Tag: Court Evangelicals

A Look at Romans 13:1-7, Must Christians ‘Obey’ the Government? Part 1 #christianityandpolitics

Vice-President Mike Pence’s speech at the Southern Baptist Convention, thankfully, sparked a debate over whether he should be welcomed or disinvited.  Pence’s defenders predictably quote Romans 13:1 as their argument for welcoming a political speech at the convention.

In Romans 13 the apostle Paul says:  “let everyone submit to the governing authorities.”  So, that means Pence needs to be given the time normally allotted for group prayer in order to deliver a partisan, political speech?

In light of this current debate, I thought I’d post a few serialized excerpts from my book, I Pledge Allegiance, that looks carefully at what Paul actually says in Romans 13:1-7.  The complete excerpt is from pages 56-62.  Here goes:

“Paul had specific concerns in mind as he wrote his letter to the Roman church and describing a comprehensive political theology of church-state relations was not one of them. Recalling the church’s precarious standing with the local government in a time of tax revolt is far more illuminating of Paul’s argument in this chapter. The early church lived within an authoritarian state. There was no expectation that the average person could exert any meaningful influence in bringing about broad-based, systemic social or political change. Neither Paul nor his readers had any conception of participatory democracy. Modern strategies for popular political and social transformation through civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance were inconceivable at the time. Naturally, this does not mean that Paul was devoid of political opinions or that he might not write something of universal political significance for the church, regardless of its particular location in time and space, but it does mean that properly understanding Romans 13:1–7 requires that we keep the actual historical situation foremost in our mind.

Observing God’s Order

“Several details in Romans 13 need elaboration for Paul’s ethical instruction to become clear for the modern reader. The chapter’s opening sentences twice affirm that government authority is put in place by God (v. 1). God has established a hierarchy of civil authority to regulate the otherwise strong tendency toward unruliness in human society. Anyone who rebels against this ordering of authority, therefore, is rebelling against God’s design (v. 2). Two details of Paul’s vocabulary clarify his point.

“First, Paul describes civil authority as part of the way God “orders” the world. This idea of God’s ordering, organizing, appointing or arranging is central to the passage, with several derivatives of the verbal root “to order” appearing five times in three verses (vv. 1 [twice], 2 [twice], 5 [once]). It is clearly Paul’s key concept. God “establishes/orders/institutes governing authorities” (v. 1) not by bringing any particular leader to power—though he may at times also do that—but by providentially creating structures of governing authority that exercise responsibilities delegated by God. When Paul says that “there is no authority except that which God has established” (v. 1), he is not claiming that divine providence places all rulers in their specific positions of power. He is saying that the various stations of authority that make up civil government are put in place by God’s providential ordering of human society.

“Understanding Paul’s use of “ordering” vocabulary helps to answer long- standing questions about Christian obedience to tyrannical rulers. The problematic logic, based on Romans 13, usually goes like this: If every governing authority is put in place by God, so that disobeying the authority is the equivalent of disobeying God, then even a man like Adolf Hitler must have been put in place by God, and disobeying even Hitler becomes the equivalent of disobeying God. This was, in fact, the logic used by many German Christians who swore allegiance to Hitler, the “divinely appointed” Führer.

“Though some additional arguments will be advanced below for addressing the question of obeying Hitler, Paul’s emphasis on ordering rather than personnel makes it clear that God establishes positions of authority, positions that are occupied at different times by different leaders of greater or lesser ability, wisdom, and moral fiber. Paul does not make God responsible for ordaining every leader who ever fills an office. Christians are obligated to respect the role of government per se in their lives, but that is a far cry from being obligated to obey, much less enthusiastically endorse, every wretched leader braying for national allegiance to his every foolish decision.

Subordination vs. Obedience

“A second—equally important—matter of vocabulary arises once we notice that Paul does not command believers always “to obey” the governing authorities (Rom.13:1). Translations that render Romans 13:1 along the lines of “obey the government” (Living Bible, Contemporary English Version, Good News Translation, Worldwide English) seriously misrepresent Paul’s words. Instead of commanding obedience, Paul tells the church “to be subject/to submit” to the way God has “ordered” governing authority. If Paul had intended for the church always to obey the government, he could have used the common word hupokouō (obey) to make his point. But he doesn’t do that; instead, Paul stays with the “order” word group and directs believers to be “subordinate (vv. 1, 5) to the authorities that “have been ordered” by God. In effect, he is reiterating the need for believers to cooperate with God’s design in ordering human society.

“Following the logic of verse 3 is crucial for understanding the full significance of Paul’s refusal to tell the church that they must always obey the government. Notice that Paul’s description of civil authority is utterly idealistic, in so far as he assumes that the church can always count on the government to faithfully enforce God’s expectations. “Rulers are not a terror to those who do what is right but to those who do wrong. If you don’t want to be afraid of the one in authority, do what is right and the authority will praise you” (my translation). Had Paul intended to deliver a lesson on Christian obedience, he missed a perfect opportunity to do so. Notice that he does not say, “Shed your fear of authority by doing what you are told; be obedient.” Instead, Paul counsels the church to free itself from any fear of authority by always “doing what is right.”

“At least two assumptions are at work in this statement. First, Paul’s argument assumes that government authorities will never be corrupt. Their judgments will always faithfully reflect God’s judgments concerning what is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust. But we all know better. The claim that “rulers are not a terror to those who do what is right but to those who do wrong” is not always true, and Paul knew it. The civil rights demonstrators who walked across the bridge in Selma, Alabama, with Dr. Martin Luther King in 1965 were excoriated by the state’s governor, condemned by the local sheriff, and beaten with clubs by the local police. It is no secret to us or to Paul that rulers can easily reward those who do wrong and become a terror to those who do what is right, but Paul is describing the ideal, the way things are supposed to be, for the sake of his argument.

“Paul’s second assumption is that when government functions as it should, citizens never need to be afraid about doing what is right because “the right” is always what governing authorities will want from their citizens. Those who do what is right can be confident in their Christian obedience because they are simultaneously being submissive to authority, as God requires. In an ideal world, a believer’s act of submission will be synonymous with obedience because the perfect, incorruptible government will never ask its citizens to disobey God.

“Unpacking these assumptions at the root of Paul’s idealization of earthly authority also exposes the prick hidden in his argument. Paul knows that the Roman government does not measure up to this ideal. He cannot possibly in- struct the Roman church always to obey a government that made public sacrifice

Roman Christians were thrown to the lions for refusing to obey the law

to the Roman pantheon a civic responsibility; but he can tell them always to do what is right. When Christians act on what they know is right and those actions coincide with the government’s expectations, Paul’s argument predicts the happy outcome—“do what is right and the authorities will praise you.” But when doing what is right puts the believer on a collision course with government expectations, Paul’s instructions take on even greater significance: “Still do what is right.”

“God’s own perfect government awaits the coming age, when Christ is seated on his earthly throne. As long as Jesus’s disciples live in this world, however, they must anticipate times when the governing authorities will not praise them for doing what they believe is right in the sight of God. So Paul diplomatically commends the Roman government as much as he is able to in his description of the ideal, but he also assiduously avoids giving the church advice that could eventually lead it to compromise with the ungodly designs of a government that is out of step with God’s vision of truth and justice.

“Christians are not commanded always to obey their government or its laws. The church is told to be submissive and always do what is right. Obedience is one way of showing submission to authority, but submission and obedience are not synonymous. In some circumstances the submission God requires will work itself out as disobedience to governing authority. When a government expects believers to do things that the latter believe are wrong, things that will compromise their relationship with Christ, things that will violate their kingdom citizenship, then godly adherence to what is right demands conscientious disobedience against the government. At that point, faithful disciples remain submissive to misguided governmental authority, not by compromising their Christian conscience, but by freely submitting themselves to whatever punishment the authorities threaten to impose for disobedience. Living out the values of the kingdom of God always comes first for the followers of Jesus.”

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.

Sorry, I Don’t Need Government Sanction for My Prayer Life

The loss of special privilege is not persecution.

Let me say it again: The loss of special privilege is not persecution.

Furthermore, the loss of religious privilege is neither religious persecution nor an infringement of religious liberty.  Rather, it is an honoring of the American ideal that no religion will receive special government patronage.

Unfortunately, this failure of basic logic is a major source for confusion and poor political posturing among the conservative block of America Christianity.

It also is symptomatic of the way in which too many Christian leaders hunger for dominance over our public life, believe that they know what’s best for everyone, and don’t really trust the Holy Spirit’s ability to hold his own on a level playing field.

All of these political, spiritual, and logical shenanigans were on full-blown, gory display in the Rose Garden on Thursday when president Trump read his Proclamation on the National Day of Prayer and then signed his Executive Order on the Establishment of a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative.

According to the Religious News Service, Trump’s executive order “aims to give faith groups a stronger voice within the federal government and serve as a watchdog for government overreach on religious liberty issues.” 

What’s wrong with that? Well, a number of things:

First, let’s recall that we have traveled this road several times before, and it has never turned out well.  Required reading for all of today’s faith-based enthusiasts should be David Kuo’s book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction.  Kuo was the Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives under President George W. Bush.  He offers a moving confession of political seduction and “a heartfelt plea for a Christian reexamination of political and spiritual priorities.”

Washington D. C. has not changed, and I very much doubt if anyone in the Rose Garden last Thursday either remembers David Kuo or has read his book of confessions.

Furthermore, the current crop of evangelical advisers — the “court evangelicals,” as Professor John Fea aptly labels them — appear even more eager than their predecessors (if that were possible) to sell their ever-lovin’ souls for that much coveted “access” to the devil’s own hallowed halls of power.

Get ready to watch history repeat itself and the Christian church be publicly shamed again and again.

Second, if you have read Trump’s Proclamation, or if you listened to his speech, I hope you noticed that it had as much to do with Jesus Christ, the gospel message, or the kingdom of God as a tea-teetotaler at an Irish wake.

There was absolutely nothing particularly Christian about any of the glad-handing, obsequious antics going on at that pompous affair.  A sure sign of things to come.

In fact, it was a full-out, no-holds-barred display of America’s false gospel of civil religion, pure and simple.  Followers of Jesus Christ have no business signing on to such spiritual quackery, much less “praising the Lord” and polluting the Body of Christ with its deceitful promises. (I unpack all of this anti-Christian messaging in my new book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).

Of course, I recognize that the best way to safeguard any religious expression in America is to protect all religious expression in America.  So such Executive Orders must be generic.  I enthusiastically applaud religious freedom for everyone — including those who choose not to believe — in our country.

But that is not my problem.  My objection is two-fold.

First, I believe that evangelical lament about religious persecution is a Trojan Horse being used to promote their agenda of evangelical superiority and control over  public policy (more on this in a future post).

Second, as a Christian, and an evangelical one at that, I believe that the public embrace — which is a public endorsement! — of civil religion is a form of idolatry.  It is a betrayal of the good news of Jesus Christ.

As an American, I applaud the reaffirmation of religious liberty for all religious groups in this country.

But, as a citizen of God’s kingdom, I have no interest in confirming others in the validity of their prayers to a deity other than the heavenly Father of our crucified, resurrected and ascended Lord Jesus.

THIS is what followers of Jesus Christ ought to care about most deeply!

Neither Trump’s Proclamation nor his Executive Order will provide a diddly-damn’s worth of influence towards advancing the kingdom of God in this world.

So why are “Christian” leaders applauding presidential edicts sanctioning policies and actions that could deceive the very people who may actually be  searching for the answers that only Jesus Christ can provide?

Power and privilege.  It is all about the acquisition of power and privilege.

Finally, we return to where I started — the disentangling of religious privilege and the perceived threat of religious persecution.

Christian radio and television have managed to brainwash many evangelicals into thinking that if Christianity is not sitting at the head of a government table, then their religious freedom will be violated.  (Read my earlier post on this subject).

For instance, take the long-standing debate about prayer in our public schools.  Evangelicals have long insisted that, unless there is a specific law sanctioning their prayers in public schools, then they are experiencing oppression at the hands of government.

We might call this the cry-baby approach to religious liberty in America.

I grew up in public schools, and no one ever stopped me from praying inside the building whenever I chose to. In fact, I have never needed a law specifically sanctioning my approach to personal spirituality anywhere in public. (My children also attended school in a nation with mandatory religious instruction.  I had to deprogram them after each indoctrination session).

But, then, religious freedom is not really the point of the prayer debate.

The real point is that evangelicals want a bigger piece of the public policy pie, which they will use to wield greater power over what is acceptable and unacceptable in public discourse.

President Donald Trump, surrounded my members of the clergy, signed the Executive Order on Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty, in the Rose Garden of the White House, On Thursday, May 4, 2017. (Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

I fear that this is the motivation behind a portion of Trump’s Executive Order which says its purpose is “to reduce…burdens on the exercise of religious convictions and legislative, regulatory, and other barriers to the full and active engagement of faith-based and community organizations in Government-funded or Government-conducted activities and programs.”

In other words, the point, in

CHICAGO, IL – JUNE 30: Sister Caroline attends a rally with other supporters of religious freedom to praise the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby, contraception coverage requirement case on June 30, 2014 in Chicago. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

part, is to make it easier for future Hobbie Lobby-type companies to force their employees into abiding by the employer’s religious convictions.  In the case of Hobby Lobby, it was to deny female employees the sort of health care coverage that would pay for their choice of contraception, despite the fact that these employees are not necessarily Roman Catholic.

Folks, it is all about power and privilege.  Power and Privilege.

Other illustrations could be listed, but this one must suffice.  (I also suspect that this new Executive Order is another feature of the long-term Republican strategy to dismantle the New Deal by starving public programs like Social Security, Medicare, affordable public housing, and more.  But that argument must wait for another day).

Honestly, I felt a bit depressed last Thursday after watching men and women who should have known better, so-called Christian leaders accountable to the Church, scurrying around the Rose Garden like a gaggle of glad-handing geese gobbling up the stale crumbs of white bread thrown to them by the White House.

There is an old saying (that I just made up) which goes — when the monks come calling be sure to hide the wine.

Well, look out public policy!  The Religious Right is coming. And they ain’t necessarily working for you.

The Church Fights for a Seat at the Head of the Table, An Excerpt from “I Pledge Allegiance”

Jesus warns his followers that when they live as he lived and invite others to inhabit the kingdom of God as he did, they would experience opposition.  In the Sermon on the Mount, he encourages them by saying, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”

American Christianity has horribly twisted Jesus’ teaching.

White evangelicals regularly complain about the persecution they face because of their Christian faith.  This perception of anti-Christian hostility was a large piece of the cultural backdrop to last Thursday’s Rose Garden ceremony where president Trump issued a Proclamation on the National Day of Prayer and then signed his Executive Order on the Establishment of a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative.

The church leaders standing beside the president actually thought that he was doing something to relieve the Christian church of religious oppression in America.  Many of these people actually believe that Christians suffer more discrimination than black people in the USA.  White evangelicals are “more likely to see discrimination against themselves than against minority groups, [saying] oh, no, we’re the ones being persecuted”(emphasis mine).

Such is the power of spiritual delusion, of suffering with the blindness of white privilege, of embracing the liturgies of American civil religion, and of investing more energy into protecting oneself than into actually living like Jesus.

This white evangelical pity-party might be laughable were it not so spiritually crippling.

 I confront this spider web of problems in the following excerpt from chapter 11 of my new book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America. The chapter title, “Blessed Are Those Who Are Persecuted Because of Me,” is lifted from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:11).

“When it comes to the prospects of suffering for the gospel, the American church commits two mistakes that distort a proper understanding of its role in this world: first, Christians wish to occupy a privileged place in society; second,Christians want to live ‘triumphantly’ here and now, immediately possessing all the power and authority exhibited in Christ’s resurrection.

“The first error is most clearly seen in the so-called culture wars supposedly waged between what passes for a Christian worldview and secular humanism. What this obsession with spiritual warfare reveals, however, is not secularism’s efforts to extinguish Christianity, but the church’s assumption that Christianity has a right to unchallenged preeminence in the public square. This cultural conflict is not evidence of a cosmic struggle between light and darkness as the televangelists proclaim. Its roots are much more mundane and secular, for this so-called culture war is actually the last gasp of an antiquated confusion between church and state once referred to as Christendom, that is, the merging of Christianity with a nation’s social, political, and cultural life such that the church and its teachings dominate public affairs, confusing Christian discipleship
with state citizenship. The current cultural combat is not concerned with
a genuine defense of Christian faith, but is fomented by the church’s misplaced desire to assert social and political dominance over society at large. Personally,I cannot blame nonbelievers for resisting these efforts.

“How curious it is, then, to observe that neither Jesus nor Paul (or any of
the other New Testament writers, for that matter) ever expresses the least bit of concern about seeing the church assert control over the social, cultural, or political landscape in their own day and age. The apostle Paul was surrounded by an utterly pagan Greco-Roman society awash in idolatry, immorality, and bloodthirsty political maneuvering; yet he never so much as hints at the need for his communities to devise a strategy for taking over Rome’s politics, social customs, arts, or mores. In this respect, Paul was following his master, for as Christopher Bryan correctly notes, Jesus did not show any interest in changing, much less controlling, the temporal forms of political power in his day either. Instead, Jesus and Paul focused on creating a new, alternative community that would shine as a light to the world, showing the spiritually curious where they might discover the kingdom of God in the midst of this world’s corruption.

“In a pluralistic society such as America’s, why should Christian prayers,
holidays, and ceremonies be prioritized above those of other religions? Why
should displays of the Ten Commandments, crucifixes, and nativity scenes
receive pride of place on state lands and facilities without equal representation from Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu symbols? The honest answer is that there is no reason for Christian ceremonies or insignia to receive any state-sponsored preferential treatment. And being denied such prioritized benefits does not constitute discrimination, much less persecution. The fact that many Americans believe otherwise, and are willing to fight tooth and nail over small-minded concerns like manger scenes and Christian prayer in public schools, merely demonstrates how the American church is still trying to capitalize on the historical momentum generated by past centuries of Western Christendom, even as that momentum grinds to a halt. This explains the oddity of a country like the United States, which has never had an established state church and hence never officially participated in Christendom, nevertheless experiencing a culture war where Christian people assume that they are justified in imposing their religiously based moral code, spiritual sensibilities, and religious symbols on the rest of the nation.

“We should not be the least bit surprised when non-Christian people resist the church’s efforts to exercise such power over them. Unfortunately, when the predictable resistance appears, the church typically responds by crying “persecution,” “discrimination,” and “anti-Christian bias” when, in fact, prejudice and suppression are working the other way around. The church frequently behaves like the worst sort of petulant child, crying “foul!” when Christians are the ones kicking every other player in the shins…

“…In fact, the truth of the gospel and the upside-downness of Jesus’s kingdom values appear to have nothing at all to do with the high level of hostility many Americans feel toward the Christian faith. The monumental national and ecclesial tragedy crying out for recognition is that the Religious Right has managed to obscure the central message of the crucified, resurrected Jesus beneath a never-ending soundtrack of over-heated partisan rhetoric lamenting the dangers of “secular humanism” and “liberal politics.” They have pursued a no-holds-barred strategy to reach their partisan goals and have successfully accomplished what can only be described as a demonic victory. They have blacked out the good news of God’s kingdom from public perception like a hellish eclipse of the Son. Such betrayers of God’s kingdom have no business complaining about their bogus ‘persecution.’”

Trump’s Proclamation on the National Day of Prayer, 2018 Was an Exercise in Idolatry and Faithlessness, as It Has Always Been

Rarely have I seen such a sorry sight as the rows of obsequious, evangelical sycophants lined up on either side of president Trump in the Rose Garden last Thursday.  Basking in the bogus allure of Oval Office access, partisan grins stretched from cheek to cheek, they all had deceived themselves into believed they were actually doing something for the kingdom of God.

Such is the delusion of the American, conservative church today.

Trump’s 2018 Proclamation for the National Day of Prayer is a typically bland pronouncement of nationalistic, idolatrous platitudes.  It is a tasteless porridge perfectly pronouncing the half-baked ideologies of American exceptionalism, nationalism, patriotism and civil religion that erects a spiritual wall of partition, separating so many from the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The gospel of American greatness is a false gospel. Its monuments are pagan altars where U.S. soldiers are sacrificed to the American Baal.  Watching the mindless smiles of these evangelical “leaders,” betraying their gospel responsibilities, fawning shamelessly over the man we call “president” reminded me of the apostate people described in Daniel 11:32:

“With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.”

How much more corrupted can people like Paula White, Pat Robertson, Robert Jeffress, Johnnie Moore and James Dobson become as they continue to violate the new covenant morality of God’s kingdom exemplified by the Lord Jesus?

When did Jesus ever loosen his grip on his Father’s scruples in exchange for political privilege?  Recall that Jesus faced this very offer as a demonic temptation. Yet, Jesus scorned the Oval Office, saying,

“Away from me Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

For too much of the world “making America great again” translates into “keeping them oppressed again,” oppressed by right wing dictatorships propped up by U.S. dollars; oppressed by American-made bombs killing poor, innocent civilians living in poor, desolate countries; oppressed by resource exploitation and environmental pollution at the hands of insatiable American corporations; and oppressed by heartless, economic manipulation as entire nations wriggle under the thumb of more World Bank “austerity measures.”

America has become the Whore of Babylon to much of the world and should be seen this way by all right-thinking disciples.  We are the

“…woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls.  She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.  This title was written on her forehead:

MYSTERY

BABYLON THE GREAT

THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES

AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

(Revelation 17:3-5)

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.

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.