Christian Living/Church Related | HumanityRenewed

“False Presence of the Kingdom”, by Jacques Ellul

In 1963, Jacques Ellul published a sequel to his earlier work, The Presence of the Kingdom. Ellul’s second discussion of the nature and significance of the

kingdom of God was titled, False Presence of the Kingdom.

Having used the earlier book to lay out his understanding of what the kingdom of God is and how the Christian church ought to be living within that kingdom, Ellul now goes on to diagnose what he believes are the most common misunderstandings and misappropriations of the New Testament kingdom theology.

As always, Ellul gives today’s reader a lot to think about and to digest, most of it rather uncomfortable but absolutely necessary and, hopefully, not entirely indigestible.

Below is today’s excerpt from Jacques Ellul’s False Presence of the Kingdom (all emphasis mine). I quote a section where Ellul focuses on the classic distinction between fact and value and the modern error of assuming that facts have a self-evident, intrinsic value of their own.

By the way, as I write this, I am thinking of several recent conversations with fellow Christians who said things to me that are perfect examples of the problem Ellul is critiquing:

If one attributes inherent value to fact, and if the moment the fact exists it is useless to bring an ethical or spiritual judgment to bear upon it, then I say that this should be carried to its logical conclusion. Capitalism? It’s a fact. War? It’s a fact. Parachutists? It’s a fact. Torture? That’s a gross fact. . . One is quite simply hypocritical and dishonest in advancing the argument that one is faced with a fact, and that moral judgment is to be avoided on that account.

There remains, moreover, the question why one employs that argument. The answer, alas, is easy. . . one avoids debate by eliminating the moral problem on the ground that facts elude such judgment. . . (If) a fact is a final value, one yields to the fact. Nothing can be done about it. Whenever, in an ordinary argument, one person is able to say to the other: “First of all, it’s a fact,” there is nothing to be said in reply.

To give up passing judgment on a fact, to assume that all one can do from then on is to yield to it, to adjust to it, that is precisely and totally to abandon the Christian life in its entirety. There is no position more radically anti-Christian than to give way to a fact. It is to accept fate. It is to agree that the material factor is the determining one. It is to agree that the Christian life is nothing but a morality. At the same time, it is a renunciation of spiritual discernment, and of the possibility of injecting truth into the context of reality.

That entails enormous consequences, which, to be sure, are never foreseen by those Christians who think they are realists because they announce: “It’s a fact.” . . . (Such) Christians obey the world’s logical inconsistencies. Their thinking is so unstable that the very ones who accept fact as final judgment in matters of technology, progress, mass culture, economic growth, urbanization, etc., are the same ones who reject fact in the case of colonialism or of the present government. But perhaps, again, this is nothing but a conformism . . .

Once again, let’s make it clear that it is no part of our thinking to deny the facts, or to say that they do not have to be taken into account. What we are saying is simply that it is a gross intellectual error to transform fact into a value, to conceive of fact as being or as containing a value in and of itself. We are saying it is a gross moral error to renounce judging a fact, that is a gross spiritual error to urge man to bow before fact, that is to say, before the fatality of whatever exists.

I used to have a personal mantra that I would repeat to myself in times of difficulty. I’d say too myself:

I will only deal with what’s real in order to strive for God’s ideal.

That’s what Ellul is talking about. What’s your kingdom mantra?

“The Presence of the Kingdom” by Jacques Ellul

I visited Grand Rapids, Michigan last month, and I did what I always do when I travel; I checked out the used bookstores!

This trip, I picked up two books by the French, Christian thinker, professor, philosopher, Jacques Ellul which were new to me.

If you’ve never read Ellul, you need to begin today.

You’ll find few Christian writers as thoughtful and penetrating in his deconstruction of the modern world, its technological idols, and what it means for a Christian to follow Jesus faithfully through the maze of an ever evolving and broken society.

Rather than write up two book reviews for my readers, I decided to post a few excerpts to give you the flavor of each book, both about the kingdom of God.

Naturally, I never agree with everything Ellul says. I don’t even agree with myself much of the time! But I am always challenged and stimulated, often in a surprising, back-handed way, to think about the issues more deeply.

I hope you will be challenged too.

The first book I am excerpting today is Ellul’s 1948 publication titled, The Presence of the Kingdom (all emphasis is mine):

. . . The Christian is constantly obliged to reiterate the claims of God, to re-establish this God-willed ‘order,’ in presence of an order which constantly tends towards disorder. In consequence of the claims which God is always making on the world the Christian finds himself (sic), by that very fact, involved in a state of permanent revolution. Even when the institutions, the laws, the reforms which he has advocated have been achieved, even if society be re-organized according to his suggestions, he still has to be in opposition, he still must exact more, for the claim of God is a infinite as His forgiveness. Thus, the Christian is called to question unceasingly all that man calls progress, discovery, facts, established results, reality, etc. He can never be satisfied with all this human labour, and in consequence he is always claiming that it should be transcended, or replaced by something else.

In his judgment he is guided by the Holy Spirit – he is making an essentially revolutionary act. If the Christian is not being revolutionary, then in some way or another he has been unfaithful to his calling in the world. . .

. . . Thus, one who knows that he has been saved by Christ is not a man jealously and timidly attached to a past, however glorious it may be. He does not cling to the past of his Church (tradition), nor even to the past life of Jesus Christ (on which, however, the certainty of his faith depends) – but he is a man of the future…of the eschaton, of the coming break with this present world…All facts acquire their value in the light of the coming Kingdom of God, in the light of the Judgment, and the victory of God. . .

. . . This theological truth also applies to social and political facts. The actual events of our world only acquire their value in the light of the coming Kingdom of God. It is the imminent return of Christ which gives genuine seriousness to each actual event . . . Without this direction history is an outbreak of madness. Now in this matter the Christian has no right to keep this truth to himself; by his action and by his thought it is his duty to bring the ‘coming event’ into the life of this present world. . . Every Christian who has received the Holy Spirit is now a prophet of the Return of Christ, and by this very fact he has a revolutionary mission in politics. . .

. . . To be revolutionary is to judge the world by its present state, by actual facts, in the name of a truth which does not yet exist (but which is coming) – and it is to do so because we believe this truth to be more genuine and more real than the reality which surrounds us. Consequently, it means bringing the future into the present as an explosive force. . .

What’s Wrong with Promoting “A Christian World-View?” The Answer is Everything

Let’s begin by watching this short clip from the Christian Broadcasting Network interviewing pollster George Barna who offers dire warnings about the imminent dangers let loose by American Christians’ lack of a Biblical world-view.

The CBN video clip is titled “Few Professed Christian Parents Hold a Biblical World-View.”

Frankly, I have never been a fan of the idea that Christian’s must hold onto a well-developed “Biblical world-view.”

For many years I taught at a college that required all incoming freshmen to take a class intended to press upon their young minds the details of a Reformed world-view. I was never a fan of that curriculum decision, either, and I spoke out against it at the time.

As a Christian educator, my basic objection – which I will elaborate below – had to do with the difference between education vs. indoctrination.

A basic principle of all good education, including a so-called Christian education, I believe, is to grasp the crucial distinction between teaching a person how to think as opposed to indoctrinating a person into what to think.

Focusing on the maintenance and preservation of a “Christian” or “Biblical” world-view places the emphasis on indoctrination rather than on learning how to think for oneself. This is why indoctrination so often fails once the pressures, expectations, and boundaries of homelife and college performance are finally lifted.

In all likelihood, that young mind will eventually decide that he/she has outgrown the days of being told what to think and believe.

Young adults have agency. They are not robots. Mr. Barna’s facile insistence that every young person who lacks an adequate Christian world-view is necessarily the derelict product of parental failure is both glib and harsh. It is also offensive.

The church is filled with a wide variety of adults with very different views on parenting. Of course, the church has always had its share of hypocrites, which is certainly noticed by the community’s young people.

I observed a great deal of hypocrisy while growing up in the church. Yet, I eventually decided to devote my life to following Jesus. Others are raised by strict, religious parents far more intent on both indoctrination and the maintenance of an indoctrinated lifestyle than mine ever were. Yet, I have watched many of them walk away from the church and abandon their youthful professions of faith.

For years I was ordained in a denomination that included an extensive Catechism (that is, an exercise in doctrinal education – a world-view – that was laid out in a question-and-answer format, typically memorized by the students) among its doctrinal statements. This Reformed version of “Sunday school” was valuable to many young people. But, trust me, I have also heard many stories over the years from others who eagerly repudiated their Catechetical confession of faith as soon as they were free to do so.

So, in my not-so-humble opinion, Mr. Barna needs to zip it when it comes to asserting simpleminded, cause-and-effect relationships between parental responsibility and the irreligious world-views of young people.

But let’s probe more deeply into the fundamental errors of such misguided insistence on the creation of a Biblical world-view.

First, I must object to the indefinite article “a.”

Barna’s discussion is typical in its assumption that there is only one, that is “A,” Biblical world-view. Just as there presumably is A Marxist world-view, or A relativistic world-view, there is supposedly A Biblical world-view.

Really?

Whose interpretation of the Bible are we talking about? The original, ancient Biblical world-view insisted that the earth was flat, and that rain fell from an ocean of water contained somewhere in the sky, to mention only a few of its “Biblical” principles. Should “faithful” parents teach these archaic, anti-scientific notions to their children?

Furthermore, who draws the boundaries distinguishing (1) a properly Biblical world-view from (2) a tendentious cultural world-view?

For the vast majority of American evangelicals such cultural artifacts as raw individualism, inalienable rights to private property, unregulated capitalism, and US style “democracy” are all self-evident, necessary ingredients of a truly Biblical world-view.

But are they? Really?

So, the many thousands, if not millions, of faithful Christians throughout western history who espoused Christian socialism (like Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer), defended the divine right of kings (like John and Charles Wesley), or insisted that true Christian faith demanded communal living where all goods are held in common (like many, early Pietists) – they were all deluded by defective world-views that sadly led their children astray?

Who exactly decides THE one legitimate Biblical world-view? Who draws its boundaries? Who makes the final, authoritative distinction between the necessary, Biblical truths and the unnecessary, peripheral cultural add-ons? And whose Biblical truths become THE Biblical truths?

Personally, I have never heard these unavoidable questions addressed adequately in any of the conversations I have listened to or read that promoted this idea of a “Biblical world-view.”

And this is a big part of the reason why I think the entire conversation about world-views is bunk.

My most radical critique, however, drilling down to the most fundamental error of world-view thinking, is the neglect of discipleship.

Yep, I know that world-view advocates will protest here. They insist that possessing a Biblical world-view IS fundamental to Christian discipleship, and a large majority of the evangelical church agrees, in principle.

But this is precisely where the American church goes astray. Because the real focal point of Christian discipleship is Jesus, the crucified, resurrected Galilean.

Disciples know Jesus personally. They follow after Jesus closely. They submit the entirety of their lives to Jesus’ Lordship, and they want to conform their lives to Jesus’ own pattern of living and instruction.

Genuine discipleship is not acquired by memorizing theological principles, nor by mastering critiques of alternative world-views, nor by learning the right way “to think” about life’s questions.

Disciples are made through submission and obedience to the crucified Savior who becomes so loved and adored by the sinners he has saved that they will do anything he asks of them, no matter how odd, counter-cultural, counter-intuitive, offensive, or difficult it may be.

Many of the most serious disciples may never be able to articulate a coherent, integrated “world-view,” at least not to Mr. Barna’s satisfaction. But they will know the living Jesus and follow Him faithfully to the bitter end.

Certainly, genuine discipleship requires Bible study. But the focus of that study turns from learning doctrinal proof-texts to focus on the absorption of stories and lessons about Jesus’ shocking lifestyle among society’s most marginalized.

The focus turns to Jesus’ ethical teachings about selfless love, radical obedience, personal sacrifice, self-denial, anti-materialism, simplicity, generosity, sharing, and absolute allegiance to the resurrected Lord, even to the point of dying for Him, if necessary.

For much of my adult life I have been convinced that one of the great failings of the American church has been its preference for teaching the theological complexities of the apostle Paul rather than exploring Jesus’ outrageous moral requirements.

A proper, Christian world-view only emerges in the hearts and minds of those who wake up every morning with a renewed commitment to follow hard after Jesus, to become more and more like Jesus, to love Jesus with all the sincerity of someone who has pledged herself to “obey all of Jesus’ commandments.”

Does my alternative to world-view thinking give us a guaranteed, uniform answer to every philosophical question? Does it keep us all on the same page about knowing how to address life’s problems? Of course not.

But it does set us on the right path.

It does clarify that the heart and soul of the Christian life is not so much about what we know as it is about who we love and the way we live.

It does make us real Christians, not fakes.

It does put us in touch with God’s voice as He speaks through His Word, both through the words of holy Scripture as well as the words of His one and only holy Son.

And oh, my goodness, what a difference it would make in this world if the church were to prioritize wholesale obedience to our suffering Savior Jesus Christ – even to the point of our own suffering and death – as its number one value. The supposed need for a Biblical world-view would vanish in an instant.

Did You Know that America was Hitler’s Main Model for The Nazis’ Nuremberg Laws?

I recently read James Q. Whitman’s eye-opening book, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton, 2017).

No school teacher had ever explained to me that during the second half of the 19^th century and first half of the 20^th century the USA was THE most officially racist country in the world.

What Whitman demonstrates is not only that our Southern states had racist Jim Crow laws intended to disenfranchise anyone who was not white from exercising their constitutional rights as citizens. But beyond that, the entire country, both north and south, was governed by an elaborate system of laws, ordinances, and regulations legislating three vital arenas of citizenship: immigration law, citizenship law, and marriage law. And these laws were far more restrictive than those found in any other country.

These were “the Big Three,” the three legislative arenas that made the good ole’ US of A the most racist nation in the world.

As state legislatures around this country continue to make new laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory – even in places where it is not being taught! – I wish that my public education had included the historical information laid out in Whitman’s important book.

Below is an excerpt from Hitler’s American Model. I urge you to read the entire book for yourself. I will make a few comments after the excerpt:

On June 5, 1934, about a year and a half after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich, the leading lawyers of Nazi Germany gathered at a meeting to plan what would become the Nuremberg Laws, the notorious anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi race regime…The meeting involved detailed and lengthy discussions of the law of the United States. In the opening minutes, Justice Minister Gürtner presented a memo on American race law, which had been carefully prepared by the officials of the ministry for purposes of the gathering; and the participants returned repeatedly to the American models of racist legislation in the course of their discussions. It is particularly startling to discover that the most radical Nazis present were the most ardent champions of the lessons that American approaches held for Germany…Indeed in Mein Kampf Hitler praised America as nothing less than “the one state” that had made progress toward the creation of a healthy racist order of the kind the Nuremberg Laws were intended to establish. (1-2)

This too is a part of American history.

There is only one way to teach this history: straightforwardly and honestly. Hiding it, ignoring it only perpetuates the cultural deformities that gave overt racism so much power over our society in the first place.

Yes, every student in an American classroom needs to learn about this part of our story. Yes, courses in Critical Race Theory must continue in colleges, universities, and law schools. Efforts at teaching multiculturalism and inclusion must continue unabated, from our elementary schools on up.

The fact that so many are now fighting against such educational efforts to make the full spectrum of America’s racist history known is, perhaps, the nation’s loudest bellwether proving that America is, in fact, an anti-Christian nation.

Genuine followers of Jesus want to know the truth, the truth about themselves and the truth about the world around them.

Genuine followers of Jesus are more devoted to their citizenship in the kingdom of God and the ethics of Jesus than they are to the mythologies or civic religions of any earthly nation-state, including the one they live in.

Genuine followers of Jesus willingly confess the ugly truths about themselves, their heritage, families, and societies. This is because genuine followers of Jesus are in the habit of confessing their sins and seeking forgiveness from both God and others.

Genuine followers of Jesus eagerly work to make amends to those who have been injured by the consequences of whatever evils their heritage has inflicted onto others.

Genuine followers of Jesus, inasmuch as it is possible, seek reconciliation and work for justice in their relationships with those around them.

The disturbing fact that so many ostensibly “Christian” leaders are in the forefront of this current culture war campaign to hide the story of how America triumphantly won the crown as the world’s most officially racist country, tells us a lot about how unimportant the crucified Jesus truly is to American evangelicalism.

Dave Ramsey Has Become a Demonic Voice Within the Church

Some time ago I blogged about the public complaints made by some of Dave Ramsey’s (former) employees. Most of their charges accused him of an authoritarian, even dictatorial, management style that intruded into employees’ private lives.

Most recently Mr. Ramsey has come to the attention of several independent news podcasts because of his advice to landlords about raising rent and evicting tenants from their homes because “the market” is dictating rent increases.

Watch the video below called “Should Landlords Feel Guilty.” I offer my reaction below:

The most important thing to notice in this video is the way Mr. Ramsey has surrendered his conscience and his behavior to the requirements of our capitalistic “marketplace.”

When it comes to his economic, investment decisions the marketplace is sovereign over Mr. Ramsey’s financial life. If the market “demands” that he, as a landlord, evict families from their rental homes, then he apparently has no choice.

The rules of capitalism and the “free market” command his allegiance.

Never mind that the country is experiencing a housing crisis with its dire lack of affordable housing.

Never mind that large corporations are in a buying frenzy scooping up foreclosed properties in order to rent them out at top dollar prices, thus maximizing their bottom line and the profits paid to corporate shareholders.

Never mind that the homeless population continues to grow at a shocking rate.

Oh sure. Mr. Ramsey assures his listeners that they need to be kind and thoughtful in their personal relationships with other individuals. But this is a disingenuous smokescreen typical of American evangelicals whose morals are so enslaved to American individualism that the larger, collective questions of system evil never cross their minds.

Ramsey flippantly throws out Christian sounding language that serves only to distract from the colossal compromise of both character and conscience revealed by his abject submission to the laisse faire market forces that obviously have gained Lordship over his life.

At this point, Mr. Ramsey’s economic advice is more demonic than it is Christ-like.

Not long ago I argued that the primary way in which we experience “demonic temptation” is through the corrupt power structures that surround us. To catch up on that analysis I urge you to revisit my blog post.

It’s important for the current discussion.

Because he exists within a supposedly free-market, capitalist, economic environment, in which anyone who questions the system is vilified as a Marxist (or worse), Ramsey obviously accepts this system as, at least, morally neutral, and perhaps even, virtuous.

Thus, surrendering to the dictates of the market, and behaving as any good capitalist would, obviously has no bearing on Ramsey’s Christian confession. He can remain a “good Christian” while ejecting people from their homes into an uncertain, competitive, laisse faire, dog eat dog housing market.

Yep. It’s a cruel world, but that’s the way the capitalist, cookie crumbles.

On the other hand, as I have argued extensively on this blog and in other writings, if we understand the Christian life in terms of our citizenship in the kingdom of God, then Mr. Ramsey has made himself the poster child for the besetting sin of American Christianity: Cultural Captivity.

Rather than critiquing our cultural environment; rather than analyzing, evaluating, and then criticizing the various power structures in which we find ourselves — as serious citizens of God’s kingdom should — we have a lamentable tendency to roll over and play dead in the face of society’s structures of power.

We accept our corrupted, and corrupting, systems of power and control as normal, inevitable, unchangeable, and even preferable to their alternatives. Yet, I am convinced that it is through these normalized systems of power, control, and domination that the Evil One is more successful in tempting and corrupting humanity.

In the face of “what is normal,” the ethics of Jesus and the lifestyle required of every citizen in the kingdom of God all become “unrealistic and unmanageable” given the nature of the world we live in.

I am sure that this is what Mr. Ramsey will say were anyone to challenge his highly dubious ethics of landlordship. Making people homeless when I have the opportunity of higher income in the face of higher expenses is, after all, normal.

We need to take a lesson from the early Christian church about how to deal with such ideas of “normal.”

For the first several centuries of Christianity, church leaders insisted that no church member could ever work for the police, the military, or the judiciary. (For more on this issue, check out my book I Pledge Allegiance.)

Anyone in the church who did happen to work for any of these three power structures had either to quit their job or be excommunicated from the church.

Why?

Because the early Christians understood — far better than most Christians do today — that Jesus taught his disciples to live lives of non-violence. Thus, no follower of Jesus had any business being party to violence or coercion.

And anyone serving in the police, the military, or the judiciary would eventually have to be involved with violence and/or coercion in the course of fulfilling their “normal” responsibilities.

But early Christian leaders insisted: It does not matter what society and its power structures have normalized for this world. Certain behaviors are always unacceptable for Christians because the Lordship of Jesus Christ always defeats the secular attempts at material lordship this fallen world tries to impose upon us.

I suspect that Mr. Ramsey’s cultural captivity may have begun with his extraordinary success which led to his great wealth and influence.

For all of these things, wealth, success, and power, have a sly, corrupting, acidic effect on the conscience if we do not guard ourselves against them.

Consequently, I want to suggest that it is time to excommunicate Dave Ramsey from the Christian church. Or, at least, to depose him from any leadership or teaching roles.

His financial advice is becoming demonic.

Karen Swallow Prior Laments Evangelicalism’s Selective Tolerance

Karen Swallow Prior has a good article in the Religious News Service lamenting the often hypocritical and dangerously excessive quality of

“tolerance” among evangelical Christians.

Her article is called “Truth, Justice and the Torturing of Tolerance.”

Ms. Prior describes her own acculturation into the norms of lopsided church tolerance — heavily tilted towards favoring men and conservative politics.

My only disagreement is with her description of “some conservatives” being intolerant of others. Sorry, but in my experience intolerance describes “most” conservative evangelicals.

Below is an excerpt:

. . . Conservative evangelicals often call out the hypocrisy of progressives whose tolerance goes only one way. But some conservatives have also made tolerance a one-way street, failing to support the religious and personal freedoms of those who believe differently than we do.

Instead of offering rigorous and compelling arguments in defense of what we understand to be true, some simply take up the other side of the rope in a tug-of-war game of intolerance, making each side no different from the other side.

I have a lot to process and even confess about what I have tolerated in Christian institutions and among fellow believers. A lot of us do. Too many in the church have tolerated too much for too long.

To be sure, situations can be complicated. Motives and actions can be mixed. Facts can be disputed. Perspectives can differ. Pictures can be incomplete.

Nevertheless, some things are clearly and simply wrong. It takes wisdom to discern what should be tolerated and what should not. It also takes wisdom to know when to speak up and when to wait. It takes wisdom to understand when institutions are set up to perpetuate wrong rather than prevent it, to recognize when corruption is a feature, not a bug.

And it takes courage to tolerate no more what is wrong — and to speak up and act for what is right.

You can read the entire article here.

Is There a Connection Between Evangelical ‘Conversion’ Stories and the Right-Wing Emphasis on Personal Freedom?

Rebecca L. David, history professor at the University of Delaware and author of the new book, Public Confessions: The Religious Conversions that Changed American Politics thinks the answer is Yes.

Her recent article in History News Network is entitled “How Evangelical Conversion Narratives Feed the ‘Free Choice’ Rhetoric at Your School Board Meeting.”

I have excerpted the article below:

. . . Religious conversion, an especially transformative sort of personal decision, is fundamental to these politics of “freedom” and “choice.” White evangelical Protestants, in particular, have crafted an argument for conversion as the paramount choice or decision, creating an identity that determines an individual’s spiritual as well as political beliefs. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, evangelical Protestantism was a still-marginal movement on the cusp of greater popularity and power. Evangelical leaders realized that born-again conversions could meld the ideas of being saved, privileging whiteness, and opposing LGBTQ rights.

This history of born-again conversion and American politics helps explain why a surprising number of public comments against school mask mandates include tirades against LGBTQ-inclusive curricula.

Many of the individuals and groups organizing in opposition to mask and vaccination mandates are tied to conservative evangelical and Christian nationalist groups. Taught that they are defending American values and fighting a tyrannical, coercive mandate by un-Christian authorities, they rise to defend what they believe is their Constitutional right to disobey public health policies. . .

. . . The particular mix of born-again conversion, anti-gay animus, and the defense of American “freedoms” emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. The overwhelmingly white leaders of conservative evangelical organizations widely criticized the social movements of the era, from Black civil rights to women’s and gay liberation. Looking for ways to exert greater influence over American politics, they landed on a narrative that merged the idea of choosing Christ and defending freedom.

White evangelical leaders recognized that one way they could gain legitimacy was by showcasing the startling conversions of ex-cons and iconoclasts. A fast-growing evangelical media industry celebrated these converts and promoted their stories. Christian publishers and broadcasters plugged the California hippies who became Jesus People and the conversions of notorious political operatives such as Charles (“Chuck”) Colson, the convicted former aide to President Richard Nixon. Prominent born-again conversions were upheld as proof of evangelicalism’s legitimacy.

Evangelical leaders leaned on the concept of choice to distance themselves from contemporaneous expressions of religious fervor in new religious movements. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, for one, found youthful followers among many of the same seekers who flocked to mass baptisms in the Pacific Ocean. Evangelicals stressed the profound differences between being “brainwashed” into a “cult” and being born again. One experience was the result of coercion; the other, of choice. . .

You can read the entire article here.

Are You Being Tempted by Satan? I Doubt It.

I recently had coffee with a new friend from church who listens to the podcasts of a well-known, influential mega-church pastor.

My friend began to tell me about this pastor’s latest sermon on temptation and the role of wicked thoughts in the Christian life. The preacher’s main point was calling people to recognize that evil thoughts or fantasies are never my own. Rather, such temptations are planted in my mind by the devil.

He urged his listeners to tell themselves, “These aren’t my thoughts; they are the devil’s thoughts. So, devil, get away from me!” That was his recipe for dealing with temptation.

I hear this kind of thing a lot in Christian circles. You have probably heard it, too. I sometimes get the impression that a certain brand of church-goer imagines a demon lurking behind every bush, waiting for another opportunity to harass the hapless Christian and sabotage her life.

Don’t misunderstand me.

I believe in a personal Satan. Defeating demonic powers was an important aspect of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Such work was central to Jesus’ message about the coming kingdom of God.

The question is, what does that mean for Christians today?

When I told my friend that I thought the radio pastor was wrong and that he was giving his listeners very bad advice, his reaction was predictable. He immediately quoted 1 Peter 5:8b, “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”

Don’t Peter’s words prove the pastor’s point?

The answer depends on what we take Peter’s words actually to describe. What specifically does he mean? I don’t believe he means that every individual’s struggle with sin and temptation is the direct result of personal demonic interference.

My first problem with this popular misunderstanding is that it lets the Christian off the hook. In other words, we shift the responsibility for sin and temptation in our lives away from ourselves and onto an invisible, (apparently) ever-present force we call the devil. As the comedian Flip Wilson used to say, “The devil made me do it!”

Or, at the very least, the devil made me think about it!

Not only is this mantra that way too easy, but it also underestimates the significance of my own personal sinfulness.

Blaming the devil for my personal temptation and sin creates a serious spiritual hazard because it fails to take my “sinful nature” as seriously as it deserves. I am a sinner. So are you. I am born into this world as a fallen creature with a predisposition to disobey God and rebel. I don’t need to face demonic temptation in order to consider evil and to do wrong.

I am very good at tempting myself and embracing wickedness all by myself, thank you very much. I don’t need the devil’s help to be a sinner. It comes naturally to me, as it does to you. The world has been this way ever since our first parents rebelled against the Creator in the Garden.

Yes, Genesis 3 gives us a story about a personal Satan personally tempting Adam and Eve. But the result of their first rebellion was the thoroughgoing corruption of all creation, including every human being. At that point, Satan’s goals had been accomplished. He didn’t need to tempt each and every individual personally for the rest of history. The sinful inclination had taken up residence within us just as Adam and Eve’s failure had thrown a monkey wrench into God’s original design for the world.

Satan was free to sit back, sip a martini, and watch human history fall apart all on its own.

****

Furthermore, I can’t help but notice the absence of any clear, New Testament evidence instructing Christians to view their lives as an ongoing contest against the devil.

Two New Testament passages explicitly discuss the inner turmoil caused by temptation. They are Romans 7:7-25 and James 1:12-15. Both passages have at least two points in common.

First, neither text says anything about the devil even though both of them offer a perfect opportunity to do so had the apostles imagined that the devil played a significant role in personal temptation.

Second, both texts place the blame for temptation and sin squarely onto the sinful inclinations that dwell within us all. Again, the devil is most noticeable by his absence.

Paul exclaims, “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” He does not say, “Who will rescue me from this demonic harassment?”

James explains, “Everyone is tempted when, by his/her own [fleshly] desires, he/she is dragged away and enticed.” Again, I can’t imagine a better context for making the devil’s role in temptation clear, if indeed he has any role at all. Yet, that’s not what James says, either.

Both apostles tell us to focus upon ourselves. We are the problem, not the devil.

****

What about Satan’s temptation of Jesus in the wilderness? Isn’t this story the final proof that Satan does attack Christians individually?

I am not arguing that personal demonic temptation may never happen. But can we really compare ourselves to Jesus? Are any of us as important to God’s work of redemption as he is? I think that Christian humility demands that we recognize that I am not the most important component in God’s cosmic plan. Many others are more important than I am. Personal attacks may happen at times to some. But it is certainly not the normative experience that so many make it out to be.

It’s also important to understand that when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, he confronted Satan as the new Adam – an important New Testament theme.

Jesus had to succeed where the first Adam had failed.

If Satan could derail Jesus’ mission and personal identity before it even got started – as he managed to do with Adam and Eve – then perhaps he could once again sit back and sip another martini for the rest of time. God’s plans for recreation would be as hamstrung as were God’s intentions for the initial creation.

Particularly important, I think, is the explanation Satan offers to Jesus for why he is able to tempt Jesus as he does. In the gospel of Luke, Satan shows Jesus “in an instant all the kingdoms of the world” and then explains, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me.”

In some mysterious transaction that is not explained, Satan’s victory over Adam and Eve allowed him to go on to dominate every human society throughout history. The devil’s power to pervert has permeated “all the kingdoms of the world” such that “their authority and splendor” are all his.

Evangelicals have traditionally limited their public concern for this demonic dominance to three areas: sex (read pornography), money (read tithing to the church), and alcohol (read tea-totaling). But these individual concerns only scratch the surface of our larger social problems, in ways that are not always helpful.

Satan’s boastful words open the door on how God’s people confront demonic temptation on a daily basis, in the all-pervasive authority structures of our dazzling but corrupted societies and cultures.

When wickedness is made normative, it becomes normal to accept wickedness as, well, normal. So normal, in fact, that it is not recognized for what it truly is.

For American Christians – at least for those who fail to take seriously their proper place as citizens in the kingdom of God – such wicked abominations as manifest destiny, American exceptionalism, nationalism (especially religious nationalism), militarism, white privilege, systemic racism, neo-liberal economics, commercialism, consumerism, competitiveness, multi-generational poverty, a growing chasm between the haves and the have-nots, and a host of other structural, authoritative networks of evil influence, all conspire to deform God’s purposes in our world.

When we cooperate, we surrender to sin and incur guilt.

We “give in” to these degenerate forces because it’s all so normal. It’s what everyone else does and believes. The devil doesn’t need to do a thing to any of us personally, or individually, because he has already done the greatest part of his evil work corporately, collectively.

He has succeeded in making evil look normal. And if it’s normal, it can’t be evil. Right? After all, it’s the way the world works. It’s the air we breathe. It generates the system that sustains us as Americans in our Americanisms.

One of our problems in this country is that we are far too individualistic and melodramatic. I suspect that these, too, are wicked features of the way Satan has structured American culture.

The Christian love of melodrama habituates us to the excitement of fighting as “warriors,” typically as “prayer warriors,” in the cosmic battle of righteousness against wickedness.

Personally defeating, whether by calling out, or standing against, or binding, or exorcising, or naming, the demonic powers attacking me makes me a “victorious” Christian.

Aside from the fact that I am convinced this is rarely an accurate description of a Christian’s struggles in life, such a focus on personal, spiritual melodrama effectively blinds the Christian to the real, overwhelming, systemic dangers that have entangled us all in their web of corruption and deceit.

So, we bow to the authority of our preferred political party and behave accordingly, treating others as the enemy because that’s what politics does to us nowadays.

We approve of another US military intervention, and cheer on American forces as they slaughter foreigners who also are made as the image of God.

We look forward to buying the bigger, better, shinier, more expensive, upgraded model of whatever it is we want because that’s the normative behavior for an American consumer. Never mind the corrosive, personal, spiritual effects of our habitual, often addictive, acquisitiveness.

We stand with everyone else in opposing low-income people of color moving into our neighborhoods because it will lower property values. It’s only the wise, economic thing to do.

The examples and illustrations are endless. And through all of it we are blissfully obtuse to the multitude of ways that we remain spiritually stunted, immature, and overwhelmingly guilty of normalized sins that contradict everything we ought to understand about life in the kingdom of God.

Yet, we never consider these types of behaviors as demonic. They aren’t wicked temptations, we tell ourselves; they are opportunities that smart people take advantage of. Or they are responsibilities that every good citizen must fulfil.

Yep, the devil has us exactly where he wants us, behind the spiritual eight-ball, when we behave “normally” like the average, civil, well-behaved, successful, patriotic American.

I can see Satan now, sitting back, legs up, taking long sips on another big American martini.

Check Out My Essay About Critical Race Theory at Comment Magazine

Today the online version of Comment magazine published my essay about Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the conflict is has generated in American society, but especially in US evangelicalism.

This essay began as a review of the best-selling book by Voddie Baucham, Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe, a book that is highly critical of CRT describing it as a major threat to the Christian church.

What began as a simple book review evolved into a larger essay discussing the broader historical and social context of our current culture-wars over CRT.

You can find my essay HERE. The title is “Among the Tailings of Southern Segregation and Western Imperialism.”

I appreciate the editorial staff at Comment for their willingness to publish this article, as well as for their acute editorial eye.

I hope you will find my essay helpful, educational, and suggestive of the changes needed today in the American church.

Have your friends read it too!

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: