Tag: Following Jesus

Reading Religion Reviews My Book, “I Pledge Allegiance” #readingreligion # americanacademyofreligion

Eerdmans Publishers recently notified me of the first (to my knowledge) online review of my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America.  You can find the review here at the Reading Religion website (an outlet of the American Academy of Religion).

Jacob Alan Cook, an Adjunct Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Friends University, is very kind in offering a positive review of my latest book.  He is both a thoughtful reader and reviewer, qualities not as common as you might think.

In the spirit of continuing the conversation – a conversation I believe is the most important contribution the Christian church can make to America’s public life at this moment in our history – I want to offer a few responses to Professor Cook’s observations.

Towards the end of his review, Cook suggests that “the root of the problem [i.e. the church’s abandonment of Jesus’ kingdom ethics] lies deeper than Crump’s analysis.”  He points to Bonhoeffer’s suggestion that the basis of every ethical problem is the human tendency to think that we already know what God wants of us, thereby conforming God’s will to our personal preferences.

I agree with Cook’s assessment of our ethical dilemma.  But I also think that I make this point several times myself, although I may not have been as thorough or as explicit as I should have been.  I will keep this in mind for the future.

Professor Cook also dabbles in a bit of theological archaeology as he muses on the possible connections between my evangelical upbringing and my book’s emphasis on the place of evangelism within the ethics of God’s kingdom.

I think he is right to highlight this connection, but not for the reason he implies.

Yes, evangelicalism has traditionally distinguished itself by emphasizing the importance of personal evangelism in the Christian life.  But I would argue that the tenor of I Pledge Allegiance is due to an entirely different evangelical characteristic — namely, taking the Bible seriously.

I hope that my book’s analysis of the Synoptic Gospels makes it clear that sharing the good news of the gospel is an essential ingredient of Jesus’ kingdom ethic.  My goal in I Pledge Allegiance is to describe a Biblical theology, not an evangelical theology…in fact, just typing out those final, two words has stretched my attention span to the breaking point.  Yikes!

If there are any similarities between my arguments in I Pledge Allegiance and the work of Carl F. H. Henry (a godfather of American evangelicalism), as Professor Cook suggests, then it is because we both have read the same Bible and drawn similar conclusions.

So, thank you again, Professor Cook.

And if you subscribe to this blog but have not yet read I Pledge Allegiance yourself, I hope that this helpful review at Reading Religion will motivate you to do so.  What are you waiting for?

Wedding Cakes, the New Testament and Ethics in the Public Square

Not long after the Supreme Court decision on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, I wrote an article examining the issues involved from the perspective of New Testament interpretation.  I quickly sent it off to a popular Christian publication hoping to enter into the public debate.

Well, I am now 0 for 3 at article submissions being accepted by this brand of magazine.  Or maybe I should say that I am 3 and 0 at being rejected.  Alas, such are the trials of a would-be popular author.

So, rather than submit myself to another 4 – 6 week waiting period, I have decided to make the article available here on my blog.  I hope you will find it informative and stimulating as we all continue to think about the best ways to display our kingdom citizenship to the watching world.

Wedding Cakes, the New Testament and Ethics in the Public Square

by David Crump © July 2018

 

The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case has pumped equal amounts of fervor into both sides of the latest battle in America’s culture wars. The court admitted that it was making a narrow, not a landmark, ruling which offers little in the way of precedent for future civil rights vs. religious liberty cases.  Consequently, cheerleaders on both sides – evangelical Christians applauding for Masterpiece Cake Shop and civil liberties activists lamenting the ruling’s implications for gay rights – are getting ahead of themselves as to what this decision means for similar battles in the future.

As Eugene Volokh, law professor at UCLA, wrote on the day of the decision, it “leaves almost all the big questions unresolved” (Reason. 6/4/18).

Mr. Phillips claimed that decorating a cake intended for a gay wedding would violate his Christian conscience.  His opponents recall the systematic, racial discrimination of Jim Crow laws that only started to be overturned during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  That post-Civil War era of legalized racism was commonly justified on religious grounds.  White southerners opened their Bibles, too, and cited proof-texts demonstrating that desegregation would violate their Christian faith.

Only two days after the Supreme Court decision was announced, South Dakota state representative Michael Clark (R.) was already waving the banner of a segregationist revival – though he later recanted.  “He [Mr. Phillips] should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then that’s his choice,” said Rep. Clark (Dakota Free Press).

Jeff Amyx of Grainger County, Tennessee has posted a “NO GAYS ALLOWED” sign in the window of his hardware store for the past 3 years.  He argues that discriminating against homosexuals is integral to his Christian faith and witness.  In response to the Supreme Court decision, Mr. Amyx told local reporters, “Christianity is under attack. This is a great win…”

Even though the Supreme Court’s ruling explicitly disavows any attempt to make it a justifying precedent for future discrimination cases, the logical possibilities are clear.  At least, they seem clear to people like Michael Clark and Jeff Amyx.  We will have to wait and see how the courts eventually sort out these questions.

In the meantime, the evangelical church should stop and take some time to examine whether or not there is a solid scriptural foundation beneath Mr. Phillips’ appeal to religious conviction.  Is there, in fact, a sound Biblical argument under-girding the claim that decorating the cake for a gay wedding violates Christian morality?  To put it more broadly, do Christian business people compromise or deny some part of their faith in Jesus Christ when they provide personal services to others outside the church who are entrenched in lifestyles that the church considers sinful?

I believe the answer to that question is a resounding no.  Mr. Phillip’s scruples in this case are not a model for others to follow.  Just the opposite.

Let’s examine the issues one step at a time.

The apostle Paul put a premium on maintaining a clear conscience.  Mr. Phillips appears to understand that.  Paul’s discussion of whether or not Christians can eat meat originally sacrificed to idols (pagan temples were the most common butcher shops at the time) reveals that believers are sometimes free to disagree.  At times, personal consciences may vary (1 Cor. 8:7-15).  What is right for one person may not be right for another.  But everyone is expected to maintain an unsullied conscience free of guilt. So, Paul says in Romans 14, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind…If anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean…and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (verses 5, 14, 23).  In other words, don’t do things that you believe are wrong, things that will leave you nursing a guilty conscience.

Mr. Phillips says that he was resolving this very debate within himself when he declined to decorate a wedding cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig.  Doing otherwise, he said, would have violated his Christian values.   So, he chose to safeguard his conscience, and the Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Phillips’ freedom to make that decision – particularly in light of the open hostility expressed towards his faith by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

However, the apostle’s acknowledgement that church members in Corinth and Rome were able to eat meat sacrificed to idols without violating their consciences, if they chose to do so, suggests that Mr. Phillips’ decision need not apply to anyone besides himself.  The pressing question is:  does offering services to a gay wedding fall into the same category of moral ambivalence as eating meat sacrificed to idols?  Was Mr. Phillips’ conscientious objection a paradigmatic stance required of all Christians or was it an idiosyncratic opinion binding only on Mr. Phillips?

 

We should recall that, when it comes to matters of ethical debate, Paul describes the narrower conscience, the more easily offended conscience, as “the weaker” one revealing a more feeble faith (Rom. 14:1-2; 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:7, 9-12).  Paul gives no indication that he valued the maintenance of a weak conscience.  In fact, his description indicates that a weaker faith ought to mature.  I suspect that this is why Paul previews his pastoral advice with an explanation as to why those exhibiting a stronger conscience are theologically correct (1 Cor. 8:4-6).

The implication is clear.

Those exhibiting a weaker conscience by refusing to eat meat sacrificed to idols would do well to absorb Paul’s theological explanation, for it reveals how their position derives from a misunderstanding. Disciples showing signs of a weaker conscience would therefore benefit from the advice of a mature mentor, someone who could offer patient instruction and sound Biblical instruction to clarify where, how and why outgrowing a weak conscience is preferable to remaining offended over debatable matters.

If decorating a cake for a gay wedding is comparable to eating meat sacrificed to idols, then Mr. Phillips has earned a few lines in the annals of religious liberty litigation, but he is not a model of how mature disciples should navigate the cross-currents of Christianity’s relationship with society.

Which leads us back to our original question.  Do Christian business people – or any Christian, for that matter – compromise or deny some part of their faith in Jesus Christ by providing personal services to people outside the church who are entrenched in lifestyles that the church calls sinful?

Remember, this is not a question about the morality of homosexual activity or gay marriage.  On this, I believe that we all ought to agree with Mr. Phillips.  I am convinced that the New Testament defines a gay lifestyle as immoral, including monogamous gay marriage.  Followers of Jesus Christ are forbidden to live that way, along with many other prohibited lifestyles (1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).  Homosexual activity is condemned alongside greed, drunkenness, slander, theft, murder, adultery and lying, among other evils.  But having said this, there is no indication that homosexuality is considered the supreme sin, worse than all others.  It is simply listed as one among many unacceptable ways for Christians to live.

Which makes me wonder if Mr. Phillips has ever decorated wedding cakes for people whose lives were shackled by greed, dishonesty, selfishness, theft or fornication, to mention only a few of the other lifestyles condemned by Paul.  Of course, those issues are much harder to detect during a brief conversation in a cake shop, but that does not make them any less problematic for someone fearful that providing his professional services would tacitly endorse sin in another person’s life.

Romans 1:26-27 does describe homosexuality as paradigmatic of the way sin has disordered God’s orderly creation.  But this section of Paul’s argument comes after his description of idolatry as the quintessential example of human sinfulness (verses 18-25).  In light of Romans 1, then, it hardly seems likely that sharing a meal with your neighbors where the main dish came straight out the back door of Zeus’ temple after it was butchered by pagan priests as the offering in an idolatrous ceremony, would be any less problematic for Paul than decorating the cake for a gay wedding.  In the words of Jesus, reaching that conclusion would be a bit like straining at gnats while swallowing camels (Matt. 23:24).  I suspect that Paul would agree.

If a healthy, mature Christian conscience has no trouble eating meat butchered in idolatrous sacrifices with the neighbors next-door, then decorating a gay wedding cake for people outside the church should be an easy afternoon stroll through the green grass of Christian morality, by comparison.

We know that Paul supported himself by making tents (Acts 18:3), a skilled craft every bit as personalized as cake decorating.  The apostle would set out his tent-maker’s stall in the public marketplace and take orders for the assorted types of tents his customers wanted.  Paul’s business relations with the milling crowds of unredeemed humanity looking to buy and sell in the 1st century, Greco-Roman agora would have seen him pressing the flesh with the full spectrum of unwashed, pagan masses.  Idolaters, magicians, pederasts, adulterers, and every stripe of common criminal were all potential customers.  Homosexuality was extremely common in this Greco-Roman world, including long-term relationships comparable to gay marriage.

We cannot say for certain how Paul handled these interactions while conducting his business. But I very much doubt that he interviewed each potential customer before taking their order so as to ensure that he only made tents for people who agreed with his Christian, moral sensibilities and promised beforehand that they would never use his tents for activities he did not approve of.  That would make a great recipe for watching the competition take away all of your business.  Paul could not have supported himself for very long.  Although I admit to making an argument from silence here, I am confident that it is a sound argument, especially in light of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.  He says:

 

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.”

 

Apparently, some members of the Corinthian church had misunderstood Paul’s previous advice on maintaining church discipline.  His warning about not associating with “sinners,” which would include refusing to do business with them, was strictly an internal affair concerning personal relationships within the Christian community.  Paul could not have stated his ethical position more clearly: “Judging those outside of Christ’s church is none of my business.  It’s God’s business, not mine.  So, I won’t do it.”

Applying the community standards of Christian church discipline to the believer’s social or business relationships outside of the church is an obvious example of something called a category mistake.  For instance, I am guilty of a category mistake when I offer a detailed description of elephants to the blind person who asked me to describe a goldfish.  It doesn’t make sense.

To the misfortune of both the church and American society, moralistic category confusions have become a distinguishing feature of the Religious Right.  TV and radio preachers popularize these confusions day in and day out as they rally their followers over the airwaves to defend Christian America from the deadly advances of secular humanism.

I suspect that it was within this hothouse of popular confusion that Mr. Phillips’ solidified his views about Christian ethics.  No one’s moral compass is calibrated in a vacuum.  I very much doubt that Mr. Phillips settled on preserving his weakened conscience all by himself.  He represents – as the Christian media frenzy applauding his victory shows – the largest part of American evangelicalism today, churchgoers with nothing more than a superficial grasp of scripture who view themselves as culture-warriors holding the line against a godless society.

Here we reach the animating force behind Mr. Phillips’ stance insofar as he represents evangelicalism’s current captivity to the unending melodrama of its so-called “culture wars.”  Worries over Christianity’s fight-to-the-death with secularism undoubtedly motivate hardware-store owner Jeff Amyx’s fretful lament that “Christianity is under attack.”  To his mind, and others like him, fighting against godlessness transforms a hideously ungodly “NO GAYS ALLOWED” sign into a battle standard for religious liberty.

Yet, how exactly does recognizing that unredeemed sinners will continue to sin ever threaten the church?  (After all, don’t even redeemed sinners within the church continue to sin?)

How does doing business in the public square with other sinners for whom Jesus died ever threaten my freedom to follow Jesus?  How does doing business with folks who do not (yet) want to conform their lives to Jesus’ example threaten my decision to be like Jesus, the same Jesus who partied with tax-collectors, prostitutes and other sinners?

It doesn’t.

The problem today – as I discuss at length in my book I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans 2018) – is that large portions of the American church have turned their backs on Jesus’ model of suffering servanthood in order to fight for control over the secular levers of social, political power and control. Evangelicalism has exchanged the gospel of grace for an idolatrous nostalgia over something that never was – an American Christendom.

Christendom seeks to erase the border between church and state. Christendom confuses the body of Christ with society at large, with damaging results for all parties. Its propagandists demand that Christianity “reclaim” its place as America’s de facto state religion.  Among Christendom’s many mistakes, perhaps the most egregious is this wish to impose the norms of church discipline upon everyone else in society, regardless of their own religious affiliation.

In this way, the rhetoric of Christendom sounds much like the preacher who insisted on telling a herd of elephants that they must all live like goldfish.

Mr. Phillips’ case is only the beginning in this latest round of religious freedom/civil rights litigation.  Sadly, having forgotten that God’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), American evangelicals have decided to exchange their suffering Savior and his New Testament teaching for front row seats on the White House lawn and amicus briefs utterly irrelevant to the Kingdom of God.

What is Civility, Anyway? #maxinewaters #civility

The Christian Century has a good online article today by Greg Carey entitled “In Revelation, faithful testimony is peaceable — not necessarily civil“.  Though I do not agree with every one of his points, by focusing on Revelation 5 the author provides a good discussion of the peaceable, yet

Bamberger Apokalypse, Germany, c. 1000

thoroughly counter-cultural, witness offered by the faithful Church-militant living in this violent world.

I have made similar, though differently nuanced, points in my recent book, I Pledge Allegiance.  Look especially at chapters 4 “Living with Dual Citizenship,”  7 “When Disobedience in a Virtue” and 11 “Blessed are Those who Suffer Because of Me.”

Sorry, but I just gotta say this: I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America could be the most important Christian book you read this season in securing a solid Biblical foundation for faithful Christian witness in the era of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Here is an an excerpt from Carey’s article:

“…having promised a lion, Revelation delivers no lion. A lamb appears instead—a lamb who has suffered a mortal wound, no less. Nowhere in Revelation does a lion appear. Instead, Revelation’s primary symbol is the Lamb. The Lamb does carry a sword. But that sword protrudes from the Lamb’s mouth. The Lamb, Revelation’s faithful witness (1:5), fights through the power of its testimony. When Rome is displaced with the New Jerusalem, we behold the Tree of Life. Its leaves provide not domination but the healing of the nations (22:2).

“I find the demand for civility troubling in our present moment. In a time of great unrest and violence, we ask marginalized people to show good manners while others are kicking them in the teeth. Too easily we dismiss the disruptive examples of the abolitionists, the suffragettes, the civil rights demonstrators, and those who overcame Apartheid. I suggest instead that Christians turn to the image of the Lamb: so disruptive as to provoke violence, yet persisting in faithful testimony. Faithful witness can be peaceable without necessarily qualifying as civil.”

I couldn’t agree more.

In light of Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ recent call for folks to offer public challenges to Trump’s Cabinet members, the question of public civility is a hot topic — at least for this news cycle.  If you didn’t hear Rep. Water’s remarks, please find them and listen to her before voicing an opinion.

Many, perhaps most, pundits have seriously misrepresented what she said.  And the numerous threats she has received subsequently are unconscionable by any standard…oh yeah, except for the racist, white supremacist standard.  I forgot…

Personally, I am not a big fan of civility debates.  I’ve not seen one that was very productive.  In my experience, many folks use their particular notion of “civility” as a club to beat down and silence anyone on the opposite side of an issue; or worse yet, to silence debate altogether.

That seems to be the main achievement of these so-called debates — to stifle debate.

Fretting about “civility” then becomes a socially acceptable way of saying, “Sit down and shut up!  You are not being civil!”  Alas.  The sinful cycle of human arrogance continues on and on.

The plea for civility becomes coded language for enforcing conformity: “You are not discussing the issue in the way I wish to discuss the issue; or you are not using the terms, or the tone, or the volume, or the methods, or the deportment, or the tactics, or the whatever that I think you should use.  Therefore, your contribution is uncivil, not to be taken seriously, simply because it’s not the same as my contribution.”

Of course, scripture has a lot to say about Christian behavior, private and public speech, personal relationships (both within and outside of the church), as well as our attitudes toward public officials. (Again…you really must read my book!)

Every person is the image of God, someone who ought never be demeaned or mistreated.  Followers of Jesus can never endorse or engage in violence.  Everyone is worthy of being loved.

All who follow Jesus must be in the process of conforming their attitudes and actions to the Father’s expectations. (So, be a faithful student of scripture, if you aren’t already).

But we can’t forget that the wild variations of individual personalities we encounter are all a part of God’s design.  Neither should we overlook the multiplicity of diverse cultural backgrounds and upbringings individuals enjoy, all of which have a role to play in where, how and why different people draw different lines in the sand as to what is and what is not acceptable behavior.

One person’s civility is another’s mumbly-bubkiss.  One person’s prophetic witness is another’s spiritual migraine.

Perhaps the Christian’s most important act of civility appears when we  accept others for who they are, as they are, while listening to and seriously considering what they have to say, no matter how they say it or act upon it.

The value of an idea stands independently of its verbal vehicle.

Don’t forget. Most of God’s Old Testament prophets were run out of town on a rail because the masses considered them to be the most horrendously, some would say the most fabulously, uncivil of all uncivil people.

 

“Grieving American on the Fourth of July”

Apparently, the flu bug was waiting for my friends to leave before attacking me.  Alas, I have been massively assaulted by an ugly flu for the past week, hence my piddling blog production of late. My apologies.  I hope to pick up the pace soon.  In the mean time…

Jean Neely has a good article on the Sojourners website entitled “Grieving America on the Fourth of July.”  I have posted an excerpt below.  The entire article is worth reading.

“We in the church have clung too tightly to our country’s myths of exceptionalism. We’ve been too slow to name the real “terror within” and unwilling to listen to those telling us of terror all around. We’ve been reluctant to own up to our history and speak out against unjust policies. We don’t like to think or talk about it, but most of us know that our quality of life here comes directly at the expense of everyone else on the planet (not to mention the planet itself), millions of ordinary folks whose countries have been ravaged by centuries of colonialism and persistent neocolonial structures, who make our clothes and gadgets, grow our food and coffee, and pay in countless other ways for all our out-of-control consumption and addictions. Their problems are our problems. So we can’t set them aside.

“In particular, those of us who claim to follow the poor, Middle Eastern God-man who taught us to give away our possessions, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, and love one another can’t ignore Jesus in the stranger, Jesus on the street, or in the “detention center.” We can’t ignore that Christ embraces and abides with “the least of these,” or the fact that we habitually mistreat, lock up, and deport Christ and those dear to him. We’re called to a different way.

Who is the American Jesus? What is he saying? He reaches out to everyone, but does he carry a gun?

“We might begin with the work of facing the truth of who we are, of being present to the full reality of ourselves and our country. We need to look squarely at reality, at our own churches and our own souls, and deal with the discomfort or pain of what we find there. We need to awaken to both the beauty and the ugliness within, the shadow as well as the light. Sadly, as Thomas Merton put it, ‘We are not very good at recognizing illusions, least of all the ones we cherish about ourselves.’

“It can be terrifying to examine what we cherish about ourselves. But this is the work we’re called to first. We make others pay every day that we refuse to do this work.”

The author well captures my own feelings on this July 4th.  In fact, I find myself enthralled by this personal turmoil on a regular basis, especially on Sundays.  I attend corporate worship, first and foremost, to contribute my own adoration to the collective praise of our Lord and Savior, God Almighty, and to the Son, Jesus Christ.

Yemeni children killed by US-made weapons.

But I must confess that this has become increasingly difficult for me.  Not that I am wavering in my devotion or am any less committed to glorifying my God.  Rather, I find that I must invest more and more of my energy into concentrating on the purpose at hand while fighting off the distractions presented by those around me.

I know. I know.  I am fully aware of how self-righteous I will sound.  The Spirit and I wrestle every day with this issue in my heart.  Yet, the selfish centrality of “me-ism” in our services, combined with the absence of any collective confession of sin or guilt, mixed with the standard American ignorance and indifference to the horrendous levels of pain, suffering and bloodshed casually accomplished by American military ingenuity all around the world every single day often brings me to tears as I stand before my God.

Onlookers probably think that I am having a “deep” moment with Jesus.  And I think I am.  But not the kind they imagine.

I have yet to sort out how to handle these moments, spiritually, psychologically or emotionally.  I only pray that the Lord Jesus will help my nation, my leaders, my community and my church as well as I expect Him to help me.

That’s my hope for this 4th of July.

Following the Messiah-No-One-Expected and Very Few Want Today

Carlo Corretto

I have been busy enjoying a visit from some dear, long-time friends this past week, hence my brief vacation from blogging.  But I am back today with this excerpt from the book Why, O Lord? by Carlo Carretto.

The tremendous life-altering challenge of following the real, historical, Biblical Jesus rather than the convenient, sanitized, nationalized Jesus of American evangelicalism is a contemporary version of the New Testament call to discipleship that has confronted every generation (in its own, unique way) throughout church history.

It is no easier today than it was 2,000 years ago.

I have described what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah-no-one-expected (or much wanted) in my book, Encountering Jesus, Encountering Scripture.

My new book, I Pledge Allegiance, describes the life-or-death struggle facing the American church right now in this age of Trump .

Carlo Carretto eloquently makes the same point in his book, and I believe it is well worth sharing.  I do not know Mr. Carretto, but he writes like a man who knows the real Jesus:

“Goodness! How difficult it is to believe in the sort of Messiah that Jesus of Nazareth represents!

 To believe that we win by losing our very selves!

To believe that love is everything.

To believe that power is a great danger, wealth slavery, comfortable life a misfortune.

 It is not easy.

 This is why you hear [people] in the street say, ‘If there was a God there would not be all this suffering.’

 Two thousand years have gone, and there are still Christians whose doctrinal notions belong to those ancient days when the power and existence of God was revealed by displays of strength and the victory of armies. And especially by wealth and having more possessions.

 The real secret had not then been received.

Nor is it received very easily even today.

Hence the blasphemy in general circulation denying the kingdom’s visibility, given the ordeal of suffering and death.

 The old teaching that we, the Church, must be strong still feeds our determination to possess the land and dominate the world.

 We must make ourselves felt. We must keep our enemies down. We must scowl. We must win, and to win we need money, money, money. And to have money we need banks, we need the means and we need clever bankers. How can we do good without means, without money? Let’s have a big meeting, and then any opposition will be shamed into silence. Well, we must defend our rights, the rights of the Church. We must defeat our enemies.

 Enemies, always enemies on the Church’s horizon!

 Yet Jesus has told us in no uncertain terms that we no longer have any enemies, since they are the same people we are supposed to love, and love specially.

 Can it be that we have not understood?

 Don’t we read the Gospel in our churches?

 How long shall we wait before following the teaching of Jesus?”

Indeed…how long?

When Knowing Jesus Is Depressing #christianityanddepression

I know what it feels like to find Christianity oppressive and guilt-inducing.

It is true that certain people within the church often seem to think that the main goal of Christianity is to make others feel condemned.  But those who struggle with undiagnosed depression don’t need anyone else’s help to find themselves trapped inside guilt’s dank catacombs. We typically discover ourselves wandering throughout guilt’s labyrinth without any outside assistance.

The unhealthy tendencies of a fallen mind (and everyone’s mind is fallen since Genesis 3) can discover a variety of creative ways to turn the gospel of God’s grace into a script for endless self-accusation.

Here is another excerpt from a message on depression I gave to students at Calvin College years ago:

“For much of my life, knowing Jesus was not an experience of grace or forgiveness. Neither was it a confrontation with authentic guilt. Rather, it was predominately an experience of failure and accusation where nagging, anonymous guilt became a never-ending state of mind. 

Spiritual Torment

 “Being a Christian was like falling through the rabbit hole with Alice in wonderland.  I was chasing after something that was always just around the next bend in the tunnel.  For years of my life, from the moment my eyelids opened in the morning till they closed at night, I would be filled with the gnawing feeling that somehow or another I had let God down.  I didn’t know how; I just felt it. 

 “Each day unfolded beneath the thick, dark shadows of an anonymous cloud of accusation, never tied to anything specific but always there accusing me of unrelenting failure. 

 “I once told a friend that life was like a huge jig-saw puzzle, and somehow or another my part of the puzzle was missing a few pieces.  Try as I might, I could never seem to find those missing pieces.  God knew where they were. He was waiting for me to figure out what I was missing, but I could never find the answers.  And He would never give me any hints.

 “Have you ever heard the Christian chorus, “The Joy of the Lord Is My Strength”?  I always hated that song.  Whenever we sang that song at my childhood church or my high school youth group, my insides would tie themselves in knots because it never, never made any sense to me. 

 “As far as I could tell, the joy of the Lord was a hoax.  There was no such thing, at least not for me. 

The Torment of St. Anthony by Michaelangelo

 “Knowing the Lord brought duty, challenge and unbelievable expectations, but in all my life I couldn’t remember a single time when knowing Jesus had brought me joy or gladness.  It just didn’t happen for me; and try as I might, I couldn’t find the 10 easy steps that would change my experience on that score.  I knew all about the power of positive thinking but trying to believe in that power only added to my guilt because it was just one more thing I could not do.

 “That guilt drove me for much of my life.  It drove me to be the very best student I could be, because maybe then Jesus would be satisfied.  It drove me to be the best Inter-Varsity staff-worker I could be.  It drove me to become the best pastor that I could be.  It drove me to try to grow the biggest church that I could grow, because maybe then I could wake up in the morning – just once – with a sense of peace, feeling that Jesus was finally satisfied with me.  (Let me tell you, working to become the best at something does not make anyone the best at anything.  I know that too, as a staff-worker, graduate student and pastor).

 “Does any of this sound familiar?  I suspect that many people may recognize themselves….

 “I now know that my struggle with this particular breed of spiritual depression was hopelessly (in my case) intertwined with my psychological, clinical depression.  So, I want to emphasize two lessons I was able to learn anew once counselling and medication started helping me to see my life from God’s real perspective (not my warped, false perspective).

 “First, I slowly began to understand that Jesus was living through my depression with me. 

He was not condemning me. He was grieving with me. 

 “I could know this because the New Testament tells me that Jesus had experienced depression, too.  He had even lived through my anxiety attacks, first hand. (Have you ever had one of those? Not fun.) 

 “The gospels tell us that on the night he was betrayed, Jesus went into the Garden of Gethsemane to pray, and “he was terror-stricken.”  (That’s what the language means).  He was “overwhelmed with fear and anxiety.”  In fact, he told his closest friends, “My soul is so overwhelmed with grief that I feel like I am being crushed to death” (Mk. 14:32-34).  That is a perfect description of depression with panic attacks.

 “When Jesus finally hangs on the cross, he feels himself to be wholly abandoned by his God, thrown aside like a rag-doll by his own heavenly Father. He groans in agony, “My God, my God, why…why have you turned your back on me now?”  Jesus experienced the unquenchable despair of a failing sinner’s groping for a God who is always somewhere else.  He knew my desperation and my anxiety.

 “Secondly, I began to see with new eyes why Jesus had died.  

 “I recognized that for years I had unwittingly read the gospels as if I was hearing the story of a Savior who loved me in spite of myself, in spite of my failures.  Now, with new eyes, I was beginning to see that Jesus had not died for me in spite of my sins.  No.  Jesus died for me because of my sins. 

 “Jesus didn’t look at me with all my struggles and say, “Oh, well, I guess I’ll love him anyway.”  NO!  He sees me in my struggles and says, “Oh, he needs my love and forgiveness!”  And Jesus really, really, really does love me (and you!) just exactly the way that I am.  I now know that I really, really, really am fully and completely accepted by Christ Jesus just exactly the way that I am.

 “And I’ll tell you something:  He really, really, really loves you just exactly the way that you are, too.  Jesus Christ did not die for you in spite of your sins, either.  Jesus gave his life for you on the cross because of your sins.  Remember this, for this is the gospel of grace.

 “For some of us, learning to reorient our thinking towards the acceptance of Christ’s unconditional love can become a significant step towards the healing of spiritual depression.  “But some of us can’t seem to shake our depression no matter how hard we try to adjust our attitudes or our thought patterns.  We need something more…”

 I will talk about what that “something more” was for me next time I write about Christian faith and depression.

The Holy Spirit is not the only force influencing a person’s relationship with Jesus Christ. There is a fraternity of mysterious, internal actors known as neurochemicals that exercise incredible force over everyone’s spiritual life, whether we know it or not.

God made us physical, material beings.  Our physical make-up actually appears to monitor our spirituality in ways that we are only beginning to understand. I will talk about the human body-Spirit connection and how dealing with my own depression led me into exploring this area in my next post on this subject.  In the meantime, ask yourself this:

Can the Holy Spirit be a neurochemical?

Israel, the Great Western Narrative and the Kingdom of God #zionism #jonathancook

Jonathan Cook, a British journalist living and working in Nazareth, Israel.

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist living and working in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001.  You can find his biography and CV, including his many books, here.

I read Mr. Cook’s blog regularly. I also check out any of his articles or books whenever I come across them.

Yesterday, The Greenville Post (another excellent website I read regularly) published a Cook article entitled “How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions.” Cook describes the slow evolution of his own social, political and historical consciousness as his work in journalism taught him to recognize something he calls the “Great Western Narrative.”

I hope you will take the time to read Cook’s article.  He is extremely insightful.  I have posted an excerpt below with a link to the entire article.

Cook’s analysis can be particularly challenging for Christians. He not only diagnoses the ways in which western Christians succumb to establishment propaganda, just like everyone else — no, brothers and sisters, we are not immune to the dangers of brainwashing —

But Cook’s advice for breaking free of the “Great Western Narrative” and learning to understand and engage in this world from a more humane perspective, is very similar to the argument I tried to make for Christian readers in my book I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America.

Christian disciples can only perceive this world aright, that is, from a New Testament, heavenly perspective, when we learn to replace the Great Western Narrative with Jesus’ own Narrative of the Kingdom of God.

That should be a lifetime goal for every follower of Jesus.  Yet, it is so much easier to live as loyal Americans than it is to be faithful citizens of God’s kingdom on earth.

This, in a nutshell, is the goal of my blog. Everything I write at HumanityRenewed, is something (I hope) that will help us to peel off the worldly consciousness — the Great Western Narrative — that works overtime to hold us captive and cripple our ability to live out God’s Kingdom citizenship in the here and now.

Nowhere is the evangelical church’s idolatry of the Great Western Narrative, coupled with its abandonment of Jesus’ Narrative of the Kingdom of God, more evident than in its blind devotion to Christian Zionism and the state of Israel, whatever its crimes.

Here is the excerpt:

“Israel is enthusiastically embraced by the Great Western Narrative: it is supposedly a liberal democracy, many of its inhabitants dress and sound like us, its cities look rather like our cities, its TV shows are given a makeover and become hits on our TV screens. If you don’t stand too close, Israel could be Britain or the US.

“But there are clues galore, for those who bother to look a little beyond superficialities, that there is something profoundly amiss about Israel. A few miles from their homes, the sons of those western-looking families regularly train their gun sights on unarmed demonstrators, on children, on women, on journalists, on medics, and pull the trigger with barely any compunction.

“They do so not because they are monsters, but because they are exactly like us, exactly like our sons. That is the true horror of Israel. We have a chance to see ourselves in Israel – because it is not exactly us, because most of us have some physical and emotional distance from it, because it still looks a little strange despite the best efforts of the western media, and because its own local narrative – justifying its actions – is even more extreme, even more entitled, even more racist towards the Other than the Great Western Narrative.

“It is that shocking realisation – that we could be Israelis, that we could be those snipers – that both opens the door and prevents many from stepping through to see what is on the other side. Or, more troubling still, halting at the threshhold of the doorway, glimpsing a partial truth without understanding its full ramifications.”

You can read Cook’s entire article here.

A Review of Thomas Bergler’s The Juvenilization of American Christianity

Several months ago, I read a fine book by Thomas E. Bergler, The Juvenilization of American Christianity (Eerdmans, 2012).  Bergler is associate professor of ministry and missions at Huntington University, Indiana.  He has written what amounts to a history of the creation, rise and evolution of youth ministry in the American church.

He simultaneously argues, convincingly in my view, that a movement which began as an element of church ministry has successfully expanded to consume the whole of (most) American church life.

Whether we like it or not, we are all teenagers now.  At least this seem to be the case if we look at the way congregational music, messages, teaching content, programming, expectations, goals and ambiance are orchestrated in the average, Protestant worship service today.

Bergler begins by defining juvenilization as “the process by which the religious beliefs, practices, and developmental characteristics of adolescents become accepted as appropriate for Christians of all ages” (4).

The result, whether intentional or not, is a condition he calls “adolescent Christianity,” which is “any way of understanding, experiencing, or practicing the Christian faith that conforms to the patterns of adolescence in American culture” (8).

Before we all get hot, bothered or defensive, Bergler is careful to argue that this juvenilization process has not been all bad.  It has generated a number of valuable benefits for the American church, such as a desire for emotional connection and contemporary relevance in our services. Whatever problems exist with juvenilization, however, are due to a lack of theological reflection, analysis and strategizing about the best ways to avoid and/or manage the unexpected, negative consequences.

However, Bergler’s focus in this particular book is on telling the story of how we got to where we are today, not on diagnosis or treatment for the creation of a healthier future.  He saves that discussion for his follow-up book, From Here to Maturity: Overcoming the Juvenilization of American Christianity (Eerdmans, 2014).  I am reading that book now and will review it in the near future.

Bergler begins Juvenilization with an overview describing the rise of a genuinely distinct teenage, “youth culture” in the 1930s and 40s.  He then discusses the various attempts made by different branches of American Christianity to engage this new youth culture effectively for Christ.

One of the more telling features of this nascent youth ministry movement was the eagerness with which the gospel of Jesus Christ was used as the centerpiece to an alternative gospel of anti-communism.  Though this is my observation more than Bergler’s, it illustrates something that became a characteristic strategy of ministries like Youth for Christ and Young Life. That is, an instrumental use of the good news; not teaching the gospel for its own sake but using it for a seemingly higher purpose.  In the 1930s and 40s that higher purpose was America’s fight against the “Red Menace” and equipping the next generation to win our fight against the Soviet Union.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Bergler provides a series of fascinating histories about the different strategies adopted by (1) mainline, liberal Protestantism, (2) the African-American church, (3) the Roman Catholic church and (4) American evangelicalism.  To a greater or lesser extent, everyone’s main goal was not only to hold on to their own young people, but to expand the church’s mission into the expansive field of America’s unsaved teenagers.

Bergler explains how and why the evangelical wing of the church proved most successful in these tasks. (Buy the book to see the details.  It’s worth the money).  Not only was there an explosion of new, church-centered youth groups, but there was a simultaneous development of youth-targeted, para-church organizations like Youth for Christ, Campus Life, and Young Life.

In order to capture the typical teenager’s attention, the leaders of these youth organizations mastered the craft of developing consumer-oriented, fast-paced, emotionally-charged, fun-loving, content-light meetings that appealed to modern adolescents. However, an unexpected, or sadly neglected consequence of this evangelical success was the eventual rise of church-going adults who insisted on taking the new youth-oriented methods along with them into every other aspect of adult church life.  Bergler hits the nail on the head when he concludes:

“…the leaders of parachurch youth ministries experimented freely with ways of being Christian that would create an ever more immature evangelical church. As time went on, more and more white evangelicals of all ages began to demand this new combination of old-time religion and adolescent spirituality.” (214)

In his final chapter, “The Triumph and Taming of Juvenilization,” Bergler briefly elaborates on this juvenilization phenomenon (pages 208-229).  On the positive side of the ledger, he concludes that:

  • “Juvenilization has kept American Christianity vibrant” (208)
  • “investment in youth ministry has led to greater retention of young people in evangelical churches” (215)
  • “Youth ministries helped to make the Christian life more emotionally satisfying…and socially relevant” (210)

On the negative side, he traces several evangelical weaknesses back to juvenilization:

  • “The desire to gather a crowd can easily push leaders to compromise the message of the gospel and downplay spiritual maturity” (211)
  • Understanding the gospel primarily in “therapeutic” terms, leading to what he calls a “moralistic, therapeutic deism” (219-20)
  • “simplified messages that emphasize an emotional relationship with Jesus over intellectual content” (220)
  • Emotional fulfilment becomes the gospel’s primary objective (219-20)
  • “the relentless attention to teenage tastes ends up communicating that God exists to make us feel good. Christianity operates as a lifestyle enhancement…” (220)
  • With the adoption of a consumer mentality for church life “youth ministries have formed generations of Americans who believe it is their privilege to pick and choose what to believe” (223)

Bergler hints at some of the remedial measures he believes necessary for outgrowing the hindrances of juvenilization.  For instance:

  • Leaders “need to teach what the Bible says about spiritual maturity, with special emphasis on those elements that are neglected by juvenilized Christians” (226) – (Hopefully, his next book will elaborate this point.)
  • Using worship music that does not focus exclusively on “fostering a self-centered, romantic spirituality” in which “falling in love with Jesus” is the center (227)
  • Asking every church member “to master a shared body of basic truths” and “training leaders to disciple others” one-on-one and in small groups (227)
  • Model, teach and provide opportunities for service to others (227)
  • Help leaders to understand that “cultural forms are not neutral. Every enculturation of Christianity highlights some elements of the faith and obscures others” (227).

Bergler has written an important history describing the infiltration of American youth culture within the Christian church.  Whether the reader judges that infiltration to be a blessing or a curse, a thoughtful judgment will need to be informed by Professor Bergler’s insights.

A Look at Romans 13:1-7, Must Christians ‘Obey’ the Government? Part 2 #christianityandpolitics

I am absolutely convinced that both Scripture and church history demonstrate the necessity of Christian civil disobedience whenever the ethics of God’s kingdom conflicts with the expectations of the state.

Romans 13:1-7 is the standard text cited by those who confuse faithful Christianity with obedience to state power. My book, I Pledge Allegiance,  focuses considerable attention on disentangling the many confusions behind this popular misunderstanding.  For, as the commentator J. C. O’Neill once wrote,

“These seven… verses have caused more unhappiness and misery… than any other seven verses in the New Testament by the license they have given to tyrants, and the support for tyrants the church has felt called on to offer.”

In and of itself, O’Neill’s observation does not necessarily prove or disprove anyone’s preferred way of reading Romans 13.  But I believe that the investigation offered here and in Part 1 of this study, will make the point clear.

This excerpt is from pages 59-62:

“Civil Disobedience”

“We are now at a point where we can recognize three components of Paul’s instructions that offer a solid foundation for the legitimacy of Christian civil disobedience.

“First, by explaining God’s role in ordering the place of government in human relations, Paul subordinates all civil authorities under God, and not just any god,

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

but Paul’s God, the Father of Jesus Christ. In effect, Paul has desacralized the Roman state and its emperor, both of which regularly received sacrifices from its citizens. Caesar is being told (were he ever to read the book of Romans) that he serves at the pleasure of the Christian God, a revolutionary claim. Rather than propping up the arrogant authoritarianism of Roman rule— or anyone else’s rule, for that matter—Paul is actually taking his theological ax to its woody trunk and chopping it down to proper size. It is difficult for us today to fully grasp the provocative and subversive nature of Paul’s words. He twice describes civil authorities, including the emperor, as “God’s servant” (Rom. 13:4), not because they predictably execute God’s desires as a good servant should, nor because God promises to back up their every decision, whatever it may be, but because they function in a capacity that was “ordered” for them by the God who brings world redemption through the Son, Jesus Christ. Paul is dramatically leveling the playing field between rulers and the ruled. More than that, he has switched the parameters of the Roman playing field for another one entirely. Roman officials thought they stood on political grounds that were established by the gods Mars and Jupiter. To that fantasy Paul’s says, “Not on your life!” Actually, though they do not know it, Roman officials stood on a playing field created and marked out by the Christian God. On that playing field everyone is equal, and all people, no matter their station in this life, will eventually be judged in the same way, by the same standard, by this same God.

“Second, there is a subtle turn to Paul’s teaching strategy that is quite pro- found. Overtly, he is instructing believers to remain cooperative, submissive members of society. Yet, even as he offers this highly conventional message, he is implicitly underscoring the church’s supreme allegiance to the King of Kings above and beyond all other authority figures. The force of this reminder is to enable every Christian citizen to ask a crucial question: Are government authorities behaving like God’s obedient servants in asking me to perform this action? And if I do what the government asks, will I be doing something that I believe is right and acceptable before God? Paul is implicitly reminding the church that obedience to Christ supersedes all other responsibilities. We obey the government when such obedience coincides with obedience to God; otherwise, we submit to governing authority by virtue of our disobedience, accepting the negative consequences, including suffering, of our higher obedience to the King of Kings. Standing alongside the apostle Peter as he defied a direct order from the Sanhedrin, Christians testify with their lives that they “must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; also 4:19).

Christian pacifists held in an internment camp during World War 2

“Third, the thoughtful disciple is now left to deal with questions of personal conscience, a matter that Paul raises himself in verse 5: “It is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.” Paul’s argument is that government officials (ideally) ask citizens to do what is right and then (only) punish those who do what is wrong—not wrong as defined by an arbitrary authority, but wrong as defined by God and our God-given conscience. Paul obviously does not believe that paying taxes, even to unscrupulous tax collectors, is either disobedient to God or a violation of Christian conscience, so he emphatically concludes, “This is why you pay taxes” (v. 6). But that conclusion hardly constitutes a blank check for necessarily prioritizing every government policy over Christian conscience per se. “Because of conscience” is a crucial declaration in its own right, especially when we remember that the real world does not operate in the way Paul describes governing authorities throughout this passage. “Because of conscience” becomes the church’s inevitable explanation for its civil disobedience whenever the governing authorities come to believe their own mythology about extraordinary powers, providential selection, and divine right. The long and bloody history of Christian martyrs who died for their faith while defying local government should remind every disciple of the nonnegotiable priority of Paul’s warning—“because of conscience.”

“Several issues of conscience arise when we take chapters 12 and 13 together, as they should be. Paul, in Romans 12:14, 17, and 19, insists that believers must never retaliate, seek vengeance, or resort to violence, but must always leave judgment to God’s wrath. Paul then goes on (in Rom. 13:4) to grant the governing authorities responsibility for exercising the very functions that Christians are commanded to leave with God. Consequently, there are certain government activities that must forever remain alien to the followers of Jesus. Whatever “bearing the sword” may mean, whether it is the power of law enforcement, imposing capital punishment, or sending men to war, it involves some degree of violence and some acts of punishment, all of which must be foreign territory to the Christian.

“Early Christian leaders understood this to mean, at the very least, that Christians could not join the military (see chapter 10) or serve as judges. Aside from the fact that men in these positions were required to participate in any number of idolatrous Roman rituals, soldiers had to be ready to use force in law enforcement; more important, they could be ordered to kill at any time. Similarly, judges were responsible to punish, imprison, and impose the death penalty; but Christians were forbidden to involve themselves in any of these things. A typical discussion appears in On Idolatry (17.2–3) by Tertullian (AD 160–ca. 225). When answering the suggestion that Christians should seek positions of official authority—such as becoming a judge—in order to influence government positively, Tertullian points out that a man would have to find some way “to avoid the functions of his office . . . without passing judgment on a man’s life [i.e., imposing capital punishment] or honor . . . without condemning or forejudging, without putting anybody in chains or prison or torturing.”  In other words, a Christian could only take the job after first deciding never actually to do the job, an obviously impossible scenario.

“In a similar vein, one version of the Apostolic Constitutions 16.10 (ca. AD 375–380) makes an allusion to Romans 13:4 while insisting that “anyone who has the power of the sword, or who is a civil magistrate wearing the purple, either let him cease (i.e., resign his post in government) or be cast out (i.e., excommunicated from the church).” The only way a Christian could honestly serve in the Roman government (and a post-Constantine government, at that!) was by deliberately avoiding all of his major responsibilities. It is apparent that early Christian leaders were not interpreting Romans 13 in light of a two-kingdoms theology, in which a temporal realm and a spiritual realm make parallel claims on the Christian’s attention. Instead, the disciple was a citizen of only one kingdom, the kingdom of God, which is now invading a fallen world. John Howard Yoder explains that “these two aspects of God’s work are not distinguished by God’s having created two realms but by the actual rebelliousness of men.”

“Martin Luther’s two-kingdoms theology allowed him to recommend that Christians volunteer for the civic roles of hangman and executioner because “it is not man, but God, who hangs, tortures, beheads, kills and fights” when the state punishes criminals and goes to war. Unfortunately, Luther merely demonstrates how blind he was to both the role of conscience and the priority of God’s kingdom for every believer. God may well be the ultimate executioner standing behind a judge’s guilty verdict, but that does not change the fact that the Father forbids his children from having anything to do with a process that kills, demeans, tortures, or seeks vengeance against another human being. Government authority is God’s remedial measure to preserve some semblance of order among sinful human beings. Luther was correct to say that God is the one who punishes when a just, properly functioning judiciary renders a guilty verdict; but he was sorely mistaken in assuming that the divine Judge invites members of the church to share in his work of punishment.”

The Catastrophe in Yemen Continues to Worsen Because of US #yemen

The folks at Just Foreign Policy are sending a petition to Congress and attempting to rally popular support in order to end American support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

Yemeni children are dying of malnutrition and cholera.

Please take the time to read the excerpt posted below from their appeal.  Check out the embedded sources.  Reread my past blog posts about the tragedy unfolding in Yemen (here, here and here).

And remember…this is not a natural catastrophe.  It is an entirely man-made disaster.  

Recalling the Old Testament story of Nathan the prophet confronting King David:  The prophet today points his finger in the face of America and Saudi Arabia saying, “You are the nation.”  WE are the culprits condemning innocent Yemeni people to starvation and disease.

The guilt and responsibility is ours, America.  And we have the power to end it whenever we choose.  Here is the excerpt:

“The long-feared U.S.-backed Saudi-UAE assault on Hodeida, where four-fifths of Yemen’s food imports enter, has begun. ABC News reports: “Assault on Yemen’s largest port threatens to increase mass starvation.” Aid experts warned that an assault on the city could immediately threaten the lives of 250,000 people and put millions more at risk of starving to death. The U.S.-backed Saudi-UAE war against Yemen’s indigenous Houthi rebels has already created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, leaving 60% of the population – 17.8 million Yemenis – food insecure, and 8.4 million a step away from famine.
 
“ABC noted that the U.S. is providing “vital guidance and supplies” for the Saudi-UAE attack on Hodeida. The Wall Street Journal was more explicit: “The U.S. military is providing its Gulf allies with intelligence to fine-tune their list of airstrike targets in Yemen’s most important port, one sign of the Trump administration’s deepening role in a looming assault that the United Nations says could trigger a massive humanitarian crisis.”
 
“33 Representatives tried to stop the attack by threatening the Trump Administration with a vote invoking the War Powers Resolution to force an end to U.S. participation in the war. They were: Mark Pocan, Justin Amash, Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie, Barbara Lee, Walter Jones, Ted Lieu, James McGovern, Tulsi Gabbard, Yvette Clarke, Pramila Jayapal, Peter DeFazio, Debbie Dingell, Earl Blumenauer, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Gwen Moore, Adriano Espaillat, Judy Chu, Bobby Rush, Keith Ellison, Jan Schakowsky, Raúl Grijalva, Jamie Raskin, Donald Beyer, Karen Bass, Frank Pallone, Beto O’Rourke, Alan Lowenthal, Betty McCollum, Zoe Lofgren, Jared Huffman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Hank Johnson.
 
“The Members wrote: “We urge you to use all available means to avert a catastrophic military assault on Yemen’s major port city of Hodeida by the Saudi-led coalition…We remind you that three years into the conflict, active U.S. participation in Saudi-led hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis has never been authorized by Congress, in violation of the Constitution…In light of a possibly disastrous offensive on Hodeida, we remind you that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare and authorize war, and the War Powers Resolution allows any individual member of Congress to force a debate and floor vote to remove U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities.”
 
“Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the Trump Administration have ignored these warnings. They don’t believe that Members of Congress have the courage to follow through on their threat.

“Help us prove Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the Trump Administration wrong. Press Members of Congress to invoke war powers to force a vote to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi-UAE assault on Hodeida by signing our petition.”