Blog

The ICEJ Promotes Zionist Propaganda and Shares the Guilt

Today I received a fundraising email from the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.  The ICEJ is a American based, Christian Zionist organization that spreads Israeli government talking points, whatever they may be.

Here are the letter’s first two paragraphs:

“In the last 3 months, more missiles have been fired at Israel than in the last 3 years combined.  About 600% more! Night after night, families have been awakened by the piercing sound of warning sirens, knowing they have only seconds to scramble for cover, fearing their home will be the next one destroyed…

“Terror kites and incendiary balloons have filled the skies over southern Israel for months, burning over 8,500 acres of crops, trees, and nature reserves and filling homes and communities with choking smoke.”

Let’s put this letter into perspective.

Israel has unilaterally confined nearly 2 million Palestinians within a 141 square miles (approximately 25 miles long, averaging 6 miles wide) area called Gaza.  The people of Gaza are fenced in, trapped, and they are not allowed to leave.  Even those suffering from serious medical conditions are commonly prevented from traveling by ambulance to the nearest Israeli hospitals.  All the Gazan hospitals have been bombed.

The Gaza fence is not Israel’s southern border, as Zionist propaganda claims.  It is a tightly controlled prison fence, guarded by the Israeli military.

Until 2010 it was official Israeli policy to control food imports into Gaza in order to maintain the entire population at the borderline of malnutrition.  The Israeli government calculated that each Palestinian needed only 2,279 calories/day.  Available food stuffs were restricted accordingly.

Fishing is/was a major industry for the Gazan economy.  Since Israel imposed its blockage against the Gazan people in 2007, fishing areas are severely restricted by the Israeli navy.  Israel arbitrarily limits Palestinians fishermen to a 6 mile fishing zone.  But even within that narrow limit Israeli naval vessels regularly attack fishermen and destroy their boats.

Israel arbitrarily declared a 300 meter wide “no man’s zone” extending from the fence encircling Gaza.  It is now a free-fire zone, where anyone — man woman or child — can be shot and killed.  Besides shrinking the size of Gaza dramatically, all of this land is private property, much of it farmland now made inaccessible by Israeli fiat.

Beginning this past March, thousands of Palestinians began making weekly marches at the Gaza fence, protesting their imprisonment.  Israeli soldiers use live ammunition to kill, maim and cripple innocent Palestinian civilians every time they march.

Thus far, Israeli soldiers have killed at least 130 people (including journalists, medics and children).  They have seriously wounded, crippled and maimed at least 20,000 people.  Let that sink in.

But such bloodshed in Gaza is not unusual.

Israel’s last concerted attack on Gaza in 2014, called Operation Protective Edge, inflicted massive civilian casualties.  According to the United Nations Office on Humanitarian Affairs Israeli bombers, missiles and planes killed — do I need to remind my reader that the Palestinians have none of these weapons? — more than 2,250 people.  At least, 1,462 of them were civilians, 551 children, and 299  women.

11,231 Gazans were injured, including 3,436 children and 3,540 women. Over 1,500 children were orphaned.  18,000 housing units were demolished.

From July through August, the Israeli military carried out more than 6,000 airstrikes on Gaza, many of them hitting residential buildings.  The army reported using 5,000 tons of munitions, including 14,500 tank shells and 35,000 artillery shells.  These figures do not include precision-guided missiles or aerial bombing.

So, it is not surprising that the people trapped in Gaza, who are regularly used for target practice and shot like fish in a barrel, protest their captivity.  Wouldn’t you?

Some of them build home-made rockets and fire them into southern Israel.  These are not “guided” missiles.  They are generally very short range, and Israel boasts that the majority of these missiles are intercepted by their “Iron Dome” anti-missile system.

But, of course, they can still be deadly.  Between 2001 and 2014, 44 Israelis (30 civilians and 14 soldiers) were killed by rockets and mortars fired from Gaza.  I don’t know the cumulative figures since then.

Every Christian must condemn violence, whatever form it takes.   We grieve for every Israeli, especially unarmed civilians, killed or injured by Gazan rockets.  God’s people are called to be instruments of peace in this violent world.

Yet, who grieves for the Palestinians?

Apparently, not the ICEJ.  Nor the millions of other Christian Zionists in the west who never give a second thought — in fact, they never give a third, fourth or fifth thought — to Palestinian suffering.  We are morally incurious, never bothering to learn about the inconvenient millions who  happen to stand in the way of Israel’s plan for a purified ethnic state forever populated by a Jewish majority.

How blind God’s supposed people can be.

It is a profound spiritual blindness that reveals the truth about the hearts of American evangelicals.  Our hearts are hard.  Hard as granite.

We raise our hands in church and shed tears of joy for ourselves whenever the Lord seems to answer our self-centered prayers for excess.  A bigger house.  A better job.  A pretty spouse.  A longer vacation.  You name it.

And all the while we are applauding and helping to finance one of the more horrendous crimes against humanity in the modern world.

The typical evangelical would rather go to Israel as a tourist, walk where Jesus walked, get weak in the knees over a visit to the Western (Wailing) Wall, and never give a thought to the weekly slaughter of innocent human lives occurring only a few miles south of Jerusalem.

Neither do the majority of tourists ever think to worship with their Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ who weep and suffer every day beneath the massive boots of Zionist thugs.

We are those thugs.

The boots are ours.

Palestinian blood stains the American church indelibly.  The Lord Jesus will not forget our guilt.  He will judge us all when The Day finally arrives, saying:

“Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,  I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”  (Matthew 25:41-43)

 

Kierkegaard on Christian Faith — Risking the Improbable and Accepting Failure

Few people understand Christian faith more clearly than Sǿren Kierkegaard.  Here is another section from his book, Judge For Yourself (pages 99-100 in the Hong, Princeton edition).  A few words of explanation may help if you’ve never read Kierkegaard before.

Faith is risking the improbable because (a) it is impossible to prove empirically that you have truly encountered God, and (b) there is no measure of empirical probability that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate.

Thus, faith risks the improbable.  A significant challenge for modern folks who insist on evidence.

Some people (Kierkegaard calls them lightweights) claim to venture the risk of faith, but only because they think that anything done “in faith” is guaranteed success; that is, success in earthly terms.  Success as they define success.

Hear the faithful Dane speak to us today (emphasis is mine):

“Here is the infinite difference from the essentially Christian, since Christianly, indeed, even just religiously, the person who never relinquished probability never became involved with God.  All religious, so say nothing of Christian, venturing is on the other side of probability, is by way of relinquishing probability.

 “But then is the essentially Christian utter folly and are the sensible people right – it is intoxication?  No!  Admittedly many a one has thought that he was venturing Christianly when he ventured to relinquish probability, and it was pure and simple folly even according to the view of Christianity.  Christianity has its own characteristic way of restraining…the point to check carefully here is to see whether the venturing actually is in reliance upon God.

 “To connect God’s name with one’s wishes, cravings, and plans is easy, far too easy for the lightweights; but it does not follow that their venturing is in reliance upon God. No, in relinquishing probability in order to venture in reliance upon God, one must admit to oneself the implications of relinquishing probability – that when one then ventures it is just as possible, precisely just as possible, to fail as to succeed…That one ventures in reliance upon God provides no immediate certainty of success; the dubiousness in the lightweights’ venturing in reliance upon God lies precisely in their understanding this to mean that they must be victorious..  But this is not venturing in reliance upon God; this is taking God in vain.”

Entrusting our lives to Jesus Christ ensures a right relationship with our heavenly Father here and now.  It also guarantees an eternity with Him in the world to come.  But neither faith nor Jesus promise to give us whatever we hope and pray for, no matter how “faithful” our intentions or “glorious” we think it might be for God.

So, do we trust in Jesus and follow Him for his own sake?  Or do we have ulterior motives?

When Disobedience is a Virtue, 5 — Principled Individualism Builds Better Community

This final installment of “When Disobedience is a Virtue” is another excerpt from my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans, 2018), page 112.

If you know me personally or are a regular reader of this blog, then you know that I am a non-conformist.  Part of this is my personality.  I have always questioned authority and wondered (often out loud) about the real evidence behind public statements of “fact.”

But the greatest influence pushing me further and further into the arms of non-conformity has been my faith in Jesus Christ.  Every true disciple is a non-conformist to the ways of this world.

That includes pushing back against the various ways that this world sets up shop inside the church, selling God’s people worldly rubbish like a rogue sidewalk vender hawking enticing chili dogs without a license.

 “There will never be a sufficient consensus on anything in this life—including biblical interpretation and social activism—to eliminate all of life’s uncertainties. If we act only in the absence of uncertainty, then we will never do anything but wait and invent new excuses for our inactivity. Living a biblically directed life is the only way to deconstruct the false moral universes erected by this world and replace them with the moral universe created by the kingdom of God. Of course, as long as we remain in this world, we are partially blinded and crippled by the misshapen universe we are working to leave behind, so our interpretations and conclusions must be held lightly. But they must be held. Uncertainty never justifies apathy.

 “Second, there comes a time when the individual must act and act alone if necessary, while being prepared to accept the consequences of those actions, whatever they may be. It is no accident that Peter Haas introduces his discussion of Germany’s Christian rescuers by saying: “A common feature of any principled dissent . . . [is] that the rescuers are deviants, people who are misfits in their society. . . . [Their actions] grew out of the rescuer’s experience as social and political outcasts.”  Principled individualism, what the status quo will always condemn as the deviant behavior of misfits and outcasts, is the distinguishing characteristic of Christian faithfulness in this fallen world.

 “Unfortunately, there are many pious voices that want to sedate this brand of individualism by wrapping it up tightly in the maudlin, anesthetic gauze of “community life.” Christian gatherings easily become the most repressive, stultifying crowds that squash the last vestige of creative individualism from its members: Never act alone. Never step out of line. Never speak when others are quiet. Never question authority. Never doubt what everyone else believes. Never question the way it has always been done. Never try to think outside the box. These are the conformist platitudes repeated by the crowd in its self-serving attempts to constrain passionate individuals, preventing them from acting for the sake of conscience.  At times the Christian church has become the most oppressive, do-nothing herd of them all.

 “So we must learn to discern the difference between a fellowship that participates in God’s kingdom and a collective that exists only to replicate carbon copies of the citizens of this world.”

Sandhya Rani Jha on Politics in Church

Sandhya Rani Jha is a minister in the Disciples of Christ denomination and director of the Oakland Peace Center.

If you don’t know the story she refers to about the French village, Le Chambon, I encourage you to read the book by Philip Hallie, Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed (Harper Row, 1979). It’s an amazing story of true kingdom citizenship lived out in a time of great danger.

The following excerpt is taken from the Christian Century article, “Do politics belong in church?”.  You can read the entire article here.

“My mind has been on the French village of Le Chambon recently. During World

The village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon

War II, the village of maybe 5,000 people saved possibly as many as 5,000 people from the Nazis and the Vichy regime. As President Barack Obama noted on Yom HaShoah/Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2009, ‘Not a single Jew who came [to the area of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon] was turned away, or turned in. But it was not until decades later that the villagers spoke of what they had done—and even then, only reluctantly. “How could you call us ‘good’?” they said. “We were doing what had to be done.”

“In my current itinerating ministry, I have visited a lot of churches that are proud of their commitment to being nonpolitical because it makes them more inclusive. But a nonpolitical church’s politics supports the way things are. That

Jewish children hidden in Le Chambon

doesn’t make it an inclusive church. It makes it a church that is unwelcoming to people who want a different world. To riff off of a popular meme from the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, people of color are saying to the mainline church, ‘The American empire is literally killing us,’ and the mainline church is saying, ‘Yes, but . . . ‘

“The reason Le Chambon keeps showing up in my imagination is this: every Sunday for over a decade before France fell to the Nazis, the pastors of the village preached a message that reinforced their community’s identity and what that identity meant in practice. The message was:

  • We are Huguenots who survived persecution by the Catholic majority. That means we show up for people being persecuted.
  • We are Christians. This means engaging in nonviolent resistance to empires doing harm and protecting the people who are being harmed.

“In a sermon delivered the day after France surrendered to the Nazis, village

Le Chambon pastor, Andre Trocme

pastor André Trocmé said to his congregation, ‘The responsibility of Christians is to resist the violence that will be brought to bear on their consciences through the weapons of the spirit.’

“In Le Chambon, the church’s message shaped people’s identity and behavior.  That is not an inherently political message, but it is a message that demands people act out of a certain ethic.”  (emphasis mine)
Whenever I hear a pastor boast about his/her “nonpolitical” messages, I always want to ask a few questions, the same questions raised by Sandhya Rani Jha.
First, do the ethics of Jesus have any bearing on the way Christians ought to approach their politics?
How can any thinking pastor say no to that question?
Trocme’s congregation being taught to follow Jesus, conspiring to break the law and to protect the oppressed

 

OK then.  Secondly, if you are not teaching in ways that help your flock understand the the practical significance of Jesus’ radical, upside-down kingdom ethics for engaging the politics of this world, then aren’t you failing in your pastoral responsibilities?

The answer to the second question is a resounding yes.
The principle failure of Christian (at least evangelical) teaching on politics today is the near-complete absence of Jesus and his kingdom ethics.
For many pastors, politics is almost all they talk about, but the life and teaching of Jesus have been erased from their playbook.
But those who refuse to talk politics at all are really no different.  They have simply erased Jesus with a different brand of eraser.

A Faithful Disciple in Rwanda

Brandon Stanton’s Twitter account is called Humans of New York (@humansofny).  Recently, he has been interviewing various people from Africa and telling their stories on his feed.  This is one of them:

This gentleman is a pastor living in Kigali, Rwanda.  When the genocide began in the spring of 1994, many locals fled to this man’s home

A Rwandan Pastor who rescued over 300 lives while risking his own

for protection.  Despite the many threats against himself and his wife, they were prepared to give their lives in protecting others.

They saved over 300 people by hiding them in their church.

Below are a few excerpts from his amazing story:

“That very first evening the militia came to my gate. Some were carrying guns. Others were carrying machetes.  They’d been told that I was hiding people.  They demanded to come inside and search the property. I stood in the doorway and told them they’d have to kill me first.  ‘We’ll be back,’ they said. ‘And thanks for gathering all the cockroaches in one place.’…All of our friends abandoned us. They pretended not to know us.  Only one pastor stood by our side.  He came to me one night and warned me there was a plan to attack the church.  I told the news to my wife and we both agreed we were ready to die.

“The next time the killers came, there were fifty of them. All of them had guns or machetes. They pushed straight past me and entered the pastor’s residence. They began pulling people out of the ceiling. They were kicking us and dragging us along the floor. I knew this was the end…We were put in three lines. We began to say our last prayers. I scanned the mob of killers for recognizable faces. Many of them were Christians. Some were even from my congregation. Every time I recognized a face, I called to him by name. I said, ‘When I die I am going to heaven. Where will you go?’  I then pointed to the next man…and the next…and the next…They began to argue among themselves. Nobody wanted to be the first to kill…And they began to leave, one by one, until all of them had run off.

“…When I look back, I believe the genocide could have been stopped had more pastors taken a stand. We were the ones with influence.  The killers belonged to our congregations. And we could have held them back. But instead we did nothing. And every pastor had a different excuse. Some said they didn’t know things would get so bad. Some said they were too afraid. Some said the government was too powerful to oppose. But when you’re standing aside while people die, every excuse is a lame one.” (emphasis mine)

Naturally, we all love heroic stories.  This man’s actions were truly heroic, though I suspect that he would simply say that he was only doing what Jesus wanted him to do.

I hope that I would be as faithful were I ever to encounter a similar situation.  But I honestly don’t know what I would do.

There were other pastors and priests who tried to hide people inside their

Hundreds were killed while hiding inside this Nyamata church, Rwanda

churches, and they were regularly massacred.  But what about his claim that the genocide could have been stopped if at least a majority of Christian leaders had spoken out in protest, refused to follow tribal orders, disobeyed government demands, and boldly confronted fellow church-goers with Jesus’ radical demands to love everyone and to only  do good to our neighbors?

The majority of church-goers in Rwanda, like the majority of church-goers in Nazi Germany, were a part of the problem, not the solution to Rwandan racism and tribalism.

Given the many despicable things we are witnessing in the United States today, why should anyone imagine that the majority of church-goers in America are any different?

Stanley Hauerwas on the Place of Politics in Church

For my money, Stanley Hauerwas (retired professor of Duke University and prolific author) is the most important American theologian alive today.  And I don’t say that because he was kind enough to write a positive endorsement for my book, I Pledge Allegiance.

No one has a better grasp of the essential relationship between the Church and the Kingdom of God.  If only more of us could think and act as clearly as he does.

Below is an excerpt from Professor Hauerwas’ contribution to the recent Christian Century article, “Do politics belong in church?“.

“The only problem with [saying] ‘religion and politics do not mix’ is that the phrase is one of the strongest examples we have of political rhetoric. There is no escaping ‘the political.’ To refuse to take a political stance is to take a political stance. In particular, the presumption that the church is above politics underwrites the distinction between the public and the private that serves to relegate strong convictions, particularly if they are ‘religious,’ to the private. Private, moreover, is the word we use to describe a fictive political agent, that is, the individual whose political views are to be respected no matter what they may be.

“Moreover, the politics presupposed by the slogan ‘religion and politics do not mix’ is issue politics of election years. ‘Issues’ are what politicians use to distract ‘the people’ from considering the fundamental injustices of our political arrangements. We assume we can concentrate on the issues because given that we are a democracy all we need do is vote. Christians take it for granted that democracies are the Christian form of government, though they seldom ask what makes democracies democratic.

“So when Christians are in church they should be at their most political. But what is essential is how to avoid letting what passes as politics determine the political agenda of the church. Christians must learn again how to reframe issues in a manner that makes clear that the politics of Jesus is different. The church is its own politic, which means Christians cannot avoid being ‘political.’” (emphasis mine)

James K. A. Smith on the Place of Politics in Church

The Christian Century recently published a good article entitled “Do politics belong in church?“.  It is a compilation of 11 responses from pastors and leaders with a wide variety of backgrounds.

I plan to excerpt what I believe are the best of the bunch.  You can find the entire article here.

I begin with my friend and former colleague, James K. A. Smith.  Jamie wrote the foreword to my book, Encountering Jesus Encountering Scripture.  I also have reviewed his recent book Awaiting the King: Reforming Public Theology on this blog.

I greatly appreciate Jamie’s perspective:

“You might expect the obligatory nod to the challenge of preaching in our polarized climate—except for the fact that our congregations are comfortably partisan and have been engines of polarization, not some lingering holdout against it. Like our housing and education, Christianity reflects rather than resists what sociologist Bill Bishop calls “the big sort.” Congregations are predictable clusters of the politically like-minded. I expect that many pastors, whether on the left or right, can count on a certain slant of ‘us’ and reliably decry a ‘them’ on Sunday mornings.

“So the challenge is less how to avoid upsetting ideologically diverse congregations and more a matter of rightly upsetting the monolithic congregations in front of us. But how? What does faithful political discipleship look like?

“We don’t want to avoid being predictably partisan by falling prey to the illusion that the gospel is politically ‘neutral.’ If some partisan stands align with biblical concerns for justice, we shouldn’t soft-pedal biblical themes just to avoid appearing partisan. Here’s a way the lectionary is a gift. These biblical themes confront us. Preaching isn’t dictated by the pet priorities of a party but by the worldwide curriculum of the body of Christ at worship. And some days, by grace, that Word will come as a challenge to our own preferences.

“Nor does the unique ‘politics of Jesus’ give us license to sequester ourselves in alternative communities. Policy is how we love our neighbors, and purity doesn’t release us from the Great Commandment. The illusion of being nonpolitical is a luxury of privilege that only leaves the vulnerable exposed.”

 

When Disobedience is a Virtue, 4 – The Benefits and Dangers of Community

God has made us for community.  But not all communities are made for us.  That includes “Christian” communities.

Ultimately, we each take the leap of faith to Jesus as individuals.  And it is as individuals that we will stand before God’s throne on Judgment Day.

Today’s excerpt from I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America concerns the blessings and the dangers of finding comfort in a church community.  It comes from pages 109-110.

KKK leaders were typically leaders in the local church

The Holy Spirit does not obliterate our sinful nature, what Paul calls “the flesh.”  It is not unusual for the flesh to show extra panache in flaunting itself throughout Christian communities where the masks of piety and sincerity are worn so easily…and loosely.

“The company we keep is more determinative of personal behavior than many of us suspect, for both good and bad. Most actions become easier with the support of others, especially when those actions are subversive. And when the action means compliance with the status quo, it becomes mindless repetition…

 “It comes as no surprise, then, to learn that the majority of Christian rescuers during World War II were bolstered by a support network of like-minded people, whether in the local church or elsewhere, who all shared in the dangers, encouraging one another along the way. That ancient slave who finally screwed up enough courage to say “No” to her master knew that she was not acting by herself. Although no one else could suffer the master’s beating for her, she was sustained by a family of brothers and sisters in Christ who also believed that her act of civil disobedience was a necessary step in following Jesus. She knew they were praying for her; they loved her and would be there to tend her wounds, take her into their homes, clothe her, and feed her if need be. She could rest in the knowledge that she would not face her owner’s wrath alone.

 “Unfortunately, the dark side of human nature means that there is also a dark side to community, including Christian community. The same group dynamics that support positive transformation can also blind a person to his own gradual corruption if the group is corrupt. Sebastian Haffner’s autobiography, Defying Hitler: A Memoir, is a fascinating testimony to the infectious, corrupting power of a community bound together for evil purposes.  Haffner was staunchly opposed to Hitler, National Socialism, and everything the Third Reich was doing to his country. Yet, as he finished his university law degree, the government imposed a new requirement forcing all graduates to attend a Nazi indoctrination camp before they could take the bar exam. Refusing to attend this camp meant losing the chance to practice law.

 “Haffner was certain that his hatred for Hitler was unshakable. It would serve him well as a protective shield against the Nazi’s ideological bombardment, insulating his true self against any unwanted changes. He would enter the camp an anti-Nazi, and he would exit it the same way. What Haffner had underestimated, however, were the sly and subtle ways in which members of a group conform themselves to one another, whether they intend to or not, whether the group behavior is admirable or not. To his utter horror, Haffner confesses that, by the time the camp had concluded, he was talking, behaving, and thinking like a Nazi. The man who began by hating Hitler was now clicking his boots, shouting “Sieg Heil,” and meaning it. Inch by miserable inch, he had surrendered his scruples to the camaraderie—to the fellowship—of his enforced Nazi community. Toward the close of his memoir, Haffner agonizes: ‘I realized that I was well and truly in a trap. I should never have come to the camp. Now I was in the trap of comradeship. . . . ‘We’ had become a collective entity and with all the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty of a collective being we instinctively ignored or belittled anything that could disturb our collective self-satisfaction.. . . It was remarkable how comradeship actively decomposed all the elements of individualism.’

 “The ethos of fellowship and group support can either elevate the individual to

How few are willing to stand out by standing alone if necessary

stand apart, to think independently, and to act heroically, or it can destroy the individual by pulling her down into the quagmire of conformity, where mindlessly repeating the group’s scripted mantras can pass for brilliance and even earn a PhD.”

“The Suffocation of Democracy” by C. R. Browning

Christopher R. Browning is an esteemed historian of World War II.  He recently wrote an article for The New York Review of Books entitled “The Suffocation of Democracy.”  In this article Brown compares both the

German President Paul von Hindenburg and Chancellor Adolf Hitler on their way to a youth rally at the Lustgarten, Berlin, May 1933

similarities and the differences between the current state of American politics and the rise of fascism in Europe during the 1920s to 1930s.

In certain ways, the United States in 2018 is not very different from the German Weimar Republic that eventually gave way to Adolf Hitler.  In other ways, we are very different.

I have posted Browning’s concluding paragraphs below.  The entire article is well worth reading.  Just click the link above:

“No matter how and when the Trump presidency ends, the specter of illiberalism will continue to haunt American politics. A highly politicized judiciary will remain, in which close Supreme Court decisions will be viewed by many as of dubious legitimacy, and future judicial appointments will be fiercely contested. The racial division, cultural conflict, and political polarization Trump has encouraged and intensified will be difficult to heal. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and uncontrolled campaign spending will continue to result in elections skewed in an unrepresentative and undemocratic direction. Growing income disparity will be extremely difficult to halt, much less reverse.

“Finally, within several decades after Trump’s presidency has ended, the looming effects of ecological disaster due to human-caused climate change—which Trump not only denies but is doing so much to accelerate—will be inescapable. Desertification of continental interiors, flooding of populous coastal areas, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with concomitant shortages of fresh water and food, will set in motion both population flight and conflicts over scarce resources that dwarf the current fate of Central Africa and Syria. No wall will be high enough to shelter the US from these events. Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism, but regardless of how the Trump presidency concludes, this is a story unlikely to have a happy ending.”

When Disobedience is a Virtue, 3 — Do We Inhabit a Moral Universe Created by God’s Kingdom?

Brett Kavanaugh was officially appointed to the Supreme Court on Monday.  One of the “evangelical” representatives present at the White House ceremony was Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.  Jeffress is one of the president’s “spiritual counselors.”

Remember, Kavanaugh’s Senate hearings offered us the opportunity to watch a woman named Christine Blasey Ford expose her private humiliation to the American public as she retold the ugly story of her sexual assault.  Afterwards, the American president publicly vilified Dr. Ford.  He laughed and ridiculed her at a campaign rally in Mississippi, turning a woman’s trauma into his own personal burlesque comedy act.

Her family continues to hide in an undisclosed location because of the torrent of death threats they receive.

In the aftermath of all this, Robert Jeffress’ went on Fox News to describe Kavanaugh’s appointment as a sign that “good had triumphed over evil.”

Jeffress added, “I think, in many ways, the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh represents conservatives finally standing up and saying, to quote the movie: ‘We’re as mad as hell and we’re not going to take this any longer.’'”

Robert Jeffress and I do not inhabit the same moral universe.

The following excerpt is from pages 107-109 of my book I Pledge Allegiance: A Believers Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans 2018).  I discuss Nazi Germany as one example of the ways different societies construct their own “moral universes” and the challenges these different social universes present to citizens of the kingdom of God.

The two books I refer to are:

 David Gushee, The Righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust: A Christian Interpretation (Fortress, 1994)

Peter J. Haas, Morality after Auschwitz: The Radical Challenge of the Nazi Ethic (Fortress, 1988)

“Although the decision to break the law by rescuing Jews may seem an obvious choice to us today, we should not forget that only a few in Germany actually made that difficult decision. The majority of German Christians offered no outward objections to Nazi policies. For instance, not a single public protest was ever launched by a Protestant church leader against Germany’s euthanasia laws when they were implemented.  When push came to shove, bad theology, fear, rationalizing, and self-preservation all trumped actualizing the gospel message, which leads us to Gushee’s second, tragic observation.

 “Christian rescuers were few and far between.  Rescuers, in general, were the exception to the rule in World War II; but rescuers claiming to be motivated by their Christian faith were rare even among this small group of heroes. This lamentable fact (at least lamentable for me as a Christian) requires a deeper analysis than we can give to it here, but it certainly illustrates just how difficult and unusual it is for self-professed Christians to give themselves over completely to the thoroughgoing, inside-out transformation desired by Christ. The widespread nature of this spiritual challenge is illustrated time and again by the historians who study the Christian church in Nazi Germany. For example, Richard Steigmann-Gall’s research on Nazi views of Christianity concludes: “Christianity, in the final analysis, did not constitute a barrier to Nazism. Quite the opposite: For many . . . the battles waged against Germany’s enemies constituted a war in the name of Christianity. . . . Nearly all the Nazis surveyed here believed they were defending good by waging war against evil, fighting for God against the Devil, for German against Jew.”

 “This is a chilling conclusion for anyone who loves Jesus.

 “My point in turning our attention to Nazi Germany is not to single out the German church or to suggest that the Third Reich was the only disastrous political movement that has co-opted Christianity and bastardized the gospel.  I have chosen these examples from the history of Nazi Germany because this is one of the few episodes in modern history that is relatively free of partisan wrangling. Almost everyone, regardless of nationality, political persuasion, or religion, will agree that Adolf Hitler and his Nazi doctrine were a consummate evil. I am confident that the majority of my readers will agree—whether their politics are Republican, Democratic, independent, socialist, Green Party, libertarian, or anarchist—that the bulk of the German church, both Protestant and Catholic, allowed the rules of this-worldly citizenship to smother their responsibilities as citizens of God’s kingdom. No one in a church composed of true pilgrims, strangers, and aliens in this world could ever uniformly adhere to the policies of the Nazi Party.

 “From this shared starting point, let me go on to say something that is perhaps more provocative: There is a close analogy to be made between the behavior of the American church today and that of the German church in 1933. No, America may not face the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or National Socialism (whatever the current administration’s political opponents may say). But, like the people of Germany, we all live within a shared moral universe that defines both good and evil and then brings various forces to bear in pressuring us to conform. The Nazis managed to create a moral universe where racism and brutality were approved, even encouraged. The German people behaved accordingly.  Anti-Semitism and eugenics were morally good, while racial integration and opposition to the state were morally evil. Peter Haas rightly insists that ‘the Holocaust was not the incarnation of evil but instead reflected the human power to reconceive good and evil and then to shape society in the light of the new conception.’

 “Haas offers a crucial insight. Whether we recognize it or not, we all live within analogous ethical systems, where we blithely accept cultural definitions of good and evil without exercising any critical thinking. The issue is not the particular guise adopted by evil—whether it wears the face of Nazism, communism, consumerism, capitalism, imperialism, racism, or the class system—but the fact that evil always exists without always being self-evident to us. The moral universe created by twenty-first- century America is not identical with the moral universe envisioned by the gospel of Jesus Christ. But that will be shocking news to many members of the church in America.  This confusion makes the American church typical. The bulk of the German church did not fail because it was German but because it was human. The burdensome millstone hanging from the neck of world history is sinful human nature, a human nature that would rather create its own moral universe than live obediently in God’s. When given a choice, human nature always prefers to cling to its own precious, self-serving ideologies (no matter how idiotic, uninformed, xenophobic, or grotesque) over the self-renunciation, self-sacrifice, and servanthood demanded by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, all Christians of every nation must ask themselves in a spirit of repentance, humility, and self-examination: What kind of moral universe is the church inhabiting today? What redefinitions of good and evil have we accepted for our own cultural convenience? What kinds of immorality are we ignoring, or even heartily endorsing, because we are more heavily invested in partisan politics, nationalism, capitalism, consumerism, discrimination, and the many other idolatrous ephemera born of the kingdom of this world than we are in following Jesus Christ?”