Tag: American Christianity

Christian Nationalism is Not Only Un-American, It Is Anti-God’s Kingdom

Perhaps you heard about the controversy stirred by Rep. Stephanie Borowicz’s recent (March 25) opening prayer in the Pennsylvania state legislature.  If you haven’t watched it yet, take a look below:

Personally, I hesitate to describe this exhibition as a prayer.  It’s more a sermon, or a spiritual rant.

Was it an accident that Rep. Borowicz chose to “pray” in this way on the very day that Pennsylvania’s first Muslim-American legislator was being sworn into office? If you believe that, then I’ve got some Florida swamp land to sell you, real cheap.

I don’t doubt that Rep. Borowicz sincerely believed that she was offering a necessary Christian witness when she stepped up front and spoke as she did. But that is no excuse for her colossal mangling of an opportunity, her deliberate insult to a new colleague, or the anti-Biblical ideology of Christian Nationalism woven throughout her speech.

Doesn’t she make friends with her colleagues? Doesn’t she show them love and respect, getting to know about their personal lives? Doesn’t she speak with them individually about the work Jesus has performed in her own life?

Rep. Movita Johnson Harrell, Pennsylvania’s first Muslim legislator

Wouldn’t she communicate more effectively on a one-to-one basis, in personal conversation?  Was this all for the benefit of the camera?

Finally, I am convinced that the brand of Christian Nationalism expressed in her prayer is one of the most significant impediments to the church’s witness today. No, Rep. Borowicz, America is not and never has been a “Christian nation,” raised upon the shoulders of exclusively Christian founders.

Neither is America’s “greatness” a product of the blind, unthinking support we give to the racist state of Israel.

Andrew Seidel has a good article at Religion Dispatches entitled, “Penn. Legislators Jaw-Dropping Prayer Showcases America’s Christian Nationalism Problem.”

I have excerpted a portion below:

“The prayer was jaw-dropping—literally. Watch Speaker Turzai, who introduced Borowicz. As she begins, his jaw drops, and then it drops again. By the end, he’s shooing her off the dais.

“This was 103 seconds of sectarian division and proselytizing and it speaks for itself: ‘at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess, Jesus, that you are Lord.’

“That Borowicz meant for the prayer to intimidate non-Christians seems self-evident. It’s probably less clear to many observers that Borowicz’s prayer is also a symptom of the virulent strain of Christian nationalism under which America is suffering.

Christian nationalism is a political theology that claims we’ve “forgotten . . . God in our country,” as Borowicz said, and that we must return to that golden age of the American founding. This is wrong.

“The Founding Fathers chose to keep state and church separate precisely because religion is divisive and they were seeking to build a pluralistic nation. They didn’t build that nation or secure our freedom with theology or prayer, but with a Constitution that draws its power from We the People, not We the Christians.

“Religion only unites believers of the same stripe, it excludes all others and often calls for worse. An early Wisconsin Supreme Court justice put it eloquently: “There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed.” Borowicz’s proselytizing prayer is a perfect illustration of the division religion sows when mixed with our government.

“Brimming with sectarian arrogance and division, it was easy to miss the outright errors in Borowicz’s prayer: ‘God, for those that came before us like George Washington at Valley Forge and Abraham Lincoln who sought after you in Gettysburg, Jesus, and the Founding Fathers in Independence Hall, Jesus, that sought after you and fasted and prayed for this nation to be founded on Your principles in Your words and Your truth.’

“These historical moments were probably meant to be poignant ties to Pennsylvania and American history, but they lacked ties to reality, history, and nuance.

“For instance, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is typically rendered to include the phrase, ‘…that this nation, under God, shall…’ But history is a bit more nuanced, and unclear. Lincoln’s first two versions of the speech, written by Lincoln himself, don’t include the ‘under God’ and we cannot say for certain that he added those words during the speech itself.

“Borowicz’s other two examples are clear: Neither happened. Washington did not pray in the snow at Valley Forge and the delegates at the Constitutional Convention did not fast or pray. These are invented myths, not historical moments.”

Finally, I’d bet my bottom dollar that Rep. Stephanie Borowicz is a product of home-schooling, and that is where she first learned, not American history, but the American mythology embedded in her legislative lecture.

Question: does God respond to prayer requests based on myths?

Learn About America’s Socialist History

Folks  on the Right screech the word Socialism as if it were the safe-word in a BDSM Vampire movie. Rarely, however, do they appear to know what they are talking about.

For example, how many understand the differences between socialism,

Daniel Hoan – Politician, USA*1881-1961+- 1916-1940 Mayor of Milwaukee – (Photographer: Sennecke- Published by: ‘Tempo’ 21.02.1929Vintage property of ullstein bild (Photo by Robert Sennecke/ullstein bild via Getty Images)

social democracy, and democratic socialism,?  They are not the same.  Bernie Sanders is usually described as a democratic socialist when in fact he is a social democrat. They are two different beasts.

Furthermore, corporate socialism is thriving in this country, but we will never hear a whiff of criticism about that form of socialism from cable news.

I have no hopes that America’s pundit class will ever learn to offer intelligent, historically aware, fully informed political commentary (because that would never serve the interests of the corporate status-quo), but I have found a good article describing a small slice of socialism’s important contributions to this country.

It is written by  John Nichols for The Nation magazine. It is  entitled “When Socialism Was Tried  in America — And Was A Smashing Success.”

The entire article is well worth reading. I have posted a select portion below:

“Polling tells us that young voters are more comfortable with socialism than capitalism. Older voters may still be susceptible to Republican appeals rooted in Cold War hysteria, but the challenges posed by the existential crisis of climate

Mayor Hoan speaking to a crowd of Milwaukee workers

change and the radical transformation of our economy in an age of AI-driven automation are going to make everyone far more open to radical responses. And many of the best of these—especially those that call for expanding the social-welfare state—will draw from historic and contemporary socialist thinking.

“Democrats can get ahead of the curve and disarm Trump and the trolls by embracing the opportunity that Milwaukee offers to talk about socialism as it has existed and succeeded in the United States. For American socialists in the 20th century, Milwaukee was a political mecca, a city that tested and confirmed the validity of their ideas. Vladeck, then the manager of The Jewish Daily Forward (these days known simply as The Forward), called it an example of “the America of tomorrow.”

“Socialists were proud to point to Milwaukee, which had a Socialist mayor for most of the period from 1910 to 1960, as a model of sound and equitable governance. And they were not alone: During Hoan’s 24-year tenure, Time magazine reported, ‘Milwaukee became one of the best-run cities in the U.S.’”

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing Preach Partisan Politics

(This post is the 4th in a series that deals with the cultural captivity of the church.  You can read previous posts here, here and here.)

“The political process has failed. Capitalism has failed. Socialism has failed. Libertarianism has failed. Marx has failed. Populism has failed. Anarchism has failed. I say this not because of any glaring flaws in any of those ideas (in theory any of them could potentially work in an alternate universe), but because we are hurtling towards extinction in the fairly near future, and none of them have saved us.”

That is the opening paragraph to a recent post by one of my favorite commentators, Caitlin Johnstone. The post is entitled “Your Plans for Revolution Don’t Work. Nothing We’ve Tried Works.” (You can read the entire post by clicking on the title.)

Ms. Johnstone insightfully  discusses the many ways in which every political party and social movement has “failed.”

They have failed in the sense of not making this world a better place to live, despite all their promises; not lifting the world’s masses out of poverty and starvation; not ending senseless wars; not leveling the playing field for everyone, especially the disenfranchised, enabling them to have an equal say in their future; and especially, by not getting to grips with the inevitability of an uninhabitable planet overheated by global warming.

Despite her best efforts to sound hopeful, her post concludes on a note of despair:

“What we’ve tried up until now hasn’t worked, so if there’s anything that might work it’s going to come from a wildly unanticipated direction, from way outside the failed mental processes which have accompanied us to this point. We need to open ourselves to that kind of idea.

“That’s basically all I’ve got to offer today. A helpless but sincere plea for humanity to try something new, spat out onto the internet in the Hail Mary hope that it might plant some seeds and loosen the soil for something unprecedented to open up in human consciousness. Sometimes that’s all that we can do.”

My heart always goes out to atheists and genuine, secular humanists such as Ms. Johnstone.  I have heard many such laments over the years, going back to my own youthful days in the 1960s.

As a Christian, I want to talk with Ms. Johnstone and let her know that there IS a solution to all of humanity’s problems.  And it does, in deed, “come from a wildly unanticipated direction, from way outside the failed mental processes which have accompanied us to this point.”

Our salvation comes from heaven, from eternity, in the man who walked through Palestine 2,000 years ago and will one day return, the Lord Jesus Christ.

But I know exactly what she would say: “Your answer is one of the reasons I reject your religion. You offer the proverbial ‘pie in the sky, by and by.’ The human race needs rescue now!”

Well, Jesus intends his people to have a specific answer to that question, too. It should go something like this:

“Look to the Christian church! Look at the inter-racial, multi-cultural people of God and how they love each other. Observe their service to one another AND to the rest of this world. Look at their efforts to be peace-makers. Look at the practical ways they implement God’s commitment to equality, justice and forgiveness wherever they go. Look at how seriously they take their duty to care for and to preserve God’s creation.”

Yet, I suspect that Ms. Johnstone would laugh in my face. That gospel message is tough to communicate, mostly because it is so very, very difficult to see in real life.

Where is the evidence?  Where is that church?

God’s vision for his church is especially difficult to defend in Trump’s America where false teachers like Robert Jeffress (pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX and ‘spiritual advisor’ to the president) parade themselves on national television spouting the false gospel of Christian nationalism, and the church’s identity with Republican party politics.  (You can watch his most recent 9 minute appearance on Fox News here, complete with a much deserved take-down by another atheist commentator, Kyle Kulinski.)

I pray you are horrified after listening. (Hopefully, I can add to your horror when you read my dissection of these false doctrines in my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).

I don’t disagree with Jeffress’ discussion about the growing number of American’s disaffected by organized religion.  But the hypocrisy embedded in his diatribe is mind-bending.

Mr. Kulinski’s  merciless roasting of pastor Jeffress is spot on and entirely deserved.

Coupled with his own utter lack of self-awareness, Jeffress and his ilk are cardboard caricatures of true ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

While mocking preachers that merely repeat the things that people “hear on CNN or the Rotary Club,” he goes home to offer the same repetitious, sectarian message from his pulpit as he does on Fox News.

He dares to equate “the never-changing truth of God’s word” with the chest-thumping partisanship that binds him to the heart of Fox News executives and the American president.

He maliciously likens Republican voter turn-out with Christian commitment, suggesting that it is a litmus test for piety.

He simultaneously, suggests that anyone who disagrees with him — people like Caitlin Johnstone, Kyle Kulinski, me, and many of my friends — anyone who does not vote for his Republican party-ticket as lacking in “deeper convictions.”

Apparently, the 70% of white evangelicals who put Trump in office and continue to support him do so because “they believe in absolute moral and spiritual truth and vote those convictions at the ballot box.”  Unlike anyone else who votes his or her conscience?!?

Are you kidding me?

This is the non-gospel according to Jeffress and most white, American evangelicals today: anyone who believes in the morality and the spiritual truths of the gospel will vote Republican.

It is false teaching, plain and simple.

It puts political partisanship over devotion to Christ because it confuses political partisanship with devotion to Christ.

Any and every “Christian leader” falling into this trap deserves to be defrocked. For they are not spiritual leaders at all, but wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Clan-Jeffress,  one and all, are false shepherds leading God’s flock in paths antithetical to the paths of our Lord and Savior.

All of us in the American church share responsibility for our failure to provide men and women like Kyle Kulinski and Caitlin Johnstone with genuine, thorough-going examples of real (which means radical), transformational Christian community in this world.

In many respects, we all continue to live “like sheep without a shepherd.”

But false shepherds like Robert Jeffress pose a heightened danger to the church, for they deliberately lead God’s people like lemmings to a cliff.

It doesn’t take a prophet to predict that the choppy, partisan waters below that spiritual cliff will one day drown Pastor Jeffress and his partisan congregation in the same brand of hopelessness and despair that now washes over Ms. Johnstone.

Why is Slaughter More Acceptable Than Nudity?

(This is the third in a series of posts addressing questions about the cultural captivity of the church.  You can read the previous posts here and here.)

During my last semester as a college professor, I came across a surprising article in the weekly student newspaper.  At least, I found it surprising; though in retrospect, I should have been known better.

It was a detailed review of a newly released computer game.  I didn’t pay any attention to the game’s title because I was so caught off guard by the fact that the student newspaper at a Christian college had no qualms about praising, and encouraging others to buy, the latest graphic game of military slaughter.

The reviewer described in bloody detail the game’s improved graphics, enhancements that depicted the bloodshed more realistically than ever. (I wondered how he knew what realistic blood splatter looked like.)  The game was the newest “first person shooter” game. (That is, a game where the player holds the computer gun in his/her hand, then points and shoots at human figures on the screen in order to survive and accumulate points).

All in living color, of course.

I initially considered writing a letter to the editor to express my dismay, but I thought better of it.  Why not wait to see if anyone else shared my dismay.

No one did, apparently.  Or, perhaps they were biting their tongues like me.  Several weeks passed with no response.

So, I devised a better plan.  I would submit my own article reviewing the latest version of my favorite sex game.  (No, I have never played any such thing, but I assume that they must exist.  My imagination was not strained at all by concocting one ex nihilo.)

My review would go on and on in effusive detail praising the graphic depictions of the female (or the male) anatomy – in living color, no less – and the many arcane, sexual positions available as the player scored more and more points by scoring with more and more sexual partners.

Then, at the end of my imaginary review, I would admit to my satire and ask a simple question:  Why, dear reader, are you preparing to write a letter to condemn my fictitious review when you had nothing to say about an earlier review glorifying a graphic, bloodthirsty game of war, complete with exploding bodies and crushed skulls?

What kind of moral calculus is that?

I wish I had gone through with my plan, but I didn’t.  It was my final semester before moving on, and I didn’t quite have the energy needed for another campus-wide controversy.  In my experience, many readers of that particular newspaper had difficulty recognizing, much less appreciating, the art of satire.  And my days as an educator were coming to an end.

But my questions remain.

Why is bloodshed and human slaughter, the kind of violent acts that our Lord Jesus explicitly prohibits, so much more acceptable to Christian people than images of nudity and sexuality?

No, I am not diminishing the destructive power of pornography.  But is pornography any more corrosive to the human psyche, any more more dehumanizing for those who participate in it than a blood-thirsty killing game that transforms a player into a butcher, that desensitizes him to the horrors of murder, pain and human suffering?

At least sexual intercourse was God’s idea, and He blessed it with the bonds of marriage.

But human violence arose from the sulpherous heart of original sin. Our Creator rendered his eternal verdict over this brand of wickedness when He cursed the first murderer, Cain, and banished his blood-stained hands from his presence.

Does the church think or act any differently than the rest of our violent society when it comes to this problem of casual, gaming violence?  Murder as entertainment?

I don’t know the definitive answer to this question, but I suspect that on average, we are no different than anyone else in the neighborhood who relaxes after school (or work) by watching a computer screen filled with atrocious, bloody acts of human carnage created by yours truly.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has written a fascinating and disturbing book examining the psychological effects of violent video games on children and adolescents.  It’s entitled Assassination Generation: Video Games, Aggression, and the Psychology of Killing (Little, Brown and Co., 2016).

Grossman excerpts the findings of a medical report presented to Congress in July 2000 by a coalition of 4 professional medical, psychiatric and pediatric associations.  Their congressional report concluded that:

“Well over 1,000 studies…point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children…[V]iewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are measurable and long-lasting…[it] can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life.” (10-11)

Grossman also compares first-person shooter games to the military training methods used to desensitize soldiers to killing on command.  He says:

“Violent video games teach kids to kill using the same mechanisms of classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning employed to train soldiers.”

What happens when a depressed teenager who is addicted to violent video games and feels that the entire world has become his enemy grabs a family gun and walks to the local mall?

We all know the answer to that question.  We have seen on TV time and again.

Sadly, this is the kind of world we live in.

What are the people of God doing to address the social plague of daily violence traumatizing our school children?  Placing armed guards inside our churches is the devil’s own suggestion, though I have seen and read about many churches doing just that.

But surely, everyone can understand, that is not the way of Jesus.

We need to examine ourselves and confess to the many ways in which we have eagerly conformed to a godless society. We are unable to find wisdom in the mind of Christ because we are too busy entertaining ourselves (for hours and hours) with the latest version of Call of Duty and Modern Warfare 2.  So, we turn to armed guards instead of the Spirit of compassion.

Ask yourself this question.  Can you imagine Jesus sitting for hours in front of a computer screen, laughing with glee and giving himself high-fives over his rising body count as he plays Call of Duty: Black Ops?

How many throats could Jesus slit?

The question answers itself.

It is long past time for God’s people to return their eyes to Jesus, the lamb of God, prince of peace, our suffering servant who came not to kill but to be killed.  What does he ask of his church today?

What is So Threatening About the Equality Act?

Last Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi reintroduced the Equality Act for the Congressional Democrats.

The Equality Act is a bill that aims to eliminate discrimination against LGBTQ people in the same way that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination against African-Americans.

Predictably, the Religious Right is up in arms denouncing the bill as another assault upon religious liberty in general, and Christianity in particular.

But is it any such thing?  Personally, I don’t see it.

I am old enough to remember the 1950s and 60s.  A southern block of religious conservatives then described Dr. Martin Luther King as a communist tool of the devil.  They fought to kill any hopes of passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Furthermore, they staunchly defended racial segregation as an expression of their Christian faith, just as so many religious conservatives are now condemning the Equality Act as an attack on their Christian views of human sexuality and marriage.

Andrew T. Walker of The Gospel Coalition has an article entitled, “The Equality Act Accelerates Anti-Christian Bias.”  He warns that “the bill represents the most invasive threat to religious liberty ever proposed in America.”

Monica Burke at the Daily Signal writes that the bill will cause “profound harms to Americans from all walks of life” under the heading “7 Reasons Why the Equality Act is Anything But.”

But even if some judicial tweaking is required as our society navigates the social effects of this new legislation, I have yet to see anyone explain away the fundamental parallels between African-Americans in need of the 1964 Civil Tights Act and gay/transgendered Americans in need of similar protections in 2019.

Christianity in America was not destroyed in 1964, despite the explicit warnings of Christian racists.

Neither will American Christianity come to ruin if gay, lesbian and transgendered human beings are granted similar civil rights protections in 2019, despite the apocalyptic warnings coming from the doomsday, propaganda mills of the Religious Right.

Instead, what this debate reveals is something much more dangerous now deeply rooted in the heart of American evangelicalism/fundamentalism: an insistence that the Christian religion (as defined by highly politicized, partisan, social conservatives) deserves preferential treatment in America; indeed, that this politicized, culture-warrior view of Christianity must become normative for acceptable social behavior in the public square.

I discuss this misunderstanding of Christian citizenship at length in my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans, 2018). This country’s politicized brand of Christianity is a tangled mess of confusion over what is required from citizens in the kingdom of God living as citizens in a secular society.

Mr. Walker throws out the predictably fawning, meaningless sop intended to distract his critics by saying, “To be clear, Christians reject all forms of invidious discrimination. We believe all persons, including those who identify as LGBT, are made in God’s image and deserve respect, kindness, and neighborliness.”

Well, good for you, Mr. Walker.

But pledges of personal affection are no substitute for legal guarantees.

The entrenched racism of the Jim Crow south also declared, ever so kindly, that they loved their black folks and always treated them with nothing but love and kindness, often insisting that their contented “Negroes” were just fine with the status quo.

Then the Civil Rights movement came along.

Turned out that African-Americans weren’t as contented as the white people imagined.

Unfortunately, the conservative Christian church has lost its ability to speak  with any moral authority on issues of justice and equality, because its pronouncements are generally selfish and self-centered.

The misguided case of the Masterpiece Cake Shop (for more thoughts on that debate, read my “Wedding Cakes, the New Testament and Ethics in the Public Square“) exemplified all the problems of the current Equality Act debate:

  1. Conservative Christians confuse the church with the world and the world with the church – which is odd given their tendencies towards intellectual and social isolation. New Testament morality is directed at kingdom citizens filled with the Holy Spirit, not the world at large, however beneficial its approximation would be. (I discuss this issue at length in I Pledge Allegiance.)
  2. Too many would-be Christians simply do not want to love (not really, not with actual tolerance and loving-kindness in person, face-to-face) the people they don’t like, or don’t agree with, or see as the unclean enemies of their beloved Christian civilization. Let’s get real – many evangelicals are homophobes (though I do not like that term). They don’t want anyone telling them that they must accept gay/transgendered people as equally human with the same dignity as anyone else, whether in the workplace, at school or anywhere else.
  3. They fail to distinguish personal preference from public accommodation. The Equality Act addresses issues concerning “public accommodation.”  Read the entire bill here.  The core of the legislation simply requires equal treatment, saying:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) may bring a civil action if it receives a complaint from an individual who claims to be:

  • denied equal utilization of a public facility owned, operated, or managed by a state (other than public schools or colleges) on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity; or
  • denied admission to, or not permitted to continue attending, a public college by reason of sexual orientation or gender identity, thereby expanding DOJ’s existing authority to bring such actions for complaints based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The bill revises public school desegregation standards to provide for the assignment of students without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill prohibits programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance from denying benefits to, or discriminating against, persons based on sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Most of the protests I have seen are in reaction to the protection of transgender rights and its various implications for public space/accomodation.

On this score, the conservative church must get to grip with two problems.

One, we have to enter the age of modern research science and recognize that many (a majority?) of gay people are born gay.  For them, there is no therapeutic cure. Insisting otherwise discredits us and guarantees that we will never really understand the struggles of our gay friends and neighbors.

Two, there is a good chance that similar genetic issues are in play for people suffering gender dysphoria.  I have no idea how it must feel to spend my life tormented by the sense of being trapped in the wrong body.  I doubt very much if anybody decides or chooses to live such an existence.  There is obviously a great deal yet to be discovered in this arena.  The church needs to stop prejudging such people, their histories, situations and motivations while accepting that transgendered people merit the same legal protections as everyone else.

The Equality Act will not affect the policies or operations of churches and other religious institutions unless those facilities accept federal funding.  The obligatory cries of religious persecution, or the loss of religious freedoms are actually laments about the possible loss of federal dollars.  It’s about the money, folks.

Losing one’s tax exempt status is not anti-religious discrimination.  Actually, I have long believed that the tax exemption for churches is actually discrimination against the surrounding community.  Why should the church’s neighbors be required to pay more for their community services (which is what happens) in the way of a public subsidy for the tax-exempt churches, which most of them don’t attend anyway?

The same logic applies to religious schools, colleges, hospitals, etc.  These types of institutions will only be affected by the Equality Act if they accept federal financial support.  Far too many of these groups want to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to benefit from public money (supplied through our tax dollars) while enforcing their own, private sectarian policies.

That is hypocrisy.

You can’t have it both ways and hope to remain anywhere within the ethical ballpark.  Remember when Bob Jones University went to court because it insisted on collecting federal money while continuing to refuse admission to black applicants? (I don’t know why any African-American would want to go there.  But, to each his own.)

I do.

If a religious institution believes that it cannot abide by the Equality Act, then let them surrender their federal grants, subsidies, or what-have-you.  Yes, this will also mean that students receiving federal scholarships or other tuition assistance will either lose their grants or be required to look for another college.  This is one of those arenas where details would need to be worked out in the courts, perhaps.

Let’s face it.  Way too much of the energy invested in these types of fights by Christian social organizations basically boil down to a fight for comfort and/or money.  Christians want to relax in a culture that accommodates itself to them.  We don’t want inconvenient types, like gays, or lesbians, or transsexuals, the kinds of people who challenge our conservative expectations in the moral, social order to raise questions or challenge the status quo.  A status quo that allows us to remain relaxed and in control.

It is long past time for American politicized Christianity to stop acting as if (a) fighting for a Christianized public square were the same thing as (b) being an faithful citizen of the kingdom of God in public.  The two are not the same thing.  In fact, they are two very, very different things.

The Cultural Captivity of the Church:  Corporate Worship as Group Therapy

(This is the second in a series of posts that I am calling The Cultural Captivity of the Church.  You can find the first post here.)

I recently attended a Sunday morning service where the sermon topic intended to answer the question, “why do we sing together during worship?” (Check out my series about the Biblical understanding of worship vocabulary here.)

The message had three points. We sing “worship” songs together because it:

  1. Stirs our faith.
  2. Helps us to remember the truth.
  3. Connects our emotions to the truth.

At no point was there any discussion of the lyrics or the content of these songs; of the importance of understanding and reflecting on the words we are saying, and whether they are appropriate words; of how or why the words we repeat may help or actually hinder us in remembering and becoming emotionally connected to “the truth.”  (The clear implication was that we simply trust our worship leaders and sing – with more enthusiasm and raised hands, no less – whatever we are shown on the big screen.)

Don’t misunderstand me.  I do not begrudge the fact that each of these things may happen when we participate in well-planned, well-led, congregational singing with meaningful content.  And I agree that they are three important experiences when song leaders lead well.

But notice the final outcome of this three-point outline.

From beginning to end, the message is entirely self-centered.

The clear implication is that we attend congregational worship and sing praise songs purely and simply because of what it does for us.

So, I should go to church because of what I can expect to get out of it.  I worship my God because of the things that I expect him to do for me.

The further implication, then, suggests that I can determine whether or not a service “has been a good worship service” by how it makes me feel.  Did it excite me?  Did it make me feel happy, or elated, or boisterous, or whatever – fill in the blank here.

In fact, the message’s final application was a rather guilt-manipulating insistence upon louder singing from more people with many more hands lifted higher into the air.  Apparently, the outward measure of worship “acceptable to the Lord” is measured by our conformity to denominational traditions about public, physical gesturing and emotional elation.

I couldn’t help but wonder what a Roman Catholic visitor might say about the absence of their traditional kneeling benches and the fact that this church never provides time for a congregation of sinners collectively to confess their sins.

I am sorry, but devoid of any broader context reminding us of God’s holiness (see my series on holiness here), of God’s majesty and his worthiness of our adoration, such messages are nothing more than lessons in religious self-gratification. (Note – the speaker did offer a 30-second introduction about glorifying God.  But it was so brief, so hurried and so undeveloped that the speaker left the impression that God’s nature was incidental to the things he had to say about music.)

Why do I offer this Sunday sermon as my first illustration of the cultural captivity of the American church?

In 1966 Philip Rieff, a professor of sociology at the University of

Prof. Philip Rieff

Pennsylvania, wrote an extremely insightful book entitled, The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud (check out the 40th anniversary edition, published by ISI Books in 2006).

Reiff was a keen social critic who observed a self-destructive trend in American society.  According to Reiff, the public role of traditional, Western religion had been to function as a faith community that defended (and even enforced) moral standards and ethical expectations in society.

But American life after Freud had begun to shift dramatically.

In post-Freudian America, the purpose of all religion was purely therapeutic; that is, religion is now supposed to cure our ills, not point out our wrongs.  How will we know when that’s happened?  The church will become a principle agent in teaching us to feel good about ourselves.  Our spiritual, that is, egocentric, dreams will be realized.

Let me share a taste of Reiff as he first quotes and then critiques a British spokesman for this new “therapeutic Christianity”:

“’Any religious exercise is justified only by being something men [sic] do for themselves, that is, for the enrichment of their own experience.’  Attached as [this writer] is to the word ‘Christian,’ the writer even seeks to make Jesus out to be a therapeutic…

 “What then should churchmen do?  The answer returns clearly: become, avowedly, therapists, administrating a therapeutic institution – under the justificatory mandate that Jesus himself was the first therapeutic.  For the next culture needs therapeutic institutions…

 “Both East and West are now committed, culturally as well as economically, to the gospel of self-fulfillment…Grudgingly, [church leaders] must give way to their Western laity and translate their sacramental rituals into comprehensible terms as therapeutic devices.”

 Sadly, professor Reiff was a secular prophet.  Though he lamented this social transformation (rooted in an American abuse of Freudian psychology) as the growth of an “anti-human” culture, his predictions have been realized.

Worse yet, American Christianity jumped on board this therapeutic railway, stoked its engines to overflowing and commandeered the controls.

Rather than challenging our culture, we have surrendered to it, replacing the glorified Lamb of God with a cosmic therapist whose greatest achievement is to help us ensure our emotional well-being.

Rather than proclaim the gospel of Christ which confronts a culture of self-centeredness, we float with the prevailing current wherever it takes us, as long as it helps us fill the seats, maintain the budget and grow the church.

And to add agony to agony, we are such inept students of our times, so unreflective, so lacking in self-awareness, and so ignorant of Biblical theology and church history that many evangelical leaders are dining happily with the devil while imagining they are exorcising the demonic.

The Cultural Captivity of the Church — Prelude

(This is the first in an unspecified number of posts that I will periodically produce addressing what I believe is the #1 silent killer of Christian faith in America:  the average believer’s failure to recognize the dangerous, cultural smog polluting our spiritual lungs every single day.  The posts will consist of various thoughts as they emerge from the mists of my own mental confusion.  I have been thinking about the issues involved for a long time, but have held off on posting my thoughts for reasons that I no longer feel are binding.  So here goes.  Please, let me know what you think.)

Here is my thesis:

A primary responsibility of every Christian leader in every Christian congregation is to help God’s people learn to see through the lies, distortions and misrepresentations of reality that are created for us by our culture.  (I begin by assuming that knowing reality fully requires knowing Jesus Christ.)

The most dangerous distortions are those that warp our perception of the things that matter most – questions of human existence, meaning, purpose, responsibility, and, of course, a right relationship with our Creator.

So here is every Christian’s challenge:  We spend the majority of our lives

swimming through an unfiltered stream of cultural pollution.  No, I am not condemning all things secular.  Neither am I suggesting that we should try to jump into a different, a more Christian, stream.  I am afraid that’s not possible, despite the testimonies of its many proponents.

I am afraid that we are what we are where we are.   Period.

Our culture permeates everything, usually in ways that we don’t understand or even begin to recognize.  Which is one important reason why the oft-repeated arguments in favor of solving our cultural problems by creating an alternative, Christian culture with Christian schools, Christian unions, Christian political parties, etc. is always doomed to fail.

These attempts at “engagement by means of alternatives” will always fail to address the problem because, first, we cannot extricate ourselves from ourselves.  We will always be the people creating the alternatives.  We are bound to who we are, where we are, and where we come from, alternatives be damned.

Secondly, even if we withdrew into the hinterlands of the furthest wilderness, we will always bring the pollution along with us.  The source of that pollution is a part of us, buried deep within, because we are all fallen sinners.

Thankfully, this life is not painted solely in tones of black and white.  The question is not about who is good and who is bad.  Everyone and everything in this world are always a mixture of both.

Even a polluted stream can contain elements of its original, God-ordained balance, the biological diversity including fish, insect life and vegetation that makes it all worth preserving.

Sadly, however, those polluted fish now have no choice but to breathe the dirty water, inhaling the pollutants along with the oxygen.  Human beings have so successfully polluted this planet that scientists can find mercury polluting the flesh of those flightless, tuxedoed birds coddling their eggs on the ice flows of Antarctica.

We are like those penguins and those fish.

The church’s cultural corruption is every bit as universal, which is why working to learn how to recognize the problem, working to learn how to address the problem, working to learn how to remedy the problem together within the Body of Christ is an essential part of spiritual maturity.

It is also a non-negotiable requirement of responsible church leadership.

Every Christian leader ought to be making this challenge a central ingredient in his/her job description. How do I recognize cultural corruption within the church?  How do I learn to see it within myself?  How can I help others to do the same?  Then, having learned to recognize it, what can we do about it?

How can we survive swimming in this culture without being suffocated by its corruption?  And, in what, precisely, does its corruption consist?

These are the kinds of questions we have to ask ourselves.

I’ll give you a hint of where I’m going with this argument.

The usual suspects of sex, divorce, alcohol, and tithing are the not church’s greatest threats.  They are significant problems, but they are not the “heavy metals” of our cultural corruption.  They are only the bacteria that eat away at a weakened body already diseased.

How Can Anyone Claim to Believe in Jesus When They Don’t Understand The First Thing About Him?

A newly discovered 4th century papyrus contains a number of Gospel sayings (e.g. pericopes) that present a shockingly different portrait of Jesus.

Scholars are uniformly surprised that such widely divergent alternatives could possibly exist.  For example:

Blessed are those who resort to violence to defend themselves, for they will control the earth.

Blessed are those who carry a loaded Colt .45 Peacemaker, for they will be called Sons of the God of War.

When someone hits you on the right cheek, turn your snub-nose .38 upon  them and shoot with accuracy.

Do not resist the urge to overpower an evil person, with deadly force if required.  Use all means necessary to ensure that you and your lovely ones never feel threatened in any way.  For your life is more valuable than anyone else’s.

It should be obvious that no such papyri exists.  Just to be crystal clear, this is a spoof.

Sadly, in this age of infantile evangelicalism, we can no longer take it for granted that the average church-goer understands either New Testament teaching or the gospel portrait of Jesus.

Another perfect example of the dire, debilitating condition of conservative Christianity in this country appears in the NBC news story below.  It’s called “Armed Volunteers Train in Hopes of Protecting Parishioners Against Potential Attacks.”  Take a look:

The interviews speak for themselves.  It’s all oh-so American.  It’s also as contrary to Jesus’ model, his ethics and the Kingdom of God as one could possibly imagine.

Christian Prayer vs. Magic, Part 4

(This is the 4th installment of a series examining the differences between Christian prayer and a pagan, magical worldview.  You can find the previous posts here, here and here.)

The fourth distinction I want to make between magic and Christian prayer is the magical emphasis on secret knowledge.

For the magical mindset, incantations, spells, etc. (let’s call them magical prayers) are effective because the properly trained and educated magician knows the secret ingredients, words, phrases and names that make the incantations powerful and effective.

These can include the bizarre ingredients we popularly identify with cartoon witches:  frog eyes, bat wings, snake bladders and more.  Specialists now debate whether or not such weird recipes were to be taken literally or if, perhaps, they were code words signifying more common items available in the average home.  I suspect that we will may never know the answer.  But regardless, the average person seeking help from the local magician certainly believed that actual bat wings and newt testicles were essential items in the magician’s bag of potions.

Magicians also knew the secret names and titles that allowed the magician to command the many gods, spirits, and angels required to bring a positive response to a prayer.  Every spiritual force had multiple designations.  Some

A Victorian pendant inscribed with the ancient, magical word Abracadabra (a near palindrome, which was always popular in magic)

names and titles were public knowledge.  But only those who were initiated into “the mysteries” of a spiritual power knew the secret names and titles of that power.  When those secret names and titles were used properly, perhaps combined with a potion containing the necessary secret ingredients, then the person offering those magical prayers could expect the designated deity or demon to do exactly what was requested.

We can see a good example of such magical thinking in Acts 19:13-16 when the apostle Paul encounters the seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest

Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?”  Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

This text provides an ancient example of Jewish magical exorcism practiced by Jewish magicians (who were probably entirely orthodox in their religious

The seven sons of Sceva

beliefs).  The sons of Sceva had seen Paul’s successful exorcisms when he declared the resurrected Jesus’ victory over the power of Satan in this world.

As was common in ancient religion, the concept of “personal faith” was not always relevant to religious practice.  The Jewish magicians simply latched onto Paul’s use of a new secret name – Jesus.

Here is another example of magical prayer and its emphasis on technique (see the previous post).  The Jewish magicians thought they had discovered a new, obviously effective, technique – call upon the secret name of Jesus and watch the demons flee.

Little did they know that Christian prayer is not magic.  The results of authentic prayer in the name of Jesus have nothing to do with using the correct technique, or saying the proper phrasing with the right names in the right way.

So, what lessons can we learn?

First, the results of Christian prayer are tied up with personal faith in a real personal relationship with one’s personal Lord and Savior, allowing his Lordship to determine the answers we eventually receive.  True prayer is about spiritual intimacy not technique.

Second, there is no hierarchy in the Body of Christ determined by secret or special knowledge.  There is no “in group” who is privileged to know the more powerful, more effective ways to pray. Ways that are not available to others who have not yet learned the correct “prayer language,” who haven’t attended the proper conferences or seminars, who haven’t had certain mystical experiences, who have yet to learn the most effective ways to express themselves to God.  Such ways of thinking are characteristic of Gnosticism not Christianity.

Third, every Christian should be suspicious of anyone unduly fixated on acquiring and possessing spiritual power.  Certain strains of the Christian church seem obsessed with gaining power, exercising power, seeing displays of power, being empowered and living a power-filled life.

Typically, this fixation with power fills the concept with more worldly, pagan notions of power that it does New Testament ideas of power.  In fact, I find very little New Testament precedent for this common preoccupation with becoming a more powerful Christian.

For example, let’s look at THE New Testament power- prayer where Paul most explicitly prays for believers to experience more of God’s power, Ephesians 3:14-19:

For this reason, I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

As far as the apostle Paul was concerned, the most vital experience of spiritual power available to any Christian, and the focus of his prayers that fellow believers become endowed with power, concerns the Christian’s daily experience of union with Christ leading us to a deeper and deeper awareness of the eternal, immeasurable, divine fullness of Christ’s love for each of us.

Get that?!

The immeasurable height, depth, length and breadth of Jesus’ love for his people is so infinitely beyond any human ability to comprehend that the most profound operation of God’s eternal power is best realized when a sinful follower of Jesus slowly apprehends a bit more and a bit more and a bit more again of what the full measure of Christ’s love means in his/her life.  That blows my mind…

THAT’S a display of divine power in this life, my friends.  And it’s the most incredible display of power anyone can ever experience this side of eternity.

How Bad Theology Can Lead to Spiritual Masturbation

I stumbled upon a good collection of articles discussing the gruel-thin, emotional foolishness that characterizes so much of the music and singing that passes for “worship” in many evangelical churches today.

The articles are listed below, all making good points:

“3 Reasons Contemporary Worship IS Declining, and What We Can Do to Help the Church Move On“

“8 Reasons the Worship Industry Is Killing Worship“

“Masturbatory Worship and the Contemporary Church“

“’M’ Worship, Exhibit A: Bethel Church Worships Themselves” (complete with an accompanying video to illustrate the problem)

Allow me to add a few observations of my own.

  1. Much of the problem, I believe, is due to deliberate theological ignorance among church leaders, especially so-called “worship leaders” (typically, a person who couldn’t give you the Biblical definition of worship or praise if his/her life depended on it; sadly, their employment status never seems to depend on it).  When Biblical and theological foundations are abandoned, foolishness always ensures with predictably damaging consequences.  You can count on it.
  2. I have made my own humble attempts to address these problems by offering occasional studies in the Biblical theology of praise, worship (here, here, here, here and here) God’s holiness (here, here, here, here, and here), and few book reviews discussing the “juvenilization” of the American church (here and here).
  3.  A widespread, disastrous confusion about both the goals and the distinctly different, intended audiences of (a) seeker-targeted services vs. (b) seeker-sensitive worship (an absolutely horrible idea, regardless of its apparent “effectiveness”) has been a main driver of these problems.  See my post addressing the issue here.