of nationalism. All nationalisms want (1) to elevate one group of people, one national body, above all others (2) while claiming some divinely ordained mission in the world.

That way of thinking is always a recipe for disaster, not to mention that it is antithetical to life in the kingdom of God.

Of course, the most disastrous expression of nationalism in modern history appeared in twentieth century Germany during the rule of the Nazi National Socialist party.

Remembering the adage that “those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” I think it is worth recalling one particular criticism of

German poet Heinrich Heine

German nationalism offered by the German Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine.

Heine fled Germany for Paris a full century before the Nazis came to power because even then he could foresee the inevitable dangers of an increasingly robust German nationalism.

As you read the excerpt below, substitute the words America and American for Germany and Germans. Heine’s insights remain remarkably contemporary.

This excerpt is from the work of the German historian Götz Aly titled Why the Germans? Why the Jews? Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (pages 59-60):

Heine despised what he called “the jingoistic champions of nationality, our nationalists, so-called patriots, whose heads are full only of race, blood, [that is, national identity markers] and similar idiocies.” The appeal of these “so-called ultra-Germans”. . . Heine wrote, could be traced back to powerful formulas with which one could excite a mob: “The words fatherland, Germany, faith of our fathers, etc., always electrify the muddled minds of the masses far more than the words, humanity, cosmopolitanism [today think of multiculturalism], reason, and truth!” . . .

 . . . German advocates of liberty and democracy, cloaking themselves in the flag of nationalism, were among those who originally blazed the paths that would eventually lead to catastrophe. They promulgated the German nation as a unity based on mythic origin [think of our Founding Fathers], religion [Right-Wing Christianity], and language [English only; no bilingual education]. They elevated the value of national particularity, of an ethnically defined popular identity, above that of universal human rights. As a result, in the name of national unity, they excluded others.

The Challenge of Non-Conformity and Its Implications

The following excerpt is from a fascinating book titled Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism, by George L. Mosse (University of Wisconsin, 1978, 2020).

Mosse traces the various currents of cultural, social, and political European history that eventually culminated in the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi party, and the Holocaust.

The most interesting element in Mosse’s analysis, to my mind anyway, is the fact that none of these factors had anything to do with Christian theology or the Christian church.

Yes, many self-professed “Christians” and church leaders participated in the rise of anti-Jewish racism throughout post-Enlightenment Europe, but their arguments for eliminating the Jews had nothing to do with religion.

However, that does not mean they were not racists; many continued to despise the Jews.

The medieval Christian, anti-Jewish tropes and accusations were nowhere to be found in the new brand of post-Enlightenment, secular racism that was forged in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries throughout Europe.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I am still doing my research. Maybe I will post more about this in the future.

In any case, here is the excerpt from Mosse followed by a few of my observations for today’s church. When Mosse refers to “racism” he is thinking about all forms of racial prejudice and discrimination. Antisemitism is only one possible example of such racism. (All emphasis is mine):

Racism had no founding father, and that was one of its strengths. It made alliance with all those virtues that the modern age praised so much. Racism picked out such qualities as cleanliness, honesty, moral earnestness, hard work, and family life – virtues which during the nineteenth century came to symbolize the ideals of the middle class. . . Racism was associated with these virtues rather than with any single philosopher or social theorist of importance. . . Racism was not merely one form of social Darwinism, but instead, a scavenger ideology, which annexed the virtues, morals, and respectability of the age to its stereotypes and attributed them to the inherent qualities of a superior race.

 If racism annexed the virtues of the age, it also condemned as degenerate all that was opposed to such respectability. Not to exemplify the ideal-type of “clean-cut American” or “right-living Englishman” was a sign of an inferior race. Though racism was often vague, it clearly embraced all the values of middle-class respectability and claimed to be their defender. To be sure, few people at first went along with such a claim; to the vast majority of Europeans, it sufficed to be a Christian gentleman. But even here racism so infected Christianity that, in the end, no real battle between racism and Christianity ever took place. Both supported the same middle-class virtues and saw the enemy in the same nonconformists – be they Bohemians, Freemasons, or Jews. The support racism gave to ideals which were opposed to a threatened degeneracy was in practice more important than any differences between racism and Christianity.

 . . . The perimeters of racial thought are as elusive and slippery as the ideology as a whole. And yet, for all that, the myth was transformed into reality, not just during the Holocaust and the camps, but whenever ordinary people made judgments upon others based upon the implications of the racial stereotype.

 The Holocaust has passed. The history of racism which we have told has helped to explain the Final Solution. But racism itself has survived. As many people as ever before think in racial categories. There is nothing provisional about the lasting world of stereotypes. That is the legacy of racism everywhere. . . Blacks on the whole remained locked into the same racial posture which never varied much from the eighteenth century to our time. Practically all blacks had been outside Hitler’s reach; consequently, there was no rude awakening from the racial dream in their regard. Moreover, nations which had fought against National Socialism continued to accept black racial inferiority for many years. . . (They) did not seem to realize that all racism, whether aimed at blacks or Jews, was cut of the same cloth. (209-211).

********

The intense, perennial pressures of cultural conformity are no more “provisional” today than are the ever-present stereotypes of racial prejudice. Yep, we got 21st century racists, too. Many of them within the Christian church.

Pressures for conformity continue to press against God’s people now just as they did in Nazi Germany and medieval Europe. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sadly, the Christian church – but especially its more conservative membership. . . can you spell MAGA? – is always inclined to endorse the cultural, social status quo, even if our preferred status quo is defined by a sub-culture.

Today’s (sub-)cultural norms are always more popular than Jesus.

For instance, studies consistently reveal that evangelical Christians share the same political priorities, endorse the same social, cultural agendas, and vote for the same political candidates as their non-Christian, non-church going neighbors – wherever they happen to live.

Is this an accident?

The evangelical wing of the Christian church fought against racial integration and condemned the civil rights movement as loudly and vociferously as did the worst racist politicians in the deep South. Men like governors Lester Maddox and George Wallace armed themselves with long, wooden ax handles while blocking the doorways to keep black students out of white, public schools.

And, yes, the southern, conservative church applauded both Maddox and Wallace and their violent racism.

Similar instincts are at play today when Christians join in the condemnation of Critical Race Theory, while not having the slightest inkling of what CRT really is.

What other sorts of violence, racism, bigotry, and close-mindedness are evangelicals, who claim the name of Jesus, following after today?

Pay attention to how closely “acceptable” church leadership conforms itself to the standard, middle-class, cultural virtues of the friendly, well-dressed, patriotic American. How much of this social conformity is the fruit of genuine Christian discipleship, following hard after Jesus, and how much of it is merely the required uniform expected of us by the world at large?

Neither the dangers of racism, in all of its various shades, nor the moral compromises on display when the Christian church surrenders itself to cultural conformity have changed all that much over time.

The pressure to conform never goes away.

The crucial question is: to whom or to what are we conforming? Middle-class values? Or Jesus of Nazareth?