fearfully and wonderfully made

 

At this point in time most Americans are being conditioned, via public institutions and policies, into believing that their health rests on a very weak, and even, feeble, immune system that, without proper support by pharmalogical and governmental interventions, will not have the capacity to endure. And many people are buying into this, based on what they believe to be medical data and a general sense that those in healthcare would only advise to what is best for everyone.

Yet, those with eyes open are seeing something very different, for it doesn't take any medical degree, training in investigative journalism, or even academic research skills to see that the data is being manipulated — and/or being selectively shared with the general public. Thousands of doctors and nurses are being silenced for raising their concerns, and we now live in an age where deplatforming is an increasing response to those with whom we disagree. No, it doesn't take much observing to realize something very wrong is happening in the halls of medicine.

And yet this also has had a certain impact on the faith of the American people. The current public pulse ranges from hysteria to nonchalance, with most people landing somewhere in the middle. But the notion that our bodies must be saved by an experimental therapeutic drug (that must masquerade as a tested-and-approved vaccine, which is simply not true), runs counter to who we are as human beings. While we are worrying about surviving this virus, we are in much more danger of losing our sense of human dignity and worth in the midst of this storm.

Many have already written on the dehumanization that results from not being able to see one another's faces, along with the development of children being impact in numerous ways. And there are certainly other issues that could be explored in this overly-extended pandemic. The majority of these perspectives will focus on Nature: what is and is not "the way things are, or should be." And we often use phrases like human nature to evaluate our own situation. But, as theologian Alister McGrath has written, "'Nature' easily slips from a description of what is observed to a prescription of what ought to be the case."*

Anyone who examines what sort of medical and public policy has been adjusted, rewritten, and then pushed on the the general population will see that McGrath's description of Nature is what has been occurring underneath the reported 'science.' The study of Nature has shifted from observation to prescription and humanity has, once again, placed itself upon the throne of Nature, thinking that our prescriptions have control over Nature itself.

Thus we arrive, not for the first time, to the need to speak not of Nature but of Creation. The difference is vital, not only to scientific inquiry but to our identity as humanity. This is a Christian statement, because Christians see Nature as Creation. And behind Creation Christians see a Creator. 

"The Christian doctrine of creation possesses more explanatory potential than is often appreciated."**

Within this is the human experience, which occurs entirely within the physical human body. And our bodies have been created by the Creator who has brought forth all Creation. Thus, there is a magnificent design that has been produced by an infinite intelligence and wisdom. One can hardly examine the human body, with all its complexity, and not marvel with delight. The psalmist gives poetic expression to this in describing himself as being "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139).

As such, we have been created with the capacity to exist in this world — even when this world can be quite dangerous. No, the individual cannot survive anything and everything, for we are a) finite creatures and b) our present earthly experience is one that must navigate bodies that are unable to fully live up to the Creator's intended design. As a result, not all of our bodies are working as they were intended, sometimes because of our choices and sometimes due to no fault of our own. This means that on this side of eternity there are those who are weaker than others, in which case it is always duty for the stronger to watch over and care for the weaker in whatever ways are appropriate.

But as a whole we are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made, with bodies that are adaptable and sustainable within the natural state of Creation. We were Created to exist on Earth at this particular time in history, and we have been internally equipped to evolve against whatever threats we may face. Some forces are more powerful against us than others but, on the whole, this remains true even now. The loud and powerful voices that are pushing the present narrative often shout "Science!" as justification for their lockdowns, masking, distancing, and injecting. But that cry is another way to claim "Nature" and thus claim mastery over it.

We are not masters over Creation. At best we are representative caretakers of Creation, which is the charge given by the Creator. But this does not imply that we have right to take the place of the one Master over Creation, and make prescriptions over what Creation ought to be. (This is why it is so vital to move from the assertion of Creation to that of Nature, so that the objective moral center might be replaced by subjective human experience.)

The fear that is now widespread throughout our nation (and also the world) highlights the challenge of faith. It is fear that our bodies are not equipped to handle this coronavirus, and that our immune systems are helpless without pharmaceutical (and governmental) intervention. It is a fear driven by those who seek to control, rather than to serve, and who hide behind a manmade wall of Science — a Science that has placed itself as Master over Nature, and displacing the Creator in the hearts of many. It is a Science that demands it not be questioned, rather than a Creator that beckons us to come and reason together.

Among the so-called faith-based healthcare systems in our country this same mentality of Nature is driving the decisions that are being made, with little appreciation of how we are all fearfully and wonderfully made. Billions of dollars are being shifted from here to there, between the government and hospital and pharmaceutical corporation, all to push drug and jab and policy. Yet, virtually nothing is being said to the American people about how our created bodies can be cared for so that our immune systems can operate in the very ways they were intended to — what we used to refer to as health.

How have we come to the place where healthcare is not primarily focused on our individual health?

We are fearfully and wonderfully made to live, not to be locked up or locked down. We are created to be free, and to live in this world, taking on all the risks of this life, for the pleasure of the One who made us. It is in him that we live and move and have our being, and find our purpose and fulfillment.

*Alister E. McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Volume One: Nature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 87.

** Ibid., 209.

Life at the Elevator Doors

 

There is a lot to learn about human nature and society in and around a public elevator. I work in a building that has a public elevator. I use it frequently, so I am constantly navigating the unwritten and unspoken rules and expectations of elevator etiquette. Those who have spent time in such an environment will recognize the dynamics of so many lives, running their natural courses with their own drives and fears and tasks, converging into this one box — a necessary device for us to move from where we are to where we need to be.

And there are always present, in every public space, those who do not understand how to properly conduct themselves in such a way as to be respectful of others who are sharing this space. Sometimes this comes down to noise, other times to space, and most often in the unspoken expectations that make for polite engagement. Being willing to punch the button for someone else as they get on is respectful, while standing in front of the buttons without offering such a courtesy is considered rude. Holding the door for someone who is rushing to jump on at the last minute is a nice gesture, while ignoring a fellow traveler's plight reeks of indifference.

One particular behavior of which I have often borne witness in recent years is the manner in which men and women enter and exit the elevator car. This is a simple concept: those wishing to exit a car ought to get off, and then those who wish to enter a car can walk on. Such procedure is even more important when the car arrives at the main level —often considered the lobby — of the building. This is where the majority of people will be getting on an elevator, but also (and this is quite important) where the majority of people will be getting off the elevator. The need to clear out space from the small elevator car is always important, but especially so on the main level.

What disruption to this process have I been experiencing? I have noticed an increased tendency for waiting individuals to immediately move to embark the elevator car at the moment the doors open, causing a bottle-neck, or gridlock, at the point of entrance and exit. This causes confusion, to be sure, and some minor inconvenience. For what it's worth, these are not great irritations on their own, unless they have built up from repeated experiences, or have added to the stress the individual has already experienced during the day.

More important is the statement that is being made in this particular behavior. The individual waiting for an elevator seems to have no imagination that would inform him that this elevator is a device that is being used by other people. Those who walk up to the doors, hit the button, wait a few moments, and then take their first steps towards entering the elevator car even while the doors are opening seem to be oblivious to the fact that someone else might be using this same elevator. 

The only thing worse than this is when this person takes their steps towards the door only to be met with someone exiting the elevator. In this case there are two options for the one entering: either step back and allow people to exit, or continue walking and make an awkward exchange of everyone crowding around everyone else in entering and exiting. I have been in countless situations where the person keeps walking, and I have had to jump out of the way to make room for them, even though I as the exit-er ought to have the right-of-way in leaving.

When we behave this way we send out a very strong, if not sad, message to those we encounter: we consider ourselves and our tasks more important than you and your tasks. It is self-centered behavior that expects others to accommodate to you, especially when there is an expectation of how things ought to be. But, I am busy and I need to get to the next thing. You see, unfortunately, we have become so busy and self-absorbed as a society that we are willing to place our tasks over and above people, thus giving ourselves permission to treat others rudely and expect them to move out of our self-important way — giving them a shove if necessary.

And if we're willing to behave this way at the elevator doors, what else are we doing in our lives to push others out of the way and how else are we devaluing our relationships with others? For the Christ-follower, this is a vital piece of our lives: for we are called to show our love for God by the way we show our love to others. Are we so self-important that we cannot yield a small moment to show grace and kindness to someone else? It is in these little things that we make big impacts — bigger than we can now understand. And it is in being faithful in these little things that will lead us to the opportunity when we will be entrusted with bigger things.

Then I Saw a Beast

 

And the Dragon stood on the shore of the sea. 

Then I saw a Beast rising from the sea. It had great political and military strength — it controlled governments and media and shouted words that perverted justice and generated inequity. The Beast was swift, cunning, and brute, and devoured any who would stand against it. The Dragon turned over its power to it, its throne and great authority.

At one point in time it appeared as though this Beast had been defeated, but it deceived its way back into power and appeared to have overcome the truth. The whole world was agog, amazed at what the Beast could do, as the Dragon unleashed a terrible plague upon the earth. Struck by fear, the people of the earth gave authority to the Beast, and in doing so worshipped the Dragon. They exclaimed to one another, “There’s never been anything like the Beast! No one would dare go to war with the Beast!”

The Beast had a loud mouth, boastful and blasphemous, with contempt for humanity. It spent the lives of innocent women and men for its own profit, and while using words such as ‘peace’ and ‘unity’ and ‘truth’ was responsible for more bloodshed and violence, both in the world and in the hearts of humanity. The Beast was given power to remove freedom from the earth, in the name of keeping people safe from its plague — upon the church it was permitted to constrain and censor and coerce. It held absolute sway over all people, and everyone who was not secure in the Lamb was drawn into worship of this Beast, who mimicked the promise of life.

Do we have the ability to see and hear what is happening all around us? Many have made their choice and will not turn back; many of the followers of the Lamb have been tempted by the message and method of the Beast and will no longer listen to their brothers and sisters. The people of God must stand firm in the truth and refuse to capitulate.

I saw another Beast rising out of the ground. It had the appearance of salvation but moved throughout the world with rage and anger and fear. It was a puppet of the first Beast, and it summoned everyone to worship the first Beast, which appeared as almighty.

This second Beast presented magical signs, dazzling all sorts of people with its healing dose, the answer to the plague brought on by the first Beast. At first many in power opposed this dose, but the second Beast aligned their thoughts to the power of the first Beast, and they dazzled at the dose as though it were fire from heaven — the very salvation of humanity. The second Beast used the authority it received, the devotion of those dazzled by the dose, to promote the first Beast so that anybody not adhering to the first Beast would be cast away. It forced all people, small and great, rich and poor, healthy and sick, to take within themselves the dose. Those who did not receive the dose and who did not conform to its policies lost jobs, could not enter public places, were arrested, attacked with dogs, separated from their children, maligned, ridiculed, and mocked as those who did not deserve to live.

See what is happening: Remain in the Spirit and think hard about what is happening around you. The Dragon and these two Beasts have risen up to destroy the earth, accomplishing their treachery in the hearts of humanity.

co-workers

The letter that we know as 2 Corinthians is one of a number of correspondences between the apostle Paul and the believers in ancient Corinth. It is evident from the two documents that we have that there were at least two additional letters from Paul to the church, though these have been lost to history. These letters display evidence that the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians was not particularly good at this point in time, and the apostle admits to there being distance between himself and the believers.

2 Corinthians 6:1 comes as the apostle is working through the major theme of this correspondence: reconciliation. Paul believes that the church's ability to live as reconciled to God and one another is the natural outworking of the gospel's fulfillment in Christ Jesus. He is in the middle of this line of thought when he says, "As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain." There is, perhaps, a tendency to overlook the significance of Paul's use of co-worker in this passage. It is a familiar term that the apostle uses throughout his writings, but here it has a more powerful impact.

Paul is working to combat the adversity that exists between him and this congregation. There are some in Corinth who are openly challenging Paul's credentials and his ministry, and their pushing hard against the apostle is having adverse effects on the community. Paul will defend his ministry, but the big move in this verse is notable for how much he does not invoke his status or authority as an apostle. The use of the word co-worker thus places Paul and the members of this church on level ground: we stand together in the work that God is doing, and we are all participants in the gospel.

Rather than escalate the war of personality, Paul brings in another reality that supersedes human conflict. He points beyond himself and makes the case that true reconciliation will be found when every believer turns to Christ rather than be focused on personality or party. And this is the part of co-worker that speaks loudly to us today. The problems in Corinth were being made worse because people in that congregation had become too focused on Paul that they had lost sight of the work of the gospel. Paul's adversaries were unable to see the ministry as co-workers because they had become entrenched in their opposition to Paul as a personality and had lost sight of the work that God was doing.

This is such a poignant lesson for modern American evangelicalism. Over the past few years it has become a staple of many to point out that political conservatives have allowed their understanding of the gospel to be shaped by their politics, and there have been times when this has been a good and much-needed boundary. What has happened especially over the past four years has been the emergence of a (very loud) politically liberal evangelicalism that has become very anti- in its opposition to a personality (or party) that it is allowing American leftism to shape and form its own gospel worldview.

There has been such a clanging cymbal of "any-pro-Trump-sentiment-cannot-be-biblical" that has so focused being opposed to this personality that it is becoming difficult to see or hear the gospel within the noise. (And no, I do not, in any way, seek to equate the apostle Paul with any modern political figure in this: that is to press matters too far and miss the point.)

How loud certain voices in the church have become in standing against "Trumpism" and other conservative ideologies, while remaining silent on the exploitation of children, the shoving of anti-biblical lifestyles down our culture's throat, the assaults on freedom of speech and religion, the rampant racism that is being bolstered by a sitting administration, an out-of-control fiscal irresponsibility, among other injustices that Scripture and the Spirit would have us stand against. 

Silence.

Because so many have surrendered the voice of the gospel to a battle over personality, even those who think they have not capitulated and still sit above the fray. I believe the church needs to look beyond these personalities and parties (within the church and outside of it) and have every believer renewed by their commitment to Christ above all things and understand that the responsibilities of preserving freedom, while of great importance and sacred call, are to be surrendered to our first commitment through and through. And I hope that many so-called leaders and influencers in the church will come to understand, or lose their influence quickly.

Submitted to one another as a co-worker. Nothing more.

The Spiritual Danger of Anti-Trumpism

 

The Spiritual Danger of Anti-Trumpism

Michael C Thompson

In the middle of 2020 thirty self-identified evangelical Christians came together and published the book, The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump (Cascade Books). Twenty-five chapters set out to criticize the character and leadership of the sitting President, unsurprisingly released in an election year. The fact that there were as many as thirty authors producing some twenty-five chapters of content was supposed to be a convincing and convicting statement, so bravely offered at such a critical juncture in our nation’s history. In reality, it wasn’t earth-shaking and actually failed to produce any critique that could be divorced from the narratives of other mainstream media. Nevertheless, it was an intentional statement: one that would give a certain reinforcement to many Anti-Trump voices in the ever-shifting demographic of evangelicalism.

Over the past four years there has been an ever-increasing decrying of what some have labelled, Trumpism. This term has a few meanings, but within the church it is intended as a criticism of any believer who may actually give any sort of political or personal support to President Trump. It is no secret that our governing elitists, along with their media cohorts, have been trying to ruin Trump and destroy his presidency since before the beginning of his term. One hit-piece after another has filled the media stage, often masquerading as news, regardless of the availability of supporting facts or credible sources. Especially in the early days of figuring out who Trump as President was going to be, many within the church took these accounts and felt a moral obligation to raise their voices against it. Although many have moved on from these juvenile attacks, others have not.

This idea of Trumpism has never been clearly defined, and even now remains vague. As a criticism of Christians its claim is that political support of President Trump is essentially wrapping the flag of nationalism over the commitment to the Cross. For this label to have its intended effect it cannot be more precisely defined, lest we discover that there are many who do not simply fit within the nationalistic categories. Like most socio-political labels, this one unfairly and uniformity lays over a wide range of people, discounting their layers of diversity, and works simply to make it easy to score public debate points against them. In reality, the vast majority of Christians who support Trump do not believe their political commitment has superseded their faith commitment. And yet, that is how they have been treated, even by those within the church.

Ironically, the push against so-called Trumpism has led to the rise of Anti-Trumpism, a movement with a simple purpose: to be against Trump and any of his supporters. This, I believe is taking place within the American church, not only in the production of critical books by evangelicals, but within the broader spectrum of our ecclesial communities. Because this backlash, like other movements, is based on politics, there is inherent spiritual dangers to be identified as well. Unsurprisingly, very few of these no-Trump evangelical voices have raised their concerns over things happening within the Anti-Trumpism movement, even though they posture themselves as prophetic enough to be above the fray. This essay is my attempt to outline some of these widespread dangers that I feel are working against the unity of the church. I am not a politician, though I can recognize my political biases. I am a biblical scholar and theologian, and so I will keep my concerns centered on the church. My aim is to balance out some of the rhetoric so that Christianity in American can return to a more responsible form of public discourse, for the sake of the gospel.

Instead of dragging this out into twenty-five needless chapters, I present five identifiable dangers that ought to be considered regarding the Anti-Trumpism movement: things that are particularly concerning in light of the biblical commitment Christians ought to have.

First, Anti-Trumpism presents a spiritual danger in allowing for a loss of commitment to truth as it stands. This can be a challenging claim to make, for it can be quickly dismissed as though I am simply declaring any competing political viewpoint from my own as a non-truth. This is most certainly not the case: instead, I am referring tot he priority that is being given to the narrative of Anti-Trumpism that overrides facts that may prove otherwise, or which might show some sort of nuance. In our national political discourse it appears that there is no place for nuance, which is quite troublesome, but it is most definitely harmful within the life of the church. The narrative that Trump is such a terrible human being has been so constantly pushed by the media, that one’s anger would certainly be justified if it were proven true. But the overwhelming majority of these claims have no credible evidence or witness. It appears the filter has been set, and adopted by certain people within the church.

One recent example I have seen has been in regards to President Trump’s pro-life stance. In two separate online discussions I read the criticism that Trump was only “apparently” pro-life, and that he secretly mocks the movement’s proponents behind closed doors. The intent of this claim is to overthrow Trump’s official statements, speeches, and policies that make him the most pro-life president in American history with some sort of random hearsay. Advocating for this assertion is a foremost dedication to the Anti-Trump narrative.

The same could be pointed out regarding the Capitol Hill riots: once the narrative was set that Trump “incited” the attack on the Capitol, he was decried by voices throughout the Anti-Trumpism movement, especially within the church. As more details emerged (and continue to come to light), showing the President’s distance from the event, the evangelical Anti-Trump crowd has contorted around the facts yet again, claiming he probably still had influence in planning the event.

Along with the loss of commitment to the truth is the unfortunate reality that so many in our society have become downright lazy in how they obtain their news. Admittedly, most people simply don’t have the time or leftover energy to be doing the work that news media ought to do (and used to do). But we do in fact live in an age where much of the news media has proven itself to be untrustworthy, and it is a necessary task of those who would be responsible citizens, especially within the church. If believers do not have the capacity to acknowledge truth, even when it is uncomfortable, then we cannot have a credible voice in the public square. Since the church is responsible for the much more powerful and significant gospel narrative, failure to rightly handle truth will be a serious detriment to the community of faith. Anti-Trumpism fails in its understanding of the great conversations of faith and freedom that have both served as foundational to our nation and history, and which can contribute today.

Second, Anti-Trumpism presents a spiritual danger in its giving rise to the tendency to question the validity of faith in others. Mostly this done implicitly, but every now and again it becomes explicit. It is unfortunate that social tensions can rise to the point of making political judgments the plumb line for one’s faith commitment as a whole. There seems to be a growing acceptance of this idea that agreement with Trump on anything simply exposes an individual’s lack of understanding or commitment to biblical faith.

The biggest offender of calling into question the genuineness of other people’s faith was former editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, Mark Galli, who in December 2019 published a rather standard Anti-Trump editorial in which he openly called for those who supported the President to remember who they are and who they serve. Implication: you cannot be politically supportive of anything this man says or does without compromising the centrality of your Christian commitment. Although this sort of rhetoric ought to be completely out-of-bounds for discussions within the church, Galli’s piece was lauded by many evangelical Anti-Trumpists as a bold statement. In reality, his comments were so poorly reasoned that the piece has already been tossed aside, and Mark’s fifteen minutes as a media darling are expired.

What we see in this second danger is that it comes from a rise of modern day public propheticism within American evangelical circles, using a rather formulaic approach to provide the individual (or group) to make an openly Anti-Trump statement using language that makes it appears that this person is, in reality, above the fray and thus speaking for God. Galli’s article is a prime example of this, even though the substance of his statement is no different than what one can find in other mainstream leftist commentary. Christianity in America needs to come to grips with the reality that our nation is in much more critical need of pastoral voices than pseudo-prophetic ones.

Third, Anti-Trumpism presents a spiritual danger in the perpetuation of moral double-standards in our society. Yet again, it appears that a leftist political maneuver has been adopted into evangelical language. There has been a multitude of moral concerns surrounding President Trump, most of which have been shown false and a few that have some degree of validity. Personally, I find him just as human as any other person who has held the office, with a life including behaviors that I can choose to accept or reject. So, yes, there are more than likely moral deficiencies that a committed Christian can identify. I have no particular problem with this, except that the Anti-Trumpism movement has so hammered this person while being very silent on other immoral public behavior in our country. The old political adage rings true: “If you don’t have standards you can’t be held accountable to them.”

The Christian ought to have clear moral standards, even though numerous believers on both sides of the political aisle have often lost sight of them. The Bible doesn’t give us clear answers for every ethical question for this life, but it does provide a worldview to properly approach and explore any issue. When so many would-be prophets from the Anti-Trump position join in wave of criticisms of the President’s faults, while at the same time remaining silent on the left’s numerous and repeated encouragement of lawlessness and the destruction of cities, then the church is being asked to serve as a shell for a political party. Christians can stand against immorality whenever and wherever it occurs, but being selective as we have seen from Anti-Trumpism is being irresponsible with the message of the gospel.

Fourth Anti-Trumpism presents a spiritual danger in aligning men and women of the gospel with morally reprehensible leadership. I am aware that this is one of the core concerns of the Anti-Trump movement, and perhaps this is an indication that no politician is completely above reproach. But the growing anger at the President and the push to have him removed from office at all costs has swept many evangelicals into its undertow. As a result, there has been both implicit and explicit advocating of a political candidate (and his running mate) who have repeatedly made racist comments, who ave openly supported riots and looters (both verbally and financially), who advocate for eight-year-olds to have the ability to choose their own gender, who have made egregious personal attacks on their political opponents and their families, that have been a part of an administration that started illegal wars, have supported ideas and policies that go against religious freedom, among other things. 

The 2020 election made it clear that not everyone is willing to have an open and honest conversation about these matters if it would potentially harm the efforts to oust Trump from office. So, through the Anti-Trump movement has allowed for the strange bedfellows of leftist politics and evangelical Christians. I do not believe that those evangelicals who helped push through this leftism have a real sense of the spiritual danger they have invited into the nation’s leadership.

Fifth, Anti-Trumpism presents a spiritual danger as it fosters a growing acceptance of the advantages in accumulating and achieving political power. For years, Christians on the right hav been criticized for this approach, and in many cases this critique has been warranted. For the Christian there is no power or allegiance greater than the Kingship of Jesus. The Religious Right movement of the previous generation may have been an out-of-balance approach, but Anti-Trumpism is equally flawed on its own. Political power should not be the aim of the church, although the work of politics is a necessary endeavor to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It has been shown that conservatives in American government are actually much less concerned with gaining power than are the leftists. Christians on the right have demonstrated a firm commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution, and this is what one will find among Trump supporters up and down the line.

From a Christian point of view there is room for criticism of Donald Trump, and I am intellectually honest enough in my faith to say so. However, the onslaught of personal and political attacks that have been levied against this President is unprecedented, without a close second, and if that were all I knew about him then I would very much be opposed. But what if there was a chance that the steady diet of negativity we’ve been fed wasn’t actually the truth?

As a Christ-follower I would suppose that it would be my responsibility to look deeper, if not for the sake of my politics but for the sake of the imago Dei that affords each person the respect of being created. I would look deeper, knowing what it’s like, for myself and my family, to be personally and professionally maligned publicly for things you’ve never said nor done. Behind all of this cost-of-doing-business mudslinging that is American politics is the issue of our humanity. If we do not like how another person conducts themselves in public debate, we can choose to roll around in the mud or rise above. Politicians may do what they like, but the church ought to have a different approach.

Christ calls us each to a life more abundant, which gives us the right to be called children of God and the responsibility to change the world around us with the gospel. The constant pounding of the Anti-Trump drum within the church is drowning out the chords of unity and truth and love. Some will read this statement and say that the exact opposite is true, and I would not necessarily disagree. I submit this statement as one seeking balance, not the short-sighted victory of my political opinion.

Many will dismiss me outright as a shill for Trump: someone so blinded in his political devotion to a President that he has sacrificed his commitment to the Cross. I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. Mine is a simple assertion that the church can do much better than yelling at one another, demeaning each other’s political commitment, and assuming that roughly half of the country is comprised by idiots. In that regard, I am cutting both ways and encouraging believers to stand together, even in our political disagreements, for something of much greater value. Even through my great love for this great country I wholeheartedly understand that freedom is both a right and a responsibility, and that all things will pass away, except the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.

The spiritual danger is actually on many sides of the church. But even these, playing the role of the Gates of Hell, cannot overcome the people of God.

The Dehumanizing Nature of Excused Riots

  

Today I was reminded of Anne Sullivan, who is remembered as being the teacher and lifelong companion of Helen Keller. For those have seen an adaptation of The Miracle Worker, there is an incredible moment when Sullivan is first introduced to Helen around the family table. The teacher was appalled by the fact that the Keller family allowed Helen to carry on as she wished, with no regard for social custom or proper behavior. The family believed that this was too much to ask of Helen, and every attempt to teach Helen to behave otherwise was met with the young girl's fits of rage. In spite of many challenges, and a lot of resistance from the Keller family, Anne Sullivan pushed forward with Helen and was finally able to make a great breakthrough.

At the very core of Sullivan's conviction that Helen Keller ought to act properly, in spite of her great physical challenges, so that she might behave like a young woman. Sullivan believed that using Helen's condition as an excuse for her behavior was actually dehumanizing as it kept her behaving as an animal. The respect that was granted to Helen was in the standard that was presented to her, a measure of expectation to which she could rise, which would enable this remarkable young lady to achieve far more than anyone had ever thought possible.

Today I was reminded of Anne Sullivan as I watched, together with many in my country, another city being looted and set ablaze by rioting thugs who are acting out of hate and rage, leaving a grand sweep of injustice upon the landscape of this nation. And when I once again heard a slew of voices working to downplay the level of destruction and even excuse the behavior as an acceptable (or understandable) reaction to a perceived wrong, I couldn't help but think of what happens when humans are allowed to act inhumanely.

There is a leftist movement in this country that is anarchist at its core, cloaked in the unarguable phrase Black Lives Matter. Those who rush to defend the riots are quick to say that this is the inevitable result of a great and systemic racism that pervades every level of American society. There is no reasonable arguing with this claim, because it is not about data and facts but rather the creation and perpetuation of a narrative. The primary vehicle of this social destruction is the charge of racism, which is no longer a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, but rather an unwillingness to accept the leftist worldview that is being pushed.

Thus, those who are rioting, looting, physically attacking innocent people, and destroying businesses and families are dismissed as simply carrying out the inevitable reaction to this great evil that overshadows this country. In other words, the anarchist destruction is justified and thus allowed, and society's laws no longer matter to those who are in socio-political support of this hatred. Should it be surprising to us, then, that a lawless society would produce people who act inhumanely to one another? We are watching the dehumanizing of our own neighbors out of an excuse to act badly because we are afraid of holding up a standard that would regard each other as having the imago Dei. 

Those who are pushing the Black Lives Matter mantlepiece on this are, essentially, claiming that the color of one's skin is determinative of one's inability to act as a human and to use reason and intellect and can only act as raging animals to enact the change they believe is necessary. Yet, this is not considered a racist position because it is part of the narrative, even though it looks upon a large group of women and men and judges them by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character.

Some in the church are complicit in allowing this dehumanizing to occur, afraid to be socially unacceptable in opposing the hateful Black Lives Matter narrative, or looking to gain some political points by joining some anti-Trumpism that ought to have nothing to do with the matter altogether. (Once again I say that until the church can understand that Trump is not the cause, but the inevitable effect of our deteriorating national political discourse, will it have a voice worth listening to on this matter. But I set this aside for the time being.)

Restoring humanity lies at the heart of the gospel message, and what is happening in the excusing of these riots for political gain will have far greater effect than any election. I lament that so many voices in the church are jabbering on about the spirituality of the President when a far greater issue is at hand — one that actually takes precedence for the mission of the church. Restoring the imago Dei of all men and women will accomplish much more than riots or legislation or elections ever could. For the power of love is greater than the love of power, if the people of God have the tenacity for truth that rises above the muck of such hateful and dishonest rhetoric.

Perhaps our country will find its Anne Sullivan before the destruction goes too far.

Social Religion and the Lordship of Christ: A Short Reflection in Too Many Words

Last week I heard a comment regarding the current social disruptions that are occurring in the United States that left me thinking. I’m not yet going to reference the individual who made the public observation, for the sake of maybe being heard for a few more minutes. But the words had a particular impact upon me, and I have considered them from my own perspective.

Right now there is a religious movement being enacted in the American public square. It is not theocentric, as God, for all intents and purposes, has been removed from our national discourse and those who take seriously the teachings of the Bible are quickly dismissed. The social commentary that I heard pointed to this religious behavior as the inevitable outcome of trying to fill the “God shaped hole” that exists within every human life.

Having pushed away the message of the church for being too restrictive and controlling, and for being overly exclusive in its boundaries, this current movement of protest and riot and thought-policing is being adhered to with a religious fanaticism the likes of which the American church hasn’t witnessed in many generations. (If only that were not the case.)

The social religion is not being imposed from those at the top, nor are its tenets being systematized by those who push for its adoption. Our nation today is watching as a grass-roots religious movement takes hold, and which ties itself to the very fabric and foundation of our society. There are vices and virtues, transgressions and atonement, along with confession and absolution. It is, as the social commentator has noted, a religion of “wokeness” that has exploded across the country promising a better life. And this is my take on the idea.

The religion of Woke has its evangelists and leaders: those socio-political leftists (and statists) that promote the agenda through American politics and on every level of media. And they will push the narrative at all costs, ignoring a multitude of facts that expose the lies they repeat.

The religion of Woke has its sacred creed: the most fundamental is Black Lives Matter, in which there can be no derivation. Many who have tried to suggest that All Lives Matter have done so at great cost. And we judge anyone on the basis of repeating this creed, and make it an even greater sin to say nothing at all.

The religion of Woke has its atonement: those individuals (and even companies) that stray from the accepted message, even if it is for the purposes of constructive dialogue, find that they must issue their public apology and suffer the consequences of being so terribly sinful as to think for themselves. Atonement comes easier for those who are already members of the Woke, although there is never a lack of penance that must be enacted.

As I look at our current state of affairs as a society I am reminded of the Roman Empire, a complex world with complex socio-political issues entangled one to another. Historians of ancient Rome will often speak about the Imperial Cult that began to appear in the days of Augustus. Interestingly, there is no such identifiable entity that called itself the imperial cult that has ever been found in the ancient world. This is not because such practice did not exist, but rather that there was no official empire-wide systematic organizational structure that promoted a worship to Rome.

The ancient Greco-Roman world was built upon a system of sacrifices, as there were many gods and the typical ancient Roman citizen would have accepted the reality of the gods and human responsibility to act appropriately before them. What arose in this society was a grass-roots admiration and dedication to the ideals of Rome and the greatest benefactor to its citizens, the appointed Caesar. And thus, temples dedicated to the goddess Roma began to appear in the empire, and participation in their activities increasingly seen as one’s level of dedication to the Roman way of life as a whole.

One of the challenges the early Christians experienced in the Roman Empire was a lack of participation in the many temples that filled the urban centers. It wasn’t so much about which gods or goddesses an individual or family emphasized for themselves, as it was that missing out on this very public religious act was a very public statement that one was somehow being subversive to the culture. In other words, in a world that did not separate religious life from other aspects of life, to get off-message with the imperial temple was to be anti-Roman, and therefore subject to intense scrutiny by those with influence and power.

It took a solid commitment for the early church to stand against the social pressures that they faced for being non-participatory in the imperial cult, or any other temple they would have encountered. These were not simply places of worship, but centers of activity that often spread throughout the city in the form of civic benefaction, feasts and festivals, games and events. It would have been much easier for these Christians to synthesize a message promoting social justice and peace than to stand firm in a gospel that gave allegiance to Jesus alone as Lord.

It would have been simpler for the early church to adopt aspects of these temples into the gospel message, especially where similar words and concepts were employed. Asclepius is a goddess of healing? Great, because healing is an important part of Christianity we can see that the two are compatible. Caesar is the one who establishes peace? Well, Jesus is all about peace on earth, so it would probably be irresponsible of the church not to participate in this temple ritual.

There were many who decided to act this way and try to synthesize the gospel message with the surrounding world. But the core of the Christian church held steadfast in its singular devotion to Christ Jesus, knowing that all of the promises of justice and peace and healing and God knows what else were not truly found in these other avenues. To participate in the imperial temple and sacrifice for the sake of peace was to adopt a cheap peace that fell short of what could be found in the gospel.
In this modern religious movement of Wokeness, which I first heard described by social commentator Ben Shapiro, there is a promise of justice being pushed by a program of inequality, and a peace that comes from appeasing those who brought about the violence that we now face, and a healing that will elude us so long as we are unable to speak the truth in our culture. This is leading to a division that is growing wider and cutting deeper than ever before, driven by the leftist and media to the point of our civilization’s chaotic destruction.

There are many proposed solutions to this mess. Mine is simple: every person in this nation needs Jesus. And it is not just a savior that we need Jesus to be, we greatly and desperately need Jesus to be the one true Lord in our lives, our homes, and our communities. And we need this to be Jesus alone, without social additions or cultural adjectives that keep him from being what he is supposed to be.
There are those who will take offense to this statement, that I am somehow claiming that leftists are not being Christian, or that leftists cannot be Christian. This is not the message I wish to convey. I am making the case that every person, regardless of their political or social positions, will come to see Jesus for who he is — and that will always offend everyone at some point.

Furthermore, I am not saying that socio-political conservatives do not distort the message of Scripture in their own way. There is as much correction that Christ could make to conservatives, but I am simply tired of populist voices in the church pretending that leftist Christians are above reproach, because they simply are not.

And then we need a church. We need a church that will hold to the truth of Scripture in all things, and who will find its strength in the power of the Holy Spirit. We need a church that will not follow the whims of our culture, nor will kowtow to the demands of those who push this restrictive agenda. We need a church to demonstrate the unity of the gospel by living together with men and women of all races, even going beyond the overly simplistic message of Wokeness that only sees black and white.
From where I write today, the Black Lives Matter movement has seized control of an entire section of Seattle, self-identifying this space as “CHAZ” (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone). This comes in the wake of cities, like Minneapolis, smashed an smoldering from the riots and looting that we have witnessed. The “CHAZ” has implemented its own policing force, and there is a list of absurd and contradictory demands that have been issued for the government of Washington State to consider. Any logical measurement of this achievement demonstrates the sinister force at work behind what was pushed as a movement of racial justice and peace. In the six square blocks where they have their zone, there is neither justice nor peace to be found.

Perhaps this is why Christians ought to exercise caution before promoting messages and movements that arise from culture without first understanding them. Or, to consider them from a worldview shaped by Scripture and the Spirit, which would have exposed the darkness with the light of truth. Even though the ideals sound similar, one path has led to destruction and chaos, while the other leads to Jesus.

And before those who are trying to salvage some of their social parroting make the claim that what is happening in some areas of the country is not representative of the whole BLM movement, let me point out that it was a cornerstone of this present crisis that the actions of one officer (or even a very few) could be considered representative of the whole police — and even the entire nation. The objection has been raised, and overruled by the mob. The mob therefore has no claim to it now.
Regardless of what you may think of me or my faith, know that my fight for truth has a purpose: that our nation might be released from this present crisis and become the people that God knows we can be, if we live on the foundation of his Word. There are always going to be disagreements and differences among us, but whenever this level of violence rises up there must be those who do not accommodate to the noise and destruction and violence. And I am convinced there are more of these good men and women than we are being led to believe.

I pray for God’s kingdom of peace and justice and righteous would come upon each one of us, and that our nation would be healed.

Observing from Middle America

I stand and watch the world on fire, from somewhere in middle America. I raise my questions and voice my objections, although I do not have a platform that will make any sort of real difference in the world. I have no more or less ability to be heard than anybody else in this country, and yet I must try and make sense of all that I am seeing and hearing.

It is unfortunate that we now live in a society that accepts the belief that any disagreement with another’s point of view is equivalent to hatred and lack of willingness to understand. This, I have been told my entire life, is the underlying major problem of the white community whenever the issue of race is in the discussion. Although I was not raised in a culture that taught me the color of a person’s skin was the measure by which one was to be judged, at the same time I am told that everything about my life has been institutionalized and systematically shaped by issues of race.

After being taught that I should not allow my implicit bias and racism to control my view of the world, I am now told that I already have an implicit bias and racism that controls my view of the world. Then I am told that I must recognize this, maybe apologize for it, and let such attitudes and behaviors go. At this point I am told that I have not let these attitudes go, and it will be impossible for me to rise above such biases. And so I must understand, but yet I cannot understand, what it means in our so-called inherently racist world. My confusion in this is that I was working under the premise that the content of a person’s character was what matters most, and yet whenever I try to engage on this level I am reminded of my implicit bias and racism that makes it appear as though the color of a person’s skin is still in play.

And today much of our nation is burning, literally so, with the riots of angry mobs who have exhibited almost no concern for their treatment of others and their communities. My heart stopped when I saw these monsters attack an old woman in a wheelchair as she tried to escape the chaos in a Minneapolis Target. My stomach wanted to throw up as a mob beat and kicked a business owner on the ground as he could no longer react because of his traumatic injuries, which will most likely bring about his death. And I cried with the black man in Cincinnati as he teared up over the havoc these riots were creating throughout his community, especially the young black teenagers who have been wrapped up into this hate.

I have shared my concerns about this, and have been trying to sift through everyone else’s thoughts as well. While some have echoed my sentiments thus far, I still see others with reactions that I do not understand. I want to process this and I want to understand, because we need to reach the Truth or else everything will be truly damned. It appears that there is a benefit to some to keep everything confused and reactive, and there are certainly people who gain something from the chaos. But I simply want to understand.

Last night I met up with an online post that some have described as “powerful” and “piercing,” evidently because it contains some sort of dramatic insight of this dramatic storm. I read through the piece, thoughtfully and carefully, and I still struggle to understand what is happening (or what has happened) to us.

I am told by this piece that all white Americans who call for peaceful protests ought to recognize their role in the escalation of this present burning. Over the past few years there have been athletes and entertainers and other famous voices that have made protest statements in one form or another. And the claim is that every time one of these voices was raised to speak out against injustice, white Americans simply didn’t want to hear it and told them to get back to the work they were being paid to do.

(And, yes, the language of slavery and servitude is employed in his paragraph, even though we are talking about men who make millions of dollars playing a game or being in a movie.)

But, again, the notion of disagreeing with someone’s stated position as hatred of their being comes to the fore. Kneeling for the anthem is a controversial statement, and when the controversy was ignited that alone became a point that somehow proved American racism is alive and well. I didn’t care for the statement being made in that manner, and neither did a lot of other well-meaning Americans, many of whom were black. While I tried to make sense of the content of his character, this not-quite-good-enough footballer wore socks that portrayed police as pigs and has spent much of his subsequent time encouraging the type of protests that we see today.

Nevertheless, it is America’s fault that we did not give him (and others) the appropriate time and space to exercise their peaceful protests. I am confused, because the right to peacefully protest, which is guaranteed by our Constitution, does not mandate that anyone pay attention or listen. I am writing this letter, and I have every right to do so. But many will not take the time to read it, and some will outright dismiss it for the biases they carry in them about who I am. That is the nature of our world.

But it is America’s fault that this footballer somehow didn’t get an opportunity to peacefully protest, even though the media was filled with the sights and sounds of the many who joined him and the many commentators who cheered them on their way. And when this man washed out of the NFL, I seem to remember that Nike was able to give him a lucrative contract (as a non-athlete) as a platform to speak out against racial injustice in this world.

That’s one example out of many situations we could say likewise. There are many black voices who have the attention of this nation to be a voice. Does everyone agree with all of the cultural biases that are levied at so-called white America? Nope. That doesn’t make us racists, but simply humans — because humans disagree on things.

But let’s say that these athletes (and others) who peacefully protested did not get the platforms that I have described here. Let’s for a moment assume there was no media (broadcast or social) that ever covered these events or commented on their connection to America. What if the black community screamed and screamed about its injustice and nobody ever paid attention? Would this then be cause for the type of violence that we are witnessing today? Because, according to this online piece, the lack of being heard is what led to the violence. I can understand that there is a progression of behavior, and being frustrated and angry and hurt escalates human words and action. But, does this connection of events bring about a moral rightness to the violence?

Some will say I’m making a leap in my interpretation of this piece. But, in the tone of slavery, the point is made that so-called white America pushed so-called black American from their ability to peacefully protest and any call to peaceful protests today must remember that it is so-called white America’s fault we arrived here in the first place. The point is being made, not too implicitly, that it is the fault of white Americans that these protests turned violent. That is quite an accusation to make.

Lest I paint with too broad a stroke here, let me ask if there is an embedded line within the violence that is morally acceptable verses those actions which are not. That is to say, I anticipate a reaction to my comment of moral culpability as, “Well, some of the protests may have gone too far, but not all.” Okay, so where would the line be? And why is some behavior justified as a rightful response to not being heard and other behavior is not? If the fact that marching in the streets didn’t change the nation led directly to the violent protests, then the blame for escalation would certainly exonerate every action once a people group was pushed across the line.

So far, I have conducted my discussion without appealing to nationalism, even though this thought-piece I read made a very quick and direct connection to it. And this becomes a matter of faith. As a side note, I am discovering the disturbing trend within American Christianity that has become more and more comfortable with making statements that question the legitimacy of the faith of other people with whom we have socio-political disagreements. Taking our cues from the secular world around us, many in the church take the lazy road of political branding as a means of saying another believer’s faith is illegitimate. Sound harsh? That is precisely the move that was famously published in a December 2019 editorial at Christianity Today, when the outgoing editor suggested that anyone who would not support the President’s impeachment ought to reconsider their faith commitment.

The piece I read last night mentioned the need, especially for white evangelical Christians, to stop conflating following Jesus and being a citizen of a nation. Done. Now what do I do? Because this hasn’t been a particular problem for me (aside from the implicit biases that I undoubtedly have that I must recognize and repent that will still be there even after I recognize and repent and … see above).

I have been critical of many aspects of our country, not only for socio-political reasons, but primarily for my commitment to Scripture. At no point does my supposed nationalism take control of my faith when I see the violence and destruction ripping through our cities and communities. I seem to be confused on this point as well, because I cannot find where in the Bible that such violent activity is deemed acceptable. So, I am not sure if faith is eclipsing nationalism or nationalism is eclipsing faith when both the laws of my nation and the commands of my Lord stand in opposition to the killing and destruction of property.

We are called to be people of peace, on this I hope there is unanimous agreement from within the church. And, I will further agree with the words I read last night in the challenge that we should not proclaim peace where there is no peace. But the application of this seems to be misguided when it places the blame of the actions of some upon others.

This past week there was a tremendous injustice that caught the attention of our entire nation. Even now, I struggle to find the voices of those who defend this police officer for his actions. Who are we now protesting?

The officer has been fired from his job, and subsequently arrested, with an investigation and probable filing of criminal charges against him. Where is the lack of justice at work in Minneapolis?

Some will undoubtedly say that the injustice is found in the fact that this event could happening in the first place. Yes, this is true. But that alone does not justify the violent protests that have erupted as a result. Are we certain that this is a race-driven event? I read in the reports that this officer had eight previous complaint connected to excessive force, none of which were pursued. Were all of these against black people? Those who need to push the narrative will make the claim that the officer acted out of his implicit bias, although this again assumes to know enough about him and his motivations.

But a tragedy happened, and somehow this is an implication of all of America, am I to understand this is correct? I have never once sought to defend this officer’s actions, and yet I am being told that white America is to blame for this outpouring of violence, which would include me. Is this why it is acceptable for throwing rocks at police, smashing windows, dragging innocents through the streets, and burning down buildings? Does Minneapolis deserve to be set ablaze because of one man’s actions, which are being dealt with in an appropriate and effective way?

I simply don’t see the connection between a supposedly deep anguish and hurt from culture and the need to smash through Target and run out with thousands of dollars worth of electronics, or loot a Nike store to steal some new footwear, or smashing the windows out of a CVS. This is the activity of criminals, and we need the ability to separate them from those who may have constructive dialogue on living together as one community. This isn’t it, and justifying the hateful behavior doesn’t work. There are many whose businesses, and thus their lives, were on the brink following the pandemic. And while the smoke begins to clear this morning, many who are now ruined because of this violence.

How does any of this bring about more justice for this victim? Or a group of victims? These are the actions of hate, not love, and will destroy much more than are now able to see.

Perhaps much of my confusion comes from the constant cries to speak out against injustice, only to be blamed for speaking out against injustice. It is not enough. It is never enough. It will never be enough. So long as there are people who can profit from the chaos and the anger and the ongoing narrative of repression that can be used for political gain. There is so much more to be gained in justice and righteousness if we can rise above the mire and speak more honestly and consistently about Truth. And that begins with individuals being treated as men and women who stand before Almighty God as who they are and who they choose to be.

I have listened to the powerful words of Martin Luther King, Jr, and I am fully supportive of his dream for our nation, and our world. I have read his words and letters and embrace him as a voice and agent of change. What we are witnessing today is not found in his vision, nor is it in the world that our God is wanting to make.

Such a great level of disconnect tells me that there is something much more sinister at play in our nation today. This isn’t about nationalism or race or political party. In fact, I have not placed any blame on the black community in my shared thoughts. This is a battle between good an evil, it’s as fundamental as that. It is an evil that has no regard for those whom it uses, those whom it attacks, the lives that are ruined, the communities that are shattered, the disfiguring of humanity it brings about. There is evidence that those who are rioting and engaging in violence are not representative of the communities under attack, and that this anger does not fall so neatly along racial divides as we are being told. I believe that Americans are not as angry with one another as we are let to believe, and that the good men and women in our country far, far outnumber the bad ones. And I think that the fact that this all ignited in the latter days of a pandemic shows that the deep frustrations of some under quarantine and lockdown could be used as fuel for the fire.

Where will the people of God find themselves in this? Once the initial rage wears down, the media will move on to the next perceived crisis and the outrage of injustice will once again wane into the night, until the next cycle. The church is the community that can continue to work for righteousness in all things, and in all times and seasons. I am confused by a Christianity that takes its cues of social issues and justice from the daily headlines. Regardless of our positions or beliefs, or race, it is imperative that we know how to speak the words of love in harmonious tones. A message of love cannot be communicated through the chords of anger and dissonance. We live in a world that seems to have lost this.

I stand and watch the world on fire, from somewhere in middle America. I am not blessed with a platform big enough to think that anyone will actually care about my thoughts on the world. I am like most Americans today, who simply want to live life, do what is right, adhere to my deeply held beliefs, keep my family safe, and be a blessing to my neighbors. How long, O Lord, will we squander the blessings of liberty with our disfigured humanity?