Tag: American Christianity

Reading Religion Reviews My Book, “I Pledge Allegiance” #readingreligion # americanacademyofreligion

Eerdmans Publishers recently notified me of the first (to my knowledge) online review of my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America.  You can find the review here at the Reading Religion website (an outlet of the American Academy of Religion).

Jacob Alan Cook, an Adjunct Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Friends University, is very kind in offering a positive review of my latest book.  He is both a thoughtful reader and reviewer, qualities not as common as you might think.

In the spirit of continuing the conversation – a conversation I believe is the most important contribution the Christian church can make to America’s public life at this moment in our history – I want to offer a few responses to Professor Cook’s observations.

Towards the end of his review, Cook suggests that “the root of the problem [i.e. the church’s abandonment of Jesus’ kingdom ethics] lies deeper than Crump’s analysis.”  He points to Bonhoeffer’s suggestion that the basis of every ethical problem is the human tendency to think that we already know what God wants of us, thereby conforming God’s will to our personal preferences.

I agree with Cook’s assessment of our ethical dilemma.  But I also think that I make this point several times myself, although I may not have been as thorough or as explicit as I should have been.  I will keep this in mind for the future.

Professor Cook also dabbles in a bit of theological archaeology as he muses on the possible connections between my evangelical upbringing and my book’s emphasis on the place of evangelism within the ethics of God’s kingdom.

I think he is right to highlight this connection, but not for the reason he implies.

Yes, evangelicalism has traditionally distinguished itself by emphasizing the importance of personal evangelism in the Christian life.  But I would argue that the tenor of I Pledge Allegiance is due to an entirely different evangelical characteristic — namely, taking the Bible seriously.

I hope that my book’s analysis of the Synoptic Gospels makes it clear that sharing the good news of the gospel is an essential ingredient of Jesus’ kingdom ethic.  My goal in I Pledge Allegiance is to describe a Biblical theology, not an evangelical theology…in fact, just typing out those final, two words has stretched my attention span to the breaking point.  Yikes!

If there are any similarities between my arguments in I Pledge Allegiance and the work of Carl F. H. Henry (a godfather of American evangelicalism), as Professor Cook suggests, then it is because we both have read the same Bible and drawn similar conclusions.

So, thank you again, Professor Cook.

And if you subscribe to this blog but have not yet read I Pledge Allegiance yourself, I hope that this helpful review at Reading Religion will motivate you to do so.  What are you waiting for?

Wedding Cakes, the New Testament and Ethics in the Public Square

Not long after the Supreme Court decision on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, I wrote an article examining the issues involved from the perspective of New Testament interpretation.  I quickly sent it off to a popular Christian publication hoping to enter into the public debate.

Well, I am now 0 for 3 at article submissions being accepted by this brand of magazine.  Or maybe I should say that I am 3 and 0 at being rejected.  Alas, such are the trials of a would-be popular author.

So, rather than submit myself to another 4 – 6 week waiting period, I have decided to make the article available here on my blog.  I hope you will find it informative and stimulating as we all continue to think about the best ways to display our kingdom citizenship to the watching world.

Wedding Cakes, the New Testament and Ethics in the Public Square

by David Crump © July 2018

 

The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case has pumped equal amounts of fervor into both sides of the latest battle in America’s culture wars. The court admitted that it was making a narrow, not a landmark, ruling which offers little in the way of precedent for future civil rights vs. religious liberty cases.  Consequently, cheerleaders on both sides – evangelical Christians applauding for Masterpiece Cake Shop and civil liberties activists lamenting the ruling’s implications for gay rights – are getting ahead of themselves as to what this decision means for similar battles in the future.

As Eugene Volokh, law professor at UCLA, wrote on the day of the decision, it “leaves almost all the big questions unresolved” (Reason. 6/4/18).

Mr. Phillips claimed that decorating a cake intended for a gay wedding would violate his Christian conscience.  His opponents recall the systematic, racial discrimination of Jim Crow laws that only started to be overturned during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  That post-Civil War era of legalized racism was commonly justified on religious grounds.  White southerners opened their Bibles, too, and cited proof-texts demonstrating that desegregation would violate their Christian faith.

Only two days after the Supreme Court decision was announced, South Dakota state representative Michael Clark (R.) was already waving the banner of a segregationist revival – though he later recanted.  “He [Mr. Phillips] should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then that’s his choice,” said Rep. Clark (Dakota Free Press).

Jeff Amyx of Grainger County, Tennessee has posted a “NO GAYS ALLOWED” sign in the window of his hardware store for the past 3 years.  He argues that discriminating against homosexuals is integral to his Christian faith and witness.  In response to the Supreme Court decision, Mr. Amyx told local reporters, “Christianity is under attack. This is a great win…”

Even though the Supreme Court’s ruling explicitly disavows any attempt to make it a justifying precedent for future discrimination cases, the logical possibilities are clear.  At least, they seem clear to people like Michael Clark and Jeff Amyx.  We will have to wait and see how the courts eventually sort out these questions.

In the meantime, the evangelical church should stop and take some time to examine whether or not there is a solid scriptural foundation beneath Mr. Phillips’ appeal to religious conviction.  Is there, in fact, a sound Biblical argument under-girding the claim that decorating the cake for a gay wedding violates Christian morality?  To put it more broadly, do Christian business people compromise or deny some part of their faith in Jesus Christ when they provide personal services to others outside the church who are entrenched in lifestyles that the church considers sinful?

I believe the answer to that question is a resounding no.  Mr. Phillip’s scruples in this case are not a model for others to follow.  Just the opposite.

Let’s examine the issues one step at a time.

The apostle Paul put a premium on maintaining a clear conscience.  Mr. Phillips appears to understand that.  Paul’s discussion of whether or not Christians can eat meat originally sacrificed to idols (pagan temples were the most common butcher shops at the time) reveals that believers are sometimes free to disagree.  At times, personal consciences may vary (1 Cor. 8:7-15).  What is right for one person may not be right for another.  But everyone is expected to maintain an unsullied conscience free of guilt. So, Paul says in Romans 14, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind…If anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean…and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (verses 5, 14, 23).  In other words, don’t do things that you believe are wrong, things that will leave you nursing a guilty conscience.

Mr. Phillips says that he was resolving this very debate within himself when he declined to decorate a wedding cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig.  Doing otherwise, he said, would have violated his Christian values.   So, he chose to safeguard his conscience, and the Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Phillips’ freedom to make that decision – particularly in light of the open hostility expressed towards his faith by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

However, the apostle’s acknowledgement that church members in Corinth and Rome were able to eat meat sacrificed to idols without violating their consciences, if they chose to do so, suggests that Mr. Phillips’ decision need not apply to anyone besides himself.  The pressing question is:  does offering services to a gay wedding fall into the same category of moral ambivalence as eating meat sacrificed to idols?  Was Mr. Phillips’ conscientious objection a paradigmatic stance required of all Christians or was it an idiosyncratic opinion binding only on Mr. Phillips?

 

We should recall that, when it comes to matters of ethical debate, Paul describes the narrower conscience, the more easily offended conscience, as “the weaker” one revealing a more feeble faith (Rom. 14:1-2; 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:7, 9-12).  Paul gives no indication that he valued the maintenance of a weak conscience.  In fact, his description indicates that a weaker faith ought to mature.  I suspect that this is why Paul previews his pastoral advice with an explanation as to why those exhibiting a stronger conscience are theologically correct (1 Cor. 8:4-6).

The implication is clear.

Those exhibiting a weaker conscience by refusing to eat meat sacrificed to idols would do well to absorb Paul’s theological explanation, for it reveals how their position derives from a misunderstanding. Disciples showing signs of a weaker conscience would therefore benefit from the advice of a mature mentor, someone who could offer patient instruction and sound Biblical instruction to clarify where, how and why outgrowing a weak conscience is preferable to remaining offended over debatable matters.

If decorating a cake for a gay wedding is comparable to eating meat sacrificed to idols, then Mr. Phillips has earned a few lines in the annals of religious liberty litigation, but he is not a model of how mature disciples should navigate the cross-currents of Christianity’s relationship with society.

Which leads us back to our original question.  Do Christian business people – or any Christian, for that matter – compromise or deny some part of their faith in Jesus Christ by providing personal services to people outside the church who are entrenched in lifestyles that the church calls sinful?

Remember, this is not a question about the morality of homosexual activity or gay marriage.  On this, I believe that we all ought to agree with Mr. Phillips.  I am convinced that the New Testament defines a gay lifestyle as immoral, including monogamous gay marriage.  Followers of Jesus Christ are forbidden to live that way, along with many other prohibited lifestyles (1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).  Homosexual activity is condemned alongside greed, drunkenness, slander, theft, murder, adultery and lying, among other evils.  But having said this, there is no indication that homosexuality is considered the supreme sin, worse than all others.  It is simply listed as one among many unacceptable ways for Christians to live.

Which makes me wonder if Mr. Phillips has ever decorated wedding cakes for people whose lives were shackled by greed, dishonesty, selfishness, theft or fornication, to mention only a few of the other lifestyles condemned by Paul.  Of course, those issues are much harder to detect during a brief conversation in a cake shop, but that does not make them any less problematic for someone fearful that providing his professional services would tacitly endorse sin in another person’s life.

Romans 1:26-27 does describe homosexuality as paradigmatic of the way sin has disordered God’s orderly creation.  But this section of Paul’s argument comes after his description of idolatry as the quintessential example of human sinfulness (verses 18-25).  In light of Romans 1, then, it hardly seems likely that sharing a meal with your neighbors where the main dish came straight out the back door of Zeus’ temple after it was butchered by pagan priests as the offering in an idolatrous ceremony, would be any less problematic for Paul than decorating the cake for a gay wedding.  In the words of Jesus, reaching that conclusion would be a bit like straining at gnats while swallowing camels (Matt. 23:24).  I suspect that Paul would agree.

If a healthy, mature Christian conscience has no trouble eating meat butchered in idolatrous sacrifices with the neighbors next-door, then decorating a gay wedding cake for people outside the church should be an easy afternoon stroll through the green grass of Christian morality, by comparison.

We know that Paul supported himself by making tents (Acts 18:3), a skilled craft every bit as personalized as cake decorating.  The apostle would set out his tent-maker’s stall in the public marketplace and take orders for the assorted types of tents his customers wanted.  Paul’s business relations with the milling crowds of unredeemed humanity looking to buy and sell in the 1st century, Greco-Roman agora would have seen him pressing the flesh with the full spectrum of unwashed, pagan masses.  Idolaters, magicians, pederasts, adulterers, and every stripe of common criminal were all potential customers.  Homosexuality was extremely common in this Greco-Roman world, including long-term relationships comparable to gay marriage.

We cannot say for certain how Paul handled these interactions while conducting his business. But I very much doubt that he interviewed each potential customer before taking their order so as to ensure that he only made tents for people who agreed with his Christian, moral sensibilities and promised beforehand that they would never use his tents for activities he did not approve of.  That would make a great recipe for watching the competition take away all of your business.  Paul could not have supported himself for very long.  Although I admit to making an argument from silence here, I am confident that it is a sound argument, especially in light of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.  He says:

 

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.”

 

Apparently, some members of the Corinthian church had misunderstood Paul’s previous advice on maintaining church discipline.  His warning about not associating with “sinners,” which would include refusing to do business with them, was strictly an internal affair concerning personal relationships within the Christian community.  Paul could not have stated his ethical position more clearly: “Judging those outside of Christ’s church is none of my business.  It’s God’s business, not mine.  So, I won’t do it.”

Applying the community standards of Christian church discipline to the believer’s social or business relationships outside of the church is an obvious example of something called a category mistake.  For instance, I am guilty of a category mistake when I offer a detailed description of elephants to the blind person who asked me to describe a goldfish.  It doesn’t make sense.

To the misfortune of both the church and American society, moralistic category confusions have become a distinguishing feature of the Religious Right.  TV and radio preachers popularize these confusions day in and day out as they rally their followers over the airwaves to defend Christian America from the deadly advances of secular humanism.

I suspect that it was within this hothouse of popular confusion that Mr. Phillips’ solidified his views about Christian ethics.  No one’s moral compass is calibrated in a vacuum.  I very much doubt that Mr. Phillips settled on preserving his weakened conscience all by himself.  He represents – as the Christian media frenzy applauding his victory shows – the largest part of American evangelicalism today, churchgoers with nothing more than a superficial grasp of scripture who view themselves as culture-warriors holding the line against a godless society.

Here we reach the animating force behind Mr. Phillips’ stance insofar as he represents evangelicalism’s current captivity to the unending melodrama of its so-called “culture wars.”  Worries over Christianity’s fight-to-the-death with secularism undoubtedly motivate hardware-store owner Jeff Amyx’s fretful lament that “Christianity is under attack.”  To his mind, and others like him, fighting against godlessness transforms a hideously ungodly “NO GAYS ALLOWED” sign into a battle standard for religious liberty.

Yet, how exactly does recognizing that unredeemed sinners will continue to sin ever threaten the church?  (After all, don’t even redeemed sinners within the church continue to sin?)

How does doing business in the public square with other sinners for whom Jesus died ever threaten my freedom to follow Jesus?  How does doing business with folks who do not (yet) want to conform their lives to Jesus’ example threaten my decision to be like Jesus, the same Jesus who partied with tax-collectors, prostitutes and other sinners?

It doesn’t.

The problem today – as I discuss at length in my book I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans 2018) – is that large portions of the American church have turned their backs on Jesus’ model of suffering servanthood in order to fight for control over the secular levers of social, political power and control. Evangelicalism has exchanged the gospel of grace for an idolatrous nostalgia over something that never was – an American Christendom.

Christendom seeks to erase the border between church and state. Christendom confuses the body of Christ with society at large, with damaging results for all parties. Its propagandists demand that Christianity “reclaim” its place as America’s de facto state religion.  Among Christendom’s many mistakes, perhaps the most egregious is this wish to impose the norms of church discipline upon everyone else in society, regardless of their own religious affiliation.

In this way, the rhetoric of Christendom sounds much like the preacher who insisted on telling a herd of elephants that they must all live like goldfish.

Mr. Phillips’ case is only the beginning in this latest round of religious freedom/civil rights litigation.  Sadly, having forgotten that God’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), American evangelicals have decided to exchange their suffering Savior and his New Testament teaching for front row seats on the White House lawn and amicus briefs utterly irrelevant to the Kingdom of God.

“Grieving American on the Fourth of July”

Apparently, the flu bug was waiting for my friends to leave before attacking me.  Alas, I have been massively assaulted by an ugly flu for the past week, hence my piddling blog production of late. My apologies.  I hope to pick up the pace soon.  In the mean time…

Jean Neely has a good article on the Sojourners website entitled “Grieving America on the Fourth of July.”  I have posted an excerpt below.  The entire article is worth reading.

“We in the church have clung too tightly to our country’s myths of exceptionalism. We’ve been too slow to name the real “terror within” and unwilling to listen to those telling us of terror all around. We’ve been reluctant to own up to our history and speak out against unjust policies. We don’t like to think or talk about it, but most of us know that our quality of life here comes directly at the expense of everyone else on the planet (not to mention the planet itself), millions of ordinary folks whose countries have been ravaged by centuries of colonialism and persistent neocolonial structures, who make our clothes and gadgets, grow our food and coffee, and pay in countless other ways for all our out-of-control consumption and addictions. Their problems are our problems. So we can’t set them aside.

“In particular, those of us who claim to follow the poor, Middle Eastern God-man who taught us to give away our possessions, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, and love one another can’t ignore Jesus in the stranger, Jesus on the street, or in the “detention center.” We can’t ignore that Christ embraces and abides with “the least of these,” or the fact that we habitually mistreat, lock up, and deport Christ and those dear to him. We’re called to a different way.

Who is the American Jesus? What is he saying? He reaches out to everyone, but does he carry a gun?

“We might begin with the work of facing the truth of who we are, of being present to the full reality of ourselves and our country. We need to look squarely at reality, at our own churches and our own souls, and deal with the discomfort or pain of what we find there. We need to awaken to both the beauty and the ugliness within, the shadow as well as the light. Sadly, as Thomas Merton put it, ‘We are not very good at recognizing illusions, least of all the ones we cherish about ourselves.’

“It can be terrifying to examine what we cherish about ourselves. But this is the work we’re called to first. We make others pay every day that we refuse to do this work.”

The author well captures my own feelings on this July 4th.  In fact, I find myself enthralled by this personal turmoil on a regular basis, especially on Sundays.  I attend corporate worship, first and foremost, to contribute my own adoration to the collective praise of our Lord and Savior, God Almighty, and to the Son, Jesus Christ.

Yemeni children killed by US-made weapons.

But I must confess that this has become increasingly difficult for me.  Not that I am wavering in my devotion or am any less committed to glorifying my God.  Rather, I find that I must invest more and more of my energy into concentrating on the purpose at hand while fighting off the distractions presented by those around me.

I know. I know.  I am fully aware of how self-righteous I will sound.  The Spirit and I wrestle every day with this issue in my heart.  Yet, the selfish centrality of “me-ism” in our services, combined with the absence of any collective confession of sin or guilt, mixed with the standard American ignorance and indifference to the horrendous levels of pain, suffering and bloodshed casually accomplished by American military ingenuity all around the world every single day often brings me to tears as I stand before my God.

Onlookers probably think that I am having a “deep” moment with Jesus.  And I think I am.  But not the kind they imagine.

I have yet to sort out how to handle these moments, spiritually, psychologically or emotionally.  I only pray that the Lord Jesus will help my nation, my leaders, my community and my church as well as I expect Him to help me.

That’s my hope for this 4th of July.

Following the Messiah-No-One-Expected and Very Few Want Today

Carlo Corretto

I have been busy enjoying a visit from some dear, long-time friends this past week, hence my brief vacation from blogging.  But I am back today with this excerpt from the book Why, O Lord? by Carlo Carretto.

The tremendous life-altering challenge of following the real, historical, Biblical Jesus rather than the convenient, sanitized, nationalized Jesus of American evangelicalism is a contemporary version of the New Testament call to discipleship that has confronted every generation (in its own, unique way) throughout church history.

It is no easier today than it was 2,000 years ago.

I have described what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah-no-one-expected (or much wanted) in my book, Encountering Jesus, Encountering Scripture.

My new book, I Pledge Allegiance, describes the life-or-death struggle facing the American church right now in this age of Trump .

Carlo Carretto eloquently makes the same point in his book, and I believe it is well worth sharing.  I do not know Mr. Carretto, but he writes like a man who knows the real Jesus:

“Goodness! How difficult it is to believe in the sort of Messiah that Jesus of Nazareth represents!

 To believe that we win by losing our very selves!

To believe that love is everything.

To believe that power is a great danger, wealth slavery, comfortable life a misfortune.

 It is not easy.

 This is why you hear [people] in the street say, ‘If there was a God there would not be all this suffering.’

 Two thousand years have gone, and there are still Christians whose doctrinal notions belong to those ancient days when the power and existence of God was revealed by displays of strength and the victory of armies. And especially by wealth and having more possessions.

 The real secret had not then been received.

Nor is it received very easily even today.

Hence the blasphemy in general circulation denying the kingdom’s visibility, given the ordeal of suffering and death.

 The old teaching that we, the Church, must be strong still feeds our determination to possess the land and dominate the world.

 We must make ourselves felt. We must keep our enemies down. We must scowl. We must win, and to win we need money, money, money. And to have money we need banks, we need the means and we need clever bankers. How can we do good without means, without money? Let’s have a big meeting, and then any opposition will be shamed into silence. Well, we must defend our rights, the rights of the Church. We must defeat our enemies.

 Enemies, always enemies on the Church’s horizon!

 Yet Jesus has told us in no uncertain terms that we no longer have any enemies, since they are the same people we are supposed to love, and love specially.

 Can it be that we have not understood?

 Don’t we read the Gospel in our churches?

 How long shall we wait before following the teaching of Jesus?”

Indeed…how long?

Israel, the Great Western Narrative and the Kingdom of God #zionism #jonathancook

Jonathan Cook, a British journalist living and working in Nazareth, Israel.

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist living and working in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001.  You can find his biography and CV, including his many books, here.

I read Mr. Cook’s blog regularly. I also check out any of his articles or books whenever I come across them.

Yesterday, The Greenville Post (another excellent website I read regularly) published a Cook article entitled “How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions.” Cook describes the slow evolution of his own social, political and historical consciousness as his work in journalism taught him to recognize something he calls the “Great Western Narrative.”

I hope you will take the time to read Cook’s article.  He is extremely insightful.  I have posted an excerpt below with a link to the entire article.

Cook’s analysis can be particularly challenging for Christians. He not only diagnoses the ways in which western Christians succumb to establishment propaganda, just like everyone else — no, brothers and sisters, we are not immune to the dangers of brainwashing —

But Cook’s advice for breaking free of the “Great Western Narrative” and learning to understand and engage in this world from a more humane perspective, is very similar to the argument I tried to make for Christian readers in my book I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America.

Christian disciples can only perceive this world aright, that is, from a New Testament, heavenly perspective, when we learn to replace the Great Western Narrative with Jesus’ own Narrative of the Kingdom of God.

That should be a lifetime goal for every follower of Jesus.  Yet, it is so much easier to live as loyal Americans than it is to be faithful citizens of God’s kingdom on earth.

This, in a nutshell, is the goal of my blog. Everything I write at HumanityRenewed, is something (I hope) that will help us to peel off the worldly consciousness — the Great Western Narrative — that works overtime to hold us captive and cripple our ability to live out God’s Kingdom citizenship in the here and now.

Nowhere is the evangelical church’s idolatry of the Great Western Narrative, coupled with its abandonment of Jesus’ Narrative of the Kingdom of God, more evident than in its blind devotion to Christian Zionism and the state of Israel, whatever its crimes.

Here is the excerpt:

“Israel is enthusiastically embraced by the Great Western Narrative: it is supposedly a liberal democracy, many of its inhabitants dress and sound like us, its cities look rather like our cities, its TV shows are given a makeover and become hits on our TV screens. If you don’t stand too close, Israel could be Britain or the US.

“But there are clues galore, for those who bother to look a little beyond superficialities, that there is something profoundly amiss about Israel. A few miles from their homes, the sons of those western-looking families regularly train their gun sights on unarmed demonstrators, on children, on women, on journalists, on medics, and pull the trigger with barely any compunction.

“They do so not because they are monsters, but because they are exactly like us, exactly like our sons. That is the true horror of Israel. We have a chance to see ourselves in Israel – because it is not exactly us, because most of us have some physical and emotional distance from it, because it still looks a little strange despite the best efforts of the western media, and because its own local narrative – justifying its actions – is even more extreme, even more entitled, even more racist towards the Other than the Great Western Narrative.

“It is that shocking realisation – that we could be Israelis, that we could be those snipers – that both opens the door and prevents many from stepping through to see what is on the other side. Or, more troubling still, halting at the threshhold of the doorway, glimpsing a partial truth without understanding its full ramifications.”

You can read Cook’s entire article here.

A Review of Thomas Bergler’s The Juvenilization of American Christianity

Several months ago, I read a fine book by Thomas E. Bergler, The Juvenilization of American Christianity (Eerdmans, 2012).  Bergler is associate professor of ministry and missions at Huntington University, Indiana.  He has written what amounts to a history of the creation, rise and evolution of youth ministry in the American church.

He simultaneously argues, convincingly in my view, that a movement which began as an element of church ministry has successfully expanded to consume the whole of (most) American church life.

Whether we like it or not, we are all teenagers now.  At least this seem to be the case if we look at the way congregational music, messages, teaching content, programming, expectations, goals and ambiance are orchestrated in the average, Protestant worship service today.

Bergler begins by defining juvenilization as “the process by which the religious beliefs, practices, and developmental characteristics of adolescents become accepted as appropriate for Christians of all ages” (4).

The result, whether intentional or not, is a condition he calls “adolescent Christianity,” which is “any way of understanding, experiencing, or practicing the Christian faith that conforms to the patterns of adolescence in American culture” (8).

Before we all get hot, bothered or defensive, Bergler is careful to argue that this juvenilization process has not been all bad.  It has generated a number of valuable benefits for the American church, such as a desire for emotional connection and contemporary relevance in our services. Whatever problems exist with juvenilization, however, are due to a lack of theological reflection, analysis and strategizing about the best ways to avoid and/or manage the unexpected, negative consequences.

However, Bergler’s focus in this particular book is on telling the story of how we got to where we are today, not on diagnosis or treatment for the creation of a healthier future.  He saves that discussion for his follow-up book, From Here to Maturity: Overcoming the Juvenilization of American Christianity (Eerdmans, 2014).  I am reading that book now and will review it in the near future.

Bergler begins Juvenilization with an overview describing the rise of a genuinely distinct teenage, “youth culture” in the 1930s and 40s.  He then discusses the various attempts made by different branches of American Christianity to engage this new youth culture effectively for Christ.

One of the more telling features of this nascent youth ministry movement was the eagerness with which the gospel of Jesus Christ was used as the centerpiece to an alternative gospel of anti-communism.  Though this is my observation more than Bergler’s, it illustrates something that became a characteristic strategy of ministries like Youth for Christ and Young Life. That is, an instrumental use of the good news; not teaching the gospel for its own sake but using it for a seemingly higher purpose.  In the 1930s and 40s that higher purpose was America’s fight against the “Red Menace” and equipping the next generation to win our fight against the Soviet Union.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Bergler provides a series of fascinating histories about the different strategies adopted by (1) mainline, liberal Protestantism, (2) the African-American church, (3) the Roman Catholic church and (4) American evangelicalism.  To a greater or lesser extent, everyone’s main goal was not only to hold on to their own young people, but to expand the church’s mission into the expansive field of America’s unsaved teenagers.

Bergler explains how and why the evangelical wing of the church proved most successful in these tasks. (Buy the book to see the details.  It’s worth the money).  Not only was there an explosion of new, church-centered youth groups, but there was a simultaneous development of youth-targeted, para-church organizations like Youth for Christ, Campus Life, and Young Life.

In order to capture the typical teenager’s attention, the leaders of these youth organizations mastered the craft of developing consumer-oriented, fast-paced, emotionally-charged, fun-loving, content-light meetings that appealed to modern adolescents. However, an unexpected, or sadly neglected consequence of this evangelical success was the eventual rise of church-going adults who insisted on taking the new youth-oriented methods along with them into every other aspect of adult church life.  Bergler hits the nail on the head when he concludes:

“…the leaders of parachurch youth ministries experimented freely with ways of being Christian that would create an ever more immature evangelical church. As time went on, more and more white evangelicals of all ages began to demand this new combination of old-time religion and adolescent spirituality.” (214)

In his final chapter, “The Triumph and Taming of Juvenilization,” Bergler briefly elaborates on this juvenilization phenomenon (pages 208-229).  On the positive side of the ledger, he concludes that:

  • “Juvenilization has kept American Christianity vibrant” (208)
  • “investment in youth ministry has led to greater retention of young people in evangelical churches” (215)
  • “Youth ministries helped to make the Christian life more emotionally satisfying…and socially relevant” (210)

On the negative side, he traces several evangelical weaknesses back to juvenilization:

  • “The desire to gather a crowd can easily push leaders to compromise the message of the gospel and downplay spiritual maturity” (211)
  • Understanding the gospel primarily in “therapeutic” terms, leading to what he calls a “moralistic, therapeutic deism” (219-20)
  • “simplified messages that emphasize an emotional relationship with Jesus over intellectual content” (220)
  • Emotional fulfilment becomes the gospel’s primary objective (219-20)
  • “the relentless attention to teenage tastes ends up communicating that God exists to make us feel good. Christianity operates as a lifestyle enhancement…” (220)
  • With the adoption of a consumer mentality for church life “youth ministries have formed generations of Americans who believe it is their privilege to pick and choose what to believe” (223)

Bergler hints at some of the remedial measures he believes necessary for outgrowing the hindrances of juvenilization.  For instance:

  • Leaders “need to teach what the Bible says about spiritual maturity, with special emphasis on those elements that are neglected by juvenilized Christians” (226) – (Hopefully, his next book will elaborate this point.)
  • Using worship music that does not focus exclusively on “fostering a self-centered, romantic spirituality” in which “falling in love with Jesus” is the center (227)
  • Asking every church member “to master a shared body of basic truths” and “training leaders to disciple others” one-on-one and in small groups (227)
  • Model, teach and provide opportunities for service to others (227)
  • Help leaders to understand that “cultural forms are not neutral. Every enculturation of Christianity highlights some elements of the faith and obscures others” (227).

Bergler has written an important history describing the infiltration of American youth culture within the Christian church.  Whether the reader judges that infiltration to be a blessing or a curse, a thoughtful judgment will need to be informed by Professor Bergler’s insights.

A Few Thoughts on the Vice-President’s Speech at Today’s Southern Baptist Convention

I watched most of Vice-President Pences’ speech at the Southern Baptist Convention today.  Yes, the SBC has a history of extending bi-partisan

(Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

invitations to its politician guest-speakers.

But in today’s political climate under the Trump presidency, with leading Southern Baptist pastors like Robert Jeffress serving as Trump’s so-called spiritual advisors, the image of a “non-partisan” event has worn a bit thin.

Here are a few of my thoughts as I listened to the Vice-President’s speech:

  1. Listening to the convention’s applause for a thoroughly partisan, political talk reminded me of the recent service where church elders walked out on my message for being too political. Would these same men and woman have walked out on the vice-president this morning?  I doubt that very, very much.
  2. I, too, hope that the recent agreement with North Korea will be a step towards greater peace in that part of the world. I stand with the crowd that wants to see the entire world denuclearized. However, as a simple practical matter, I cannot help but wonder why North Korea would denuclearize so quickly and easily almost immediately after achieving its long-term goal of creating its own nuclear arsenal?  Their nukes are brand new! Call me confused…
  3. In terms of world peace, our obsession with North Korean nuclear weapons is downright bizarre in light of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel possesses an estimated 250+ nuclear weapons.

Israel has refused to sign the international Non-Proliferation Treaty or to allow independent inspectors to look at its nuclear facilities.

Much of the early technology for Israel’s nuclear weapons program was obtained by Israeli spies stealing US secrets.

Israel threatens and attacks almost all of its neighbors on a regular basis.

Yet, the US never says a thing about the threat posed to world peace by Israel’s behavior or its nuclear arsenal, while we scream and shout about the dangers North Korea and Iran.  I call this hypocrisy.

  1. Well, I could go on about Pence’s misleading claims about the Trump tax cuts, unemployment, the growing income/wealth gap in American and much more, but this is enough for now.

The main question I kept asking myself was this: what does any of Pence’s partisan chest-thumping have to do with the mission of the Christian church?  I do know that there are SB pastor’s raising the same questions and objections within their denomination.  To them I say, don’t stop objecting. Insist that all South Baptist leaders and their churches prioritize the righteousness of the kingdom of God rather than Republican (or Democratic) politics.

(P.S. Excuse me for some shameless self-promotion, but I think I have written a good book about prioritizing the kingdom of God over and above all partisanship.  It’s called I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).

America’s Gun Idolatry and Fake Christianity #gunsinchurch #schoolshootings

Last week’s school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas brings the count to 22.  That’s right.  Five months into 2018 and there have already been 22 school shootings (slightly more than 1 mass shooting per week) in America.

Widen the circle beyond our schools and there have been 101 mass shootings in this country so far this year, leaving 202 dead and 473 injured (see MassShootingTracker).  And these figures do not include the many additional causes of gun injuries and deaths such as suicide, police shootings and accidents. According to the research organization Gun Violence Archive, there have been 22,257 gun related incidents in 2018, including 5,511 deaths and 10,071 injuries.  Those numbers include 1,000 teenagers, 238 preteen children and 646 accidental shootings.

Yet, many public officials continue to insist that guns have nothing to do with this problem.  In fact, as  they feed themselves at the NRA corruption-trough of gun manufacturer campaign contributions, discounts, pay-offs and lobbying efforts, these folks want us to believe that the solution to mass shootings and other gun deaths is to sell MORE guns to more people.

But this is not surprising.  It is exactly what I expect lobbyists for the arms industry to say. (See me earlier post on guns, shootings and the NRA here).

American politicians and makers of public policy love guns, and all the cash that comes with it, more than they care about Americans.  It is a pop culture form of idolatry.

In the March 14, 2018 edition of the Christian Century, Peter W. Marty penned an article entitled “Guns are Americans’ Golden Calf.”  Below is an excerpt:

President Trump and his son being introduced at this year’s NRA convention, 2018.

“We’re in golden calf country here, elevating a loyalty to the gun over a fidelity to God’s desire for abundant life. More than a hunting or safety device, the gun has become an object of reverence. We bow in devotion at its altar. ‘Sacred stuff resides in that wooden stock and blued steel,’ onetime NRA president Charlton Heston said. And when a gun becomes an idol, it demands loyalty even if it regularly disappoints. Like other small g gods that offer false consolation, a gun’s guarantee of ultimate safety and security is a myth.”

Unfortunately, people calling themselves Christians are no more immune to idolatry than anyone else.  If anything, church-goers have even more ways to express this human penchant for worshiping false gods than do atheists and other non-religious folk.  Believers have to navigate the many run-of-the-mill secular temptations to idolatry as well as the many corrupting excesses of religious practice and aberrations of faith.

Vice-President Mike Pence speaking at the recent NRA convention, 2018.

When those two streams of temptation flow together and succeed in sweeping the church away in its turbulent currents (always with a heavy undertow), well, the resulting idolatry is especially repugnant.

Idolatrous, Fake Christianity, Exhibit A – Recently a friend of mine showed me the notes of a church council meeting approving its newly minted plan for well-armed, congregational security guards at its corporate gatherings.  Church members were selected for the necessary training in order to become body guards for the Body of Christ.  Can there be such a thing as a body guard of Christ?  I don’t think so.

In how many different ways can you say apostasy?

Asking for church elders and deacons to arrive packing heat whenever the congregation gathers for corporate worship is one of the grossest expressions of anti-faith I can imagine.

Unless you are part of a church with an extremely high public profile for its incredibly effective, vocal, activist agitation uprooting America’s military-industrial-intelligence-surveillance-corporate media-war mongering empire, then arming your church members reflects an astonishing level of paranoia.

We are all more likely to be struck by lightning than we are to be shot in

This flier promises a free AR-15 giveway to people who attend the March 23 service at Grace Baptist on Fourth Avenue in Troy.

church by an anti-religious misanthrope – unless you are shot accidentally by one of the armed elders during an over wrought hymn-sing.

I know that the church’s leadership team will undoubtedly defend itself by

pleading marriage and parenthood.  That is, as leaders of their households, these men must remain vigilant in protecting their families against surprise attack in an increasingly violent America.

There is so much wrong with this picture that it would take a small book to address the overflow of theological, Biblical, pastoral and practical disasters revealed by any plan to arm the local church.  I will touch on 3 issues but focus on only the last one.

First, the ancient, Christian justification for using violence in self-defense  finds its roots in the Just War Tradition that arose after Christianity’s embrace by the Roman Empire.  I discuss the many Biblical mistakes committed by that tradition in chapter 9 (“Does Kingdom Service Permit Military Service?”) of my new book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America.  Please take a look.  You will find it as helpful as it is interesting.

I also encourage anyone interested in this topic to read John Howard Yoder’s classic little book, What Would You Do? If a Violent Person Threatened to Harm a Loved One….  A violent reaction to violent threats is the default position for fallen human nature.  Yoder will help you to think more clearly, more practically and more Christ-like about non-violent ways (and thus more Christ-like ways) of responding.

Second, one of my seminary professors, who was also the pastor of a large city church, would regularly complain about Christianity’s “idolatry of the nuclear family.”  Aided and abetted by popular ministries such as James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” and similar programs, many people in the church have replaced obedience to Jesus with obligations to one’s family.

We excel at finding seemingly unimpeachable, family-friendly ways of abandoning Jesus.  So we can conveniently ignore our Lord’s words when he says things like this:

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37-38)

 “If any man come to me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever does not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27)

Regardless of the details, Jesus’ central point is clear: disciples must have greater devotion to Jesus than to the dearest members of their families, including spouses and children.

The third and final point is intimately connected to the last one above. Faithfulness to Jesus requires every disciple to follow in his footsteps, including his submissive acceptance of suffering and death, for him/herself as well as others, including parents, spouses and children.

“Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:37)

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.” (Mark 8:34-35)

Hear it again.  Whoever wants to save his/her life will lose it, but whoever loses his/her life for me and for the gospel will save it.  Affluent Christianity’s obsession with self-preservation and the avoidance of suffering arises from a false gospel.  A ‘gospel’ that can never save anyone.

Carrying a gun into the body of Christ, for whatever reason, is a grotesque act of unbelief and idolatry. In fact, carrying a gun anywhere and thinking that you are ready, willing and able to use it against another human being, is the quintessential act of an anti-disciple.

Fortunately, Jesus still loves and can save even anti-disciples, just as he can save all of us faithless believers.  But relying on firearms to protect members of the body of Christ remains a consummate act of faithless unbelief, all the same.

Jesus models faithful kingdom living when he goes to the cross without attempting to defend himself.  He explicitly tells every would-be follower that we all must be as non-violent and ready to die as he was.

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.” (Mark 8:34-35)

Not only did Jesus not try to defend himself, neither did he defend his disciples, knowing full well that they too might be subject to arrest and execution as his co-conspirators. In fact, Jesus quickly put a stop to Peter’s misguided efforts at defending both the Lord and himself, insisting that he wanted nothing to do with violence for any reason at all (reflect on Matthew 26:51-56).

Jesus praises his followers when/if they are ever killed or injured as a result of belonging to him. He promises that they will be blessed many times over in eternity. What sort of Christian is hell-bent-for-leather on making sure that Jesus’ promises can never be fulfilled, not for them, not for others, and especially not for a spouse or child?

The Answer: a fake Christian. An idolatrous Christian. An anti-disciple who has bowed the knee to America’s Golden Calf of guns.

The Morning the Elders Walked Out on Me

It has happened to me before, but not by so many – and at both services!

I believe that every church elder in the first service, and several congregants and/or visitors in the second service, walked out at the midpoint of my message.

More than that, the elders called me into a meeting between services to tell me why they were so upset and to suggest changes to my next message.  I learned later that one elder wanted to stop me from speaking again altogether.

What did I say that was so upsetting?

No, I was not deconstructing the Trinity or denying Jesus’ incarnation.  Those might have been messages worth boycotting.

My message title was “Seeking God’s Kingdom First and Foremost.”  The Bible passage was basically the Sermon on the Mount, focusing especially on Matthew 6:33, “But seek God’s kingdom and God’s righteousness first, and all these others things (i.e. food and clothing) will be added to you.”

After surveying the specific kingdom righteousness insisted upon by Jesus (reread the Sermon on the Mount) – that is, mercy, peace-making, non-retaliation, non-violence, forgiveness, servanthood, etc. – I then turned to the question of practical application.

Specifically, how might the American church behave differently if everyone claiming to follow Jesus truly lived out Jesus’ command in Matthew 6:33?

What might it look like for our kingdom citizenship to trump (no pun intended, but what’s a writer to do?) our American citizenship?

How should Jesus’ kingdom righteousness over-rule popular views of American righteousness?

Then I got specific. I said, Let’s focus on the priority of being non-violent, merciful peacemakers living in American, the greatest purveyor of death, violence and destruction in the world today.  What should that do to us?  What should we be doing ourselves?

So, I offered a few examples, illustrated with readily available information that every American can look up for themselves.

  • The United States is the largest arms dealer in the world, selling almost half of the military weapons purchased by other developing countries.
  • The United States is arming and enabling Saudi Arabia’s assault on the people of Yemen, contributing to what is now the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.
  • Many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed directly or indirectly during our unending wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, many of whom have been innocent civilians blandly labeled “collateral damage.”

I then suggested that Christians ought to be appalled by America’s participation in such horrors. We can never endorse, much less support, such ruthless destruction.

In fact, as kingdom citizens who are also citizens of a supposed democracy, we should take advantage of the political means at our disposal to speak out, object and strive to change our nation’s addiction to bloodshed and warfare.

THAT is a part of what it means for disciples to be “salt and light in this world” (Matthew 5:11-16).

I then suggested a few practical, local avenues available to those who want to do something in a hands-on way.

Well, the exodus began well before I was even half-way through the statistics on American war-making.  The elders explained that they walked out because I had stopped talking about Jesus and instead “turned to politics.”  The Jesus part was great.  Then the politics ruined everything.

I was told that a church service ought to be a “safe place” for everyone.

Oh my.  Where to being?

My experience provides a text-book example of SO many of the things that have gone wrong with the American church.

  • Since when is worshiping the Holy One and hearing divine revelation supposed to make me always feel safe? Try telling that to Moses as he trembled before the burning bush (Exodus 3:1-6).
  • When honestly proclaimed, the gospel of Jesus Christ comforts the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable.  And the American church is filled with an abundance of oh-so-comfortable people. After all, that is the primary reason many attend church in the first place, to be comfortably confirmed in their comfort zones.
  • This nationalistic, play-it-safe attitude was exactly the mindset of the German Christian church in the 1930s and ‘40s, filled with Nazi sympathizers supporting Adolf Hitler. (See the discussion of this phenomenon in my new book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st-Century America). I suspect that these folks would have happily listened to politics had it been their brand of Christian nationalist politics. (Actually, I am still mystified as to why raw facts and figures are heard as bad politics…).
  • Recall that Jesus’ says, “Woe to you when everyone has only good things to say about you!” ( Luke 6:26).  In other words, the church is in big trouble if our mission is only to help people feel safe and secure.
  • This sad attitude is perhaps the most damning indication of the American captivity of the church, happily enslaved to US consumerism and the self-help gospel of wealth and success.
  • I strongly suspect that most of these folks are afflicted with consciences horribly numbed by Fox News idolatry. This network has been a scourge in our country and has almost single-handedly transformed historic conservatism (a respectable tradition) into an ungodly, mean-spirited, narrow-minded mob fueled by idolatrous, nationalistic propaganda. Honestly, any “Christian” who depends on Fox as his/her sole/primary source of news and political information ought to repent and be ashamed, be very ashamed.
  • The gospel has always been inherently political. This can only be avoided by truncating the truth. Politics concerns itself with a people’s governance, the management of public interaction/conversation and the exercise of state power. Once you acknowledge the universal sovereignty of the Lord Jesus, become a citizen of the global kingdom of God and submit yourself to Jesus’ instruction in kingdom ethics, it becomes impossible to avoid open confrontation with the public powers-that-be.  Especially when they demand an allegiance contrary to Christ’s rule.
  • Fortunately, the African-American church in this country has always understood this.  Predominantly white churches need to listen and learn from our black brothers and sisters in Christ. We have much to learn. And they have a wealth of experience to share.
  • The fact that these obvious conflicts of interests (and power) go unrecognized by so many (white) folks calling themselves Christians, and then cause such discomfort and bizarre behavior when discussed from the pulpit, illustrates the widespread, colossal failure of American church leaders to engage the gospel fully and to discuss the broad spectrum of its practical application in their teaching.
  • We need to change.

Alas, I could go on, but I will stop here…for now.

P.S.  I must add that after both services, I received much more positive feedback from people who understood the issues involved and were eager to follow Jesus obediently in this dimension of their lives, too.  All in all, it was an encouraging day that demonstrated the Holy Spirit’s work in a way that, I trust, is representative of the church at large.

Strengthening the Community of Kingdom Citizens, An Excerpt from My New Book

Here is an excerpt from my new book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st-Century America, pages 190-94. Consult the print edition to follow up on the notes.

Available from: Eerdmans or Barnes&Noble or Amazon

Strengthening the Community of Kingdom Citizens

My brief but significant experience of spontaneous community that hot Chicago night offers a good corollary to the central role that should be filled by the Christian church in the implementation of Jesus’s kingdom ethics in this world. As the community of flesh-and-blood citizens inhabiting God’s kingdom, the church is called to be the birthplace and the supportive family that assists faithful disciples in both the blessings and the risks awaiting anyone daring enough to obey Jesus’s upside-down model of loving God.

In fulfilling this mission, God’s kingdom community will be characterized by a number of essential features, none of which are electives from which we may pick and choose as we like. Rather, they are each defining traits that identify the church as church, as opposed to its being a curious religious/ social club. First, every kingdom community will be awash in biblical teaching that explains how Christ not only died for us but also how he lived for us in order to exemplify the way of salvation. A community of the redeemed will worship and adore the Lord Jesus for his gracious sacrifice, and it will exemplify his teaching and ministry throughout the regular affairs of daily life.

Consequently, the material contained in this book should not be unfamiliar to members of the body of Christ. On the contrary, all of these lessons should be old hat for anyone who regularly attends a Christian church, as familiar as a child’s nursery rhyme to even the youngest novice disciple. Wherever Jesus’s teaching is new or unfamiliar, remedial measures need to be vigorously implemented by church leaders, for the community obviously has not fulfilled its responsibilities. Anyone inclined to reject Jesus’s gospel lessons as objectionable or unrealistic requires mentoring by more mature disciples who can explain the importance of following Jesus faithfully from their own personal experience. As both Martin Luther and Søren Kierkegaard insisted, in this world the true church is always the church militant, never the church triumphant.

Whenever the church becomes a byword for prosperity, comfort, and success, or offers nothing more than a blasé ceremonial blessing draped over a safe, middle-class life proceeding without inconvenience or interruption, then the church has ceased to be the church. Those who refuse to embrace the difficulties of authentic discipleship need a good talking to, an occasion on which they are told, gently but firmly, that their behavior belies their confession. Jesus warned the boastful disciples who were seeking recognition for their gifts of prophecy and miracles:

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers.” (Matt. 7:21–23)

We dare not forget that the Father’s will, previously described by Jesus in Matthew 5–7, never says anything about working miracles, exorcisms, or delivering prophecies. Rather, true disciples reveal themselves as those who are poor in spirit (5:3), meek and merciful (5:4–7), behave as peacemakers (5:9), are persecuted for the sake of Jesus and his gospel (5:10–12), never carry grudges (5:21–26), always speak the truth and keep their word (5:33–37), love, serve, and pray for their enemies (5:28–48), share generously with anyone in need without ever demanding repayment (6:1–4), forgive all those who sin against them (6:14–15), and make faithful kingdom citizenship the number-one priority of life (6:33).

No one can follow the Lord Jesus by moving exclusively along broad, smooth, level, six-lane highways festooned with convenience stores, gas stations, restaurants, and health spas. Jesus warns us in advance that he rarely travels those routes. His preferred pathways are dusty, narrow, steep, rocky, inconvenient, lacking in amenities, and often dangerous. No one can complain that they weren’t warned. Jesus commands us to “enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matt. 7:13–14).

Serving among such faithful Christian communities entails the cultivation of a normative Christian self-understanding throughout the entire body of Christ that focuses on the ultimacy of life in the kingdom of God. The focal point of a disciple’s identity is life in Christ, not nationality, gender, sexual orientation, career, hobbies, levels of personal consumption, leisure-time pursuits or political activities. This self-understanding will express itself as community members (a) consistently think, believe, and behave according to the upside-down values of God’s kingdom; (b) remember that this world is not the believer’s true home, that we are only pilgrims here, strangers passing through a fallen world on our way to a perfected, eternal home; (c) learn not to value what the rest of this world values so that we remain free of its deceptive power—for us “to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21); (d) remember that we are always sinners saved by grace, even as we are being sanctified through experience. This means that following Jesus—at some level, in some way—will commonly run contrary to our natural inclinations. When my faith in Jesus never makes me the oddball in the board room, then I know that I have lost my way somewhere along the line.

Human nature, being what it is, will frenetically poke and prod each of us, looking for a way to turn this advice into the framework for a new game of spiritual one-upmanship. But kingdom communities will consciously foster an environment that rejects legalism and works-righteousness while making grace-filled obedience to a forgiving Savior central. We will bear each other’s burdens, rejoicing with those who rejoice and mourning with those who mourn (Rom. 12:15), not guffawing at those who bungle or turning green with envy at those who succeed. Richard Burridge makes an important observation in his book Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics, when he notes that, whereas Jesus’s ethical instruction is always rigorous and demanding, his actual treatment of repentant sinners, including his doubtful disciples who often fail him, is always gracious and forgiving.2 Anyone who genuinely wants to follow Jesus can always have another chance—another chance to do the hard things he tells us to do. Jesus is like the patient parent who anxiously anticipates the day when his child will walk all the way to school by herself; but as long as the child remains an infant, he lovingly cheers her on at every feeble act of faith, no matter how imperfect, one faltering step at a time. But he never excuses her from the task of walking.

Moments of fellowship and mutual support in such communities will extend well beyond the typical chitchat about ball games and vacation plans. It will include regular stories of how our friends have taken risks, suffered setbacks, and been shunned by others in their efforts to live for Jesus. The church community will be able to recite the details of miraculous interventions, dramatically transformed lives, amazing answers to prayer, and the refreshing presence of the Holy Spirit—all of which occurred because faithful brothers and sisters were serious about the risky business of following Jesus.

Conversely, there is no reason for God’s kingdom people to expect similar behavior from those living outside of the kingdom or to shun unbelievers for violating the norms of kingdom living. Unfortunately, this is an ancient confusion that many in the church perpetuate today. When the apostle Paul condemned sexual immorality within the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:1–5), he urged the community to discipline the guilty parties by banning them from the fellowship until they repented and changed their ways (vv. 2, 5, 11). Discipline was a tool for redemption. The church, however, grabbed the wrong end of the stick and mistakenly assumed that Paul’s admonition “not to associate with sexually immoral people” (v. 9) meant that they should not have any dealings with people outside of the Christian community. This is always the easier—and more self-righteous—decision to make. However, Paul offers a quick correction:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral. . . . In that case you would have to leave this world. . . . What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. (1 Cor. 9–13)

The church suffers from a massive delusion when its members think they are justified in refusing to do business with “sinners” outside of the community. Are we to assume that Paul, the tent-maker (Acts 18:3), never sold a tent to local shoppers in the marketplace because they, like everyone else in the ancient world, prayed to their household-ancestor deities before family meals?3 I doubt that very much. Consequently, Christians are not being persecuted when they suffer the legal consequences of such self-righteous discrimination against those unlike themselves. Whatever the penalties may be for this misguided misbehavior, none of it has anything to do with following Jesus of Nazareth, the man who feasted with sinners, tax-collectors, and prostitutes.

Finally, a community of kingdom citizens will work to break down the traditional, destructive liberal/conservative political dichotomies by doing evangelism an proclaiming historically orthodox theology while simultaneously encouraging widespread counter-cultural kingdom living and social activism among its members. The modern American evangelical church’s unhelpful identification of historic orthodox theology with conservative Republican politics, while it identifies and links liberal, unorthodox theology with progressive Democratic politics, has always been a poisonous misrepresentation that is damaging to both ends of the political spectrum. The kingdom of God can never be identified by way of anyone’s political Rorschach test, as though we can project a new tax policy or foreign affairs initiative on the screen and then discover God’s will in the fine details.4 Real disciples simply will not fit into anyone’s partisan mold because Jesus’s kingdom mindset is not of this world. I once told a colleague that he had given me one of the nicest compliments of my life when he said in exasperation that he could never predict where I would come down on a controversial social issue. I smiled and said, “Thank you. I hope that is because I am trying to think biblically, not politically.”

I am still trying.

The church must continually plug its ears to the numerous strategies that are offered for manipulating earthly power for kingdom purposes by grabbing the reins of government. The lie of that power is as old as the devil himself. Those who would co-opt the kingdom of God for their own partisan agendas need to listen again to Jesus’s rebuke when that very temptation was first offered to him in the wilderness: “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only’” (Matt. 4:10).

Admittedly, equally sincere disciples will not always agree on where the lines of kingdom faithfulness should be drawn. One of the intractable debates that divided the German Confessing Church in the days of the Third Reich was a stubborn disagreement over when resistance against the state was genuinely theological and confessional (and therefore justified) versus when resistance was merely political and not truly a result of faithfulness to the gospel (and therefore unjustified).5 As a result, the Confessing Church never extended its critique of the Nazi government beyond its interference in church affairs; and it never criticized Nazi foreign or domestic policy. For example, Confessing Church leaders such as Pastor Martin Niemöller never opposed the Nazi anti-Semitism laws because the enactment of those laws did not interfere with normal church life.6 After the war Niemöller confessed that his own anti-Semitism had blinded him to the demonic nature of the Nazi discrimination laws. Today it would be well worth the time for church members to prayerfully discuss—with Bible in hand and an unwavering focus on the personal character cultivated by kingdom citizenship—what the gospel’s implications are for a Christian’s response to the laws, policies, and actions of our own government. In how many ways has American Christianity been blinded to the right-minded implementation of God’s upside-down kingdom values because of our own cultural conditioning?7