Category: Christian Living/Church Related

What is Christian Worship? Part 4

Thus far we have made several important, and unexpected, discoveries as we studied New Testament worship vocabulary.

First, we discovered that the New Testament never describes Christian gatherings as “worship services.”  New Testament believers didn’t “worship” when they gathered together.  Rather, they created group opportunities for edification and upbuilding of the Body of Christ.  Disciples use their spiritual gifts, confess their sins, sing new songs, praise and glorify God, encourage each other and meet one another’s physical and spiritual needs.

And, believe it or not, the New Testament does not call that “worship.”

Second, we found that the New Testament insists that Christian worship is the stuff believers do in their day-to-day lives as they obediently follow Jesus.  We worship God when we do the things Jesus has called us to do as members of his upside-down, counter-intuitive kingdom.
Worship is a lifestyle not because we sing praise songs and lift our hands while driving, but because we make the radically hard choices of actually being like Jesus and obeying his not-of-this-world teaching in our daily lives with others.

This is the point where I frequently hear an objection: If worship is an everyday affair, aren’t I minimizing the idea of worship as a “sacred/special” activity? 

To put the question more negatively, people sometimes object, “If everything is worship, then nothing is worship.”  (One of my former colleagues used to say this regularly).

“There must be something unique or ‘special’ about worshiping God,” they insist.  “Otherwise giving God our focused attention simply melts away into the repetitious fabric of mundane existence, and it will never really happen at all!”

This worry arises from a legitimate concern, but I believe that its impulses are misguided.  My response to this objection has two parts.   Here I will offer part one.  Part two must wait for the next post.

 First, the New Testament has dramatically eliminated the Old Testament distinction between the sacred & the profane within the Christian life.

In the Old Testament, the “sacred” was conceived of in terms of proximity to God.  God’s presence appeared at certain shrines, in the Tabernacle or in the Temple.  These places involved sacred locations (like altars), sacred personnel (priests), sacred objects (vestments, incense burners) and sacred acts (sacrifices, offerings).

The profane, on the other hand, was excluded from the sacred.  Profane things involved the mundane, day-to-day, worldly affairs of normal life, normal places and normal people.

Old Testament saints lived within two different sets of distinctions:

One was the sacred/profane distinction described above.

The second was the covenantal distinction between Israel’s membership in the Abrahamic & Sinai covenants, compared with everyone else in the world who lived outside of God’s covenants.  Israel and Israel alone were the Lord’s covenant people.

These two dimensions of (a) sacred/profane and (b) inside the covenant/outside the covenant intersected Israel’s existence in significant ways.

All those living inside the covenant were God’s chosen people.  As God’s covenant people, Israel was commanded to maintain the distinction between the sacred – i.e. they went to the Temple, offered sacrifices and understood God’s presence to be centered in the Holy of Holies – and the profane – i.e. they believed that God always saw them and heard their prayers, but they never entered into God’s presence at home as they did when they entered into the Temple.

All of Israel’s life was lived within the covenant, but covenant life was not identical with the sacred way of life.  Even Israel’s priests – who were always members of the covenant – moved  back and forth between the sacred and profane, depending on their times of temple service.

With the coming of Christ, however, God instituted a radical change of affairs.  The Lord Jesus inaugurated the NEW Covenant, or the New Testament.

With the coming of God’s New Covenant, what had previously been two different distinctions (sacred/profane and in covenant/out of covenant) are now fused into one.  In other words, every member of the New Covenant is always living a sacred existence in sacred space. Those outside the New Covenant, because they do not know Jesus, live a profane life in profane space.

Anyone participating in the resurrection life of Jesus Christ can know that the previously profane has been transformed into the perpetually sacred.  The covenantal distinction is now identical with the sacred/profane distinction.  All disciples of Jesus are holy people.  Every Christian is a priest.  Every act of obedience is a sacred act, an offering of praise, a sacrifice acceptable to God.

I am convinced that this New Testament “universalizing” of the sacred, scattering sacredness throughout all of the Christian life, is a sign of Christ’s intention to restore the universe to God’s original design.

When Adam and Eve walked through the Garden of Eden, all of life was sacred.  The entire cosmos was sacred.  Sacred space was everywhere.  There was no place that was not a sacred place.  The Creator walked and talked with the first man and woman as they strolled through the aspen groves and smelled wild roses in the overgrown thickets along the bubbling stream.

Sacred space was all there was.

So now, since the coming of Jesus, the apostle Paul can describe his lifestyle of obedient discipleship as “his priestly service” (note the language of a sacred person offering a sacred activity – i.e. worship) given up to Jesus Christ from the dirty streets and dark alleyways of every Greco-Roman city where the apostle sets the light of the Good News ablaze.

Worship becomes a lifestyle of faithful kingdom citizenship, first and foremost, because of who we are.

Jesus makes us saints and priests whose every breath drawn in thanksgiving, every thought of God’s glory, every word spoken in the light of Christ’s presence, every decision made in accordance with God’s intention, becomes a moment of worship offered up by a sacred individual inhabiting God’s new world.

Now, is that amazing, or what?

Praise be to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ for His indescribable gifts to us all!

Has Seeker-Friendly Worship Become Seeker-Unfriendly?

Recently, a gentleman by the name of David Murrow offered a blog post at Patheos entitled “Why Seeker-Friendly Churches are Losing Seekers.” He explains why he believes many so-called “seeker-friendly” churches are seeing a decline in the attendance of unbelievers.

Since I have long thought about, but never followed through on, writing an article about the Willow Creek seeker-targeted church strategy, and the vastly more popular compro mise dubbed seeker-friendly services, I decided to chime in on the subject here rather than procrastinate further.

Unfortunately, Mr. Murrow does not offer any evidence or citation substantiating his claim.  But, for the moment, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and accept his claim.  He does offer some good observations and sound advice.  I recommend the article to anyone involved in a “seeker” ministry.

Mr. Murrow’s puts his finger, perhaps unintentionally, on the fundamental flaws found at the core of so-called seeker-sensitive church services, flaws which have given rise to serious misunderstandings about what it means to be a seeker-driven church.

I attended numerous leadership conferences at Willow Creek in the 1990s.  I always took a team of church leaders with me so we could strategize together about the best ways to transform our church community back home into a church that grew by evangelism.  We wanted to see people come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and then grow as committed disciples within our church community.

I was raised in a fundamentalist tradition that prized its annual week of Revival Meetings.  Year after year the church brought in a visiting evangelist who spoke every evening for a week as the center piece for our revival meetings.  Church members were strongly encouraged to bring their “lost” friends so that they could hear the Good News and “be saved.”

As I learned about the origins and goals of Willow’s seeker-targeted church strategies, I soon recognized that by following in the long, innovative tradition of Youth for Christ, Young Life and similar evangelical organizations from the 1940s and 50s, Willow Creek had simply devised a new way to conduct old-fashioned revival meetings.  Except these evangelistic meetings happened weekly instead of annually.  The evangelist was the teaching pastor.  Instead of a tent with a sawdust trail, the gathering site was in the church building.

Here is the key:  In a true seeker ministry the Sunday morning seeker-service (or seeker-targeted service) is an evangelistic meeting.

Its primary purpose is to create a place where Christians can bring their non-Christian friends to learn about Jesus Christ and his church.  A seeker-service is not designed for believers.  Let me say that again.  A seeker-service is not designed for believers except as they become evangelists themselves, bringing their friends to hear the pastor/evangelist talk about the real-world relevance of the gospel.

Whenever I wrote seeker-targeted messages I told myself that I was going to talk about life with respect to the Bible.   My seeker messages were typically topical.

Christians who were church shopping often disapproved of our seeker services, saying they weren’t “worshipful” enough.  But, frankly, since the service wasn’t designed with them in mind, I never let those criticisms bother me.

Eventually, seeker-targeted churches must develop a second schedule of services for worship/praise/body-life activities that will meet the spiritual needs of disciples.  Christians need regularly to praise Jesus, glorify their heavenly Father, confess their sins, thank the Lord for answered prayer, and a million-and-one other things besides.

We typically call this a “worship service.”  Seekers can’t worship Jesus Christ because they don’t know him yet.  So, nothing in our worship services was designed specifically for “seekers.”  When I wrote a message for our worship services I told myself that I was going to talk about the Bible with respect to life.   My “worship” messages were typically expository.

Worship services and seeker services are two very, very different beasts.  They have different goals.  They are intended for different audiences.  Seekers don’t/can’t worship God, so don’t ask them to.  Believers, on the other hand, need more than a weekly “revival” meeting, so don’t limit their diet to evangelistic milk.

Leaders at Willow Creek regularly warned us visiting pastors about the challenges waiting to ambush anyone hoping to move their church out of its traditionalism into a seeker-targeted method of ministry.

I cannot recall ever hearing a leader at Willow Creek encourage church leaders purposely to develop a compromise called a seeker-sensitive service.  Such services were described as hybrids, a compromise, or a short-term transitional strategy used by churches having difficulty moving fully to a seeker-targeted ministry.  But I cannot recall ever hearing anyone at Willow encourage leaders to develop seeker-sensitive services for Sunday morning as a permanent part of their strategy.

Sadly, for whatever reasons, it appears that the majority of churches, whether they have ever been to Willow Creek or not, have opted for seeker-sensitive worship services today.  Precious few congregations have made the effort or taken the risks to create both worship services for believers and seeker-targeted services for unbelievers.

Unfortunately, it didn’t take long before people were promoting this compromise by writing books and offering seminars about the benefits of “worship evangelism.”

What a shame.

Too many church leaders have taken the easy road of becoming all things to all people gathered together in the same place at once.  In my experience, that rarely works, and even when it appears to work, it is not in anyone’s best interests.

 Anyone trying to become all things to all people becomes nothing special to no one in particular.

Remember that in the Old Testament, Yahweh spoke to the prophet Balaam through a dumb ass.  But Balaam did not spend the rest of his life loitering around barn yards, waiting to hear his next word from God.

The Lord can certainly use Christian worship to call sinners to Himself.  The Holy Spirit blows where he wills, as he wills, whenever he wills.  I know a woman who surrendered herself to Jesus while listening to me deliver a message about tithing from the book of Leviticus.  But that didn’t cause me to write books about the wonders of “Levitical-Stewardship Evangelism.”  (No. Please. Don’t go there).

The surprising movement of God’s grace is never a sufficient reason to promote new strategies for dumb ass church services.

I am afraid that the fear and half-hearted commitment found at the origins of so many seeker-sensitive services are significant factors in the gross levels of spiritual childishness crippling large swaths of American evangelicalism.

Too many Sunday messages soft-sell the radical demands of Jesus and his gospel, for fear of offending visitors.  (This should never be an issue, not even in seeker-targeted services).

Just as too many offerings of “praise music” make no attempt whatsoever to lead God’s people into the unnerving, overwhelming presence of the Lord Almighty, to whom the angels sing, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord who sits on His throne.”

The real problem is not simply that seeker-friendly churches may lose their appeal to seekers, as Mr. Murrow warns.  These services also consistently fail to produce mature disciples who walk faithfully as citizens of God’s radical, upside-down kingdom on earth.

That’s a spiritual double-whammy from which no church can recover until we come to our senses and abandon the conspiracy of half-measures that make “seeker-sensitive worship” the liturgical monstrosity that it is.

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?

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.”

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?”

When Disobedience is a Virtue, 2 – The Mind of Christ Confronts Propaganda

 

Several recent on-line conversations have reminded me, although I never actually forgot, about the basic tools that make propaganda effective.  Abusive leaders (and there are LOTS of them) speak propaganda not truth.

Propaganda is the repetitious spreading of misinformation and lies in order to manipulate the public into believing falsehoods and behaving in ways that are unjust.  Common methods include:

  • Relying on one and only one source of information
  • Listening only to voices that agree with you and confirm your preexisting bias
  • Repetition; either listening to or repeating the same information over and
    Joseph Goebbels was Minister of Propaganda for Adolf Hitler. He was an expert at his job

    over again

  • Offering only one side of an argument, ignoring any contrary evidence or argumentation

Among conservatives of all stripes today, the principle propaganda outlet is Fox News.  This network, and others like it, are a blight on American society.  It’s product is not journalism but propaganda.  Fox’s blatant role as an outlet for

Republican talking points has been public knowledge for many years (here and here).  Loyal viewers repeat what they hear on Fox News because it’s often the only source they trust.

This repetitious feedback loop is now firmly established.

The Nazis understood the persuasive power of repetition

In one of my recent online debates, a gentleman emphatically repeated the same claims over and over again, regardless of my replies.  I answered him by pointing out the misinformation in his statements and giving reasons for why his argument was incorrect.  Yet, as is typical of folks who only “know” what they hear via propaganda, he simply repeated his false claims and errors more firmly, never adjusting his argument or responding to my points.  In other words, he restated what he had been told to believe.

THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR FOR GOD’S PEOPLE.

Here’s today’s excerpt, from pages 105-106 of my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans 2018):

“Persuasive messaging is vital to authority. Whether that message comes in the guise of politics, philosophy, theology, ideology, theory, or propaganda, an authority figure creates legitimacy through the power of a convincing explanation. Effective messaging allows listeners to believe that their obedience is serving a desirable end, no matter how distasteful their obedience to those demands may be. The ends justify the means, at least when the authority’s words are convincing. ‘Control the manner in which a man (sic) interprets his world, and you have gone a long way toward controlling his behavior.’

“If the message is repeated often enough, and the listener becomes convinced enough, the authority’s explanation is eventually assimilated into the person’s understanding of the world. It is no longer questioned; it is assumed and becomes the believer’s default position, so that any new evidence challenging or contradicting the accepted message is automatically dismissed or ignored.  Do you remember your last political debate with someone who only watches the news from one particular television network? How open was that person to new evidence or counter-arguments offered from a different perspective? Once the content of repetitious messaging has been excused from answering questions posed by critical thinking, then it has become indoctrination: that is, a strongly held belief having its own internal logic, self-evident only to believers, hovering above the messy world of counter-evidence and public demonstration.

“But politicians, demagogues, and advertising agencies are not the only ones who use the power of messaging. The Christian church also has a message that requires communication. We first hear this message through the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is then elaborated through regular Bible study into a comprehensive way of living, where obeying the Lord Jesus is life’s guiding directive. Christians discover what God asks of them by becoming familiar with the sound of his voice. Recognizing God’s voice is a gift to faithful, long-time students of his word who put the Lord’s directions into practice. This is how a depraved human mind is slowly transformed into the redeemed mind of Christ (Rom. 12:2). It is a process called sanctification, and it is neither easy nor automatic. Our human tendency is to cling to as much of the old, unredeemed mindset as possible, minimizing the amount of Christ-like upside-down transformation occurring and protectively maximizing the old-time, business-as-usual worldview preserved from our pre-Christian attitudes on life. It is a lifelong contest for supremacy.

“In this respect, every disciple resembles the character Gollum in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Gollum is a slobbering, pathetic subterranean creature, clawing and clutching feverishly at his ‘precious’ ring, unwilling to let it go. For Christians, our own ‘precious’ thing is the carnal mindset and consequent immorality that we spent a lifetime inhaling from the materialistic atmosphere swirling around us before we first met Jesus. Allowing these precious, unredeemed preconceptions to be challenged, torn down, and replaced by the new, regenerate mind of Jesus is so difficult that it sometimes never happens. Occasionally, a dramatic historical event will pull back the ecclesiastical curtain to reveal the truth about God’s people and about whose mind is truly precious to them.”

I am convinced that American Christianity is facing one such “dramatic historical event” right now.  It is the rise of Donald Trump and the ethos surrounding him called Trumpism.

Whether Trump’s presidency is a flash in the pan or the permanent entrenchment of all the worst qualities displayed throughout America’s history as an international bully is beside the point.  Conservative

Trump with a few evangelical supporters

Christianity’s gleeful embrace and puppy-dog loyalty to this pathological liar and malignant narcissist is more than enough to reach a verdict.

The conservative church in this country has not only failed the test, it has demonstrated that it never studied for the exam.  It has slept through every class.  Never taken a single note.  Ignored the teacher and burned down the school.

For all its Christian bookstores, Bible study videos, booklets and supposedly expository teaching, the truth of God’s word is a stranger to many, far too many, who say they are God’s people.

The “ecclesiastical curtain” has been torn asunder from top to bottom; the church’s priorities have been exposed.  Many things are precious to American Christianity, but the mind of Christ is not one of them.