Tag: Religious Right

Ford vs. Kavanaugh: Do Alleged Victims of Sexual Assault Matter to the Senate?

Men with power – and partisan women, too – enjoy judging by appearances, telling other people what to do and how they should  feel.  They especially love to get their own way, preferably without opposition.

Loyal, mindless partisanship precludes the need to evaluate all sides of an argument equally. Why bother with evidence or facts when they can be buried, ignored or shouted down?  If an odd malcontent harboring foolish disagreement manages to stand (however briefly) in the way of power, well then, those with the power simply mow them down.  Whatever it takes.

Naturally, a clever use of power will dispatch the opposition in ways so seemingly fair and genteel that few observers will notice the stiletto shiv discreetly plunged into the critic’s backside.

That’s the way power works.  And power is the main currency in our nation’s capital.  For far too many, politics is the dark art of manipulating power for personal gain while wearing the mask of public service.

We are now watching a raw exercise of such partisan power in the nation’s capital.

Dr. Christine Ford has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape when they were in high school together.  One might think that this new “era” of the #MeToo movement has sensitized our leaders to these kinds of charges; that such accusations would be taken seriously by all political parties; that people – especially women, for cryin’ out loud – could rise above partisan rancor in order to give an alleged victim the time and space needed to revisit what was probably THE most traumatizing experience of her life.

But, no, not in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Ford has agreed to tell her story before the Senate Judiciary Committee, after making one simple request:  hoping to avoid an exercise in he-said-

How intimidated would you be sitting before this group, knowing that most of them had already judged you to be a liar?

she-said futility, Ford asked that the committee delay her testimony until after the FBI completes an investigation into her charges.

Not a criminal investigation, mind you, but the sort of inquiry performed for standard, nominee background checks.  Yes, Kavanaugh has undergone several of these investigations already, but that is a moot point.  The FBI have never been asked to look into this particular charge.  And there is no reason to think evidence would have turned up accidentally when they weren’t looking for it.

Dr. Ford’s request sure sounds reasonable to me.

It’s hard to believe that a woman making false accusations would ask for an FBI investigation into her bogus claims as a prelude to being questioned by a (largely hostile) Senate committee while sitting in the hot seat on the national stage.

I can’t imagine that the investigation should be difficult.  Others have stepped forward to say that they knew of rumors circulating about such an incident when they were students at the same school.  Dr. Ford claims to have sought professional help to cope with the trauma and its psychological aftermath.  It wouldn’t be difficult to subpoena the therapist’s records, with Dr. Ford’s consent, in order to learn what was shared in their sessions.

If she is lying, let the investigation unmask her.

Of course, Kavanaugh insists that the alleged assault never happened.  Yet, I can’t help but be sympathetic to Dr. Ford.

If the Trump presidency has demonstrated anything, it is that the truth no longer matters to many Americans, not in our capital city, not among our politicians, not for the average Republican, not even within the church.

Lisa Graves, a former Senate staff-worker, has published credible evidence that this would not be the first time Kavanaugh has perjured himself before a Senate committee. Why isn’t that grave allegation being investigated?  Because power is never concerned with truthfulness except when it serves the interests of more power.  Senate Republicans don’t care about the truth of Brett Kavanaugh.  They simply lust for another “win” registered in their party’s column.  They are the ones in power.

The evangelical church is no better.  In fact, it is far worse.  Truth is not a priority to evangelical spokes-people, the mawkish figureheads representing Trump’s most vocal constituency.  For instance, if you can bear it, watch Franklin Graham’s shameless, partisan boot-licking in his recent CBN interview.  He basically tells Dr. Ford to sit down, shut up, and stop complaining about something that was not a real crime anyway.  It’s disgusting and pathetic.  His father, Billy, is surely weeping in heaven.

If men and women like Graham are not careful, they will one day find themselves eternally shaken by Jesus’ angry lament, “Get away from me, you evildoers.  I never knew you!” (Matthew 7:23).

They are traitors to the kingdom of God, every last one of them.  Sycophantic grovelers before a political Moloch, falling over themselves for the privilege of burning their own spiritual children in the political fires of partisan barbarism.  They know nothing about Jesus, the ethics of his kingdom, or the superiority of God’s reign on earth.

Every rapist denies the charges brought against him, insisting that he is innocence.  In this respect, Kavanaugh is no exception.  He is imitating the man who nominated him.   They are two peas in a pod.

If he is innocent, let the investigation exonerate him.  He should welcome it.

Every victim hesitates to come forward, fearing the harsh gauntlet of public spectacle which so easily morphs into ridicule and character assassination.  Dr. Ford and her family are already receiving death threats from Trump stalwarts — and today we have sadly learned that Judge Kavanaugh’s family is also receiving vicious hate mail and threats. Democrats and so-called progressives are every bit as sinful as anybody else.  Wickedness knows no political boundaries.

But only Dr. Ford is receiving unsolicited advice about what she should have done when she was a teenager.  Yet, grizzled old Senators and shiny news anchors have no business lecturing this woman about what she “should” or “shouldn’t” have done when she was 15 years old.

Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is auditioning for the role of sensitive committee granddad by offering Ford a variety of scenarios where she could tell her story in a one-on-one session along with Kavanaugh next Monday.  The problem, however, is that all of Grassley’s options include meeting with the committee before an FBI investigation would be complete.

Republican efforts at painting Dr. Ford as the unreasonable, demanding woman remind me of an old Saturday Night Live sketch with John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd. The two comedians were immigrant brothers, apparently from Greece, operating a greasy spoon diner.  The only item on their menu was cheeseburgers.  Every customer’s question got the same easy answer:

What’s today’s special? Cheeseburger!

Any desserts?  Cheeseburger!

How about side dishes?  Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger!

Senate Republicans have only one dish on offer:  a  Monday, September the 24th cheeseburger.  Regardless of Grassley’s superficial attempts to dress it up, his only offer so far is a Monday cheeseburger.

Dr. Ford, however, is declining the Monday cheeseburger.  She is asking for an after-the- investigation French dip.  It doesn’t sound unreasonable or outlandish to me.  Why not wait?  (We all know why, actually. Fearing that the midterm elections will strip them of their majority, Republicans are feverishly trying to railroad Kavanaugh’s nomination through while they still have the power).

The truly outlandish aspect of this entire affair is the unmerciful, belittling behavior of those who claim most loudly to speak for God.  Listen again to Graham’s interview, if you can, and then pray for his soul.

Where is the voice of God’s prophet today?  Who speaks out for true justice, equality, fair-mindedness and generosity?  Who stands with the many, many women victimized by sexual assault?  Who will defend the weak against the strong?  Who will call the rich and powerful to account?

“Whoever justifies the wicked, and the one who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” (Proverbs 17:15)

“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8)

Michael Gerson, The Boiling Frog that Finally Jumped…Maybe

Perhaps you know the parable.  How do you boil a frog alive?

Don’t throw the frog into boiling water.  It will jump out.  Rather, turn a stove burner on to low heat.  Fill a kettle with water at room temperature.  Put your wiggling, green frog into the kettle.  Set the kettle onto the burner.  Wait…

Supposedly, as the water temperature slowly rises, the frog – being a cold-blooded creature – will enjoy the sauna without alarm.  Eventually, the cooperative frog allows itself to be cooked alive without ever objecting to the rising water temperature.

I have enough of a conscious that I’ve never tested the truth of this parable (have you?), but it serves as a popular warning against the dangerous allurements of compromising one’s conscience.  How many compromises does it take before principle and morality become waterlogged labels tossed by deceased idealists into the world’s pragmatic stew called “the ends justify the means?”

I don’t know.  Maybe Michael Gerson could tell us.

Gerson, now a columnist with the Washington Post, has become one of president Trump’s most vocal, conservative critics.  And I admire him for taking up the cause of repeating out loud that this president has no clothes.

Gerson prints what few other Republicans are willing to say out loud (except behind closed doors).  He appears to be working as a conservative conscience (in a kinda, sorta way) for an otherwise fetid Republican party that misplaced its public service conscience years ago – undoubtedly lost in the fancy parlor of some corporate contributor.

A graduate of Wheaton College, Gerson is noteworthy because he claims the mantle of “evangelical Christian” while openly condemning the boot-licking, brown-nosing antics of those religious-right leaders and their millions of followers who boast about their elevated status on Trump’s White House guest list.

In this regard, Gerson certainly has his head screwed on straight.  Perhaps he learned a lesson or two from his own time of service in the Bush White House.

GWB : 1630 : Speech Preparations – State of the Union. Oval Office

Gerson was chief speech writer for George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006.  From 2000 to 2006 he was also a White House Senior Policy Analyst and a member of Bush’s White House Iraq Group.

The primary purpose of the WHIG was to advance the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plan “to sell” the American public on the imaginary threat of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMD program.  In other words, Gerson was on the president’s marketing team charged with candy-coating one of the most catastrophic, illegal, immoral wars in the history of American foreign policy.

Everyone on that team knew exactly what they were doing.

Here is Paul Waldman’s assessment (in a very cogent article published in

President George W. Bush speaks about Iraq and Afghanistan, January 4, 2006. Standing with Bush from left are National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque – RTR17RZC

This Week) of the work accomplished by Gerson and his associates in the WHIG:

“What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history.”

That’s what Gerson helped to accomplish.

Gerson is widely regarded as the author of the “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” fear-mongering metaphor that became the most effective rhetorical trick used by Bush officials in promoting the Iraq War.  (Check out Gerson’ Wikipedia page for some interesting anecdotes told by his fellow speech-writers [with citations]).

I have always wondered what happened to Gerson’s Christian conscience during those crucial years in the Bush White House.

In 2012 Gerson gave a public lecture at Calvin College.  I was there.  As he often does, Gerson talked about the formative influences of Charles Colson and Senator Jack Kemp, two Christian leaders with whom he worked closely as a young man.  He credits them for positively shaping his Christian social and political conscience.  He also talked briefly about his years with George W. Bush, but had precious little to say about his work in the White House.

When it came time for the audience to ask questions, I took my place in the short line forming behind a public microphone.  I don’t recall my exact words, but this is essentially what I asked Mr. Gerson:

Torture at Abu Ghraib prison

“You have talked a lot about how your Christian conscience has directed you through your life in politics.  Yet, your political career includes working for an administration that legalized and carried out the torture of other human beings.  Your White House also violated our Constitution with its warrantless, mass surveillance of the American people.  When asked, the president you worked for knowingly lied to us about that fact.

The man packed in ice is Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner who died while being tortured in Abu Ghraib prison

 “How did you, how do you, reconcile all of that with your ‘Christian conscience?’  How could you do that?  What do you have to say?”

Gerson’s answer was a disheartening example of double-speak and evasion.  He never answered my question, not really.  And I was surprised that he didn’t have a more polished response.  Certainly, he had been asked this question before?

I have no idea if Mr. Gerson has ever answered that question within himself.  If he felt ashamed or had experienced any regret over his years of deliberate, knowing collusion in clearing a path for one of the greatest American crimes of the 20th century, he gave no indication of it.

Though I strongly disagree with almost all of Gerson’s policy positions, I am pleased to see him take up the pen and use his position with the Washington Post to shed some sensible, moral – perhaps even somewhat Christian – daylight onto the sweaty, belching, obnoxious, moral turpitude that is the Trump administration.

Apparently, the water temperature in this current White House is too hot even for Michael Gerson.  But his previous ability to flourish at criminally high temperatures causes me to bite my tongue as others commend him for his Christian cajones.

My understanding of Christianity says that redemption first requires confession of and repentance from sin.  Public sins demand public confession.  We may have learned a little about Gerson’s tolerance of the current heat in Washington, D.C.

I am not convinced that his current opposition to Donald Trump tells us anything at all about Gerson’s Christian discipleship.

I am still waiting to hear a public confession of his past, political sins.

More Whining from the Evangelical Advisory Board Spokesman

CBN News posted the following headline today:

“’This Is an Attempt to Intimidate Certain Voices’: Group Says Meetings Between Trump, Faith Leaders a Violation of Law”

The story concerns a letter (fully documenting its assertions) sent by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State asserting that president Trump’s so-called Evangelical Advisory Board is violating federal law.  Below is the substance of their complaint. I have highlighted the essential clauses:

“…the Advisory Board is subject to, but has failed to comply with, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2. It is clear that the President’s Evangelical Advisory Board is doing substantive work with the Trump Administration behind closed doors—without any sunlight for the public to understand how and why decisions are being made. We respectfully request that the Advisory Board cease meeting and providing advice to the President unless and until it fully complies with FACA, and that you produce to us certain documents relating to the Advisory Board.

 “FACA applies to ‘any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof . . . which is . . . established or utilized by the President . . . in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government.’  The Evangelical Advisory Board’s activities are well within FACA’s scope.”

The gist of CBN’s reporting, particularly in its online interview with Advisory Board spokesman, Johnnie Moore, blatantly misrepresents the

Johnnie Moore, graduate of Liberty University

AUSCS letter.  Describing it as one more secularist attempt to “intimidate” evangelical voices in government, both CBN and Johnnie Moore distort the real complaint beyond recognition.

As anyone who reads the letter can see, the problem is not that Trump hangs out with evangelicals – although given the cataclysmic demise of evangelical integrity these days, they certainly can’t be anything but a corrosive influence on a president in dire need of both spiritual and practical advice.  (I would warn the president about the dangers of associating with “backsliders,” but I don’t think he is familiar with the term.)

The problem is not that Trump converses with evangelicals but that he hangs out with them in lonely back alleys, in the dead of night, where they talk in low whispers, without anyone taking notes or keeping a record of their conversations.  Such behavior would be unremarkable if these paragons of Christian virtue were swearing fealty to The Donald in the crushed velvet, over-stuffed chairs of Trump Towers.  Politically aware followers of Jesus have come to expect such treachery from the mammon-loving leaders of their mega-churches and other televised “ministries” lusting for more TBN airtime.

But the president is a public servant, at least in theory, not merely the crime boss he was before winning the election.

The American people have every right to know, as a matter of public record,

The recent dinner for evangelicals at the White House

with whom the president is meeting, from whom he is taking advice, and whether that advice is affecting the rest of us who pay the president’s salary.

American’s United is simply asking the president and his evangelical bed-fellows to obey the law.  That’s it.

Didn’t the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, cite Romans 13 not very long ago as an ominous reminder of just how law-abiding all Americans were supposed to be?  True evangelicals ought to be jumping at the chance fully “to comply with, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2.”

Of course, good ‘ole boy Johnnie (any grown man who insists on being called Johnnie has got to be a good ‘ole boy) insists that there is no such thing as an Evangelical Advisory Council. CBN reports,

“’From the very beginning we’ve made it clear that there is no evangelical advisory council at the White House…I don’t know how many times I’ve said that.  I think everybody just needs to recognize that this is an attempt to intimidate certain voices, and voices that will not be intimidated,’ said Moore.

While there is no doubt that Sessions was trying to “intimidate certain

Rev. Paula White opens the evangelical dinner with prayer

voices” with his immigration policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, under the aegis of Romans 13 no less, I confess that the intimidation factor in the American’s United letter escapes me completely.

Johnnie’s bald-faced insistence that there is no such thing as an Evangelical Advisory Council reminds me of the Monty Python “Dead Parrot sketch.”  After his recently purchased parrot dies, the disgruntled customer tries to return his now dead parrot to the pet shop, only to be faced with the recalcitrant owner who insists – contrary to all the evidence – that the bird is not dead, only resting.  Classic Monty Python.

Well, Johnnie Moore.  Monty Python disbanded long ago.  Your attempts to resurrect the group with a new Evangelical Council sketch won’t work.  It’s not funny.

After all, there is a stable collection of “evangelical” church leaders who periodically gather collectively with the president in Washington D.C., providing him with counsel about issues dear to their hearts, urging him to adopt policies favorable to their concerns.  The recent White House dinner for evangelicals was a gathering of the usual suspects.

Johnnie Moore’s denial and complaint is only the latest example of evangelicalism’s pathetic sense of entitlement and bogus victimization.

Paula and Franklin Graham say ‘cheese’ for the White House photographer

You, first, demand special treatment – why do we have to make a public record of our meetings with the president?  It’s not fair! – and then you cry the crocodile tears of “religious discrimination” when a public service organization calls you out for trying to play by your own rules.

Why can’t evangelical leaders willingly abide by the same standards applied to every other lobbying group?  Why the skulduggery, followed by another “stop picking on me” burst of tears?  It’s pathetic.

Sadly, this story, which is paradigmatic of the many reprehensible ills afflicting evangelicalism today, is one layer of dishonesty on top of another, and another, and another…

If you will, allow me to paraphrase the apostle Paul’s lament over mortality as I close.  Paul says, “Oh, my God, who will deliver me from this body-politic of death?”  (Romans 7:24).

What Readers are Saying about My Book I Pledge Allegiance

Not long ago a good friend and former colleague sent me a message with encouraging words about my new book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans, 2018). 

She unexpectedly bumped into another friend while they both were marching in a local protest demonstrating against president Trump’s immigration policies.

She passed along these kind remarks:

“…(my friend) mentioned that the men’s book club had finished reading I Pledge Allegiance this morning, and found it really good and deeply challenging in all the right ways – and also that he had been in touch with you to say how superb he finds the book. I’m really glad that he took the initiative to contact you!! He and I have been talking a lot about it recently, and how we need to keep it close by to help us to navigate the insanity.”

I could not be more pleased.  She describes everything I hope would happen when disciples wrestle with God’s word while considering the arguments found in my book.

I am pleased as punch.

If you haven’t yet read I Pledge Allegiance, please join the crowd of those who have and ask the Holy Spirit what He wants you to be doing for the kingdom of God in this world right now.

The War Prayer, by Mark Twain

Besides being a brilliant author and humorist, Mark Twain was a man of deep conscience.  But that won’t surprise anyone who has read his books.

From 1899 to 1902, the United States was embroiled in another of its imperialist wars.  This time in the Philippines.  Twain was a staunch opponent of American empire and publicly protested against the Philippine-American war.

His short story, “The War Prayer,” was submitted to the magazine Harper’s Bazaar in March, 1905.  The editor’s rejected it.  Because Twain was under contract, he couldn’t submit it to anyone else.  He wrote to a friend lamenting,

“I don’t think the prayer will be published in my time. None but the dead are permitted to tell the truth.”

The Prayer was finally published in 1923, thirteen years after Twain’s death.  When I was teaching, I made it a regular practice to read Twain’s story to my students.  It is as relevant for us today as it was in 1905.

 

The War Prayer

by Mark Twain

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory with stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came — next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams — visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender!

Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:

God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest,
Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!

Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory —

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher’s side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, “Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord and God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!”

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside — which the startled minister did — and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

“I come from the Throne — bearing a message from Almighty God!” The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. “He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import — that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of — except he pause and think. “God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two — one uttered, and the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this — keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon your neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain on your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse on some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

“You have heard your servant’s prayer — the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it — that part which the pastor — and also you in your hearts — fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard the words ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory — must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

“Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it —

For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause.) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits.”

—

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

How Do We Choose the Right Church?

This morning I came across an interesting online review in Christian Century discussing Jamie Smith’s book Awaiting the King.  (You can read my review of Jamie’s book here.)

I was particularly struck by the author’s observations  on the depth of political polarity within the American church.  His explanation of this destructive division is the simple sociological observation that people, including Christian people, naturally hang out with others like themselves.  If you are familiar with church-growth literature, you will recognize this as a simple application of the “homogeneous principle.”

Here is the most relevant paragraph:

“People select churches based on the convictions in which the culture has already formed them. Those formed primarily by the liturgy of the flag will choose a Southern Baptist church where they know their values will be mirrored, while those formed primarily by the liturgy of individualism will opt for a mainline church where they know inclusiveness will be a shared value. We choose churches the same way we choose political parties. This is why so many Christians know so few Christians who disagree with them. It’s why our ecclesial culture so neatly replicates the polarization in our wider culture. And it’s why so few mainline pastors thought it odd that, when the Festival of Homi­letics was held in D.C. this year, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker spoke but no Republican politicians did.”

Of course, the author is absolutely correct.  Sadly, he is also making an observation that reveals the immaturity of so many American Christians.  After all, the point of Christianity is not to remain who we are naturally.  Nor is the goal to be comfortable.

Even more sadly, this selection process not only works for individuals selecting a new church, but also for congregations selecting whom they choose to welcome and embrace.  Not only do insiders look for insider churches, but outsiders are regularly rejected by insider congregations.

When Terry and I retired and moved back to Montana we knew that we were immersing ourselves into a rural culture that, by and large, embraced values very different from our own.  I am not a bit surprised to see over-sized pick-up trucks rolling down the street sporting bumper stickers proclaiming “God, Guns and Guts Made America Great! Let’s Keep It That Way”  Montana voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, the candidate who often encouraged his supporters to punch his nay-sayers in the face, then promising to pay their court fees.

If we were average church-goers we might have prioritized finding a church — probably a very tiny church meeting in someone’s basement after dark (I am joking) — filled with others like us, politically avant-guarde with a progressive social conscience, where we could be socially comfortable.

But this not what we did, not because finding a comfortable church may have been difficult, but because it would have been wrong.

No, we searched for a church that was living out what we believe the church is supposed to be. (For a fuller discussion of what I mean by this, read my book I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).  Here is a short list of the qualities we looked for:

  1. A preacher/teacher who taught from the Scriptures, both practically and authoritatively, as God’s Word for us today.
  2. A church where the leaders and the congregation were outwardly rather than inwardly focused, where the emphasis was on helping those who are hurting and reaching out to the lost with the good news of Jesus Christ.
  3. A church that was primarily growing because new people were coming into new relationships with Jesus, not because disgruntled church-goers were transferring from neighboring congregations.
  4. A place where we could be involved, use our gifts and make a contribution.
  5. A place where we could confidently bring our friends trusting that they would encounter the Holy Spirit.

We set out in this search knowing full well that we would probably find ourselves surrounded  by folks who would not agree with our politics…and with whom we, too, would seriously disagree.  (Of course, there are necessary limits to such tolerance.  I would never attend a church where I judged the teaching to be an idolatrous Christian nationalism, or racist, or rabidly Zionist.)

In fact, that is exactly how it has worked out.  Thus far, I have disagreed with the politics of almost everyone who has shared their political positions

Members of the community join hands during a Black Lives Matter prayer vigil in front of the First Baptist Church, a predominantly African-American congregation, in Macon, Ga., on Monday, July 11, 2016. The pastors of both First Baptist Churches in Macon are trying to bridge the stubborn divide of race against a painful and tumultuous backdrop: the 2015 massacre at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina; the much-publicized deaths of blacks at the hands of law enforcement; the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the sniper killing of white Dallas police officers. (AP Photo/Branden Camp)

with me.  And, unfortunately, a few of them have made it clear that they aren’t especially interested in getting to know more about us after hearing my own thoughts on the issues of the day.  (I have only had one true confrontation when I had to challenge a new friend on his blatant anti-Semitism.)

Yes, I do believe that my fellow worshipers are wrong, and that I am right on these things.  But hanging out with fellow “X” (replace the X with whatever political party you like) is not why I go to church.  The purpose of the Body of Christ is not to provide a safe place (oh…how I have come to dislike those two words) where I will be coddled in my own preconceptions.

The purpose of Christian community, rather, is that we all become transformed into the image of Christ.  And there is one thing I know for certain about Christ’s image — no one on this earth looks exactly like Him yet, including me.

The all-to-common failure to recognize these important distinctions is further evidence of the spiritual immaturity endemic to American Christianity, including evangelicalism.

So, here is the challenge — take a step or two to change this situation in your sphere of influence today.

A Journalist’s Code for Christians

One of the bloggers I always enjoy reading (while not always agreeing with her) is the freelance journalist Caitlin Johnston.  Caitlin recently wrote a post reflecting on a tweet from Tim Black, host of the YouTube program, Tim Black at Night.

Here is an excerpt from Caitlin’s blog:

“Last night, one of my callers said we needed journalists and commentators willing to die for the truth,” Black tweeted. ‘I disagreed. We need journalists and commentators willing to give up their status, quit their jobs and make less money telling truth and sadly to most that’s the same as dying.’

“There’s so much truth in that I just want to unpack it a bit and riff on its implications from my own perspective. What would happen if a significant percentage of journalists got fed up with spoon feeding lies to a trusting populace and decided to place truth and authenticity before income and prestige? Or, perhaps more realistically, what if people who are interested in reporting and political analysis ceased pursuing positions in the plutocrat-owned mass media and pursued alternate paths to getting the word out instead?…

“…as Tim Black said, once you’ve set your sights on climbing to the top of the establishment media ladder, abandoning it can feel like death. And indeed, it is a kind of death: a death of the identity one builds up around the possession and pursuit of the power, prestige and wealth that comes with the realization of that goal. It’s a death of an egoic structure, one that a whole lot of energy has gone into upholding. Serving power has been both financially and socially rewarding for as long as there have been governments.”

Now, reread Caitlin’s post and replace the references to journalists, reporters and political analysts with words like pastors, Christians, and church leaders.  Notice what happens?  We end up with a perfect description of Jesus’ call to Christian discipleship – people who are willing to suffer and die for living a life of faithfulness to the Truth – and his warnings about the many temptations waiting to sidetrack his people – selling your conscience for the sake of ego, wealth, prestige, power and fame.

I am reminded of the message I heard this Sunday at my church.  The concluding text was Matthew 16:24-26.  Jesus says to journalists, reporters, Christian journalists, and Christian reporters of all stripes, as well as butchers, bakers and candlestick makers:

“If anyone would come after me, they must deny themselves, take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it do for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeits their soul?”

The church in this country is well and truly lost until it swells with genuine kingdom citizens who have so completely “died to themselves” that the prospects of physical suffering, professional loss, private shunning and even death for the kingdom teaching of Jesus Christ is not only considered inevitable, but is eagerly embraced because we know that then and only then have we fully experienced “the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him [Jesus] in his death” (Philippians 3:10).

Good journalists and faithful disciples are like kissin’ cousins.  They both devote their lives to honestly reporting the truth regardless of the cost.

This was the goal of Paul’s life.  It ought to be ours, too.

Yes Pastor Floyd, America Needs a Spiritual Breakthrough. But Not the One You Imagine

Ronnie Floyd, senior pastor of Cross Church in NW Arkansas, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and president of the National Day of Prayer, has written an editorial for CBNNews (claiming to offer THE Christian Perspective on today’s affairs) under the headline “America Needs a Spiritual Breakthrough.”  Here are a few excerpts from pastor Ronnie’s missive:

“America is broken and in deep need of a spiritual breakthrough. Division and hatefulness are abounding as none of us would ever imagine. Our greatest hope is a spiritual breakthrough in America…

“We are facing one of the most dangerous times across the globe in our lifetime. While encouragement occurs from time to time, we remain in fragile moments globally…

 “The churches in America are in need of a spiritual visitation by the Holy Spirit that will call them out of their lukewarm status and cause them to return to the power of the gospel. Jesus is still the greatest hope in every town, city, and region in America…

 “Politically, America is in trouble. The disappointment of our political leaders not working together for the common good of our nation has Americans filled with all sorts of emotions, many of which are not healthy. This partisan decision making is hurting the progress and future of our nation greatly.”

Alas, what hope is there for American evangelicalism when such poisonous, spiritual gruel passes for prophetic witness and is guzzled like cool-aid by the average church-goer?

How can God’s people hope to see clearly when their leaders are so willfully blind?  How will the people hear truth when their preachers are deaf to any words but their own?  How can the church mature when her teachers think and act (and write) like ignorant children?

When pastors like Ronnie persist in leading their congregations ‘round and ‘round in circles, I am not surprised that so much of the church remains confused, dizzy and socially ineffective.

The pastor of Cross Church is at cross purposes with himself, for he represents the most common theological confusions of American evangelicals, all of which I disentangle in my book,  I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans, 2018).  At the heart of this confusion is his mashing together of church and state which is then sifted through the grotesque assumption that God is a Republican who voted for Donald Trump.

Let’s not be so naïve as to think that Ronnie’s lament over “division and hatefulness” while facing “the most dangerous times across the globe,” dealing with “the disappointment of our political leaders not working together for the common good” is anything other than the predictably partisan judgments of a Trump-loyalist.  For people like Ronnie, healing national divisions for the common good means falling into lock-step behind an obscene, racist, malignantly narcissistic president and then following him anywhere like dumb lemmings running to the cliff.

But these political errors are the easy-to-see, low-hanging fruit.

Let’s move on to grab hold of the more substantial core of Ronnie’s theological errors.  Errors that identify him as only one more false prophet in the American pantheon of wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing defrauding God’s flock.

The tell-tale sign that Ronnie is up to no good appears with his blatantly utilitarian view of the gospel.  Notice that his ultimate objective for preaching the good news of Jesus Christ is not to glorify God or to expand God’s kingdom.  Those are merely penultimate goals.  Excellent goals, certainly, but not the final goal.

No, the final objective for Ronnie and his misguided kinfolk is the unification of America’s body-politic behind the president and his policies.  (Again, we will leave aside how shockingly immoral many of Trump’s policies are.)  What evidence will finally tell us that America’s “spiritual breakthrough” has arrived?  Well, we will see (1) a renewed political scene that is (2) free of partisanship (3) with “political leaders working together for the common good of our nation.”

When these things happen, then we can know that the America church has “received a spiritual visitation by the Holy Spirit” (what other kind of visitation would the Holy Spirit make?) that has “called it out of its lukewarm status.”  So the Holy Spirit will work in America as in ancient Israel.  The Spirit’s task is to unite the nation.  The church and the gospel are tools for achieving that greater end.

But Ronnie’s vision confuses the church with the world and the world with the church.  God’s people are called to become strangers and aliens within American society.  Proclaiming the saving work of Jesus’ death and resurrection recruits new citizens into God’s kingdom who will demonstrate their newfound redemption by their own transformation into strangers and aliens.

Declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ honestly will highlight the stark contrasts between the church and this fallen world.  It will never bring them closer together.  Gospel preaching is nothing if not a heavenly bombardment that destroys our flesh-pot idols of civil religion, nationalism, and salvation by politics.  Genuine followers of Jesus are not deceived by this ancient, beastly triumvirate of bogus, copy-cat Christianity.

Yet, this three-headed monster spewing out recycled false religion like “a dog returning to its vomit” (2 Peter 2:22) is exactly what Pastor Ronnie – and the bulk of evangelical leaders sharing his devotion to American redemption by politics – is offering both the readers of CBNNews and those attending his multi-campus megachurch.

Ironically, the true evidence that American evangelicalism is more than satisfied with its damnably “lukewarm status,” with no intention of confessing its sins or repenting of its many offenses against the Lord Jesus and his kingdom, is its blind, self-satisfied allegiance to such atrociously false teachers as Ronnie Floyd.

Yes, American evangelicalism desperately needs a spiritual breakthrough.  But it’s not the one pastor Ronnie is looking for.  We will know that the real breakthrough has arrived when Ronnie Floyd and others like him publicly renounce their idolatrous Christian nationalism, confess that the kingdom of God has nothing to do with American politics, repent of their adulteration of the gospel with the bile of civil religion, and then call their congregations to sell their excessive belongings, giving the proceeds to the poor.

Now, that would be a breakthrough.

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

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

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

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

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

Observing God’s Order

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

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

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

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

Subordination vs. Obedience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Few Thoughts on the Vice-President’s Speech at Today’s Southern Baptist Convention

I watched most of Vice-President Pences’ speech at the Southern Baptist Convention today.  Yes, the SBC has a history of extending bi-partisan

(Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

invitations to its politician guest-speakers.

But in today’s political climate under the Trump presidency, with leading Southern Baptist pastors like Robert Jeffress serving as Trump’s so-called spiritual advisors, the image of a “non-partisan” event has worn a bit thin.

Here are a few of my thoughts as I listened to the Vice-President’s speech:

  1. Listening to the convention’s applause for a thoroughly partisan, political talk reminded me of the recent service where church elders walked out on my message for being too political. Would these same men and woman have walked out on the vice-president this morning?  I doubt that very, very much.
  2. I, too, hope that the recent agreement with North Korea will be a step towards greater peace in that part of the world. I stand with the crowd that wants to see the entire world denuclearized. However, as a simple practical matter, I cannot help but wonder why North Korea would denuclearize so quickly and easily almost immediately after achieving its long-term goal of creating its own nuclear arsenal?  Their nukes are brand new! Call me confused…
  3. In terms of world peace, our obsession with North Korean nuclear weapons is downright bizarre in light of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel possesses an estimated 250+ nuclear weapons.

Israel has refused to sign the international Non-Proliferation Treaty or to allow independent inspectors to look at its nuclear facilities.

Much of the early technology for Israel’s nuclear weapons program was obtained by Israeli spies stealing US secrets.

Israel threatens and attacks almost all of its neighbors on a regular basis.

Yet, the US never says a thing about the threat posed to world peace by Israel’s behavior or its nuclear arsenal, while we scream and shout about the dangers North Korea and Iran.  I call this hypocrisy.

  1. Well, I could go on about Pence’s misleading claims about the Trump tax cuts, unemployment, the growing income/wealth gap in American and much more, but this is enough for now.

The main question I kept asking myself was this: what does any of Pence’s partisan chest-thumping have to do with the mission of the Christian church?  I do know that there are SB pastor’s raising the same questions and objections within their denomination.  To them I say, don’t stop objecting. Insist that all South Baptist leaders and their churches prioritize the righteousness of the kingdom of God rather than Republican (or Democratic) politics.

(P.S. Excuse me for some shameless self-promotion, but I think I have written a good book about prioritizing the kingdom of God over and above all partisanship.  It’s called I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).