A Blog from David Crump
For those of you who are interested in following up on my last post discussing the Christian church’s relationship to Pride Month, I promised you that I would add a link to my pastor’s Sunday morning message covering this topic.
You can find that link here. I hope you enjoy it and find yourself challenged and encouraged.
Gay pride month, with its rumblings over pronouns, sexual identity, and LGBTQIA issues, has stirred me to share a few of thoughts about the subtleties involved in these gender conversations which are generally overlooked by many of those who argue over them.
Christians are no exception to this generalization. In fact, we are often the worst at neglecting the relevant nuances when we ought to be the most sensitive to them. For these subtleties are uniquely Christian contributions to the public discussion about gay marriage and sexual-gender identities. If we don’t offer them up, it’s unlikely that anyone else will.
Shame on us for not being more biblically and theologically astute.
[By the way, my pastor recently gave an excellent message on these issues. Here is the link if you want to listen. The entire message is well worth your time, but his discussion of Pride Month begins at the 20:10 mark.]
First, Christians must remember that sexual identity does not entail (much less require) sexual activity.
The secular world jettisoned this fact long ago. Society assumes that whatever you “are” – gay, straight, bi, trans, what-have-you – you will be engaging in that particular “mode” of sexual activity. To be a sexual person means to be sexually active. It is both natural and inevitable.
Tragically, the Christian church has fallen into the trap of sharing this assumption, not only concerning those outside of the church but for those within it, as well.
We assume that a sexual-gender identity will always entail sexual activity. This is why straight men can become particularly cruel and heartless when discussing gay men. They imagine the sex acts involved and are often repulsed. That sense of revulsion is then sanctioned by the demeaning attitudes too often shared by fellow Christians. Thus, base cruelty, born of presumption and self-righteousness, becomes acceptable among the “godly.” This ought not to be.
The fact that the New Testament does, in fact, prohibit gay sexual activity is beside the point for now. As a Christian I understand that scripture only approves of sexual activity within the confines of marriage – that is, a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. All other sexual practices, whatever they may be, with whomever they may happen, fall under the condemnation of that old fashioned word fornication.
Fornication is an equal opportunity sin. It does not discriminate between straight, gay, bi, or what have you.
Anyone engaging in sexual activity with anyone other than his/her heterosexual spouse is guilty of sin. The intimate, mechanical details of this activity are irrelevant. No one needs to imagine anything. The only relevant question is this: is it marital sex (biblically defined) or fornication? It’s really that simple.
We also see this confusion arise when conservative Christians insist that “gay people cannot hold positions of church leadership.”
This simply is not true.
Nowhere does scripture condemn people for being born with gay or lesbian inclinations. Same-sex attraction is no more sinful than heterosexual attraction. The restrictive question is not one of attraction or inclination but of activity (real or imagined) with a particular partner.
Of course, gay people can serve as church leaders, provided that they remain celibate. Just as straight people can serve in church leadership, provided they remain celibate if single and faithfully monogamous if married.
The Christian church has an ancient, venerable tradition of life-long celibacy among its leaders, notwithstanding the horrific legacy of sexual abuse now on display within the Roman Catholic and many Protestant churches. Sin needs to be corrected, not awarded the power to scuttle right practices. Vows of celibacy are as old and as respectable as the apostle Paul.
Christians who automatically reject the idea of accepting gay Christians into leadership roles reveal that they too are making false assumptions. Remember, sexual natures do not require sexual activity. Celibacy is possible, especially when that leader is surrounded by an understanding, compassionate community of faith.
The second neglected subtlety concerns the place of sin, specifically our understanding of the Fall described in Genesis 3, within the workings of creation.
Only last night I listened to an interview with one of the leaders of America’s largest Protestant denomination. He was discussing the current controversies surrounding the “treatment” of childhood transgenderism. With great authority he declared that God had created only two genders/sexes: male and female. Thus, according to him, there could be no such thing as a genuinely transgendered human being.
You’ve probably heard this kind of thing before.
Unfortunately, this Christian leader (and all those like him) are wrong on both their theology and biology.
For starters, the creation story is followed by a sequel – the horrific story of the Fall in Genesis 3. Satan successfully tempts the first man and woman to disobey their Creator, thereby throwing a monkey wrench into God’s original design. Original sin is all pervasive, creating brokenness, rifts, splinters, and unintended consequences all throughout God’s creation. Things are no longer the way they were supposed to be.
Every Christian ought to understand this.
Furthermore, as a result of the Fall, even though God may have originally created only male and female, the monkey wrench of sin has complicated the gender mix considerably.
Now precious human beings who bear the Image of God can also be born as “intersex” individuals, possessing some combination of both male and female sexual organs. In fact, some medical professionals estimate that intersex births may be as high as 2% of annual birth rates. [I recommend watching the touching documentary Some Body to begin your introduction to this issue.]
Gender dysphoria – where a person is convinced that their true gender is inhabiting the wrong sort of body – is a genuine psychological condition, I believe. The monkey wrench of sin has damaged human psychology and genetics as well the human will and imagination.
Though I suspect that gender dysphoria is much rarer than many activists would have us believe, the Christian church must be a place where people struggling with this type of gender confusion can find God’s grace and compassion extended to them through a flesh and blood community.
To insist that God only created male and female is wrongheaded because it tells only half the story.
The second half of God’s story reminds us that nothing today is that neat and clean. For Satan then stepped into God’s creation to make a mess of things. And, with our help, he succeeded royally. Today’s church is called to deal graciously with that mess, the mess we call real life, where very few things, including sexual identities, are as neat and clean as we might like.
To retreat behind bad theology or poor Bible reading; to neglect important subtleties due to thoughtlessness; to make unwarranted or false assumptions about others; to compromise with the secular norms around us; or to forget that Jesus loves broken, hurting people – including you and me – is to fail in our responsibilities as God’s people.
The beauty of the gospel is that God’s grace through Jesus Christ is extended to everyone without discrimination, whether gay, straight, LGBTQIA, or something else altogether.
If you are a sinner like me, then Jesus loves you.
The church needs to become more informed, less reactionary, more biblical, less susceptible to following in the steps of society, and more exemplary of God’s Amazing Grace extended to all.
My pastor recently asked me if I had read Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press, 2022; 475 pages, $24.99). I assume that he asked because of my book, I Pledge Allegiance (Eerdmans, 2018), where I not only criticize all forms of nationalism but strongly condemn Christian nationalism, in particular.
Dr. Wolfe’s book was sitting untouched on my bookcase. So, I returned home from my conversation with my pastor determined to read a volume that seemed to be “making the rounds” in certain circles.
Sparked by the January 6th assault on the US Congress, decorated as it was with Christian imagery like a large wooden cross and handmade signs declaring “Jesus Saves,” there has been a recent flurry of books about Christian nationalism.
Some are for it. Some are against it.
Wolfe is very much in favor of overhauling America in order to make Christianity the national religion, the norm for public behavior and civic engagement, thus producing a thoroughly “Christian nation.”
Let me begin by putting my cards on the table: this book has so many serious problems, it made my head hurt to read more than short snippets at a time. A thorough review would require more space that I can give to it here, so I will focus my attention on Wolfe’s methodology and his consequent justification for viewing nationalism, especially Christian nationalism, as God’s plan for humanity.
A major part of the problem with The Case for Christian Nationalism arises from the fact that the author does not see its problems as a problem. In fact, he almost immediately dismisses any challenges to his approach as irrelevant or misplaced.
From the outset, Wolfe immunizes himself against any scripturally-based criticism by announcing that he “make(s) little effort to exegete biblical text (sic)” (16). Confessing that he is “neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar” with “no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation,” Wolfe instead is content to draw from the work of 16th and 17th century, “very Thomistic” Reformed scholars such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and the English Puritans, trusting that their theologies have already told us everything we need to know about the New Testament, Christian theology and their intersection with political theory.
Consequently, Wolfe’s method also excludes any engagement with alternative political theologies and traditions. He regularly refers to “the” (Reformed) Christian tradition as if alternatives such as the Anabaptist heritage, an important political/theological strain that differs radically from that of his Reformed icons, never existed. Thus, Wolfe not only immunizes himself against any biblical analysis but also from any divergent theological debate, as well.
It all makes for a safe way to write an extremely odd book.
Having established his presuppositional background, Wolfe then proceeds along the lines of natural theology, building on “a foundation of natural principles” (18); a predictably scholastic move. Finding natural, universal, theological principles in our world today means that Wolfe sees substantial lines of behavioral and structural continuity between the contemporary world of human affairs, on the one hand, and the human situation prior to Adam and Eve’s Fall into sin in Genesis 3, on the other.
Hypothesizing backwards, from the way things are today to the way things would have been had sin never entered creation, Wolfe constructs his own imaginary picture of human development. He fantasizes about human society dividing itself as different family groups migrated, separated, and moved apart from each other. Different linguistic dialects would have evolved, creating numerous, distinct communities increasingly distinguished from each other by geography, language, and cultural evolution.
“It follows,” Wolfe declares, “that Adam’s progeny would have formed many nations on earth, and thus the formation of nations is part of God’s design and intention for man (emphasis mine). . . the formation of nations is not a product of the fall; it is natural to man as man. . . The instinct to live within one’s ‘tribe’ or one’s own people is neither a product of the fall nor extinguished by grace; rather, it is natural and good” (22-23).
Notice how the imaginary elements of Wolfe’s theoretical, pre-Fall reconstruction are elevated to the status of God’s original design and intention for humanity. Tribalism is not an unfortunate expression of human divisiveness, antagonism, competition, or prejudice. Rather, it is “natural and good,” according to Wolfe. More on this in a moment.
This is a very old line of political argument following the dictates of natural theology. It is an important feature of the Dutch Kuyperian theological tradition that prevails, for instance, at Calvin University, the place where I used to teach. I have encountered it many times. But before we decide to join in with this Reformed theological mind-game, let’s be sure we understand the kind of game we are being asked to play.
For, remember, it is a fictitious game that makes up its own rules, leading to highly questionable results. Looking at “natural” human behavior today, Wolfe assumes a wide swath of unbroken continuity. He assumes that the contemporary modes of behavior we witness now would be equally natural and good for perfected humanity as originally designed by the Creator. In fact, it is the very behavior God originally intended! Thus, “the natural inclination to dwell among similar people is good and necessary (emphasis mine). Grace does not destroy or ‘critique’ it” (24).
In other words, God’s grace would never work to overcome segregation, the separation of the races, class divisions, or ethnic antagonism? Really? Wolfe can try to sugar-coat his whole-hearted embrace of divisive tribalism all he wants, but no amount of hemming or hawing will hide the fact that he offers a far-reaching theological hypothesis that opens a very wide door to the worst sorts of prejudice and discrimination.
Wolfe also leaves us wondering how he happens to know these things? He obviously assumes that we will share his faith in the power of fallen human reason rightly to discern the divinely ordained, robust continuity between the way things are and the way things would have been.
However, I, for one, cannot share his faith . . . or his naivete. For the fact is that Wolfe does not, because he cannot, know any of these things.
He is making it all up on the fly.
And he is making it up while perching precariously on two erroneous assumptions. We’ve touched on them already, but let’s make them explicit: one, he assumes that his fallen human mind can accurately discern God’s original intent for humanity by observing human behavior today; and two, he assumes that he does not need to read scripture for himself; the Reformed scholastics have already done all the necessary work for him.
Of course, this is all standard fare for those who embrace natural theology and theological scholasticism. It also illustrates why I have always rejected both.
Now, let’s try a different thought experiment – and unlike Wolfe, I will not posit any divine authority or normativity to my “mind game.” I offer it merely as a hypothetical alternative scenario.
Let’s dial down the continuity switch on our imaginary thought experiment and turn up the discontinuity dial as we compare the way things are today with respect to the way things might have been before sin entered the world.
Perhaps human beings would have recognized that they were inextricably bound together by the image of God, the distinguishing component of humanity which they all held in common. Perhaps, they would have invested deliberate energy – or perhaps it would have come naturally without any special effort at all – in maintaining loving, hospitable connections, no matter how widely their different family groups ranged across the planet. Maybe they would have wanted to maintain their common language in order to secure tight lines of communication, mutual understanding and trust, no matter the physical distance between them. New discoveries and developments would be shared so that everyone enjoyed the benefits equally, and no one could slip into isolation. As a result, nationalism would never develop. In fact, it would be antithetical to the Creator’s intentions.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
There are no logical or theological reasons to prefer Wolfe’s reconstruction over mine. On the contrary, I would argue that the biblical doctrine of original sin demands a much greater emphasis on behavioral discontinuity than Wolfe’s reconstruction allows.
More than that, aside from the fact that I would prefer to live in my pre-Fall creation than in his, Wolfe’s reconstruction (for biblical reasons that Wolfe prefers to ignore and that I cannot go into here) strikes me as the least likely of all pre-Fall worlds. I cannot help but conclude that Wolfe employs natural theology to sanctify human sinfulness when he should be using biblical theology to critique our sinfulness while holding out the ideals of God’s redemption.
The fact that The Case for Christian Nationalism contains chapters that seriously defend both the “great man” theory of government (chapter seven) – what he calls “a measured and theocratic Caesarism” – and the legitimacy of violent revolution (chapter eight) provides further evidence of how far astray a rationalistic, naturalistic theology can wander when it deliberately severs itself from biblical constraints.
The many Anabaptist martyrs who died at the hands of Reformed, theocratic Caesars shout a loud, uniform condemnation of Wolfe’s brand of theocratic nationalism. It should never be resurrected.
And I pray that God, and liberal democracy, will save us from all those, like Dr. Wolfe, who disagree.
Are American church/state relations in 2022 comparable to German church/state relations in 1933 when the Nazi party began its rise to power?
Eric Metaxas thinks so, and he wants to warn the American church of the existential threat it now faces.
Metaxas’ new book, Letter to the American Church (Salem, 2022; 139 pp., $22.99), begins by declaring that “the parallels [in the American church] to where the German Church was in the 1930s are unavoidable and grim” (ix). These “parallels” are most clearly seen as the evangelical church remains silent in the face of America’s own Nazi-like atrocities.
America’s atrocious sins, which are allowed to flourish in the face of evangelical silence, are comparable to Nazi preparations for the Holocaust. These sins are listed as abortion, globalism, Critical Race Theory, transgenderism, creeping communism, and the state-directed church closures ordered during the covid-19 pandemic, all of which express an “atheistic Marxist ideology” otherwise known as cultural Marxism (xii, xiii, 13-15, 91).
The only solution to society’s slide into increasing moral chaos, according to Metaxas, is for a new crop of Dietrich Bonhoeffer-like church leaders to rise up and protest – violently, if need be (more on this below) – against the country’s drift toward cultural oblivion. Metaxas’ biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer figures as the major source for this book’s political arguments, despite the very negative reviews Metaxas’ biography received from Bonhoeffer specialists. (see here, here, and here).
According to Metaxas, Bonhoeffer described a three-point solution to both Germany’s and America’s problems in his essay, “The Church and the Jewish Question.” They are [1] as the conscience of the state, the church must loudly protest against government wrong-doing; [2] the church must assist the victims of immoral state policies; and [3] if the state refuses to change its course, then the church must embrace political activism, shoving “a stick in the spokes” of the “rumbling machine of the state” (39).
The body of Letter to the American Church excoriates evangelical leaders for withdrawing from their obligation to agitate for public morality and, instead, cocooning themselves in an exclusive focus on evangelism. Metaxas’ attacks against “the idol of evangelism” (75-85) provide an important reminder (very positively, in my view) of the inherently offensive nature of the gospel and how easy it is for preachers to avoid difficult subjects like sin and judgment in order not to “offend” their listeners.
Unfortunately, Metaxas conflates his (a) justified critique of timid preachers who knowingly compromise the gospel message with (b) a highly dubious attack against evangelical leaders who will not rally their congregations to become outspoken, right-wing, Republican political agitators. Aside from Metaxas’ remarkable blindness to his own political, as opposed to truly Christian, partisanship, his apparent ignorance of American church history is surprising.
I can only assume that in wanting to write “a book for the moment,” Metaxas has restricted the horizons of his historical interest to the rise of Donald Trump and events subsequent to the 2016 presidential election. His complaints about evangelicalism’s political lethargy not only ignore the long, activist history of the Religious Right – a movement that finally threw its weight behind Trump’s campaign and carried him to victory – but seems to know nothing about the long history of evangelical activism in progressive politics, represented by people like Jim Wallis and the Sojourners’ community.
But then, Metaxas suggests that all Christians with a progressive political bent have been deceived by Satan, so their activism only contributes to the cultural Marxist dangers threatening America.
Metaxas also appears to be unaware of the wide stream of American dispensational evangelicalism-fundamentalism, going back at least to the early nineteenth century, that actively discourages Christians against political activism. Shunning politics hardly originated with those contemporary pastors now intent on putting out the fires of political divisiveness consuming their congregations.
But Metaxas is clearly in favor of churches dividing over partisan politics. In an obvious reference to MAGA-enamored churchgoers leaving congregations where their politics are not sufficiently affirmed, Metaxas says, “Many Christians are abandoning such churches for the few that are alive to the situation, where the pastors are less timid about saying what needs to be said” (36).
Certainly, the most disturbing aspect of Metaxas’ book is its subtle yet clear justification of violence for political ends. The argument is carefully, if subtly, constructed.
First, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is Metaxas’ model of Christian virtue not only because he openly criticized the Nazi regime – along with many others; Bonhoeffer was not alone in doing this – but because Bonhoeffer participated in a plot to assassinate Hitler. It is Bonhoeffer’s willingness to embrace violence as a political weapon, the very definition of terrorism, that makes Bonhoeffer a hero to Metaxas. And this is the exemplary aspect of Bonhoeffer’s life that Metaxas clearly wants his readers to emulate, for “Bonhoeffer understood that to eschew violence whenever possible did not mean that it was always possible” (109).
Though he never says it explicitly, the unavoidable implication of Metaxas’ argument, from beginning to end, is that faithful Christians will do whatever it takes to change society and move it in the right-wing direction of Metaxas’ preferred political agenda. This includes resorting to violence, if need be.
Metaxas lays the “biblical” groundwork for his call to violence-when-necessary with several specious arguments.
He begins by describing his Manichean view of the world. Everything is black or white. Anyone who dissents from his verdict on the evils destroying American society is categorized as “demonic,” a tool of Satan (96, 101, 113-114, 117). The American culture wars are a fight of good against evil, of divine forces against demonic opponents. As Metaxas draws up the battlefield, people like Jim Wallis (a Christian active in progressive politics) and Andy Stanley (a pastor combatting political division within his church) are on the Devil’s team.
Furthermore, Metaxas seems convinced that if society is in decline, then it must be the church’s fault. A faithful, protesting, politically active church would presumably carry the day and turn the tide of spreading immorality.
Metaxas anticipates the inevitable objections to his promotion of political violence by distorting the biblical view of God with his own (ironic!) version of “cheap grace,” the very problem Bonhoeffer famously attributed to the German church under Hitler.
According to Metaxas, God is not looking for believers who concern themselves with purity. Rather, God is seeking courageous, even reckless devotees who are willing to risk incurring guilt as they sin on God’s behalf. This component of Metaxas’ argument is so shocking that a few quotations are warranted to make the point:
Page 110 – To love unreservedly – which is God’s call to us – is to risk everything, our lives and our reputations. Bonhoeffer’s view of God’s real grace made it possible for him to trust Him completely. As long as he earnestly desired to do God’s will and acted from that motive, he knew the God of the Bible would see his heart and grant him grace, if it happened that he had erred.
Page 118 – (Bonhoeffer understood that) God was calling His people to something far above merely avoiding sins and keeping their noses clean. . . Being a Christian is not about avoiding sin, but about passionately and courageously serving God.
Page 120-21 – God is not a moralistic fussbudget or nitpicking God who is lying in wait. When we tell a lie for a larger good, He does not swoop in and say “Aha!” and condemn us. If we know who God truly is, we know that He is not against us, but for us. He is not Satan the accuser, looking for what sins He can find to condemn us. He is the gracious and loving God who sent His own Son to die so that we could be forgiven and saved. And when He sees us act in a way that is not calculated to protect ourselves but that is rather magnanimous and self-sacrificing for the sake of another, He rejoices.
In any other context, Metaxas’ words might sound innocent enough. But tied as they are to Bonhoeffer’s willingness to commit murder, Metaxas’ urgings for courageous Christians to behave radically, even to the point of knowingly engaging in sin, take on an ominous significance.
Since Bonhoeffer believed that God would forgive his role in Hitler’s attempted murder, Christians today should also understand that God will forgive them for whatever violent acts they commit in their “godly” efforts to redeem our society.
There is much more to criticize in Metaxas’ new book, but these are the most salient problems, in my view. I am sure that Metaxas would insist that I am wrong when I accuse him of fomenting political violence. He has constructed his book in such a way as to provide himself with “plausible deniability.”
But in today’s world, more specifically, in today’s America, my mind is not the only one that will read Metaxas’ book as a call-to-arms with a get-out-of-jail-free card neatly included.
So, beware the author who tells his readers that political violence can be the answer, describing it as a courageous act of the truly spiritual person who will be forgiven by God.
My friend Dr. Rob Dalrymple writes a blog at Pathos.com. He also hosts the DetermineTruth podcast.
I encourage you to subscribe to both of them!
Rob recently wrote a blog post about the Focus on the Family initiative encouraging students to bring their own Bibles to school. Below is a short segment from the Christian Broadcasting Network explaining this nation-wide action.
Rob has given me permission to reproduce his blog post here at HumanityRenewed. Like Rob, I am also skeptical about the motives, the wisdom, and the possible consequences of this Focus on the Family endeavor.
No neither Rob nor I are anti- Bible reading!
But we are anti-. . . well, read the post below to discover what we are concerned about. . .
Rob’s blog post follows immediately after this 3:33 CBN explanatory video:
Bring your Bible to School Day: Maybe Not Such a Good Idea
On the positive side
I suspect that bringing a Bible to school and having it out so that others might see it—which I suppose is the point of “bring your Bible to school day”—might well provide an opportunity for conversations.
Others might ask, “what is that?”; or “what church do you go to?”; “why do you read that?” Such opportunities to have a conversation about the Bible, Jesus, or the kingdom of God is awesome.
I imagine that there are many Christian students who want to have conversations with others but they do not know how to go about it. There is likely a measure of fear—which is quite understandable. Starting a conversation about Jesus is not easy.
This may well be one of the primary benefits of encouraging students to bring their Bibles to school. Namely, it gives students an opportunity to overcome their fears and express their faith.
(I suspect that a “Bring your Bibles to work campaign” might have the same level of consternation among adults). In fact, why don’t they start a “bring your Bible to work day” also?
This campaign, then, may well help in the spiritual maturation of students.
In addition, I am sure that one student’s courage to bring their Bible to school might also encourage others to do the same.
On the neutral side
Shouldn’t we bring our Bibles every day?
As I watched and read through some of the promo materials for this event, I was a bit surprised that this was being billed as a 1-day a year event.
If, after all, the Bible is central to the Christian life—and I definitely believe that it is—then shouldn’t we always have a Bible at school/work? Shouldn’t every day be “bring your Bible to school/work” day?
Now, I suppose a valid response to this query might well be that we would love to have our students bring a Bible every day, but in order to do so, we must get them to do it one day first.
And this is fine, but maybe the campaign should be: “starting on Oct 6 we are encouraging students to bring their Bibles to school every day”? Or perhaps, “bring your Bible every Thursday”?
Don’t most kids use their phones these days?
Also, do kids even have Bibles? I mean actual, physical, paper Bibles.
I am sure they know that there are plenty of good Bible Apps available for download. And I bet they would prefer using them instead of carrying a Bible.
Now, although it may be more conspicuous, a conversation could still arise from someone coming up to a student, who is reading their Bible on their phone, and asking “hey, what ya reading?”
This approach, in fact, might even be more effective.
After all, not only does reading the Bible on your phone still present an opportunity for a conversation, it may be less likely to turn people away. What I mean is this: I suspect that many students will not engage a student if they see them reading a Bible.
But, if a student has the Bible on their phone, no one knows what they are reading until they ask.
On the flip side
Although I would affirm that the idea for the campaign is fine, I am actually quite concerned for a number of reasons.
NB: I am not saying that I would not encourage students to read their Bible while at school. I am just not sure that this campaign is the right way to do it.
Lack of emphasis on discipleship
For one, I saw nothing in the promotional materials for this campaign that stressed the fact that proclaiming the Gospel is something that we do with our lives.
Sure the presence of a Bible might alert someone else that you profess to believe in the Bible. But I would hope that we don’t need to bring a Bible to alert others that we profess to believe in the Bible.
How so?
For one, we must understand that there is no inherent human right that demands that all persons should be allowed to “bring their Bibles to school.” It may well be a legal right of all Americans. But it is not a legal right in other countries. And I don’t suppose that we should be kicking down the doors of the UN demanding that Christian students in N Korea be permitted to bring their Bibles to school.
In addition, I suspect that many of the same proponents of the “Bring your Bible to School day” campaign would be outraged if a similar campaign to “Bring your Quran to School day” was endorsed by the Islamic community in the US.
After all, if bringing your Bible to school is an inherent right, then is it not also a right for Muslims to bring their Quran to school? If we say “yes” to the former and “no” to the latter, then we are espousing Christian nationalism.
This campaign also demonstrates a lack of awareness of the global church.
One website asserted that it was important to bring your Bible to school because “we should not be ‘undercover’ Christians.” The article went on to claim that “Jesus says to us in the book of Matthew to shine your light, don’t hide [it] under a bowl.”
Now, this might seem like a good response, but it both radically distorts the meaning of Jesus’ words and it shows no awareness of what life is like for millions of Christians around the world—let alone in the history of the church.
To claim that we must bring a Bible to school, work, or any other public setting because Jesus commanded us to let our light shine and not to hide it is an affront to millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world who will be imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for doing so.
Sure bringing a Bible to school in America may well be a means of bearing witness to Christ. But in some countries of the world may well be the means of assuring your death.
Sure the idea behind this day sounds great. And I would encourage students to do so. I would not encourage them to do so, however, without discipling them. Without encouraging them to have a love for others that is modeled on Jesus’ love for us. At the end of the day, I cannot endorse this campaign because it is lacking with regard to a proper focus on discipleship and, more importantly, it is shrouded in the garb of Christian nationalism.
NB: I must say that I chuckled when I saw that the promotional materials made sure to include homeschooled students in the message: #noneleftbehind. I know that we don’t want to leave kids out, but it just seems unnecessary for kids to bring their Bibles to the table so mom may know that they are Christians.
The following excerpt is from a fascinating book titled Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism, by George L. Mosse (University of Wisconsin, 1978, 2020).
Mosse traces the various currents of cultural, social, and political European history that eventually culminated in the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi party, and the Holocaust.
The most interesting element in Mosse’s analysis, to my mind anyway, is the fact that none of these factors had anything to do with Christian theology or the Christian church.
Yes, many self-professed “Christians” and church leaders participated in the rise of anti-Jewish racism throughout post-Enlightenment Europe, but their arguments for eliminating the Jews had nothing to do with religion.
However, that does not mean they were not racists; many continued to despise the Jews.
The medieval Christian, anti-Jewish tropes and accusations were nowhere to be found in the new brand of post-Enlightenment, secular racism that was forged in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries throughout Europe.
I have a lot more to say about this, but I am still doing my research. Maybe I will post more about this in the future.
In any case, here is the excerpt from Mosse followed by a few of my observations for today’s church. When Mosse refers to “racism” he is thinking about all forms of racial prejudice and discrimination. Antisemitism is only one possible example of such racism. (All emphasis is mine):
Racism had no founding father, and that was one of its strengths. It made alliance with all those virtues that the modern age praised so much. Racism picked out such qualities as cleanliness, honesty, moral earnestness, hard work, and family life – virtues which during the nineteenth century came to symbolize the ideals of the middle class. . . Racism was associated with these virtues rather than with any single philosopher or social theorist of importance. . . Racism was not merely one form of social Darwinism, but instead, a scavenger ideology, which annexed the virtues, morals, and respectability of the age to its stereotypes and attributed them to the inherent qualities of a superior race.
If racism annexed the virtues of the age, it also condemned as degenerate all that was opposed to such respectability. Not to exemplify the ideal-type of
“clean-cut American” or “right-living Englishman” was a sign of an inferior race. Though racism was often vague, it clearly embraced all the values of middle-class respectability and claimed to be their defender. To be sure, few people at first went along with such a claim; to the vast majority of Europeans, it sufficed to be a Christian gentleman. But even here racism so infected Christianity that, in the end, no real battle between racism and Christianity ever took place. Both supported the same middle-class virtues and saw the enemy in the same nonconformists – be they Bohemians, Freemasons, or Jews. The support racism gave to ideals which were opposed to a threatened degeneracy was in practice more important than any differences between racism and Christianity.
. . . The perimeters of racial thought are as elusive and slippery as the ideology as a whole. And yet, for all that, the myth was transformed into reality, not just during the Holocaust and the camps, but whenever ordinary people made judgments upon others based upon the implications of the racial stereotype.
The Holocaust has passed. The history of racism which we have told has helped to explain the Final Solution. But racism itself has survived. As many people as ever before think in racial categories. There is nothing provisional about the lasting world of stereotypes. That is the legacy of racism everywhere. . . Blacks on the whole remained locked into the same racial posture which never varied much from the eighteenth century to our time. Practically all blacks had been outside Hitler’s reach; consequently, there was no rude awakening from the racial dream in their regard. Moreover, nations which had fought against National Socialism continued to accept black racial inferiority for many years. . . (They) did not seem to realize that all racism, whether aimed at blacks or Jews, was cut of the same cloth. (209-211).
********
The intense, perennial pressures of cultural conformity are no more “provisional” today than are the ever-present stereotypes of racial prejudice. Yep, we got 21st century racists, too. Many of them within the Christian church.
Pressures for conformity continue to press against God’s people now just as they did in Nazi Germany and medieval Europe. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Sadly, the Christian church – but especially its more conservative membership. . . can you spell MAGA? – is always inclined to endorse the cultural, social status quo, even if our preferred status quo is defined by a sub-culture.
Today’s (sub-)cultural norms are always more popular than Jesus.
For instance, studies consistently reveal that evangelical Christians share the same political priorities, endorse the same social, cultural agendas, and vote for the same political candidates as their non-Christian, non-church going neighbors – wherever they happen to live.
Is this an accident?
The evangelical wing of the Christian church fought against racial integration and condemned the civil rights movement as loudly and vociferously as did the worst racist politicians in the deep South. Men like governors Lester Maddox and George Wallace armed themselves with long, wooden ax handles while blocking the doorways to keep black students out of white, public schools.
And, yes, the southern, conservative church applauded both Maddox and Wallace and their violent racism.
Similar instincts are at play today when Christians join in the condemnation of Critical Race Theory, while not having the slightest inkling of what CRT really is.
What other sorts of violence, racism, bigotry, and close-mindedness are evangelicals, who claim the name of Jesus, following after today?
Pay attention to how closely “acceptable” church leadership conforms itself to the standard, middle-class, cultural virtues of the friendly, well-dressed, patriotic American. How much of this social conformity is the fruit of genuine Christian discipleship, following hard after Jesus, and how much of it is merely the required uniform expected of us by the world at large?
Neither the dangers of racism, in all of its various shades, nor the moral compromises on display when the Christian church surrenders itself to cultural conformity have changed all that much over time.
The pressure to conform never goes away.
The crucial question is: to whom or to what are we conforming? Middle-class values? Or Jesus of Nazareth?
I came across this very odd video clip recently filmed at a 7 Mountains of Influence conference. (I don’t know where or when). If you have never heard of this movement before, check out these websites (here, here, here).
The 7 mountains folks are part of what is called the “dominionist”
movement with the (primarily Pentecostal-fundamentalist) wing of the Christian church. They mistakenly imagine that the kingdom of God is expanded as Christians gain power and influence in worldly affairs, e.g., the 7 mountains of influence.
My book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans, 2018) demonstrates just how misguided and destructive is this way of thinking.
If you haven’t read my book yet, you really should.
Below is a segment filmed at a 7 Mountains conference. It includes something I can only describe as a “Christian Nationalist Pledge of Allegiance.”
I won’t apologize for saying that its identification of God’s kingdom with the United States is pure blasphemy.
Not only is this public exercise extremely bizarre, it breaks my heart to see how easily these false leaders (who call themselves “apostles”!) mislead large segments of the church into false teaching.
If you know anyone who is involved with this blasphemous malarky, please point out the error of their ways.
The video title, “Christofascists Want to Overthrow U.S. Democracy to Install a Theocracy,” is an accurate description of this movement’s objectives.
Also, forgive the host’s profanity. I can’t blame him for being shocked. But, really, profanity is not an inappropriate response to the 8 and 1/2 minutes of collective profanity spewed throughout the auditorium on screen.
Focus on the segment beginning at the 5:30 minute mark continuing through to 14:00.
Obviously, this post is spurred by the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade and the many conversations now occurring state-to-state about local abortion laws.
The premise of the anti-abortion (I refuse to use the term pro-life, since it is highly misleading) movement has always been the claim that “life begins at conception.” A secondary entailment of that assumption is the definition of “life” as the existence of a human person.
Let me begin by putting my cards on the table: I used to espouse this view myself. In the past, I have led protesters in prayer near an abortion clinic. But no more. Over the years, I have undergone a slow transformation.
Nowadays, I believe that only God knows when another “life” (see above) begins inside a woman’s body. Pinpointing this arrival of new life into the world is beyond human comprehension.
However, having said this, I also recognize two things. First, I recognize that opposition to abortion has been unanimous throughout Church history, going back as far as the earliest Christian Church fathers (among those who left written records). However, granting this fact still does not answer the question of when life begins.
For instance, some Jewish literature indicates that life was not thought to begin until the mother could feel movement inside of her body. So, terminating a pregnancy prior to that experience would not necessarily be considered abortion by all.
Second, understanding that the fertilization of a woman’s egg (both the egg and sperm are called a “gamete”) begins a process resulting in the creation and eventual delivery, assuming no interference, of a human baby. Whether or not we can say with certainty when life begins does not change the fact that pregnancy is a process that eventually produces a new life.
Thus, it only makes sense that abortion should be avoided as much as possible – yep, I am no longer an absolutist on this point, as I will explain below – as dictated by whatever reasonable concerns are raised by a pregnant woman’s circumstances.
Yes, I know that “reasonable concerns” is a subjective constraint, but it is not my goal in this post to explore that problem. I will only say that the current story of the pregnant 10-year-old Ohio girl, raped and impregnated by her father, raises more than enough “reasonable concern” to justify an abortion, in my mind.
Sadly, Ohio state law is now denying her that humane solution – yes, humane solution – to her tragic plight. That strikes me as terribly wrong.
Rather, in this post I want to explore the inconsistencies that I see in the conservative, anti-abortion position. Inconsistencies which suggest to me either that few conservatives actually believe what they claim to believe, OR they are ignorant, and therefore should remove themselves from this debate about the details of conception, contraception, and pregnancy.
Let’s first remind ourselves of the physiological details that everyone in this debate ought to understand…despite the fact that many, obviously, don’t.
Here is a simplified version:
When the female gamete, the egg, is penetrated by a male gamete, a sperm, fertilization occurs and produces a zygote. Remember that, according to conservative, anti-abortion advocates, this is when life begins, “at the moment of conception.” So, a zygote is a living person, according to this view. No, don’t try to quibble over this. A zygote is either “alive” or it’s not. And we are only talking about one kind of life: a human life.
After about five days of cell division, the zygote becomes a blastocyst.
The zygote or blastocyst continues to travel down the woman’s fallopian tube (coming from the ovary) towards the uterus and takes between four to ten days on average before implanting into the uterine wall.
But not every fertilized egg/zygote makes it to implantation. Implantation seems to be the moment when the blastocyst officially becomes an embryo. The embryonic period lasts for eight to nine weeks. At week nine or ten the embryo becomes a fetus.
The transition from a dependent fetus to an independent baby, capable of living outside the mother’s body, remains a matter of debate, partly contingent on the expanding capabilities of medical technology.
Sometimes the zygote implants inside the fallopian tube creating what is called an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous for the mother and are typically terminated (aborted, according to conservatives?) either naturally, chemically, or surgically.
Do you know of a woman, anti-abortion activist who terminated her ectopic pregnancy? I’d love to hear answers to my following questions.
Depending on what study you read, somewhere between 40% to 70% of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus but are “flushed” from the woman’s body along with her menstrual fluids. In other words, IF life does begin at conception/fertilization, as anti-abortion activists insist, then either God or nature, whichever you prefer, is the greatest abortionist of them all.
More than that, if anti-abortion activists were serious about this belief, then why are these abundant “natural abortions” not being memorialized? Does anyone do this? Please tell me if you know.
Wouldn’t it make sense, both logically and morally, that every woman, anti-abortion activist – at least those who are still menstruating and capable of becoming pregnant – who believes that life begins at conception, ought to collect her monthly menstrual fluid in a bag for burial?
I am serious and not in any way trying to be flippant. That may sound foolish, but why? Does anyone do this? I really want to know. And if not, why not?
If you truly believe that life begins at fertilization, then it only makes sense, and conforms to the moral imperatives of honoring all life, to see those 40% to 70% of fertilized but unimplanted zygotes as “preborn babies” (to use the manipulative, propagandistic lingo deployed by certain activists).
In which case, every one of them deserves a decent burial with a headstone. Right? And, if not, why not? Please explain this to me and help me to understand. I have never heard of anyone doing this. Why?
This brings us to the question of miscarriages.
I am well aware of how extremely traumatic a miscarriage can be for everyone involved. In no way am I trying to be cavalier or callous. Nevertheless, we all must take the full implications of our moral positions with all seriousness.
If life begins at conception, then every miscarriage is a naturally occurring abortion which ends the life of a pre-born baby. This must be true at whatever stage in pregnancy the miscarriage occurs.
Obviously, this conviction is at the heart of what makes the experience of a miscarriage so very, very heartbreaking for those women who experience one.
So, let’s think this through together.
How many anti-abortion advocates who experience a miscarriage insist that the remains of their miscarriage be buried with a funeral and a headstone?
Perhaps some people do this. I don’t know? Do you know of any? I am asking questions for the purposes of logical and moral consistency. I would love to hear some answers from my readers.
In any case, miscarried fetal tissue is the remnant testifying to a human death, if human life does begin at fertilization. In which case, it is deserving of a memorial. How many conservative Christians name their miscarried fetuses and visit their graves?
Perhaps some do, which is wonderful. At least, they are showing real moral consistency.
Naturally, these questions also apply to those state legislatures that are talking about criminalizing the morning after pill, which chemically prevents the zygote from implanting into the uterus. Perhaps these activist legislators argue that this type of “abortion” is not a natural occurrence, so it is different from the 40% to 70% of fertilized eggs that are flushed naturally with a woman’s menstrual fluid.
But anyone making that argument is also underlining the importance of memorializing and properly burying those “flushed” zygotes…on a monthly basis. How many of these legislators do this themselves? I suspect the answer is, none.
But, why not? And, if they don’t do this, then aren’t they being hypocrites by criminalizing the morning after pill? I’d say they were.
The only logical response I can see to any of my questions is to say that “the degree” of life involved in these different events varies according to the developmental stage of the effected zygote, embryo, or fetus. So that, even though “life” begins at conception, certain stages of that “life” can legitimately be terminated, whether by nature or by human intervention, without the need for memorializing, burial, naming, or celebrating because they are “less alive” than they would be at other stages.
But if this is the case, then we have all agreed to the existence of those subjective matters regarding the “reasonable concerns” that make some abortions acceptable, depending on the mother’s circumstances (see above). Yet, these are the very concerns over a woman or a girl’s well-being that the average anti-abortion activist refuses to recognize.
This, my friends, is a major problem in this position, as I see it.
Christians need to think clearly and consistently, especially when the lives and future prospects of young girls and women are all at stake.
We need to follow the moral implications of our beliefs and behaviors all the way through to the very end, consistently, without fudging for personal preference.
Furthermore, we have no business applying moral directives to other people’s lives when we are not following those directives ourselves.
Personally, I don’t see any of these matters being taken seriously by the Religious Right; at least, not in the public conversation.
That’s a big problem for the anti-abortion movement.
As the January 6 congressional investigative committee takes a break, lets
remind ourselves about the role Christian Nationalism played, and continues to play, in stirring political violence and rebellion in this country.
“Christian Nationalism” is an ideology promoting the belief that the USA is a “Christian nation,” “God’s very own country” in fact, now being used by God to spread his divine gifts of salvation, liberty, democracy, and capitalism to the rest of the world.
According to Christian nationalists, America is unlike any other nation in the world because it occupies a unique place in God’s heart. America is a “chosen nation.” If you look for this message in the parades and other official events celebrating Independence Day, you can’t miss it.
Below is an excerpt from an article in Religion News Service titled “How Christian nationalism paved the way for Jan. 6” written by Jack Jenkins. He disects the influence of Christian nationalism in the revolt of January 6:
WASHINGTON (RNS) — On June 1, 2020, then-President Donald Trump marched across Lafayette Square outside the White House, trailed by an anxious-looking team of advisers and military aides. The group shuffled past detritus left by racial justice protesters after a frantic mass expulsion executed by police minutes prior with clubs, pepper balls and tear gas.
The dignitaries stopped in front of St. John’s Church, where presidents, including Trump, have traditionally attended services on their Inauguration Day. St. John’s, which had suffered a minor fire the day before, was closed. But Trump took up a position in front of its sign and turned toward the cameras, a Bible held aloft.
“We have the greatest country in the world,” Trump said. In the distance, sirens wailed.
Washington’s Episcopal bishop, whose diocese includes St. John’s, condemned
Trump’s stunt, saying it left her “horrified.” But White House chief of staff Mark Meadows declared he was “never prouder” of the president than in that moment, calling it a rejection of “the degradation of our heritage or the burning of churches.” Trump’s evangelical Christian advisers were similarly effusive, lauding the photo op as “important” and “absolutely correct.”
In retrospect, the “symbolic” message of Trump’s Bible photo op, as he termed it, operates as a bookend to the Christian nationalism on display at the attack on the U.S. Capitol seven months later. It communicated, however histrionically, that the president was leading an existential fight against politically liberal foes calling for a racial reckoning, but at the center of which was an attack on Christian faith. From that moment on, Christian nationalism — in the broadest sense, a belief that Christianity is integral to America as a nation and should remain as such — provided a theological framework for the effort to deny Democrats the White House.
As Trump’s poll numbers dipped the same month as the photo op, his campaign redoubled efforts to stir up support among his conservative Christian supporters. Then-Vice President Mike Pence embarked on a “Faith in America” tour, while Trump conducted interviews with conservative Christian outlets and held rallies at white evangelical churches.
Referring to “American patriots,” Trump told rallygoers at Dream City Church in Phoenix: “We don’t back down from left-wing bullies. And the only authority we worship is our God.”
In August at the Republican National Convention, Trump described early American heroes as people who “knew that our country is blessed by God and has a special purpose in this world.” Pence, in his speech, adapted Christian Scripture by swapping out references to Jesus with patriotic platitudes.
Despite then-candidate Joe Biden’s public discussion of his Catholic faith, and the overt religiosity of the Democratic National Convention, Donald Trump Jr. told the GOP crowd that “People of faith are under attack” in the United States, pointing to restrictions on large gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yet it was Trump’s religious supporters who did the attacking the final night of
the RNC. After leaving the convention’s fireworks-filled celebration at the White House, conservative Christian commentator and Trump loyalist Eric Metaxas was filmed punching an anti-Trump protester off his bike and fleeing into the night, only admitting to the assault days later in an email to Religion Unplugged.
After Trump lost the election in November, a report from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Freedom From Religion Foundation concluded that Christian nationalism, also referred to as white Christian nationalism, was used to “bolster, justify and intensify the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” according to BJC’s Amanda Tyler.
RELATED: New report details the influence of Christian nationalism on the insurrection
In the days after the vote, Florida pastor Paula White, leader of the White House faith office, preached a sermon from her home church in which she called on “angels” from Africa and other nations to assist in overturning the election results. The next night, insisting she was only addressing “spiritual” matters, White vacillated between the ethereal and the electoral: She entreated the Almighty to “keep the feet of POTUS in his purpose and in his position” and decry any “fraud” or “demonic agenda” that “has been released over this election.”
You can read the entire article here.
Though I can’t agree with his theology, I can’t help but have the deepest admiration for Dr. Cornel West. He was denied tenure at Harvard because of his outspoken defense of the Palestinian people suffering under Israeli apartheid.
In this clip from Middle East Eye, he explain the complicity of US media in covering up Israeli war crimes.
