Militarization Has Fostered a Police Culture That Sets Up Protesters as ‘The Enemy’ — Tom Nolan

Former police officer Tom Nolan has an article at ConsortiumNews  condemning the militarization of US policing, pointing to its destructive consequences on display in the ongoing BLM demonstrations.

Below is an excerpt. Read the entire article here.

As a former police officer of 27 years and a scholar who has written on the policing of marginalized communities, I have observed the militarization of the police firsthand, especially in times of confrontation.

I have seen, throughout my decades in law enforcement, that police culture tends to privilege the use of violent tactics and non-negotiable force over compromise, mediation, and peaceful conflict resolution. It reinforces a general acceptance among officers of the use of any and all means of force available when confronted with real or perceived threats to officers.

We have seen this play out during the first week of protests following Floyd’s death in cities from Seattle to Flint to Washington, D.C.

The police have deployed a militarized response to what they accurately or inaccurately believe to be a threat to public order, private property, and their own safety. It is in part due to a policing culture in which protesters are often perceived as the “enemy.” Indeed teaching cops to think like soldiers and learn how to kill has been part of a training program popular among some police officers.

White Evangelicals Must Think More Deeply and Engage More Practically

Grayson Gilbert, a regular blogger at Patheos, has written another white evangelical “analysis” of the protests sparked by the death of George Floyd. He repeats the shallow message of evangelical individualism that I recently criticized here.

As I read more and more examples of this gospel of American individualism (and become increasingly aggravated by their frequency and continuity) posted on Facebook, blogs, and chat boards, I decided to offer a more detailed critique of this white, evangelical gospel, using Mr. Gilbert’s piece to illustrate my points.

Below is an excerpt from his Patheos post to give you an idea of what he says. Or you can read the entire post here, but please come back to digest my criticisms and reflect on what the church needs to do differently.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gilbert expresses many of the theological and practical failures endemic to white evangelicalism in this country.

As a result, he also sadly illustrates why white evangelicalism has so little to offer in the way of practical solutions to many of America’s deepest problems.

A good deal of my thinking on these subjects is also explained in my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America. I wish Mr. Gilbert and others would read it. I certainly encourage you to do so, if you haven’t already.

Here is the excerpt:

“…This leads me to perhaps the most important point that I can make: if you want to see what needs to change, take a look in the mirror. It is not a system that needs to repent or be overthrown by human hands. It is not a single people group. It is not a minority or a majority ethnicity that needs to repent. It’s everyone. Every tongue, tribe, and nation is called to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Every individual on the face of the planet needs to bow before their Maker in repentance and call upon Christ as Lord for the forgiveness of their sins and the simple reason for this is that every man is a sinner.

“Until sin is seen for what it truly is and actually dealt with at the cross; until repentance and sanctification ensues, nothing will change in the heart of men at large. They will do what they do best: sin. Yet on that Final Day, God will do what no man can do: bring about complete and utter justice that is consistent with His covenant. If you’re not in Christ, you don’t want that kind of justice because it’s not good news for you. You want the gospel. And yet many professing Christians seem to think the gospel is incapable of doing anything at all to solve the issue, mainly, because they want results now…”

  • Do more research. Mr. Gilbert appears to limit his news exposure to watching the Fox network. He needs to think more deeply about how he is being manipulated by the corporate media, as I mention here.

Yes, looting, property destruction, and violence have occurred in many places. But Gilbert doesn’t seem to be aware of the many protest leaders who have condemned the looting, condemned the instigators exploiting their demonstrations, and turned out with volunteers to clean up and repair the damage done.

Like so many others, Gilbert paints with a crude, broad brush when he condemns the whole for the sins of a few. This is a standard tactic used by demagogues whose knee-jerk reaction is to defend the status quo rather than to honestly confront the social sickness that needs to be cut out of America’s body politic. I also recently wrote about this issue here.

Over the past several days, I have watched many videos showing (a) the police assaulting peaceful, unarmed demonstrators without provocation, sometimes causing serious injury; and (b) massive, peaceful demonstrations with no apparent mayhem anywhere.

To speak only about the looting while ignoring the core message animating the thousands upon thousands of black, brown, and white citizens marching peacefully through our streets, demanding social justice, is reprehensible.

In this way, Mr. Gilbert displays an obtuse disregard for the black experience in America.

Such willful ignorance typifies the majority of white evangelicals that I know. (Check out John Fea’s survey of Twitter comments from leading, evangelical Trump supporters for more examples of this ignorance parading itself as leadership).

  • Become self-critical. Gilbert is utterly unaware of his personal investment in defending the political powers-that-be. In effect, he writes as a stooge for the establishment status quo. But this is not surprising. It is what a majority of white evangelicals normally do.

The first step in healing this particular blindness requires grasping what it means to be a Christian disciple who lives as a citizen of God’s kingdom first, last, and always. (Again, check out my book!) No Christian’s primary allegiance is ever to American law and order.

Our allegiance is to Jesus Christ. And he does NOT teach us to obey the laws of wickedness.

The second step in overcoming such blindness requires an honest reappraisal of oneself. Mr. Gilbert talks about the need to confess our sins if we want society to change. I agree. Let’s all “look in the mirror,” as he suggests, and confess our need for Jesus and his salvation each and every day.

But that is where Mr. Gilbert abandons us, implying that once you’ve come to Christ, your problems with sin are over. Here is where his theological individualism becomes a trap.

As Mr. Gilbert elaborates his interest in sin and confession, he quickly shifts the responsibility for such confession onto the protesters. When, in fact – in this historical moment – confessing our collective failure to confront systemic racism and the habitual police brutality suffered by our African-American brothers and sisters is what white evangelicals ought to be doing.

Pointing fingers at the looters is an immoral, arrogant evasion of the real issue. As Jesus says, “Take the log out of your own eye before picking at the splinter in your neighbor’s.”

Remember, it was the slave masters who condemned slave revolts. It was the white, evangelical elders and deacons who accused their slaves of ingratitude for failing to appreciate the benefits of the white, Christian slave-owner’s “benevolence.”

How is Mr. Gilbert any different?

  • Confusing the world with the church and the church with the world. Gilbert’s very confused discussion of Micah 6:8 slyly insinuates the common evangelical shibboleth of imagining that America is God’s covenant nation.

But there is one covenant now – the New Covenant — established by Christ with his church. Applying covenant language to anyone else (like the crowds of demonstrators) is not only bad theology, it allows Gilbert to deflect attention away from the real problems of racism and police violence.

Gilbert’s cultural misappropriation of God’s covenant with Israel is the unspoken presumption at the root of white American privilege, not only at home but throughout the world. America habitually abuses, exploits, bombs, invades, occupies, and kills people of color without compunction on an international scale.

Slaughtering illiterate brown people around the world is an American right. Or so we are told.

That is the operative assumption underlying US foreign policy. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, to see increasingly militarized police departments executing similar, draconian values at home.

Gilbert illustrates how bad theology, combined with a lack of critical thinking (I cannot help but notice that he received his master’s degree from Moody Seminary, a Mecca for American fundamentalism), leads to bad public practice and anemic discipleship.

Such tunnel vision can only see “unruly” protesters in need of reproach, blinding the evangelical critic to the all-pervasive American violence unleashed at home and abroad through our infamous military-police-industrial complex.

Yes, I realize that this is too large a mouth-full for any one instance of protest to address, but Gilbert’s narrow individualism, together with his failure to engage the world as a citizen of God’s kingdom, blinds him to the cultural and political issues at stake.

Don’t follow in his footsteps.

  • You can’t tell God’s people to endorse their government’s injustices. Gilbert trots out the predictable evangelical calls for “law and order” by telling his Christian readers that they must “obey the authorities instituted by God.” (Cue the national anthem and America the Beautiful).

Here Gilbert uses another classic, demagogic argument slung about like a blunt ax by unthoughtful people making religious arguments in defense of deeply entrenched injustice.

Such demagogic rationales – based in flawed interpretation, by the way – are intended to demonize the anti-establishment “enemy” while pacifying God’s “law abiding” church-folk into a drowsy acceptance of the unacceptable. THIS is the true opiate of the masses, as Karl Marx would say.

But, of course, in this instance of obedience to the powers-that-be, what Gilbert and his Christian cronies judge to be acceptable and unacceptable has more to do with the color of one’s skin than it does with whether or not anyone is obeying the law.

It is the classic argument drawn from white privilege. Think about it. When was the last time we saw a video of an unarmed white person being choked to death by the police on a public street in broad daylight while politely pleading for relief?

This is the point being raised by the popular upheaval we are witnessing in our streets. Unjust actors, whether they are cops, lawyers, judges, criminal justice systems, or entire governments, are unjust because they do NOT “protect the innocent while punishing the guilty.”

THAT is the problem my evangelical friends fail to grasp.

[By the way, I exegete these New Testament passages in my book, I Pledge Allegiance, and show (conclusively, in my mind) that allegiance to God’s kingdom requires that Christians not obey governments that impose injustice on its citizens.]

I struggle to understand how people like Mr. Gilbert can continually fail to apprehend this dynamic. When citizens protest against unjust policing and systemic injustice in high places, God’s kingdom citizens should be leading the way as the most vocal critics of the status quo and most vehement defenders of the oppressed.

Misapplying scripture, as Mr. Gilbert does, in order to condemn demonstrations against injustice and oppression is merely a continuation of the scriptural arguments deployed by Christian slave- owners defending their ownership and abuse of other human beings.

  • A failure of empathy and critical thinking. Historically, evangelical foreign missions have been in the forefront of finding creative ways to meet human needs. While I don’t entirely agree with the old saying, “You can’t share the gospel with a starving person,” (personally, I think that this way of thinking was a major shortcoming of Mother Teresa’s), it does contain a kernel of truth.

Western missionaries have made major contributions to developing countries everywhere. Often, the earliest literacy programs, schools, health-care initiatives, hospitals, irrigation systems, and more have been developed by evangelical missionaries whose compassion and empathy inspired them to do much, much more than simply “preach the gospel” to the lost.

So, why does Christian compassion and creativity wither and die on the vine when discussing social disruption at home?

No, I am NOT suggesting that evangelicals need to suit up and put on a colonial savior-complex by resurrecting a domestic version of “the white man’s burden.” But I am struck by the absence of both empathy and critical thinking among my white, evangelical brothers and sisters.

Frankly, we need to sit down, shut up, and listen.

We need to hear the stories of our black brothers and sisters. We need to believe them and take them seriously. We need to ask ourselves, “How would I feel if I were in their shoes?” Then, before offering our thoughts on solutions, we need to ask what they think should be done. And we need to listen some more.

We need to ask the Lord Jesus to forgive us for our persistent indifference to the pain and struggle of African-Americans in this country – pain and struggle often inflicted by a system that criminalizes black people for the color of their skin.

I have never been nervous about the threat of being arresting for the crime of “driving while black.” And neither has Mr. Gilbert. Neither of us knows what that is like.

My mother always told me that the policeman was my friend; that he was there to help me.

African-American mothers must educate their children in how to avoid antagonizing a policeman so they won’t get shot.

That is the American reality, a reality that white evangelicals like Mr. Gilbert appear to know nothing about. And they don’t seem to want to know. But if they really don’t know anything about this version of our racial reality, it can only be because they have plugged their ears and closed their eyes to the plight of their fellow human beings.

Such inexcusable ignorance is testament to the strangulation of sympathy within America’s white evangelical churches. And it is inexcusable.

As I have said before, citizenship in God’s kingdom not only requires that we share the gospel of Jesus Christ as widely as possible, it also requires us to think as deeply as possible about how we can contribute to making this world a better place for everyone, equally.

If our missionaries can build schools for boys and girls in countries that frown on educating little girls, then why can’t we also think, plan, and act in ways that will make our society more just, more fair, and less dangerous for its non-white citizens?

Yes, racism is a sin. And sin is rooted in the human heart. Sin can only be uprooted through the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ. But suggesting, as Mr. Gilbert does, that mass evangelism is the only solution to racial injustice is the lazy pietist’s way of shirking responsibility.

Sure, people may come to Jesus one at a time, and Christian individuals certainly ought to work for truth and justice wherever they find themselves, but changing systemic evil demands systemic solutions. On this front, too many white evangelicals appear to take pride in their ineptitude.

God’s people are called to be “salt and light” to the surrounding society, to exemplify the righteousness, mercy, justice, and equality of God’s kingdom come. We do this, first, among ourselves, as living, breathing examples of God’s new, multi-racial creation here and now.

Then we simultaneously engage our society, working practically to create a reflection, the semblance, an approximation of God’s kingdom in the broken society we now live in.

But that, my friends, is the cross-cultural component of Christian discipleship that white, individualistic, American evangelicalism rarely seems to grasp.

Did Jesus Die and Rise Again to Save Us or to Rule Us?

My title for this post is an attempt at summarizing a current online debate, involving Greg Gilbert, Scott McKight and others, about the nature of the Gospel message in the New Testament.

Honestly, I don’t follow “theological debates” online for a variety of reasons that I won’t go into here, so I confess that I am only responding to a good post I read today at Patheos from Michael Bird. (This is a very old, very tired debate.)

Michael is an excellent New Testament scholar, and I recommend that you read his new post, especially if you have been following the debate online. Michael is spot on in his conclusions.

(As a side-note, I originally tried to hook my blog up with the Patheos blog site, but couldn’t for the life of me figure out how to do it. Given the site’s  drift towards right-wing craziness, it was probably for the best.)

Michael’s post is entitled The Gospel of the King. Click on the title to read it all.

Or you can read an excerpt below:

“Gilbert wants to make the cross and a transaction within the atonement the centre of the gospel with kingdom and kingship as a kind of back story. McKnight and Bates emphasize Jesus’s kingship, Israel’s story, fulfilment of Scripture with justification and forgiveness as benefits of the gospel. Gilbert is not entirely absent of kingdom/kingship, but neither are McKnight and Bates arguing for ‘mere kingship.’

“Truth be told, I think that Bates and McKnight have the better end of the argument in terms of what the NT emphasizes. If one surveys Acts 2:29-36, 13:32-33, Rom 1:3-4, 1 Cor 15:3-4, and 2 Tim 2:8 then it is pretty hard to deny the fact that the gospel is a king Jesus gospel – it is a bit of slam dunk for my mind. The gospel is a royal summons to believe and obey Jesus as God’s messianic king, a king who has shown his might and power by laying down his life for his people to make them right, forgiven, and reconciled, etc. Or, as I define the gospel in my Evangelical Theology: ‘The gospel is the announcement that God’s kingdom has come in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Lord and Messiah, in fulfillment of Israel’s Scriptures. The gospel evokes faith, repentance, and discipleship; its accompanying effects include salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

Further on in his post, Michael addresses the New Testament passages that explain “justification by faith,” the touchstone for evangelical orthodoxy in many people’s minds.

I would only add to Michael’s argument by pointing out something that is widely overlooked: the apostle Paul only talks about “justification by faith” in those letters where he is combating some sort of Judaizing influence within the church. “Judaizers” were the folks who insisted that Gentiles must become good Jews in order to become real disciples of Jesus. This meant circumcision and adherence to the Torah.

So, Paul’s argument for “justification by faith alone apart from works (signifying works of the law)” always (maybe I should say only) arose in a very specific polemical environment. That does not offer much of a basis for insisting on its “centrality.”

To my mind the conclusion is pretty obvious.

Justification by faith was not the irreducible, central component to Paul’s way of understanding the work of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

It was one important aspect of the gospel. But not its essence.

For both the root and the branch of the Good News, we must turn to Jesus of Nazareth. What was essential to him?

Read the New Testament Gospels and the answer becomes obvious: the Kingdom of God and the Lordship of Jesus over God’s kingdom.

I just happen to have written a book about it.

More Thoughts, and a Few Stories, on the Cultural Captivity of the Church

Years ago I came across a great book written by Douglas Hyde entitled Dedication and Leadership.  Hyde was a former Communist turned Roman Catholic who wondered why his Communist comrades had uniformly displayed deeper levels of commitment to world revolution than the typical Christian had for the gospel of Christ.

One of his suggestions for explaining this disparity focused on the church’s lack of anything resembling Bolshevik self-criticism. Recognizing that Communism required a complete reconstruction of the way people think about and interpret their world, the movement gathered members together into small groups for discussion and “self-criticism.”

Together these Communist study groups held each other accountable to purging old ways of thinking and behaving, while assembling, piece by piece, the renewed mind of a faithful, Communist ideologue.

Hyde laments that it is a rare church indeed that invests any deliberate effort into helping its members cultivate disciplines of healthy spiritual introspection, self-examination, and Christ-like self-criticism.  Yet, this is precisely what Paul expects every Christian to be doing as a part of their daily discipleship.  In Romans 12:2 the apostle says,

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is…

Fallen, sinful minds like ours (you will understand, dear reader, that I assume you too are a guilty sinner like me) do not renew themselves automatically.  Yes, every Christian has the Holy Spirit to turn the impossible into the actual, but personal effort is the required fuel for all personal transformation.

Thus, far too many folks who call themselves Christians fail to think or to behave like people directed by the mind of God.

I was reminded of this personally a while back when talking with a friend about my time visiting my youngest daughter as she worked in the Kenyan slums surrounding Nairobi.  I was struck by the near universal happiness regularly on display in the lives of these people living in the most squalid poverty imaginable.

I couldn’t get over the beautiful smiles and the hearty laughter that I saw spontaneously erupting from the poor and destitute.

My friend listened to me and then quietly asked – with a beautiful smile on his face – David, why is it surprising that the poor would be happy?

That sentence hit me like a ton of bricks.  Good question, I said to myself.  Why indeed?

I suddenly realized, with the help of a friend exercising some good Christian/Bolshevik self-criticism, that I harbored an unrecognized prejudice.

I had spent my entire life in Christian ministry teaching people that money cannot buy happiness; that the love of money is the root of great evil; yet burrowed deep inside my brain remained this hidden assumption that people who lack money certainly can’t be truly happy and content.

Figuratively speaking (I hate it when people say “literally” when they mean “figuratively”), this moment of critical self-awareness blew my mind.

It also reminded me that cultivating the mind of Christ is a life-time process that demands daily self-criticism as well as good friends who are in the habit of similarly criticizing themselves.

Only such genuine disciples can make other disciples.

Getting together in small groups to socialize and hang out together is all well and good, but in and of itself, socialization it is a not an effective recipe for growing serious followers of Jesus.

I was thinking about this particular problem as I attended a Saturday morning men’s breakfast at a nearby church.

The speaker began by deriding what he believed were secular society’s efforts at emasculating, even feminizing, modern men. The church needed to help men to proudly reassert their masculinity.  Or so we were told.

(I found this a very strange thing to be saying in the age of the #MeToo movement.  But evangelicals have lived in a cultural ghetto for a long time.)

To facilitate the growth of masculine, godly men, the speaker announced that he was starting a new men’s Bible study for the church.  A handy video played on a big screen up front introduced the study’s content.

The 300 or so men present in the auditorium with me were all treated to a 5-minute action movie showing Navy SEALS fully armed, wading through water, jumping out of helicopters, and firing their weapons at (and undoubtedly killing) unseen enemies. A very masculine sounding narrator described how this new study (now available nation-wide) would teach us vital principles for godly manhood from the Navy SEALS handbook.

I groaned audibly and nearly regurgitated my breakfast.

I had spent my entire life thinking that Jesus of Nazareth was our perfect model for godliness.  Silly me!

Worse yet, I now discovered that my personal Bible study needed to be directed by a military training manual. Rats!

Those of you who know me will not be surprised to learn that it took all the self-control I could muster to remain seated.  Every fiber of my being wanted to stand up and loudly denounce the secular, unthinking, anti-Christian rubbish being shoveled out from the stage.

Sadly, I was witnessing another instance of American evangelicalism’s cultural captivity to the godless forces of social conformity. Political conservatism, militarism, patriotism, the myth of American exceptionalism, and gross nationalism had all conspired to trample the gospel of Jesus Christ into the ground, buried beneath the spit-polish black boots worn by “Christian soldiers” LITERALLY marching off to war.

And THAT is godly manhood?

We had been divided into groups of 10 sitting at circular tables. As the meeting drew to a close, we were encouraged to talk among ourselves about the morning’s lessons.

I believed that it would be irresponsible of me to say nothing. I had to speak my mind, fully convinced that I was speaking with the mind of Christ.

So, I grabbed the moment and told the other men at my table that this was a horrible example of un-Christian, anti-Biblical thinking infiltrating the church.  I will spare you all the details of my little speech condemning everything we had just been subjected to, but I will mention the response of a young man sitting opposite me at the table.

This young man in his 20s had accompanied his father to the breakfast.  As I spoke, his head began to nod heartily in agreement. As I finished, he said that he was glad I had spoken up. He told us all about how difficult it had been to grow up in Montana where everything in the surrounding society insisted that he become a tough guy, a macho-man, a fighter.

Not even the church provided any refuge from the cultural conditioning of a male dominated society where rugged individualism depended on a daily overdose of testosterone.

This young man, quite rightly, wanted to become more and more like Jesus, not a Navy SEAL.  He finds words of life in the holy Scriptures, not in a military training handbook.

He was fighting against his church’s cultural captivity, not surrender to it.

So, why was the “men’s pastor” employed by the church promoting a program developed by a nationally known evangelical media organization that will teach men to conform to American culture rather than stand against it?

The Day I Met a Kenyan Saint

I had obviously taken the wrong bus. I thought I was going to the Kenyan Museum of Natural History. Instead, I was let out on the side of a road facing a large open savanna with a few scattered trees.  I decided to try again tomorrow, but in the meantime, the savanna was new to me and waiting to be explored.

As I wandered into the grass, I quickly noticed a woman off in the distance praying beneath a tree. She was shouting with a loud voice in Swahili with her arms in the air.  I decided to pray for her. Having no idea to whom she might be praying, I asked the Lord Jesus to show himself to her if she were praying to another deity, and to bless her with positive answers to her prayers if she were praying to him.

Wandering further into the open grassland, I discovered a large warthog who seemed quite comfortable with approaching strangers. So, I sat down close enough to share in his morning activities.  After all, how often does one get a chance to share a seat with a wild warthog?

I communed with my new, multi-tusked friend for no more than a few minutes when the woman who was praying approached me and asked to sit with me.  I said, Yes, of course, and asked her about her morning prayers.

A smile spread across her face as she told me about her relationship with Jesus Christ and her desire to preach the gospel, in America if possible.  I quickly began to ask about the Lord’s work in her life. How did she become a follower of Jesus?  Where did she live?  What about her family?

I then heard a very sad but revealing story about faith and suffering.

She lived in the nearby slum; tin roofs covering cardboard shanties

A Nairobi slum bordering opulence

bordering the prairie just visible on the horizon.  She had been a Christian for about one year.  During that time, her husband had left her and taken away her children.  He and his family objected to her faith in Christ and wanted nothing to do with her. The children were forbidden to see her.

She shared one successive story of heartbreak after another, yet each chapter of her loss was punctuated by some declaration about the goodness of God; how much He loved her, and how much he had done for her.

Eventually, my curiosity got the better of me. The details of her story were tragic. While the statements about the Lord’s goodness were non-specific.  I finally asked, “Can you tell me about one specific way in which God has shown His goodness to you recently?”

She paused.  I waited.  After several moments of thought, she looked at me, smiled and said, “My heavenly Father sent His one and only Son to die on the cross and rise again so that He can forgive me of all my sins.  Since my Father has done that for me, what more does He ever need to do to show me His goodness?”

I knew in that moment I was sitting in the presence of an African Saint.

Here was a poverty-stricken, maligned and persecuted disciple of Jesus who was also filled with the joy of the Lord.  She was daily experiencing the power of Christ’s resurrection and the hope of eternal life made possible by Easter morning.

She was suffering but not beaten down; oppressed but not defeated.  The world had been against her, but she knew that Christ was for her, and that was enough.

That woman will forever provide a model for me to emulate. I have never had reason to weep as she had. Yet, her eyes and her heart were set on Jesus, and no one could wipe the overflowing joy from her face.

I pray that this Easter season, I will take a few more steps to becoming more and more like her.

I Evaluate Eric Erickson’s Evaluation of Pete Buttigieg’s Evaluation of President Trump (who thinks he is above evaluation)

Eric Erickson has an interesting article at The Resurgent discussing Pete

Eric Erickson

Buttigieg’s interview last Sunday on Meet the Press. It’s entitled, “Pete Buttigieg Shows Why Progressive Christianity is a Hypocritical Farce.”

You can read the entire piece, which contains a video clip of the T.V. interview under discussion, by clicking on the title above. Or you can read a brief excerpt provided below.

I am writing this post for several reasons:

First, I found Erickson’s article interesting.  I agree with his argument about Buttigieg’s moral relativism with respect to Buttigieg’s decision to lead a gay lifestyle, including his marriage to another man.

Erickson is right to point out that Buttigieg can’t call out President Trump’s hypocrisy for ignoring Biblical commands to “help the widows and the orphans” while simultaneously ignoring the New Testament’s condemnations of same-sex intimacy.

Nope, that doesn’t wash, Mr. Buttigieg.

Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg’s judgments on this score not only look like cherry-picking from among the select pieces of scripture he happens to like (or dislike), it IS cherry-picking of the most obvious sort.

Secondly, however, Erickson commits a few blunders of his own that make me hesitant to call him an ally in my concerns about filtering our political thinking through the presence of God’s kingdom on earth. (Again, check out my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).

My concerns begin with the title of this article — “Pete Buttigieg Shows Why Progressive Christianity is a Hypocritical Farce.”

The title raises a number of troubling questions which Mr. Erickson never tries to answers.

How does he define Progressive Christianity?  What is it exactly? A writer really shouldn’t be attacking something that he makes no effort to describe.

And why should I accept Mr. Erickson’s assumption that Pete Buttigieg is a (if not the) representative of said Progressive Christianity? Has Mr. Buttigieg ever made that claim for himself? Has an official spokesperson for “Progressive Christianity” ever claimed Pete Buttigieg as its chosen candidate?

Nope and nope. So, I have to ask, on what basis is Erickson implying that connection now? In fact, what the heck is he trying to say by making such a suggestion???

Nope, Mr. Erickson. This is an underlying assumption of yours that I’m not willing to share. Such ill-conceived innuendo does not constitute an argument.

Furthermore, demonstrating one respect in which Buttigieg is being hypocritical (an extremely human trait by the way, displayed by all of us at one time or another) is a far cry from proving that the entirety of Progressive Christianity (however that is defined) is either hypocritical or farcical.

You are grossly over-reaching Mr. Erickson, which always makes me suspicious that there is something other than a concern for proper Biblical interpretation and its consistent application animating your arguments.

I think I smell a purely political agenda brewing in the background; partisanship disguised in the popular garb of Christian conscience.

Actually, in a round-about fashion, Erickson ends up showing us that his view of Christianity is every bit as skewed by partisan loyalties as is Buttigieg’s.

In his article chiding Buttigieg for publicly denying the possibility that  president Trump might be a Christian, Erickson begins by pointing out how “badly” Buttigieg himself performs while “trying to play a Christian on television.

The implication is clear: Erickson can’t believe that Buttigieg is a genuine Christian, either.

Ouch.  I can’t help but wonder if Erickson is “trying to play a Christian” at The Resurgent?

In one way, I agree with Buttigieg.  I do not find Trump’s profession of Christian faith the least bit believable, either. The man is a career criminal who admits that he has never felt the need either to confess his sins or to ask God for forgiveness. Trump’s past, as well as his present, suggest that our president is a sociopath.

And that, sadly, assures us that our current president is (for now, at least) a son of perdition.

On the other hand, I don’t know know much about either Mr. Erickson or Mr. Buttigieg, and I can’t judge either man’s faith in Jesus. (Perhaps I will write another post in the near future about how a Christian may or may not pursue a gay lifestyle.) However, I’ll happily remind them both that being a Christian means submitting the entirety of our lives, in every respect, to the teaching and the Lordship of the resurrected Jesus.

That Jesus was not a progressive or a conservative or a democrat or a republican.  Christ’s only partisanship is to the eternal glory of his heavenly Father. Thus, he remains the eternal Son who requires that his followers seek after God’s kingdom, first, last, and always.

Here, finally, is that excerpt I promised:

“Buttigieg said he thought evangelicals backing President Trump were hypocritical because when he goes to church he hears about taking care of widows, the poor, and refugees, but Trump does not do that. Buttigieg went on to draw a distinction. In his professional conduct, Trump does not take care of widows and refugees as scripture commands and Buttigieg is right on this. Then Buttigieg continues that in Trump’s personal life as well he falls short of Christian behavior (he is right on that part too, by the way, but then we are all sinners). You can see the full, unedited exchange here.

“Interestingly, Buttigieg goes on to note that evangelicals are too focused on sexual ethics these days. He seems to be arguing that they need to drop that aspect of their faith, as he has. Then comes the pivot exposing Buttigieg’s own hypocrisy.

“Buttigieg thinks the President is not really behaving as one who believes in God because, as President, Donald Trump is not taking care of the widows, the orphans, the poor, and the refugees. Chuck Todd asks Buttigieg about his position on abortion and Buttigieg’s response is that abortion is a moral issue and we cannot legislate morality.

“This is why progressive Christianity is so corrupt and flawed. As much as Buttigieg makes a valid critique on the President’s behavior and evangelicals excusing that behavior, Buttigieg wants to reject the inconvenient parts of faith he does not like. He is a gay man who got married; he does not think homosexuality is a sin despite express statements in scripture, and he thinks abortion is a moral issue and we cannot legislate our morality. Buttigieg wants to use the social obligations as Christians against the President, but wants to avoid any implication on the personal obligations of Christians in terms of clear Biblical sexual ethics and how we are to live our lives applying our faith even for ‘the least of these.’

“He wants to have it both ways and in reality is showing he is no better a Christian than Donald Trump. What is particularly damning here is that Buttigieg claims to be governed by some moral code and he claims he will lead as a more moral President than Trump. At the same time, he claims we cannot do exactly what he is proposing.

“Everyone has a moral code and we all conduct our actions by our moral code. Buttigieg just wants a pass on his moral code, which is all about not taking inconvenient stands on parts of scripture that might make his life a bit uncomfortable. He will wield it against the President and abdicate when it comes to himself.”

Christian Prayer vs. Magic, Part 3

(This is the third installment in a series of posts examining the differences between magical thinking and Christian prayer.)

Human beings tend to be result-oriented creatures.

I doubt that any society is more result-oriented than the United States.  As Americans, we tend to think, whether consciously or not, that the best way, the right way to do things is the way most likely to produce the desired results.

What behavior or principle is most useful for achieving my chosen goal?  That’s the question.

When I organize my life around answers to that question, I have become a utilitarian. (I know.  I’m not being precise.  I am omitting the importance of maximizing benefits for as many as possible, but this isn’t a philosophy paper.)

Utilitarianism is at the heart of magical thinking and its practices.  The goal of magic is always to achieve a desired result – to make someone fall in love with you; to have a successful business trip; to win the bet; to be cured of an illness; to receive god’s blessing by being promoted at work.

So, why not stay at home and pray for these things by yourself at the household shrine?  Didn’t the ancient spirits hear personal prayers?  Why go to the trouble of paying for a magician’s help?

Well, you pay the magician because he/she is the expert in knowing how to use the proper techniques for getting what you want.

Ancient magicians and their patrons saw the universe as if it were a cosmic harp.  The magician was the well-practiced harp player.  He understood that if you can pluck the right cosmic strings in the proper order with the correct

The alchemist’s workshop. Alchemy, the ancient precursor to modern chemistry, was an early form of magic

timing, then the world will sing the specific tune that the magician wants to hear.  Those connections are entirely predictable IF you know the necessary way to “pray,” how to cast the right spells, repeat the proper incantations, and position your body accordingly.

The New Testament book of Acts tells a brief story about a magician named Simon who offers an example of magical thinking.  It appears in Acts 8:18-20:

When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!

Simon was thinking like a typical magician.  He assumed that when the apostle’s laid their hands on others and they received the Holy Spirit, he was witnessing an impressive new magical technique; something he hadn’t seen before.  So, he responds predictably.  Magicians regularly bought and sold their techniques to each other.  Archaeologist have uncovered libraries of books and manuscripts where descriptions of these techniques are stockpiled with instructions for how to use them effectively.

Peter’s indignant response captures a classical confrontation between two very different world-views.  He knows that the Holy Spirit’s appearance is not due to a human skill in practicing the most effective way to pray while using the correct placement of one’s fingers.

No, the apostle understands that the Holy Spirit is God’s gift given to His children because they need Him.  Christian prayer is not magic.  There is no “technique” for us to master.  The apostle was not a magician.

The most common magical techniques included:

Repetition – key words, names, titles, phrases and letters of the alphabet were said over and over again until repeated for the proper number of times.

Repetition led to persistence – asking for something repeatedly until “getting it right” was essential to striking the right chord, so to speak, so that the cosmic spirits heard the tune they were waiting for.

I suspect that Jesus had these techniques in mind when he told the disciples:

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 6:7-8)

Sometimes the effectiveness of a magical prayer was a matter of proximity.  In other words, some prayers/spells/incantations had to be spoken in the

A magical amulet with Greek inscriptions

vicinity of its subject.  Love spells, in particular, were only effective when uttered near the object of one’s affections.  Love potions, poured into the appropriate vial, had to be buried near the person’s home, preferably close to the entry way, if they were to work.

It is easy for us moderns to read about these ancient methods of playing the cosmic harp with large doses of incredulity.  But you might be surprised at how many modern, evangelical Christians have kept these magical techniques well oiled in the American Utilitarian church.

Years ago, I bumped into an old friend who had left the church we once attended together.  I asked how she was doing and if she was attending a new congregation somewhere.  She burst with excitement as she described her newfound church home which had finally taught her how to pray properly.

After years of offering what she described as “powerless prayers” for the conversion of her neighbors, she had now learned that “powerful prayers” had to be spoken immediately in front of a neighbor’s doorway.  Only when the prayers were proclaimed directly at the home’s front door could they penetrate the hearts of family members.

Folks, that is magical thinking par excellence.

Here is another example.

As a college professor, I was always happy to stay in touch with former students after they graduated.  I once received a letter with an accompanying brochure from a recent graduate asking me to pray for his involvement in a large evangelistic campaign to be launched that summer in a major U.S. city.

The brochure was emblazoned with a colorful picture of a hot-air balloon floating over the countryside.  Inside was a detailed description of the various preparations underway for the summer’s events.  Of course, the central activity was prayer, but not just any kind of prayer.

They were relying on balloon-powered prayer – I kid you not.

The brochure cited Ephesians 2:2, which explains that before following Jesus, the Ephesian Christians “followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.”

So, because the devil and his minions apparently lived up in the atmosphere according to Ephesians, and because effective, confrontational prayer must happen in close proximity to its subject, the obvious thing to do – or so they thought – was to bind the interfering demons from the wicker basket of a hot air balloon.

I don’t need to tell you how upset I became upon reading how far my former-student had been misled into unbiblical, thoroughly pagan, magical thinking about our Lord Jesus.

Christian prayer is not utilitarian; therefore, it does not depend on technique.

Christian prayer is possible because of the disciple’s personal relationship with our heavenly Father.  And because the Father cannot be manipulated, nor does he have any interest in manipulating us, there are no special techniques that make some people’s prayers more powerful than others.

Christian prayer is a personal conversation between Father and child.

What type of father tells his daughter, “I will only respond to your requests or questions if you walk into my presence backwards, repeat the words ‘daddy please, daddy please, daddy please’ in six consecutive stanzas, and then kiss me three times on each cheek.”?

I’ll tell you:  A psychotic, control-freak of a father.  But that does not describe our God.

Learning to grow in genuine prayer involves matters of spiritual development and maturity, which we don’t have space to take up here. (Again, I recommend reading my book, Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petitionary Prayer).  Such maturation occurs as a result of spending more and more time with Jesus, becoming more intimidate with our Father in heaven so that we increasingly share in the mind of Christ, living obedient, sacrificial lives.

Growing as a person of prayer has nothing to do with becoming a better technician.

Christian Prayer vs. Magic, Part 1

(This is the first in a series of posts discussing the problems of confusing Christian prayer with magical incantation.)

God’s people have always been tempted to confuse prayer with magic. Bible readers will recall the Old Testament warning that the people of Israel steer well clear of witches, sorcerers and magicians (Deuteronomy 18:10).

Such warnings admit that the the temptation is real.  Impotent temptations are easily ignored, so warnings are unnecessary.  Only powerful allurements receive their own warning signals well in advance.

Magic is one of those.

Unfortunately, human nature has not changed.  Today’s church shares the same tendencies as ancient Israel in its predisposition to blend piety with (sometimes sizeable) doses of magic, to turn intercession into incantation.

The warning against magic is not only for us to stay away from the corner-store medium, crystal ball gazer or the neighborhood séance (though it certainly includes those temptations, too), but to respect the boundary separating Christian prayer from magical practices.

Human beings have always been characterized by impatience, impetuousness and an addiction to material goods such as wealth, power and success. This triumvirate of the tawdry conspire to stir up the human desire for control over God (or whatever spiritual forces we happen to believe in).

The Christian church is no different.

In any gathering of human beings, we will always find an amalgam of the good with the bad.  In any Christian congregation, we can see maturity and immaturity, faith and unbelief, genuine prayer and unadulterated magic masquerading as devotion – often as a more attuned, more insightful, deeper brand of devotion.

In my book, Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petitionary Prayer (Baker, 2006), I tell the story of a fourth century church father, John Chrysostom, who publicly commends an elderly woman in one of his sermons for refusing to resort to a magician’s help as she watched her only son die of an illness.

Placing all of her faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, whom she believed was the one and only spiritual power listening intently to every one of her prayer requests, she waited to see what Jesus would do, regardless of the outcome.

Obviously, not everyone in Chrysostom’s congregation was as single-minded in their devotion as was this grieving mother.  That’s why he held her up as exemplary, the model of prayerful devotion that every other congregant should emulate.

Here’s the question:  Will we hold faithfully to Jesus, even when he says “No” to our most feverish requests?

Every Christian in the ancient world knew exactly where they might turn for a little extra help, especially in times of crisis, if their prayers remained unanswered, if their pleadings and petitions needed a power boost, some additional “uuumph” to speed them on their way to God’s throne.

Find a magician, perhaps a “Christian” magician.

There were lots of them available and plenty (or so it seems) of Christians went to them for help, especially when God’s apparent deafness put the entire process of Christian prayer in doubt.  Check out the book Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (Harper, 1994) and read an ancient collection of magical “prayers” for yourself.

The 4th century pastor, John Chrysostom, was addressing a serious problem for his congregation.  It remains a serious problem for the church today.

The shape of modern Christian magic in the developed world may have changed, but the substance of Christian magic remains the same in both the developed and undeveloped nations.  Magical thinking permeates the church in a variety of ways, but it becomes especially evident in (a) the techniques that we teach people to use when they pray and (b) the role of faith that we urge them to embrace.

This is the first in a series of posts that I hope will help my readers to distinguish between Christian prayer as taught in the New Testament and magical prayers bastardized by the human penchant for quick solutions, visible results and the nurturing of a feeble faith that never wishes to be tested.

Caitlin Johnstone on the Hypocrisy of US Foreign Policy

The journalist Caitlin Johnstone has posted a good discussion, entitled “If America Stopped Destroying the World, the Bad Guts Might Win,” about the

Caitlin Johnstone

rank hypocrisy of American foreign policy, a policy that continues to work at toppling any foreign government we don’t like (which typically means that they won’t cooperate with American demands) and promulgating wars of strategic convenience when and where we choose.

She specifically addresses U.S. aggression in Venezuela and the Middle East.

This American Empire is an evil beast that no right-thinking Christian can possibly support, much less cheer onward.

No, Jesus may not have explicitly condemned Caesar or the Roman Empire, but he left us plenty of explicit ethical instruction which, when taken seriously, makes it impossible for his disciples to endorse or to approve of Caesar or to support the Empire’s bloody exercise of raw power for its own interests.

Below is an excerpt.  You can read the entire post here.

“Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on Saturday that the government under Venezuela’s recently re-inaugurated president Nicolas Maduro is ‘illegitimate’, and that ‘the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy to that country.’

“Pompeo’s remarks, which were echoed by Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, are interesting for a couple of reasons. The first is because Venezuela’s presidential election in May of last year (which incidentally was found to have been perfectly legitimate by the international Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America) was actively and aggressively meddled in by the US and its allies. The second is that while the US government is openly broadcasting its intention to continue interfering in Venezuela’s political system, it continues to scream bloody murder about alleged Russian interference in its own democratic process two years ago.

“What is the difference between the behavior of the United States, which remains far and away the single worst offender in foreign election meddling on the

Woolsey lets the cat out of the bag on Fox News. The US meddles wherever it bloody well pleases

planet, and what Russia is accused of having done in 2016? According to a comment made by former CIA Director James Woolsey last year, it’s that the US interferes in foreign democracies ‘for a very good cause.’

“And that’s really the only argument that empire loyalists have going for them on this subject. The US is different because the US has moral authority. It’s okay for the US to continue to interfere in the political affairs of foreign nations while it would be an unforgivable and outrageous ‘act of war’ for a nation like Russia to do the exact same thing, because the US is countering the interests of the Bad Guys while Russia is countering the interests of the Good Guys. Who decided who the Good Guys and Bad Guys are in this argument? The US.”

Kierkegaard on Becoming an Individual, Seriously

Here are two excerpts from Kierkegaard’s 1847 journal, written when he was 34 years old.

Kierkegaard is sometimes criticized for placing too much emphasis upon “the individual,” promoting a brand of individualism that places little if any value in social connections or community relationships.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Sadly, Kierkegaard’s philosopher MIS-interpreters have encouraged this common misunderstanding of the melancholy Dane by ignoring, or willfully remaining ignorant of, the centrality of Jesus Christ in Kierkegaard’s thinking.

Here is an example:

“Everyone would like to have lived at the same time as great men and great events.  God knows how many really live at the same time as themselves.  To do that (and so neither in hope nor fear of the future, nor in the past) is to understand oneself and be at peace, and that is only possible through one’s relation to God, or it is one’s relation to God.

“Christianity is certainly not melancholy, it is, on the contrary, good news – for the melancholy; to the frivolous it is certainly not good news, for it wishes first of all to make them serious.”

In other words, no one becomes the person, the unique individual, they were created to become until he/she stands submissively, and lives obediently, before the savior, Jesus Christ.  Only that authentic individual existing before God, who is who she is, who does what she does, who behaves as she behaves and decides as she decides because she lives to serve Jesus faithfully with all that she has to offer Him, will experience the joy of being her genuine, God-intended self.

That is authentic individualism, and it is only attained through the Good News of Jesus Christ.  Only these kinds of authentic individuals can compose a genuine Christian community where brothers and sisters in Christ serve each other freely and sacrificially.

In the American pursuit of secular individualism, constantly affirming the innate wisdom buried somewhere inside our inner rebel, that solitary soul fleeing God’s influence, we foolishly refuse to take ourselves seriously as sinners.

This is the Gospel’s first task:  to make us serious; serious about ourselves; serious about God.

It is the only route out of banal frivolity into eternal joy.

In this light, I suspect that the United States may be the least serious “Christian” nation on earth, nurturing a populous sucking at the teats of the most frivolous media culture – including the supposedly Christian media – ever devised.

Don’t live like the typical American consumer.  Set your sights on becoming an authentic Individual, please, before it is too late.