Tag: Christianity and Politics

Collaborator Christianity, Yesterday and Today

Fox News recently interviewed Robert Jeffress, one of president Trump’s spiritual advisors, about his upcoming prayer at Monday’s opening of the new American embassy in Jerusalem. Pastor Jeffress was as giddy as a school girl who had just been asked out on her first date.

Listen to the interview below:

As a dyed-in-the-wool Dispensationalist, he naturally piled a heavy load of theological freight onto America’s endorsement of Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel.  First, this is evidence of God’s providential hand in history.  Second, it confirms that Israel’s creation in the 1948-49 war was God’s own doing.  Third, it establishes that, for the past 3,000 years, Jerusalem has always been Israel’s capital city.  Fourth, it also “blows apart the myth that the Jews stole this land from the Palestinians 70 years ago.”

Anyone who understands the basics of logical argument, or is capable of simple clear-headedness, will easily see through the foolishness (not to mention the immorality) of Jeffress’s claims.  They are a tangle of irrational statements called non sequiturs and petitio principii – which are just fancy ways of saying that Jeffress isn’t talking sense.  (Where in the world did he get his doctorate?)

Either his conclusions have no relationship to the preceding argument (non sequiturs) or he simply assumes the truth of what he says and repeats it as an “obvious” conclusion (petitio principii).  Clearly, such muddle-headedness doesn’t bother Donald Trump or Jeffress’s congregation in Dallas, Texas.

Massacre of Palestinians at Deir Yassin by Israeli forces

There is, however, a more important issue that disturbs me a great deal.  It is the blatant immorality embedded in statement #4 above.  That is, I am deeply offended by Jeffress’s pompous, ignorant dismissal of Palestinian suffering over the past 70 years.

Palestinian refugees fleeing to Jordan, 1948

Jeffress’s attitude – in fact, the common-place attitude of all American Christian Zionists – is an example of what I call Collaborator Christianity.

Collaborator Christianity talks the talk of Christian faith, but its attention has moved away from Jesus to be refocused onto the idolatrous image of nationalistic patriotism.  Collaborator Christianity rewrites the good news of Jesus Christ in order to elevate a gospel of ethnic exceptionalism where God’s hand is best seen in the victorious elevation of a master race, class, or people group.

Christian history is copiously smeared with ugly, “I-can’t-believe-it” eras of Collaborator Christianity. For only a few examples, think of:

The Crusades when popes and bishops blessed Christian armies in their hellacious mission to slaughter Muslims (and any Jews who got in their way).

Circa 1520, The Spanish Inquisition at work on suspected Protestants and insincere Christians in a torture chamber. All their gruesome work was carried out in the name of Christianity; note the altar and officiating monks on the right. (Photo by Three Lions/Getty Images)

The Inquisition when church officials tortured innocent men and women with sublimely obscene creativity and then executed them simply because they had expressed themselves in ways that fell outside of the cultural norms.

Depiction of Spanish atrocities committed in the conquest of Cuba in Las Casas’s “Brevisima relación de la destrucción de las Indias”.

The Conquistadors when Spanish galleons, loaded with soldiers, horses, weapons and priests, landed in the new world searching for riches, territorial expansion made more palatable by its pretense of missionary work.  Typically, the “men of God” were more than happy to help enslave the natives or to bless the impending genocide should the subhuman pagans prove uncooperative.

The German Christian Church which eagerly applauded Adolf Hitler as God’s anointed leader, sent to restore the fortunes of a German empire, ready, willing and able to fulfill its mission as God’s chosen nation.

Western Christian Zionism which sees God’s own hand in Israel’s brutal, war-time creation of nearly 750,000 Palestinian refugees in 1948-49 and 1967.  Christian Zionism typically assumes that Israel can do no wrong, while Palestinians remain genetically predisposed to terrorism.

Christian Zionists contribute tens of millions of dollars to Israel, funding immigration, new (illegal) settlements and other forms of expansionism (for examples see here, here, here and here).  Whereas, the Palestinian Christian church is ignored or slandered as historically unorthodox.

As Palestinians, the Christian population suffers the same injustices as their Muslim neighbors, oppressed by the same military occupation. Yet, the average evangelical tourist finds more excitement in visiting an Israeli synagogue than in searching out and worshiping with Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ.

Over the past six weeks, somewhere between 40 to 60 unarmed protesters have been shot and killed in Gaza, while 4,000 to 6,000 have been seriously injured (most due to Israeli gun fire) in the weekly Land Day marches. There has not been a single, serious injury, much less a fatality, on the Israeli side of the fence!

Yet, Robert Jeffress (and others like him) has the audacity publicly to betray the Lord Jesus – the Lord who told us to love our enemies and to situate ourselves among the poor and the refugees – by ignoring the vast levels of Palestinian suffering created by his beloved nation, Israel, while enjoying lavish, sumptuous diplomatic dinner parties at Jerusalem’s new American embassy.

We are surrounded on all sides by outrageous demonstrations of Collaborator Christianity.  Tragically, twenty-first century America is not unique.  The human penchant for depravity, both within and without the church, is never ending, and it knows no historic, national, religious, cultural or ethnic boundaries.

Brothers and sisters —

Remember the Crusades.

Remember the Inquisition.

Remember the German Christian Church.

Remember American evangelicalism’s ignorant indifference to Palestinian suffering as their pastors bow and scrape, offering sacrifices of money and adulation before the idols of Israeli political Zionism.

When Christian Leaders Become False Prophets #courtevangelicals

Whenever I take long-distance road trips by myself, I tend to dial in Christian radio.  Not because I enjoy it, mind you.  I don’t.  Not by a long shot.

Rather, I use my driving time as an experiment in American religious ethnography — that is, the study of religious customs and culture.  (I readily confess. I am an academic nerd of the first order).

I am always struck by both the growing number of right-wing talk shows and news broadcasts, together with the complete absence of anything resembling progressive, liberal or even moderate news reporting.

A few years ago I mentioned to a close friend that whenever the United States finally crosses the line and slips into a dictatorial, fascist state, our new American Fuehrer will have a large network of ready-made news media at his disposal, naturally complimenting the already servile corporate, mainstream news.

That fascist, propaganda outlet will be Christian radio, together with Christian television and online media.

I am no prophet, but my cynical musings continue to take shape. (Read this fascinating Politico article, “Church of the Donald: Never mind Fox. Trump’s most reliable media mouthpiece is now Christian TV”).

A few days ago, John Fea’s very fine blog, The Way of Improvement Leads Home, pointed out the development of Robert Jeffress’s “Path to Victory” website, which gives a good deal of attention to his many appearances on Fox News.

Jeffress is president Trump’s so-called “spiritual adviser” who, like many evangelicals today, has tragically confused the kingdom of God with partisan politics.  This confusion is a cancer that has spread all throughout American evangelicalism.  Sorting through this confusion is the primary motivation behind my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America.

Jeffress has the gall to describe his  website as “a brand new ministry platform.”  Whatever it may be, however, it is not Christian ministry.  It reminds me, rather, of the false priests and prophets (who seem always to be in the majority, both in ancient Israel and in America today) condemned by the prophet Jeremiah.

“From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain…They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious.  ‘Peace, peace they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No. They have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush.” (Jeremiah 6:13-15; also 8:10-12)

Again, I cannot help but recall the many ways that this very same confusion once worked to extinguish genuine Christian witness in Nazi Germany.

No, Trump is not Hitler.  But history does repeat itself.  Trump has successfully normalized abominable, inhumane, ignorant behavior, ideas and policies in our public discourse.

Men like Robert Jeffress are normalizing the betrayal of gospel truth for 30 silver pieces of glad-handing, White House receptions, photo ops and D.C.  gossip about the many ways in which evangelicals continue to serve as the best useful idiots inside the beltway.

A Review of Scot McKnight’s Kingdom Conspiracy

I recently read Scot McKnight’s very fine book, Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church (Brazos, 2014), in which he discusses the New Testament’s presentation of the kingdom of God and its relevance for the church today.  In doing this, McKnight provides an especially important description of the missionary dimension of God’s kingdom.

McKnight argues, correctly in my view, that “kingdom work” (as many are prone to say nowadays) is always centered within the Christian church.  Then, from within the body of Christ, kingdom ministry radiates outward into the surrounding society and the rest of the world (see especially chapter 7, “Kingdom Mission is Church Mission”).

But, he warns, if Christian social activism is not an extension of the local church’s gospel teaching, fellowship, ministry and shared experience, then it is not kingdom work.  It may be laudable social and political work, but it has nothing to do with the kingdom of God.  “This means all true kingdom mission is church mission” (96).

McKnight’s church-centered understanding of God’s kingdom is pivotal to his argument.  On this point, Prof. McKnight and I are in agreement.

But McKnight’s laser-like focus on the local church also accounts for the book’s central mistake.  For he defines the kingdom and the church as synonymous with each other.  The kingdom of God IS the church, and the church IS the kingdom of God. (Beginning with chapter 5, “Kingdom is People” and passim).

This is where Prof. McKnight and I must part company.

Anyone who has read my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st-Century America, will observe the similarity between McKnight’s emphasis on the missional dimension of God’s kingdom and my own.  But my readers will also recall my insistence that the church is best understood as the citizenry of God’s kingdom, not the kingdom itself.

 

It is unfortunate that Prof. McKnight’s concern for tightening the connection between church and kingdom leads him to such an extreme. I say “unfortunate” because I don’t believe that he is any more comfortable with his identification of church with kingdom than I am.

There are numerous places throughout Kingdom Conspiracy where McKnight slips alternative definitions into the mix without acknowledging that he has just changed the terms of his discussion.  In other words, he masks the limitations of his explicit definition of kingdom by implicitly expanding that definition when his argument demands it.

For example, he sometimes notes that a kingdom “implies a king, a rule, a people, a land, and a law” (76, 159, 205).  So, the kingdom is not synonymous with people alone, after all.  It is more complex.

He also teasingly refers to “the important overlap of kingdom and church” (95), without noting that an overlap is not the same as an identity.  We are left with a suggestion that God’s kingdom overlaps with something more than people.

At one point, he resorts to the very language that he had previously criticized and rejected, referring to “the kingdom as the realm of redemption” (114).  Elsewhere he repeats that the word kingdom asserts “God’s dynamic rule” (126), the more widely held view that I endorse.

McKnight also notes that God’s kingdom brings redemption, and this redemption is “cosmic” in scope (151-52, 156, 159); that is, it includes a great deal in addition to human beings.  The kingdom of God also involves Christ’s subjugation of “principalities and powers” as well as the imminent redemption of all creation.

Finally, Prof. McKnight frequently lapses into my preferred terminology:  Christians are described as the citizens of God’s kingdom (75, 76, 99, 111, 155, 157, 164, 207).  Which, in my view, is the proper way to explain the New Testament’s perspective on God’s kingdom rule and its relationship to the people of God.

Think for a moment of what it means to live in the United States.  We the people are not synonymous with all that is America.  We are citizens of this country, but the people and the nation are not identical or coextensive.  America is as much (if not more) an idea; an idea about liberty with a specific history; a projection of power and influence as much as it is a particular population.

McKnight is forced into using this rhetorical sleight of hand because his preferred definition, identifying the kingdom exclusively with the church, simply does not comport with the full spectrum of Biblical evidence.

Am I quibbling over a minor issue?  I don’t think so.

Both Prof. McKnight and I would agree that it is important to understand the answers to Biblical questions accurately.  Thus, it is also important to understand that God’s kingdom rule is not confined only to the church.

God’s reign is working its way throughout all of history, although we may not always be able to explain exactly where and how that is happening. God’s ways are rarely self-evident.  Although church work certainly lies at the heart of kingdom work, for redeeming sinful folks like us is at the heart of Jesus’ mission, God’s kingdom is much bigger than any of us.

God rules victoriously and will one day be glorified, not only by the church, but by angels, demons, principalities, powers, and all things above the earth and below.  These spiritual powers now tremble at the knowledge of their ultimate defeat.

The kingdom of God is our heavenly Father’s redemptive reign, His saving sovereignty, now being established over all creation.  Believers are privileged to become citizens of that victorious kingdom, but our citizenship is evidence and a partial product (central and vital, but not the whole) of Christ’s reign.

I suspect that the heavenly host of innumerable cherubim and seraphim, the legions of fallen angels, as well as the new heavens and the new earth, including the redeemed supernovae, unseen galaxies, black holes and dark matter will one day loudly object to the ecclesiastical hubris which suggests that God’s kingdom involves only the church.

FADA Will Legalize Religiously-Based Bigotry

22 Republican senators (including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Orrin Hatch), led by Mike Lee (R-Utah), are trying for a 3rd time to shepherd the “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA) through Congress.

Using the 1st amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion, FADA would codify legal discrimination against members of the LGBT community, as well as anyone having sex outside of marriage.

It is an “anti-discrimination” law that would legalize discrimination.

The bill’s language is classically Orwellian.  It states that FADA will “ensure that the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action” against those who excuse their own discriminatory actions as a requirement of their religious faith.

In other words, under the guise of “protecting opponents of same-sex marriage,” FADA will legalize discrimination against LGBT people, including heterosexuals guilty of fornication.

There are so many things wrong with this effort, both in its motivation and execution, it is hard to know where to begin.

Not too many years ago, identical “religious liberty” arguments were the foundation stones supporting racist Jim Crow laws throughout this country.  Business owners could legally refuse service to black people and get away with it, because their discrimination expressed a “deeply held” religious conviction.

The passage of time has not improved the fatally flawed logic behind FADA.  Nor has it sweetened the discriminatory stench clinging to its proponents.

Neither can it hide the blatant avarice lying at the root of this legislation.  For it is largely motivated by the love of money.

Reading the bill reveals that, without exception, every example of potential, government “discriminatory action” – the threats to religious freedom that FADA aims to defend against – concerns maintaining an organization’s tax exempt status or other government financial benefits.

In other words, the goal of FADA is to ensure that no one will lose their religiously-based tax breaks, while exercising their right to indulge in religiously-based discrimination.

What hypocrites religious people can be, especially when fighting to protect the preferential status granted by a government tax exemption.

Such people, who insist on defending their place at the public trough, should be expected to keep the same public rules as everyone else.  If they don’t like it, there is a simple solution:  surrender your tax exemption.

Furthermore, the renewed push for FADA is another example of the Religious Right’s persistent lust for social and political power.  It is a quest for control.  Not simply to have a place in the public square, but to control access to the public square.

It is another chapter in the Right’s continuing desire for a new age of Christendom.  In Christendom, the Christian church holds sway over who is in, who is out, and who plays by which rules.  As expressed by FADA, Christians would implement a bizarre misapplication of church discipline to those living outside the church. (I know, my theological slip is showing.  I do believe that the ancient, and entirely Biblical, prohibition against same-sex intimacy is correct and remains legitimate.)

Granted, the courts will continue to have difficult debates on the legal status of the numerous, and highly variable, religious freedom claims brought before them.  But there is no Biblical foundation to the claim being made by certain Christians that faith in Jesus requires them to have no business dealings with LGBT people.

That is a self-righteous distortion of Christian witness.

The apostle Paul confronted this very misapplication of church discipline in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.  Some members of the church misunderstood Paul’s earlier warning to remain separate from “sexually immoral people.” They mistook him to mean that they couldn’t do business or associate with people outside the church who lived at variance with Paul’s ethical teaching.

However, every Greco-Roman city in Paul’s day was filled with people living any number of alternative, “immoral” lifestyles (as defined by Christian teaching). It was virtually impossible to conduct any type of successful business, including Paul’s own ventures as a traveling tent-maker, without striking deals with such “immoral” customers.

Here is Paul’s correction to the Corinthian mistake:

I did not mean for you to stop associating with the people of this world who are immoral…In that case you would have to leave this world…What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.

Only a racist, discriminatory, judgmental religion fears compromising its moral values by allowing the faithful to rub shoulders and do business with those unlike themselves.

The 1st amendment already protects that sort of religious bigotry.  There is no law against being a religious white supremacist.  But neither should there be a law guaranteeing the tax-exempt status of religious bigots who trample on the laws protecting equal access to the public square for everyone else.

The Morning the Elders Walked Out on Me

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

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

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

What did I say that was so upsetting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my.  Where to being?

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

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

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

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

Sojourners’ “Reclaiming Jesus” and the Sin of Selective Outrage

Jim Wallis and the Sojourners team recently convened a group of Christian leaders at a private retreat in order to pray, lament the state of American politics, and compose a declaration entitled “Reclaiming Jesus: A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis.”  The statement’s opening paragraph reads:

We are living through perilous and polarizing times as a nation, with a dangerous crisis of moral and political leadership at the highest levels of our government and in our churches. We believe the soul of the nation and the integrity of faith are now at stake. It is time to be followers of Jesus before anything else—nationality, political party, race, ethnicity, gender, geography—our identity in Christ precedes every other identity. We pray that our nation will see Jesus’ words in us. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

Although I agree with 90% of this statement’s agenda, I am afraid I would not be able to sign it (not that I have been asked) because I believe that it contributes to the very polarization it seeks to condemn.

I, too, am outraged at the conduct and the policies of our current presidential administration, but my outrage did not begin with Trump’s election.  Neither has my personal lament been confined to protesting only Republican administrations.

In this respect, the Sojourners statement is no different from the boiler plate criticisms of religious and political progressives made by the religious right.

Where was Sojourners’ outspoken “concern for the soul of our nation” when President Obama embraced and expanded the many violations of American civil liberties begun under President Bush?

They were mute, along with the rest of the Democratic Party establishment.

They were silent as Obama prosecuted more journalists and whistle-blowers under the Espionage Act of 1917 than all previous presidents combined (here, here, and here).

They were silent when Obama misled us about extending the practice of warrantless surveillance.

They remained silent when Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act enshrining the outrageous practice of “indefinite detention” of American citizens.

They were silent when we catastrophically overthrew the Libyan government, leaving it the failed state of a suffering people that is now free to entertain open-air slave markets.

Where was Sojourners’ call for national repentance when President Obama lied to the American people about the large number of civilian casualties from American drone strikes?

Did they condemn the president as he simply redefined an “enemy combatant” to be any “military aged male” killed by a US drone?  No, they did not.

But, Abracadabra! In a wondrous act of political smoke and mirrors, Obama’s drones suddenly became modern marvels of military accuracy, rarely killing any civilians at all!  (See this report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, or this Atlantic article on how Obama paved the way for Trump’s policies today, or this Reprieve report on Obama’s lies).

Where was the collective lament over Obama’s weekly staff meetings where he gathered military advisers to ruminate over his secret “kill list” – a list that included American citizens! – selecting whom they would assassinate next – all free of any public trial, defense, or offering of inculpatory evidence.

No.  I am sorry, but this call for “Reclaiming Jesus” is a statement of religious hypocrisy writ large.

Followers of Jesus who truly understand that their citizenship in the kingdom of God always takes precedence over every political, partisan or national allegiance, will never limit their prophetic critique to only one political party and its representatives.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is an equal opportunity offender.

The Sojourner’s statement can only become acceptable if its authors:

  1. Confess their sin of selective outrage, acknowledging that their silence during the Obama years helped to enable the evil committed under that Democratic administration.
  2. Admit that their own political partisanship has crippled their ability to speak and to be heard today as true, unbiased witnesses to the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God.
  3. Determine that “Reclaiming Jesus” is only the first in a series of non-partisan statements that will seek to hold every administration, every political party, and every elected official to identical standards of public righteousness, according to our best understanding of Jesus’ kingdom ethics.

Gerson (1) vs. McKnight (0)

Michael Gerson, a Wheaton College graduate and former speech-writer for President George W. Bush, has written a very good article in The Atlantic magazine (April 28th issue) entitled “The Last Temptation.”

Gerson offers a valuable critique of both (1) the damaging Faustian bargain American evangelicals have made with the Republican party, and (2) the (now forgotten) history of 19th century evangelical social/justice activism.

Gerson laments the ephemeral, and largely reactionary, nature of evangelical social action today.  He says, rightly I think, that “[evangelicalism] lacks a model or ideal of political engagement—an organizing theory of social action…[in contrast to Roman Catholicism which] developed a coherent, comprehensive tradition of social and political reflection.”

Curiously, Scott McKnight responded to Gerson with a critical post at his blog Jesus Creed. The post is called “What Gerson Got Seriously Wrong.” McKnight begins by calling Gerson’s arguments “belabored” and “tired.”  But he takes particular offense at Gerson’s comparison of evangelical and Catholic understandings of social activism.  McKnight insists that evangelicals indeed DO have “an organizing theory of social action.” It can be found in the writings of Francis Schaeffer, who was embodying the political theology of Dutch theologian/politician, Abraham Kuyper.

But Gerson is right and McKnight is mistaken.

Let me note a few points:

First, McKnight’s arguments strike me as an odd example of straining at gnats – and bogus gnats, at that – while swallowing camels.  He focuses on a small part of Gerson’s critique while ignoring the greater substance of his article. Why the lucid restatement of a case that begs for frequent repetition should be called belabored and tired, is beyond me.

Second, McKnight’s reference to Kuyper and his American, evangelical

legacy actually underscores the oddity of McKnight’s defensiveness.

To begin with, Kuyper’s name and legacy is not widely known throughout American evangelicalism.  In fact, McKnight covertly admits as much himself.  For Kuyper’s programmatic book, _Lectures on Calvinism_, was not the book being assigned as required reading for Wheaton students when Gerson was there.  Rather, the assigned text was Niebuhr’s _Christ and Culture_.

The reason for this was simple. Kuyper’s work had minimal influence in this country beyond the Dutch Reformed church.

For McKnight to lift up Francis Schaeffer as the emissary of Kuyper’s social/political theology – a system that does indeed offer a positive alternative to the reactionary, negative politics practiced by evangelicals today – is simply not true.

Francis Schaeffer was the faithful disciple of Cornelius Van Til, not Abraham Kuyper.  Van Til is best remembered for his presuppositional epistemology.  Van Til insisted that, since Christians and non-Christians do not share the same presuppositions about life, it is impossible for us all to share in the same goals.   Schaeffer’s oppositional, us/them mentality bleeds through almost every page of his writings.

Actually, Schaeffer’s main contribution to evangelical political engagement was his laser-like focus on opposing abortion.

And, in my opinion, Gerson is absolutely correct when he includes evangelical anti-abortion folks – Schaeffer’s activist children and grandchildren – as among the most reactionary, negative, self-pitying Christian forces today.  It was Francis Schaeffer, not Abraham Kuyper, who expressed a social/political world-view that started American evangelicalism’s journey down the road of unethical, accomodationist, anti-gospel political expediency that we find ourselves traveling today.

Finally, Gerson highlights some crucial problems with today’s evangelicals.  His historical survey is an important reminder of where our evangelical roots truly lie. It should be applauded and disseminated widely. Professor McKnight’s complaints, however, are petty in comparison to the task now facing the American church, as described by Gerson.