Christian Living/Church Related | HumanityRenewed

Some Thoughts on the Christian Church and Gay Pride Month

Gay pride month, with its rumblings over pronouns, sexual identity, and LGBTQIA issues, has stirred me to share a few of thoughts about the subtleties involved in these gender conversations which are generally overlooked by many of those who argue over them.

Christians are no exception to this generalization. In fact, we are often the worst at neglecting the relevant nuances when we ought to be the most sensitive to them. For these subtleties are uniquely Christian contributions to the public discussion about gay marriage and sexual-gender identities. If we don’t offer them up, it’s unlikely that anyone else will.

Shame on us for not being more biblically and theologically astute.

[By the way, my pastor recently gave an excellent message on these issues. Here is the link if you want to listen. The entire message is well worth your time, but his discussion of Pride Month begins at the 20:10 mark.]

First, Christians must remember that sexual identity does not entail (much less require) sexual activity.

The secular world jettisoned this fact long ago. Society assumes that whatever you “are” – gay, straight, bi, trans, what-have-you – you will be engaging in that particular “mode” of sexual activity. To be a sexual person means to be sexually active. It is both natural and inevitable.

Tragically, the Christian church has fallen into the trap of sharing this assumption, not only concerning those outside of the church but for those within it, as well.

We assume that a sexual-gender identity will always entail sexual activity. This is why straight men can become particularly cruel and heartless when discussing gay men. They imagine the sex acts involved and are often repulsed. That sense of revulsion is then sanctioned by the demeaning attitudes too often shared by fellow Christians. Thus, base cruelty, born of presumption and self-righteousness, becomes acceptable among the “godly.” This ought not to be.

The fact that the New Testament does, in fact, prohibit gay sexual activity is beside the point for now. As a Christian I understand that scripture only approves of sexual activity within the confines of marriage – that is, a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. All other sexual practices, whatever they may be, with whomever they may happen, fall under the condemnation of that old fashioned word fornication.

Fornication is an equal opportunity sin. It does not discriminate between straight, gay, bi, or what have you.

Anyone engaging in sexual activity with anyone other than his/her heterosexual spouse is guilty of sin. The intimate, mechanical details of this activity are irrelevant. No one needs to imagine anything. The only relevant question is this: is it marital sex (biblically defined) or fornication? It’s really that simple.

We also see this confusion arise when conservative Christians insist that “gay people cannot hold positions of church leadership.”

This simply is not true.

Nowhere does scripture condemn people for being born with gay or lesbian inclinations. Same-sex attraction is no more sinful than heterosexual attraction. The restrictive question is not one of attraction or inclination but of activity (real or imagined) with a particular partner.

Of course, gay people can serve as church leaders, provided that they remain celibate. Just as straight people can serve in church leadership, provided they remain celibate if single and faithfully monogamous if married.

The Christian church has an ancient, venerable tradition of life-long celibacy among its leaders, notwithstanding the horrific legacy of sexual abuse now on display within the Roman Catholic and many Protestant churches. Sin needs to be corrected, not awarded the power to scuttle right practices. Vows of celibacy are as old and as respectable as the apostle Paul.

Christians who automatically reject the idea of accepting gay Christians into leadership roles reveal that they too are making false assumptions. Remember, sexual natures do not require sexual activity. Celibacy is possible, especially when that leader is surrounded by an understanding, compassionate community of faith.

The second neglected subtlety concerns the place of sin, specifically our understanding of the Fall described in Genesis 3, within the workings of creation.

Only last night I listened to an interview with one of the leaders of America’s largest Protestant denomination. He was discussing the current controversies surrounding the “treatment” of childhood transgenderism. With great authority he declared that God had created only two genders/sexes: male and female. Thus, according to him, there could be no such thing as a genuinely transgendered human being.

You’ve probably heard this kind of thing before.

Unfortunately, this Christian leader (and all those like him) are wrong on both their theology and biology.

For starters, the creation story is followed by a sequel – the horrific story of the Fall in Genesis 3. Satan successfully tempts the first man and woman to disobey their Creator, thereby throwing a monkey wrench into God’s original design. Original sin is all pervasive, creating brokenness, rifts, splinters, and unintended consequences all throughout God’s creation. Things are no longer the way they were supposed to be.

Every Christian ought to understand this.

Furthermore, as a result of the Fall, even though God may have originally created only male and female, the monkey wrench of sin has complicated the gender mix considerably.

Now precious human beings who bear the Image of God can also be born as “intersex” individuals, possessing some combination of both male and female sexual organs. In fact, some medical professionals estimate that intersex births may be as high as 2% of annual birth rates. [I recommend watching the touching documentary Some Body to begin your introduction to this issue.]

Gender dysphoria – where a person is convinced that their true gender is inhabiting the wrong sort of body – is a genuine psychological condition, I believe. The monkey wrench of sin has damaged human psychology and genetics as well the human will and imagination.

Though I suspect that gender dysphoria is much rarer than many activists would have us believe, the Christian church must be a place where people struggling with this type of gender confusion can find God’s grace and compassion extended to them through a flesh and blood community.

To insist that God only created male and female is wrongheaded because it tells only half the story.

The second half of God’s story reminds us that nothing today is that neat and clean. For Satan then stepped into God’s creation to make a mess of things. And, with our help, he succeeded royally. Today’s church is called to deal graciously with that mess, the mess we call real life, where very few things, including sexual identities, are as neat and clean as we might like.

To retreat behind bad theology or poor Bible reading; to neglect important subtleties due to thoughtlessness; to make unwarranted or false assumptions about others; to compromise with the secular norms around us; or to forget that Jesus loves broken, hurting people – including you and me – is to fail in our responsibilities as God’s people.

The beauty of the gospel is that God’s grace through Jesus Christ is extended to everyone without discrimination, whether gay, straight, LGBTQIA, or something else altogether.

If you are a sinner like me, then Jesus loves you.

The church needs to become more informed, less reactionary, more biblical, less susceptible to following in the steps of society, and more exemplary of God’s Amazing Grace extended to all.

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.

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.

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 21^st 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?

How Do You Identify a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? The Bling.

I’d say that $1 million in jewelry is the modern-day equivalent of a good sheep’s skin.

Any preacher wearing this much bling while delivering a Sunday sermon is not only flashing his wolfish fangs, he is begging for lightning to strike.

Well, lightning struck a few weeks ago for New York City’s Bishop Lamor Miller-Whitehead and his wife Asia, pastors of a Brooklyn City church, when several thieves invaded the Sunday morning service and relieved the two church leaders of their jewelry — all $1 million dollars worth.

There truly is no honor among thieves as the gold chains, diamond rings, and jeweled necklaces were quietly transferred from one pair of thieves to another.

(It reminds me of the time a Mormon bishop believed he could relieve me of my soul as I prayed for his salvation. But that is another story for another posting.)

Don’t worry about the Bishop or his wife, however, since they undoubtedly have millions worth of additional jewelry stashed away in their safe at home.

As the Bishop told the Religious News Service, “It’s not about me being flashy,” Miller-Whitehead said. “It’s about me, purchasing what I want to purchase. And it’s my prerogative to purchase what I want to purchase.”

Ok then. I feel so much better now about their so-called ministry.

At least we know where their hearts are really at. As Jesus said, “You cannot serve God and money. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

Below is an excerpt of the article, “NYPD: Preacher, Wife Robbed of $1 Million in Jewelry During Sermon,” by Michael R. Sisak:

NEW YORK (AP) — A preacher known for his close friendship with New York City’s mayor was robbed of more than $1 million worth of jewelry Sunday by armed bandits who crashed his Brooklyn church service, just as he was sermonizing about keeping faith in the face of grave adversity, police said.

Bishop Lamor Miller-Whitehead, who embraces his flashy lifestyle and can often be seen driving around the Big Apple in his Rolls Royce, was delivering a sermon at his Leaders of Tomorrow International Ministries when police say three robbers walked in. They showed guns and demanded property from Miller-Whitehead and his wife, Asia K. DosReis-Whitehead, police said. . . .

. . . In a video posted to Instagram, Miller-Whitehead said he felt a “demonic force” enter the church and wasn’t sure if the gunmen “wanted to shoot the church up or if they were just coming for a robbery.” . . .

Of all people, the good Bishop ought to be intimately familiar with the feel of an approaching demonic force.

Click here to read the complete article.

Thoughts and Questions About the Beginning of Life

Obviously, this post is spurred by the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade and the many conversations now occurring state-to-state about local abortion laws.

The premise of the anti-abortion (I refuse to use the term pro-life, since it is highly misleading) movement has always been the claim that “life begins at conception.” A secondary entailment of that assumption is the definition of “life” as the existence of a human person.

Let me begin by putting my cards on the table: I used to espouse this view myself. In the past, I have led protesters in prayer near an abortion clinic. But no more. Over the years, I have undergone a slow transformation.

Nowadays, I believe that only God knows when another “life” (see above) begins inside a woman’s body. Pinpointing this arrival of new life into the world is beyond human comprehension.

However, having said this, I also recognize two things. First, I recognize that opposition to abortion has been unanimous throughout Church history, going back as far as the earliest Christian Church fathers (among those who left written records). However, granting this fact still does not answer the question of when life begins.

For instance, some Jewish literature indicates that life was not thought to begin until the mother could feel movement inside of her body. So, terminating a pregnancy prior to that experience would not necessarily be considered abortion by all.

Second, understanding that the fertilization of a woman’s egg (both the egg and sperm are called a “gamete”) begins a process resulting in the creation and eventual delivery, assuming no interference, of a human baby. Whether or not we can say with certainty when life begins does not change the fact that pregnancy is a process that eventually produces a new life.

Thus, it only makes sense that abortion should be avoided as much as possible – yep, I am no longer an absolutist on this point, as I will explain below – as dictated by whatever reasonable concerns are raised by a pregnant woman’s circumstances.

Yes, I know that “reasonable concerns” is a subjective constraint, but it is not my goal in this post to explore that problem. I will only say that the current story of the pregnant 10-year-old Ohio girl, raped and impregnated by her father, raises more than enough “reasonable concern” to justify an abortion, in my mind.

Sadly, Ohio state law is now denying her that humane solution – yes, humane solution – to her tragic plight. That strikes me as terribly wrong.

Rather, in this post I want to explore the inconsistencies that I see in the conservative, anti-abortion position. Inconsistencies which suggest to me either that few conservatives actually believe what they claim to believe, OR they are ignorant, and therefore should remove themselves from this debate about the details of conception, contraception, and pregnancy.

Let’s first remind ourselves of the physiological details that everyone in this debate ought to understand…despite the fact that many, obviously, don’t.

Here is a simplified version:

When the female gamete, the egg, is penetrated by a male gamete, a sperm, fertilization occurs and produces a zygote. Remember that, according to conservative, anti-abortion advocates, this is when life begins, “at the moment of conception.” So, a zygote is a living person, according to this view. No, don’t try to quibble over this. A zygote is either “alive” or it’s not. And we are only talking about one kind of life: a human life.

After about five days of cell division, the zygote becomes a blastocyst.

The zygote or blastocyst continues to travel down the woman’s fallopian tube (coming from the ovary) towards the uterus and takes between four to ten days on average before implanting into the uterine wall.

But not every fertilized egg/zygote makes it to implantation. Implantation seems to be the moment when the blastocyst officially becomes an embryo. The embryonic period lasts for eight to nine weeks. At week nine or ten the embryo becomes a fetus.

The transition from a dependent fetus to an independent baby, capable of living outside the mother’s body, remains a matter of debate, partly contingent on the expanding capabilities of medical technology.

Sometimes the zygote implants inside the fallopian tube creating what is called an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous for the mother and are typically terminated (aborted, according to conservatives?) either naturally, chemically, or surgically.

Do you know of a woman, anti-abortion activist who terminated her ectopic pregnancy? I’d love to hear answers to my following questions.

Depending on what study you read, somewhere between 40% to 70% of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus but are “flushed” from the woman’s body along with her menstrual fluids. In other words, IF life does begin at conception/fertilization, as anti-abortion activists insist, then either God or nature, whichever you prefer, is the greatest abortionist of them all.

More than that, if anti-abortion activists were serious about this belief, then why are these abundant “natural abortions” not being memorialized? Does anyone do this? Please tell me if you know.

Wouldn’t it make sense, both logically and morally, that every woman, anti-abortion activist – at least those who are still menstruating and capable of becoming pregnant – who believes that life begins at conception, ought to collect her monthly menstrual fluid in a bag for burial?

I am serious and not in any way trying to be flippant. That may sound foolish, but why? Does anyone do this? I really want to know. And if not, why not?

If you truly believe that life begins at fertilization, then it only makes sense, and conforms to the moral imperatives of honoring all life, to see those 40% to 70% of fertilized but unimplanted zygotes as “preborn babies” (to use the manipulative, propagandistic lingo deployed by certain activists).

In which case, every one of them deserves a decent burial with a headstone. Right? And, if not, why not? Please explain this to me and help me to understand. I have never heard of anyone doing this. Why?

This brings us to the question of miscarriages.

I am well aware of how extremely traumatic a miscarriage can be for everyone involved. In no way am I trying to be cavalier or callous. Nevertheless, we all must take the full implications of our moral positions with all seriousness.

If life begins at conception, then every miscarriage is a naturally occurring abortion which ends the life of a pre-born baby. This must be true at whatever stage in pregnancy the miscarriage occurs.

Obviously, this conviction is at the heart of what makes the experience of a miscarriage so very, very heartbreaking for those women who experience one.

So, let’s think this through together.

How many anti-abortion advocates who experience a miscarriage insist that the remains of their miscarriage be buried with a funeral and a headstone?

Perhaps some people do this. I don’t know? Do you know of any? I am asking questions for the purposes of logical and moral consistency. I would love to hear some answers from my readers.

In any case, miscarried fetal tissue is the remnant testifying to a human death, if human life does begin at fertilization. In which case, it is deserving of a memorial. How many conservative Christians name their miscarried fetuses and visit their graves?

Perhaps some do, which is wonderful. At least, they are showing real moral consistency.

Naturally, these questions also apply to those state legislatures that are talking about criminalizing the morning after pill, which chemically prevents the zygote from implanting into the uterus. Perhaps these activist legislators argue that this type of “abortion” is not a natural occurrence, so it is different from the 40% to 70% of fertilized eggs that are flushed naturally with a woman’s menstrual fluid.

But anyone making that argument is also underlining the importance of memorializing and properly burying those “flushed” zygotes…on a monthly basis. How many of these legislators do this themselves? I suspect the answer is, none.

But, why not? And, if they don’t do this, then aren’t they being hypocrites by criminalizing the morning after pill? I’d say they were.

The only logical response I can see to any of my questions is to say that “the degree” of life involved in these different events varies according to the developmental stage of the effected zygote, embryo, or fetus. So that, even though “life” begins at conception, certain stages of that “life” can legitimately be terminated, whether by nature or by human intervention, without the need for memorializing, burial, naming, or celebrating because they are “less alive” than they would be at other stages.

But if this is the case, then we have all agreed to the existence of those subjective matters regarding the “reasonable concerns” that make some abortions acceptable, depending on the mother’s circumstances (see above). Yet, these are the very concerns over a woman or a girl’s well-being that the average anti-abortion activist refuses to recognize.

This, my friends, is a major problem in this position, as I see it.

Christians need to think clearly and consistently, especially when the lives and future prospects of young girls and women are all at stake.

We need to follow the moral implications of our beliefs and behaviors all the way through to the very end, consistently, without fudging for personal preference.

Furthermore, we have no business applying moral directives to other people’s lives when we are not following those directives ourselves.

Personally, I don’t see any of these matters being taken seriously by the Religious Right; at least, not in the public conversation.

That’s a big problem for the anti-abortion movement.

Two Different Perspectives on the Buffalo Shootings. Which Makes More Sense?

(The photos throughout this post display only some of the victims of the mass shooting in Buffalo.)

Below I have posted two very different analyses of the recent mass shooting committed by a young white supremacist in Buffalo, NY.

They are both fairly brief. So, watch both and then rejoin me at the bottom to read my own thoughts about each perspective. I will try to keep my comments as short as possible.

If you want to explore this issue further with me, just make a comment on the blog page. I always respond as quickly as possible.

The first is an editorial from the Christian Broadcasting Network titled “How Americans Can Prevent More Mass Shootings.” The second is an interview from the alternative news program Democracy Now titled “Lessons for Buffalo? Meet the Activist Who Sued the White Supremacists Behind Charlottesville & Won.”

My response. (I’ll give you a heads up — I disagree with everything in the CBN editorial. The Jewish granddaughter of Holocaust survivors makes much more sense and offers far better suggestions for change):

We must begin by noting CBN’s utter neglect of the white supremacist ideology that motivated the Buffalo murders. It only mentions that he had “come under the spell of others” briefly as if he were unwittingly seduced my mysterious, dark forces.

The fact that the shooter wrote a very lengthy online manifesto declaring both his hatred of African-Americans and brown-skinned immigrants as well as his plans to commit a mass shooting are conveniently ignored.

Consequently, the obvious questions for local law enforcement as to how in

the world a young white supremacist, spewing vitriol, who had previously been brought in for questioning after threatening to commit a local school shooting, are nowhere within earshot.

The idea that his young man had personal agency and willingly embraced his racist ideology is also buried very deeply. My suspicion is that CBN’s right-wing Republican political stance is on full display in this editorial decision.

More than that, I suspect that CBN producers regularly consult with Republican party leaders to gather the newest party “talking points.” The Republicans are very busy working to separate their public image from violent racism at the moment — while continuing openly to embrace this evil on the campaign trail, especially when visiting Mara Lago to kiss Trump’s ring — so CBN was almost certainly told to keep

this issue hidden beneath their tight fitting neocon helmet.

Unsurprisingly, the idea of tougher gun laws is put to bed immediately. The implication is crystal clear: restrictive gun laws do not work in limiting gun violence. The spokesman rightly points out that NY state already has very restrictive gun laws, but those laws did not prevent this shooting.

At this point, CBN demonstrates the complete absence of “fact-checkers” in the news room. It’s been widely reported that the NY shooter crossed the state line and purchased the guns and ammunition used in the shooting from a Massachusetts gun shop.

The obvious implication — at least, it appears obvious to my feeble mind — is the need for greater uniformity in US gun laws beginning with a nation-wide, federal ban on all semi-automatic rifles. The shooter ought not have been able to purchase his murderous implements anywhere in the country.

But then, on second thought, perhaps there are fact-checkers at CBN, but the powers-that-be decided to manipulate their conservative, anti-gun law viewers with gross misinformation, which are in fact, outright lies.

If this is the case, then so much for the Christian morality and integrity that the editorialist beats the drum about towards the editorial’s conclusion.

The heart of the problem, according to CBN, is American immorality, most profoundly displayed in the absence of any generally maintained “Christian world-view” among American church-goers.

I have an earlier post criticizing this particular red herring, so I won’t repeat myself here. You can read the previous post if interested.

This supposed lack of a robust Christian world-view among American Christians then becomes a launching pad for the standard, conservative lament about the egregious moral decline of our society, as if we all now inhabit the historic, indecent nadir of US moral degeneracy.

Here it becomes obvious that along with the absent fact-checkers, neither are there any American historians in the CBN editorial room.

But the standard tropes are trotted out once again. The two successive turning points for America’s irreligious degradation are the well-known bobbsy twins of US degeneracy: the outlawing of prayer in our public schools (a ruling that strangely never affected me during my public school career, since I prayed regularly in school without difficulty or interruption), and the Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade.

As a direct result of these two legal decisions, the United States began a

rapid descent into indecency and flagrant wickedness that has swept the nation and now instigates young, white men like the Buffalo shooter to “randomly” mow down black Americans with a semi-automatic rifle in the local grocery’s produce aisle.

Does that make sense to you? I must confess that it totally baffles me.

Naturally, by the end of CBN’s ahistorical and irrational monologue it all comes down to the failure of parents, meaning that the obvious solution is to, once again, “focus on the family.”

Cultivating stronger, more godly families is, as always, the social, cultural, political, religious panacea needed to solve the problems of white supremacy and gun violence in this country of ours.

More Christian parents, promoting the properly Biblical world-view, taking greater responsibility for the spiritual nurture of their children becomes the one-size-fits-all remedy for everything that ails America.

It’s just that simple.

Or is it? Come back tomorrow for part two of my response to these two videos. I’ve got a lot more to say…unsurprisingly. But I think that this post is already long enough.

Thanks for sticking with me.

D. L. Moody, Slavery, And More Discussion of Church Unity

Not long ago I had conversation with two old friends about a topic I have written about previously on this blog (here and here): regaining a unified church after Donald Trump’s presidency.

Their church has essentially undergone a split, both numerically and spiritually, sparked by the contentious political debates fomented around president Trump and his “America first” policies.

One of my friends, who is a staff member at the church, explained the various efforts – including programs focusing on collective reconciliation – the church leadership has been pursuing.

She lamented that, so far, nothing has proven particularly successful. Many members who left the church (mainly Trump devotees) appear to be gone for good. Political antagonisms remain. They are now sublimated beneath the surface of their community’s life, but they continue to be subtly divisive.

Of course, I felt compelled to offer my perspective. I won’t repeat it here; you can reread by previous two posts if you want to catch up. Let me just say that I am not a great fan of this prevalent urge “to reclaim the old church community.” I believe that it is fundamentally misguided, and I told them so (in a nice way; really, I was nice).

However, I was more than a little insulted when they both laughed in my face. (I am not exaggerating.) Their message was clear: “Oh there goes crazy David again with his weird ideas about the church! Don’t you know that church unity is essential?!”

As you can guess, this part of our conversation went nowhere. And I will admit that my thinking on this matter will undoubtedly sound “weird” to many, but then the Bible can be a very weird book.

The problem, as I see it, is that those, like my friends, who remain emotionally distraught over the supposed “loss” of church unity, generated by the politics of Donald Trump and his MAGA movement, are chasing after the wrong goal.

They have set their eyes on an abstract concept of Christian togetherness, instantiated for them in the physical presence of familiar faces, when they should be “setting their eyes of Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2) and what it means for Him to be glorified.

These two objectives are very, very different.

Let me explain what I mean by sharing a few thoughts recently prompted by a book which has motivated me to write about this topic one more time.

**********

Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) was the nineteenth century equivalent of the

evangelist Billy Graham throughout the English-speaking world.

As a young man in Boston, Moody had been a committed abolitionist actively agitating for the end of slavery in America. But as his revivalist career began to develop, and he became more and more well-known, Moody was faced with a challenge.

The remarkable book by historian Edward J. Blum, Reforging the White Republic: Race, Religion, and the American Nationalism 1865-1989 (Louisiana State University, 2005), lucidly explains the nature of Moody’s challenge and the ominous political, social, cultural challenges that confronted every public, religious figure in the aftermath of the Civil War.

That challenge concerned the unity of God’s American church.

The Civil War had embedded a seemingly permanent split between the northern and southern branches of American Christianity. Bridging that gap and healing those wounds, bringing the church together again as one unified, national community, was a major concern all throughout American society at the time.

A large number of national, Christian leaders, including Moody, decided that solving this problem meant that all political discussions must be set aside. This included any mention of slavery, black equality, or human rights. Instead, pastors and evangelists were to focus only on the “spiritual” demands of personal salvation and individual piety.

To further calm these divided waters and work towards unity between the north and south, Moody segregated his southern revivals in order not to offend southern churchgoers. After the war, he would openly praise “the lost cause” otherwise known as the southern rebellion. Unsurprisingly, a majority of black churchgoers, their friends and family boycotted Moody’s crusades.

Black leaders like Frederick Douglas and Ida B. Wells excoriated Moody’s betrayal of Christian morality for the sake of unifying the white church. One “negro” representative at an annual conference of the African Methodist Episcopal church wrote:

(Moody’s) conduct toward the Negro’s during his southern tour has been shameless, and I would not have him preach in a barroom, let alone a church.”

Frederick Douglas said (among many other things) of Moody’s segregated revivals:

Of all the forms of Negro hate in this world, save me from that one which clothes itself with the name of loving Jesus.

Ida B. Wells also condemned Moody for his version of “Jim Crow revivalism.”

Blum concludes that Moody’s Jim Crow strategy for church unity proved to be a major factor in the eventual reunion of northern and southern all white churches by the close of the nineteenth century:

Highlighting social consensus at the expense of social reform, Moody’s revivals contributed to the. . . spiritual justification to an ethnic nationalism centered upon whiteness.

Yes, white churches rediscovered unity across the Mason-Dixon line, but at what cost? Was it the type of unity Christ wants for his people? We dare not forget who was finally excluded from this long-sought unity.

Moody abandoned his previous Christian principles in order to accomplish a sociological result.

Consequently, Moody helped to infuse a permanent state of all pervasive segregation throughout the white and black churches in both the north and the south. Something that had not been true before the war.

But what Moody accomplished was not unity but a pernicious, intractable brand of sectarian division within the church.

Moody also helped to banish social reform and the ethics of political/social behavior from the evangelical vocabulary. His focus on personal piety at the expense of public, political ethics is still keeping evangelical churches on the sidelines of today’s continuing conversations about racial inequality.

This unbiblical separation of the spiritual from the political also continues to infect today’s efforts at reuniting the post-Trump, evangelical church.

Learning to tolerate opposing political opinions is a far cry from grappling with the outlandish moral failures exemplified in many of those opinions and their resulting policies. The first is called learning to live like an adult. The second is called learning to think and behave like a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ.

By refusing to talk about slavery; by failing openly to condemn the enslavement of fellow human beings; by embracing pro-slavery brothers and sisters into all white churches without any expectation of confession and repentance, Moody and those like him became guilty, not only of rank moral failure, but of an egregious betrayal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Misguided obsessions with unity for unity’s sake are replicating similar mistakes today. Seeing “Trumpers” and “Non-Trumpers” worshiping together again, in their pre-2016 blissfulness, is a fool’s dream about a bogus, vanilla brand of artificial fellowship.

Now is the time to talk about Christian ethics, both public and private, political, social, and cultural. This is the conversation that ought to take center-stage in any genuine attempt at church unity.

Was supporting Donald Trump and his policies a moral position for any of God’s people to take? Yes, or no? Defend yourself from scripture, chapter and verse.

Obviously, people will remain divided, but the substance of the divisions will have been altered; they will become clear: these are now ethical, moral fault- lines created by different understandings of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Good News, the arrival of God’s kingdom, and what Jesus requires of his followers.

Not everyone will want to hang around once the “political” differences are described in this absolutely necessary, moral framework. People may leave to attend other churches. Let them.

So what?

Moody’s slovenly strategy for church unity was a pig in a poke.

Once again, the church is being sifted. It happens. For cryin’ out loud, don’t we remember what the apostle Paul said?

The time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3)

No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (1 Corinthians 11:19)

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: