Tag: American Christianity

How Christian nationalism paved the way for Jan. 6

As the January 6 congressional investigative committee takes a break, lets

MAGA Jesus. Photo by Tyler Merbler, via Flickr.

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

“Jericho March” participants march around the U.S. Capitol, Tuesday Jan. 5, 2021, in Washington. RNS photo by Jack Jenkins

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.

Prof. Cornel West Explains the Complicity of American Media in Israeli War Crimes

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celestine Chaney

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

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

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

Ruth Whitfield

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

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

Roberta Drury

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

Heyward Patterson

this issue hidden beneath their tight fitting neocon helmet.

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

Aaron Salter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geraldine Talley

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

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

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

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

Pearl Young

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

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

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

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

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

It’s just that simple.

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

Thanks for sticking with me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These two objectives are very, very different.

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

**********

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

Dwight L. Moody

evangelist Billy Graham throughout the English-speaking world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what?

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

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

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

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

“False Presence of the Kingdom”, by Jacques Ellul

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

Jacques Ellul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The Presence of the Kingdom” by Jacques Ellul

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

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

Jacques Ellul (1912 – 1994)

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

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

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

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

I hope you will be challenged too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, What About the Children?

The title to this post, But What About the Children, was a common catch phrase on the long-running Simpson’s cartoon on the Fox network.

Whenever the Simpsons’ neighborhood seemed poised to confront a new, intrusive cultural challenge, the local pastor’s wife could be counted on loudly to lament, “But what about the children?”, giving parody to conservative Christianity’s ostensible concern for the health and well-being of America’s young people.

Monday’s leaked draft of an (apparently?) imminent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade is now fueling cries of jubilation among the evangelical community that has fought for decades to rid this country of abortion and the tearful tearing of garments among abortion’s distraught defenders.

Even though I am against abortion per se, I am also disturbed at what the social consequences will be if/when access to abortion becomes more restricted. (I also understand that nothing is certain about these things, and the aftermath will be complex and undoubtedly surprising. See the Constitutional, civil rights attorney, Glenn Greenwald’s helpful discussion of these Constitutional issues here.)

Daniel K. Williams fine book, The Politics of the Cross: A Christian Alternative to Partisanship (Eerdmans, 2021), contains a very helpful analysis of abortion in the United States, the evangelical battle against Roe v. Wade, and what should be the Christian church’s response to the issue’s complexities.

[I encourage you to buy the book and read especially chapter three – I do not agree with everything he says, especially in his chapter on marriage and sexuality. I am also shocked that Stanley Hauerwas does not appear in his bibliography! But overall, Williams provides the most balanced discussion of hot button social issues I have yet found written by an evangelical Christian.]

Here are a few short excerpts from The Politics of the Cross (all emphasis mine):

But what most people involved in the abortion debate seem not to realize is that we have largely returned to a pre-Roe past even without a direct repeal of Roe. The number of abortions per year in the United States is now lower than in any year since 1973 [the year of the Roe v. Wade ruling]. . .The number of abortion clinics has fallen by about two-thirds during the past twenty-five years. There are now more than three times as many pro-life crisis pregnancy centers as there are abortion clinics [in this country]. (103)

The primary explanation given by women as to why they want an abortion is that they are too poor to successfully raise another child:

[Pro-lifers are right] in that restricting access to abortion. . . does reduce abortion rates. . . But pro-choice advocates are also right in saying that this method of reducing abortion rates is likely to keep more women in poverty. This suggests that if pro-lifers really care about protecting all human life, including the life of low-income pregnant women, they will not merely try to rescind Roe v. Wade but will instead couple their restrictions on abortion with expanded efforts to provide economic resources to the women whose poverty has been exacerbated by an additional pregnancy. (104).

Fifty-nine percent of women who have abortions are already mothers. . .75 percent of the women having abortions are impoverished or classified as “low income.” (105)

My conscience is deeply troubled by the close connection between abortion rates and poverty in this country.

The majority of women seeking an abortion in this country are moved by, not just a sense of hopelessness, but by the hopeless reality of their desperately impoverished lives. They have no hope that their new baby will have any chance whatsoever at a decent, safe, healthy future in America.

My conscience becomes even more deeply troubled when I remember that the number of Americans now falling into poverty has only continued to grow over the past thirty years.

When this fact is combined with the steady, draconian reduction of family, social services (both public and private) available to poor people today, my blood curdles and I begin to drift slowly in the forbidden direction of supporting Roe v. Wade.

Excuse me, but I find the conservative hypocrisy on this issue stunning.

For if we want to be genuinely pro-life, then we will not only care about reducing abortion, but we will care equally about providing universal health care, especially for mothers and their children, free neo-natal health care, free well-baby home visits, free classes in nutrition and infant care, free pre-school and Head Start programs, especially in poor neighborhoods.

Earlier this year politicians in D.C. fought tooth and nail over the “social welfare” provisions included in president Biden’s Covid Relief bill, ensuring that those aspects of the bill were whittled down to a mere shadow of their original goals.

Both Republicans and corporate Democrats – which is all Democratic Senators and the majority of Representatives – waved the red flag of “increasing the national debt” and “bankrupting our grandchildren!” So, the bill was raped and pillaged until it became a mere skeleton of its original version.

Yet, last week the president asked Congress to approve $33 billion for a new round of military support and arms purchases for Ukraine and our NATO allies.

I have no doubt that the same Senators and Representatives who were previously losing sleep over the nightmare of America’s poor and needy bankrupting the nation, will now happily sign their names to another $33 billion in armament to fight Russia!

Once again, as always, America has deep, deep pockets for war, but instantly becomes penniless and unconcerned when faced with her own impoverished mothers and children.

Every decision is made within a bigger context. Nothing is isolated. Nothing is pristine. Everything is connected.

The way in which those connections influence my actions will always reveal the truth about my moral priorities.

This constellation of recent, national actions concerning Covid Relief, the Supreme Court, poverty levels, and military appropriations lead me to one, inevitable conclusion: American conservatives are no more “pro-life” than the Roadrunner or Bugs Bunny. They are pro-a-particularly-sick-and-twisted-conservative-political-economic-ideology.

I am telling you here and now, Jesus of Nazareth has never been a member of that club. And neither should you.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

But are they? Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it does set us on the right path.

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

It does make us real Christians, not fakes.

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

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

What Would Jesus Say to a Football Coach Who Goes to Court Over His “Right” to Kneel in Prayer on the Fifty Yard Line?

I suspect that my readers are familiar with the Supreme Court case brought by football coach Joseph Kennedy of Bremerton, WA.

He was suspended from his job in 2015 for refusing to abide by the school’s  request that he stop kneeling in prayer on the football field during games.

After all, he insists, it is his right under America’s religious liberty provisions to pray in public whenever he wishes.

But quite apart from whether or not Mr. Kennedy has a legal right to behave this way, what does Jesus say about such public displays of prayer?

Especially as Kennedy’s actions become another salvo in this country’s culture wars?

Well, Jesus has already told us. His opinion about such public displays is clear:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:5-8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This too is a part of American history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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