What’s the Big Deal about ‘Critical Race Theory’?

Frank

This is part of a series of posts inspired by the book ‘Trouble I’ve Seen: Changing the Way the Church Views Racism’ by Drew G.I. Hart. These were originally written and posted on my personal Facebook page.

I got back on Twitter when quarantine started thinking I’d have more time on my hands (yeah, right). Most of the people I follow are Christian authors/ministers/academics and one of the hot topics across social media was debate over what is called Critical Race Theory (CRT). Last year the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution stating CRT can be used as a “tool” but that the Bible holds ultimate authority, which I guess duh? But it was the only resolution passed with significant dissension. The argument goes: the going-in doctrinal position is that “racism” is a term used by the world (i.e. those outside the church) to divide, and that racism does not and cannot exist in the church because, as the Apostle Paul explained, “all are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). So to even consider CRT is in itself divisive and worldly. (Simply put, racism is a sin. And since Christians have repented of their sin, they therefore cannot be racist. A convenient excuse to ignore the issue, but I digress.) Another strike against CRT is the accusation of ‘Cultural Marxism’ which is intended to shut down debate without considering its merits (but more on that in a later post).

What is CRT? It is a sociological area of study that applies what are called critical methods to race relations. CRT stretches the definition of racism beyond the relational to the social and structural and divides people groups into the oppressed and the oppressors. But that’s too academic. Hart references a couple of “critical race theorists” who explain that definitions of race are social constructs that historically are “at best imprecise, and at worst completely arbitrary. They may be arbitrary, but they are not meaningless.” Basically, social definitions of race are used to intentionally categorize and separate people into subgroups for economic and/or political gain. In summary, “racism is ‘a racialized systemic and structural system that organizes our society.'”

You can see why this could be divisive.

But applied to white-dominated systems it makes sense. The other day on Twitter someone challenged readers to identify any full-professors (i.e. tenured) who teach theology or biblical studies at Evangelical Christian colleges who are Black. (It was a loaded question because the person asking counts as one) After a lot of guesses and attempts to stretch the definition of ‘Black,’ turns out the answer is 3. In over 150 colleges and seminaries, across the entire country, there are only 3 tenured theology/bible professors who are Black. In the entire country. Three.

Not a big deal?

I probably have over a hundred books spanning theology, biblical studies, and Christian living. Skimming my shelves while reading this latest chapter I counted a total of seven minority authors (female authors don’t fare any better, I’m afraid). What difference does that make? This means my personal theology is being shaped by old white men. My academic and spiritual formation are disproportionately influenced by a single demographic, and even though subjects and doctrines cover a spectrum of Christian tradition, it is still arguably one-sided, representing a Western Anglo-Saxon Protestant worldview.

Those are just books. How many TV shows do you watch with leading cast members who are minorities? What news media do you consume that comes from a minority point of view? We probably don’t even recognize this given ‘white privilege’, but imagine being a Black child growing up watching the same TV you did and attending a church where pictures of Jesus depict him with blond (or at most light brown) hair and blue eyes. What long-term effect does that have? That type of racism isn’t explicit, it may even be subconscious. But it shapes the order of our society. We are surrounded by it regardless of our individual contribution towards it. That’s what CRT is meant to address. And the largest Protestant Christian denomination in the country is divided over whether this subject is even worth talking about.

Vertical Racism and Justice

Frank

This is part of a series of posts inspired by the book ‘Trouble I’ve Seen: Changing the Way the Church Views Racism’ by Drew G.I. Hart. These were originally written and posted on my personal Facebook page.

One of the first things that jumped out to me reading ‘Trouble I’ve Seen’ by Drew G.I. Hart, is how he distinguishes “horizontal” racism and “vertical” racism. Horizontal is inter-relational. It’s what we think of when we are quick to the defense of, “I’m not racist!” because we have social proximity to other races. On that scale, you probably aren’t racist in this sense. Relationally, you consider others on equal footing.

But vertical racism is something different altogether. Vertical racism isn’t relational, it’s structural. While you might have black friends (horizontal defense), those friends live at a lower rung on the cultural (vertical) ladder. So maybe you’re not personally racist horizontally, but do you recognize your privileged position vertically? So when someone argues, “that’s racist!” we get defensive and take it personally when it’s the vertical systemic issues that are being addressed. No one is saying you favor burning crosses on someone’s front yard, but maybe you’re supportive of a system that has historically been oppressive (even if subtly behind the scenes).

For example, a month ago in my Facebook feed someone posted about a Black Graduation put on by “Black College Expo”. Someone snidely commented, “That’s racist! If there was a white graduation people would flip out!” That comment ignores the vertical racism that exists in education and college admission. It also ignores who is putting this on when there are similar organizations and events for Christian colleges, women promoting specific fields (such as Society of Women Engineers), legacy organizations (like Daughters of the American Revolution), and so on. So the overreaction reveals a personal vertical racism that we’re often blind to.

Biblically, when I think of vertical racism, I think of justice. Justice, simply defined, is ‘getting what one deserves.’ But biblical justice kicks this up a notch- it is related to the principle of shalom, or peace, and includes mutual flourishing. Biblical justice is more than getting what one deserves, it is ‘getting what God intends.’ This is done by removing vertical differences between people, not by any self-designated virtue (which is colonialist) but by the grace of God. Watch this video from The Bible Project to see what I mean.

The Race Card

Frank

This is part of a series of posts inspired by the book ‘Trouble I’ve Seen: Changing the Way the Church Views Racism’ by Drew G.I. Hart. These were originally written and posted on my personal Facebook page.

The race card. Sometimes you’ll hear the argument, “you’re always playing the race card!” as a means to dismiss another’s point of view. You might even use that as a political argument, “there they go again, playing the race card” while complaining about ‘identity politics’. The problem with the “race card” is that it’s just one card and ignores the deck.

Let’s call it instead the ‘ace card’. If you’re playing a game and holding an ace card, that doesn’t mean anything without the context of the game and knowledge of the deck. An ace card might be high or low value. Its importance might depend on other ace cards, like in poker, or it might depend on its suit, like in spades. If you’re playing a game like spades, hearts, or gin it may or may not be a good thing to be holding an ace card based on what else has already been played. In other words, the value of your ace card depends on rules of the game, the context within the game, and knowledge of the deck as a whole.

When we argue about the “race card” we’re only focusing on that single card. We don’t consider its context and we ignore every other card within the deck. Yet for minority communities, they cannot separate a single card from their whole deck of experience or the context of the unfair game being played against them. So in order to overcome racial division we need to study the whole deck and the context in which that particular card is being played.

Why is the death of George Floyd a thing now, in this particular moment? It is just a single event, an individual “race card” that without any other information we cannot measure its value. It is only when considered in a particular context and seen as a pattern within history that we can assign a specific value to this individual event. Only when we recognize the game and see this as one card played from a very, very large deck, can we begin to understand, relate, and empathize with other players unfairly losing the game.

As Drew G.I. Hart describes the difference between the “race card” and the entire deck of systematic racism, “White people must learn to define individual incidents in light of the larger patterns of society.” We cannot limit our experience to a single headline in the news, we need to listen and learn, and stop being so defensive and dismissive because we only see a single card.

When to Speak or When to Act?

When to Speak or When to Act?

Frank

You’ve heard the poem by Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-
and there was no one left to speak for me. 

Let me offer an alternative contemporary reading: First they came for the Muslims, but I wasn’t a Muslim; they came for the Dreamers, but I wasn’t a Dreamer; they came for the refugee, but I wasn’t a refugee; they came for the Temporarily Protected, but I wasn’t Temporarily Protected; then they came for the children and no one was left to speak for the children.

Photo: Red Letter Christians;
taken from Shane Claiborne’s Facebook page

It’s not a perfect analogy, but I do think you can draw a straight line through these policy decisions over the past year.  The reasoning behind each of these can be rationally debated, despite how clumsily they’ve been carried out.  But that doesn’t necessarily make them right.  As the saying goes, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.  So I wonder, at which of those steps above should Christians have stood up in opposition- the Muslim ban, DACA, TPS?  Some did early.  Some did late.  Some have for all, and some not at all.  Meanwhile, does outrage at one step require outrage at the others?  And this discussion so far has only been limited to people trying to enter the United States, to say nothing about other flashpoints in the current culture wars.

If we are outraged at the separation of children from their parents entering the country illegally, should we be equally outraged about the permanent separation of aborted children from their mothers?  On a recent trip I came across a group protesting abortion with the most graphic of placards accompanied with scripture.  Is it hypocritical to speak out against one practice, but not the other?  What makes a particular practice inhumane, personal political leanings?

We in the United States are fortunate for our right to protest, to assemble, and to effect policy through financial contribution, volunteerism, and our individual vote.  We can speak out, we can march, and we can protest without fear of political or legal retribution.  So when is it appropriate to?  I admit I feel torn speaking up for immigrant children when I’ve been relatively silent with regards to abortion.  But while abortion is symptomatic of what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of death”, these latest actions are more a sign of a culture of hostility and hatred.  Is one worse than the other?  I honestly don’t know.

I need to study Bonhoeffer.  I admit it’s been years since I’ve read The Cost of Discipleship and I have two biographies on my shelf waiting to be read. Every time lately that I’ve started Bonhoeffer’s Black Jesus, I am distracted by other studies.  And the length of Metaxas’ biography has been too intimidating to tackle.  But I want to get into Bonhoeffer’s mindset.  What was the line the Nazi party crossed that was too far for him?  At what specific point did he become disillusioned from the German Church and found a home in the Confessing Church?  Like most of us I would suspect his changing convictions were progressive, but at some point I’m sure he had to throw up his hands and say “enough is enough!”

I look at what is happening in this country and it grieves my heart.  Christians can’t even agree that separating infant and toddler children from their parents as a punitive and deterrent measure is inhumane.  We can’t agree that saying Black Lives Matter is not the same thing as saying Blue Lives don’t.  We suffer chronic ‘whataboutism’, pointing fingers in every other direction other than where they should.  And we have a win-at-all-costs mentality towards politics that divides more than it advances God’s kingdom.

I’m also struggling to determine what form “speaking out” should take.  On this blog I have spent most of my time trying to impart right-conviction, but how do I translate that conviction to appropriate action?  Do I donate?  Do I march?  If I march, do I do so as just another voice or do I wave my Jesus banner because that self-identification is more important than political party, citizenship, or the color of my skin?

On Tuesday, nearly a couple dozen clergy, ministers, and religious leaders were arrested protesting this Administration on both coasts.  Red Letter Christians and the Poor People’s Campaign led a protest in front of the White House in Washington, DC while several different groups and congregations gathered to protest Attorney General Jeff Sessions in Los Angeles.  Do I follow their example and the example of Martin Luther King or the Apostle Paul who both did their best writing from prison?  Or do I continue to express scriptural convictions in the hopes of creating waves to spur others to action?

“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
and if you spend yourselves on behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.”
-Isaiah 59:9-10

It’s time to do away with the pointing finger and to spend myself on the behalf of the oppressed.

How Did We Get Here? One Word, Idolatry

How Did We Get Here? One Word, Idolatry

Frank

Following the Attorney General’s reference to Romans 13 as a defense for the Trump Administration’s current immigration policy, I was planning on writing a post regarding the poor interpretation of that passage and its historical misuse.  This was planned to have been an update to my previous post on the subject.  Others have covered that ground for me and you don’t have to look far, but I recommend these posts from Michael Gorman and Kurt Willems if you want to get deep.  Another good summary is provided by Get Religion that gives a survey of mainstream media coverage.

I felt like I had to quickly jump into the fray to defend scripture against those who would twist it for their own ends.  I felt like David facing down Goliath.  David didn’t care about the extensive crimes against humanity of the Philistines, rather he was motivated by the need to defend God’s honor against a foe who was mocking him.  Such an attitude, I realized after reading a post from a classmate of mine, gives the impression that I care more about the integrity of biblical interpretation than I do the injustice being perpetrated.  She wrote, “no one needs to know what Paul actually meant in order to see evil steadily at work.” I was convicted because she was exactly right.

“No one needs to know what Paul actually meant in order to see evil steadily at work.”

But I’m not here to debate policy, nor am I going to complain for the sake of complaining.  It has always been my goal with this space to apply scripture to current events to steer us towards a kingdom-attitude when it comes to politics, media, and life in the public square.  Another social media post noted (paraphrasing), “If you see what’s happening and your first reaction is, ‘but they broke the law!’ Then we don’t have a difference of opinion, we have a difference in morality.”  That nails it, and that’s what I want to address here.

A Difference in Morality

I am dismayed not only by the injustice being carried out by this Administration, but also the unashamedly-partisan support from many claiming to be Christian.  I’m not here to question their faith or their salvation, but I see support of this ongoing atrocity as merely a symptom of something more insidious: idolatry.  Idolatry is anything that we place in a position over and above God.  And that means anything: usually career, money, or fame is often invoked as examples, but anything that ‘gets our blood boiling’ to the degree that we think, speak, or act in an ungodly way is an idol.  We’re often not aware of when we do this, especially when we respond emotionally, but over time these things become more important to us than our relationship with God and the symptom is how it affects our relationships with other people.  That is why the Old Testament is full of warnings against idolatry in the backdrop of prosperity, religiosity, and nationalism.

Paul wrote that, “The weapons of our warfare are not the weapons of the world.  Instead, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.  We tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)  Basically, these divine weapons tear down idols that prevent others from knowing God.  So what idols are driving the current debate?

The Idolatry of Ideology

This is the idolatry that brought President Trump to power in the first place. It is an idolatry that manifests itself as unwavering allegiance to partisanship.  As Christianity Today pointed out at the time, American Christians weren’t voting for Donald Trump as much as they were voting against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  Because of two decades worth of vilifying the other side- initially embodied by President Clinton and his wife Hillary.  This partisanship is an idol because by its very nature divides disciples of Jesus that should otherwise be united.

It’s not hard to see this all over on social media- when posts or comments refuse to consider things objectively, even when presented with contrary evidence.  I think it’s telling that with respect to the separation of children at the border, even Franklin Graham spoke out against it, as did many politicians and media representing the Right.  Yet I saw friends that refused to budge from their position with unequivocal support.  It’s not just on the Right either, when someone would remind us that President Obama was called “the Deporter-in-Chief” his defenders wouldn’t acknowledge his administration’s culpability in what is going on now.

Such strong allegiance leads us into ungodly debate (cf. 2 Timothy 2:23) and divides relationships.  This is where ideology steps over the line into idolatry.  It prevents civil discussion, refuses to agree to disagree, and gives the impression that one’s ideology is more important than anything else.

Is this idol a temptation for you? Ask yourself, based on your social media profile or in-person conversations, are people more likely to know about your political party or your Christian faith?

The Idolatry of Moral Absolutes

This idol seems counter-intuitive.  Christians hold to the Bible as their standard of morality, even though we may disagree on details or application.  So it would appear that moral absolutes are a good thing, right?  But the Bible offers very few absolutes relative to the real-life we experience every day.  That is why the author of Ecclesiastes expresses frustration that everything is “meaningless, meaningless!” (Ecclesiastes 1:1-11) and the Psalmist cries out, “how long, oh Lord, will the wicked prosper?” (Psalm 94:3)

For every reference to Leviticus in order to argue against homosexuality, there is the counter argument that we should therefore abstain from eating shellfish or wearing cotton-poly blended fabric.  For every sermon about biblical marriage, there’s a story about David and Bathsheba or about Abraham lying about his relationship with Sarah.

Holding to moral absolutes leads to self-righteousness.  We become convinced we are right and there is nothing that can change our view.  And if I am absolutely certain I am right, then any other perspective must be wrong.  Yet Jesus said that the entirety of the Law can be summarized by these two commands: love God and love others (Matthew 23:36-40).  If what I am convinced that is right cannot be expressed in love, then it is an idol.  If I cannot hold my convictions while at the same time loving my neighbor as myself, then that conviction is an idol.  This isn’t about policy, it is about the attitude when being right is more important than right-relationships (i.e. the definition of righteousness).

The Idolatry of White Privilege

Yes, I went there.  I could also call this the idol of circumstance.  It stems from a lack of empathy because we cannot conceive experiences different from our own.  The example I always think of when it comes to this is Phil Robertson from ‘Duck Dynasty’ recalling that before the Civil Rights movement when he picked cotton with African-Americans they were all happy as if they didn’t have a care in the world.

When it comes to the immigration debate, we forget that unless you are First Nation or descended from slaves, you are an immigrant that voluntarily left a place to come here in search of a better life.  It may be generations removed, but you’re non-native nonetheless.  So the theme throughout scripture to “be kind to the foreigner, because you too were foreigners in the land” (Leviticus 19:34) is apt because we are all foreigners in this land.  An inability to accept that puts your own point of view and your own experiences over all others and is, therefore, an idol.

We are also short-sighted when we prop our privilege up as an idol.  We weren’t there, so we don’t know just how much our ancestors were mistreated when they came to this country.  Look no further than how this country historically treated the Irish, Italian, and German.  You can even go back to the colonies with Ben Franklin who said of German immigrants, “are generally of the most Stupid Sort of their own Nation.”  Remember to treat the foreigner kindly, because you were mistreated as a foreigner in this land.

The Idolatry of American Exceptionalism

I’ve written about this before, but I’ll repeat it here- God owes the United States no particular favor.  We, as a nation, are not in a covenant relationship with God.  We are subconsciously biased towards territorialism- our news regularly reports the atrocities of others: Chinese currency manipulation and industrial espionage, Russian hacking and social media bots, and so on, as if we are completely innocent from participating in the same.

Sure, be ‘proud to be an American’, sing ‘God Bless America’, and stand for the National Anthem.  But when we react with venom and hatred if someone kneels at a football game or disrespects the President, are we responding in a Christ-like manner?  America is not perfect.  It is not Zion.  It is not the Promised Land.  And our government consists of fallen human beings representing the interests of fallen human beings.  There will be corruption, there will be deceit, double-standards, and backroom dealing.  There will be laws we don’t agree with and there will be miscarriages of justice.  For no other reason than because it’s human nature.

Going back to those most important commandments above, if your love of country prevents you from loving your neighbor, your patriotism is an idol.

The Idolatry of Government

This one is easy to slip into and I’m guilty of it myself.  Because of the nature of our representative democracy and a relative prosperity for most of our lives (that is, if you’re not a minority), we can idealize the government as being able to fix all our problems.  This is an issue for the Right and the Left.  On the Right, the government should legislate morality.  On the Left, the government should spend money to fix social issues.  Neither approach is inherently wrong in and of themselves.  But when we expect our government to be our savior (saving from whatever social ill of the moment), government replaces God.

In God We Trust is our national motto for a reason- it should be a constant reminder that God is bigger than government.  That was the heart behind the American Revolution and the fight for our inalienable rights bestowed upon us by an authority higher than a monarchy.

The Idolatry of Safety

This is the idol I see more and more in our political dialogue.  We instinctively look out for our own self-interest, even if it’s at the expense of others.  So politicians use this to their advantage to stoke fear to motivate us politically.  Communists, terrorists, immigrants… there’s always a boogieman.  This politician wants to take away your fill-in-the-blank (gun, social security, retirement, bible).  That politician is the anti-Christ.  So we vote in such a way to protect what is ours.

I can say I love my neighbor… so long as my neighbor is not a threat.  What is remarkable about the Good Samaritan wasn’t that the Samaritan stopped to help a stranger, but that the Samaritan was the social enemy of the stranger and still helped.  We become numb to that distinction when the news highlights a “good Samaritan” any time someone stops to help a stranger.  The Samaritan risked his personal safety, his social reputation, and denied his own feelings to do the right thing.  Even for an enemy.

If we are against doing the right thing because doing so risks comfort, peace, or security, then our personal security has become an idol.

****

I need to call this out- with respect to the immigration debate, it doesn’t matter who’s to blame, who passed what law, or who did what first.  I would hope that as Christians we can all agree that separating immigrant children from their parents, in the way it was being done (the literal devil is in the details because there are humane ways of handling this), was wrong.  Period.  Full stop.

But that’s not what is argued.  Instead people complain about immigrants being a drain on the system, while the Administration hyperbolically accuses everyone of being an MS-13 gang member, and strict legalism towards the law and order becomes the only thing that matters.  As a Christian seeing people suffer, for whatever reason and in whatever circumstance, what difference does any of that make?

As I said at the top, we could debate policy, but I’ve found that most people don’t sincerely want to.  You can oppose immigration of any kind.  You could favor amnesty and open borders.  I honestly don’t care.  When you hold to a position so strongly as to divide or when you vilify others, you are not representing Christ.  To be clear, both sides are guilty of this- I try very hard not to bad-mouth the President or make statements that are personal.  I’m not always successful.  Yet while I am interested in policy (I admit I’m a politics junkie), my larger concern is how we treat others and how we represent Jesus to the world around us.

Can we disagree?  Absolutely!  But we need to be very mindful of why we disagree.  Examine your heart.  Honestly search for those idols.  Because they stand in the way of God’s in-breaking kingdom.  A kingdom of justice and compassion.  Where we don’t need laws because God’s law will be written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).  Thy kingdom come, thy will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. (Matthew 6:10).

Amen

It’s Not About Politics

Frank

Here is a rundown of denominations and major Christian organizations who have released statements in opposition to the Trump Administration’s policy of separating families while going through deportation/asylum hearings.  Note that some of these are traditionally right-leaning.  Check out this running list from Jack Jenkins on Twitter for a more complete list including statements representing other faiths.  I will try and keep this updated.

  • The Council of Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church released a statement through the Religion News Service
  • The American Baptist Churches USA responded directly to AG Sessions
  • The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (statement from Cardinal Daniel DiNardo)
  • The Christian Reformed Church of North America issued a bilingual statement (nice touch)
  • The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America added a statement
  • The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution (resolution #5) at their annual meeting last week
  • The Seventh Day Adventist Church also released a statement
  • The Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church (Jeff Session’s denomination) also released a statement

#KeepFamiliesTogether is a joint statement from 20 religious leaders including:

  • General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ -UCC
  • Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (United States)
  • Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America -ELCA
  • Executive Director of the Mennonite Church USA
  • General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
  • Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA)- PCUSA
  • Executive Director of the International Council of Community Churches

The Evangelical Immigration Table includes signatures from the:

  • President of the National Association of Evangelicals
  • President of World Relief
  • Ambassador, General Superintendent Emerita of the Wesleyan Church,
  • Board of General Superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene
  • President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention,
  • President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
  • President of World Vision

Cakes Sacrificed to Idols

Frank

Last week the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake supporting a same-sex wedding (for the record, he didn’t refuse to bake them a cake, he simply declined decorating a cake specific for their wedding).  While on the surface, that announcement looks like a solid win in the over-hyped culture wars, the decision itself was intentionally narrow, focusing not on the action of the baker but on the state civil rights commission.  Reading between the lines, it could be taken as a win for both sides.  I recommend reading this take from Skye Jethani that sheds some light onto this issue that might be missed in the usual media reporting.

I want to approach this from a different angle however.  This past semester I took a course titled Paul and the Gentile Mission.  The class focused on Paul’s missionary journeys, his letters, and the specific cultural issues the early church faced in an otherwise pagan culture.  Early in the year the professor gave us the example of Pergamum, one of the Seven Churches in Asia addressed in Revelation.  Its architecture and city layout that was typical of the Greco-Roman cities Paul would have visited.  What was noteworthy was just how pervasive pagan religion would have been.  If you wanted to purchase food in the market, you would have done so in the shadow of an enormous statue to Zeus.  To come and go from the public square would require passing by temples, shrines, and altars dedicated to several different gods.  Education would have been in a lecture hall either devoted to a particular deity or philosophical/rhetorical school.  Receiving medical care would have been done in the name of Asclepius.  And that doesn’t even mention the public baths, theaters, or gymnasiums.

All that to say, identifying as a Christian in such a multicultural and multi-theistic environment would not have been easy.  Every public act would force an either/or decision that could potentially compromise one’s conviction.  That’s why Paul spent so much time talking about syncretism (cultural conformity) in his letters, especially to the church in Corinth.  And that includes eating meat sacrificed to idols.

It’s not an obvious link, but I think Paul’s message regarding what we eat is relevant today to the debate over homosexuality and gay-marriage.  A quick summary of Paul’s argument from 1 Corinthians 8: food sacrificed to idols aren’t any more ‘holy’ than food that is not because mature Christians know the idol is meaningless.  But not all Christians are mature in this sense, so we must be careful with the choices we make to not make weaker Christians struggle.

Applying that to this debate, my logic goes like this- if a devout Christian is so opposed to gay-marriage that he or she cannot be a vendor of services to the ceremony, then it follows that this person believes the marriage isn’t recognized in the eyes of God.  If that’s the case then the “sacrament” of marriage would be invalid, in other words it wouldn’t count.  So it’s just like meat sacrificed to a god we know isn’t real- if it doesn’t count, why should I be offended by it?  If, on the other hand, the Christian believes the marriage is still sacramental, just sinful, then they need to apply the same standard by not supporting any second (or third, or fourth…) marriages, weddings between believers of different denominations (for example, imagine an Evangelical wedding planner working with a Catholic and Mormon who are getting married, oy vey!), and all weddings involving non-believers or all non-religious ceremonies.  (Do you still get a cake if you’re married in a drive-through by Elvis in Las Vegas? Asking for a friend.) If that vendor cannot apply their objection so broadly, then maybe they shouldn’t be in the business in the first place.

The counter argument, going back to Paul, is that supporting something he doesn’t believe in, in this case a homosexual marriage, would cause weak Christians to struggle because it implies endorsement.  But in every one of these cases that I’ve read about (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer), it seems to me that the conscious being violated is their own – the baker, the photographer, the florist – not the “weak Christian” whom they should be concerned about.  I don’t mean this lightly or pejoratively, but to me that makes them the weak Christian.  In this sense, the Supreme Court got it right, the government can’t compel the weak Christian to violate his or her conscience.  One solution obviously would be for the oppositional Christian to become “mature”, but I think that’s asking too much and the government cannot assume this will ever happen.  The alternative then, is to expect this Christian to continue to be “weak”, so he or she really needs to consider if they’re in the right line of work.

Participating in commerce is a choice.  In the 1st Century, it was a choice that put Christians right in the middle of idol worship, emperor cults, mystery religions, and philosophical schools.  Selling cakes would have placed one right in the marketplace under the shadow of Zeus.  Participating publicly in a trade would imply membership in trade guilds or voluntary associations that had their own religious ceremonies and rituals (think Kiwanis, or the Elks Lodge but where membership was expected depending on your trade; e.g. the silversmiths in Ephesus (Acts 19:24-29), or the group of tent-makers where Paul met Pricilla and Aquila(Acts 18:2-3)). 

I am a frequent critic of the modern evangelical persecution complex primarily because it so ignorant of history.  The same is true here.  Christians didn’t stop participating in the culture where they lived.  Rather they were given warnings to guard against allowing that culture to influence their own actions and values that are demonstrated within the church.  Much of what Paul wrote was about how believers were to behave when in fellowship with one another, not how to navigate the culture wars of their time.  Paul wasn’t concerned about a Christian’s participation in commerce out in the world, rather he was concerned about how that participation affected the Christian’s relationships within the church and their ability to practice hospitality.  As he wrote in Romans, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17)

I heard a quote on the radio from the baker in this case, Jack Phillips, basically asserting that if the state can force him to bake a cake it is forcing him to forsake his relationship with God.  I say baloney, and so would Paul.  God isn’t that petty, and the baker isn’t forsaking anything.  The history of the church demonstrates that the culture-warriors today are making an argument that just didn’t matter to the earliest Christians.  And it shouldn’t matter to us.  I don’t wish Jack Phillips ill.  I don’t even wish he’d get out of the baking business.  What I do pray is that he, and others like him, can become mature in Christ and recognize that a commercial enterprise is not a religious endorsement (ahem, Hobby Lobby) understanding that the kingdom of God isn’t about what you’re selling, but about your personal righteousness, your peace in Christ to navigate a culture contrary to your ideals, and taking joy that the Holy Spirit has matured your heart so that these disputes no longer matter (liberally paraphrasing Romans 14).

#NotAllEvangelicals

#NotAllEvangelicals

Frank

The jokes write themselves at this point, but I don’t like the punchline.  By now you’ve probably heard (for some media over, and over, and over) that 81% of white Evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in the last election.  You might have also heard that President Trump’s approval rating among the same demographic actually increased following news of the payoff to porn star Stormy Daniels.

We (royal we) rationalize such stats by saying that we didn’t vote for a “pastor in chief” and that moral failings are less important than political stances.  (Interestingly, a quick Google search to try and find the origin of that quote led me to Andy Stanley saying that to describe… wait for it… President Obama.)  Jerry Falwell Jr. describes Mr. Trump as Evangelical’s “dream president”.  The administration’s accomplishments so far have been the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, numerous other federal judges, and moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.  In addition there has been a constant verbal assault against Planned Parenthood, vows to overturn the Johnson Amendment, and rallying cries for religious liberty.

You can’t have it both ways

Despite these victories in “bringing God back into the White House” there have been an alarming uptick in school shootings that the cultural right blame on the Godlessness of our culture.  Meanwhile the government has taken a hostile stance towards minorities, those relying on government subsistence, immigrants, and refugees.  When called out on this seeming hypocrisy, the same Christian leaders who most vocally support the president respond by saying that the law is the law and that it isn’t the government’s responsibility to be compassionate.  This attitude elevates the “rule of law” to the level of idolatry, using Romans 13 as justification.

The inconsistency of course is due to the emphasis the Religious Right has made since the 1980’s that the government should be the vehicle through which morality is reinforced in culture.  Abortion is a legal, Christian issue while immigration is not.  There is a systemic “agenda” against traditional family values but systemic racism is ignored.  It was argued one President should have been disqualified because of his immorality, the faith (and citizenship) of another was questioned because of his foreign policy, yet the current President is widely embraced despite his questionable ethics and morality.  Just because he tells right-leaning Evangelicals what they want to hear.

The punchline

So none of this comes as any surprise, but it grieves my heart nonetheless.  The latest headline read: “White Evangelicals are the Group Least Likely to Think the U.S. Should Help Refugees” citing the results of a recent study by Pew Research.  Policy arguments can be made about how to manage refugees in the face of global conflict.  But there is only one religious argument that can be made as the word of God makes clear in several passages.  “You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way.  Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)  So when the news brings on a Christian leader to discuss policy, it needs to be recognized that they leave doctrine at the door.  When Franklin Graham said a year ago that our country’s policy towards immigrants and refugees is “not a Bible issue”, we must recognize he isn’t speaking from a position of religious leader, but from that of a politician. 

The sad stat cited above has been overshadowed by the abhorrent news of children as young as one year old being ripped from their families as they cross the border.  This was threatened months ago and reinforced by the Attorney General in a recent speech.  But be reassured, the President’s Chief of Staff tells us they’ll be placed in “foster care or whatever” and hope that they aren’t among the 1500 that have been “lost” in the system.  Thankfully, this news hasn’t yet been overcome by the ‘palace intrigue’ that typically consumes this White House.  These things need to be talked about; the disgusting policies need to be brought into the light.

PHOTO: THE CHRISTIAN POST / SAMUEL SMITH

#NotAllEvangelicals

Thankfully there is light shining in the darkness.  Last weekend while many were captivated by the royal wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Episcopalian Bishop Michael Curry delivered a sermon that went viral, expressing an attitude of hope centering on Jesus and emphasizing a message of love.  Less that a week later he was leading a revival called “Reclaiming Jesus” that was kicked off by messages from the likes of Richard Rohr, Tony Campolo, and Walter Brueggemann (who received a long standing ovation) before marching in a silent vigil to the White House.

I have personally kept the ‘Religious Left’ at arm’s distance because I’ve felt pushing back against the commingling of religion and politics with just different politics only replaces one idol with another.  Maybe because of this, the Religious Left has struggled to gain the same foothold in our culture that we see in the Religious Right.  But I sense something different this time around.

For me it began with the launch of Public Faith right before the last presidential election.  Led by several Evangelicals I respect, the goal was to raise the dialogue of politics above the partisan divisions for a unified faith-based politic.  But more recently the movement Reclaiming Jesus has taken the same ideals and put them into motion.  In addition to the vigil (the organizers emphasize it wasn’t a march), they have a manifesto that speaks truth to power and shines light in the darkness.  Bullet-points include a rejection of white nationalism and racism because all are created in God’s image, a repudiation of American exceptionalism because of God’s promise to redeem every nation, and a call to servant leadership in the model of Jesus.

Will this make any difference, will it fizzle out over time as others have before, or will it become embroiled in the same partisan fights it is speaking out against?  Time will tell.  My hope is in Jesus, not any political party, nation, law, or movement.  At the very least such a movement makes clear that the loudest voices speaking on behalf of a diverse faith aren’t representative of all believers.  The political mouthpieces are just that, regardless of what their title may be in the religious world.  It’s time for more Christians to speak up and demonstrate that these leaders don’t represent all of Christianity.

Thoughts and Prayers

Thoughts and Prayers

Frank

It’s easy to be cynical when it doesn’t affect you, when you are separated emotionally by distance. But when it hits close to home perspectives change.

Another day, another school shooting 

Last Friday I was settling in at my desk at work when a cryptic message showed up in my inbox: “All personnel affected by the school shooting in Palmdale are authorized early leave.” Wait! What school shooting? My kids are at school in Palmdale! My wife is teaching in neighboring Lancaster! What’s going on???

I immediately went online to find out what was going on and jump on the phone to call my wife. The shooting was at a local high school, all schools in the area were locked down. Phew, my kids were at nearby elementary and middle schools. My son just made it in the gate as the school locked down. My daughter was met right away at her school’s entrance and corralled to their cafeteria. My wife was busy managing all of her kids as well and couldn’t talk long. The news was slowly trickling out to tell me only one person was shot and the shooter fled. Another relief; maybe it was a personal beef or gang-related. But then another report comes out that someone heard shots at an elementary school a few miles away. The chaos was spreading.

I’ve learned from other similar events that social media is a good way to find out information in real-time. Often students will post updates or other witnesses will report what they’re hearing. Of course you have to be wise and filter the information. One person (with “Antifa” in their name- stirring things up much?) mentioned that his mom worked in the cafeteria and was in critical condition. Others posted that they were students and the media was wrong, 30-40 people were actually shot. People got the community name mixed up with the high school, rumors spread about the other elementary school. And of course, things soon turned political.

Besides the emotional panic I felt over the event itself, my heart was grieved by what I was reading online. “Thoughts and prayers” were followed by posts blasting so-called Christians for not doing anything (I identify myself as Christian, what exactly was I expected to do?). People posted the usual, “it’s too soon to politicize this event” while others were railing both for and against gun-control. The bitterness and vitriol on display was nauseating.

Thoughts and prayers

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12)

“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.” (2 Cor 10:3-4a)

What I realized reading these posts was that regardless of political ideology or self-identified belief system, in this age of social media and regularly occurring mass shootings, our default position is to demonize opposing viewpoints and to fight with the “weapons of the world”, aka politics. While we wonder what is wrong and what can be done, we turn to media, to politics, to the talking-points that have become ingrained in our cultural consciousness.

“We need more laws!”          “We need more people armed!”
“Bad guy with a gun!”          “Good guy with a gun!”
“You’re wrong!”                    “No, you’re wrong!”
ad nauseam.

It’s easy to offer “thoughts and prayers” in times such as these. It’s dispassionate and somewhat of a lifeline of hope when we otherwise feel helpless. But what are we praying for? I read posts praying for the victims and their families. I read prayers for mercy in the midst of all the violence and hatred in the world today. And I usually look at such sentiments with cynicism, but not that day. I realized that thoughts and prayers are exactly what we need. But not prayers for victims or families. Not prayers for political outcomes favorable to our viewpoints. Not even the liturgical prayer, “Lord, have mercy; kyrie eleison”. A more appropriate prayer is “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

Our world is ruled by hatred and division. Satan delights with glee when tragedy divides us further. Meanwhile the kingdom of God is breaking-in to our world through “Christ’s ambassadors”, the Church. The only solution, the only solution, to these tragedies is the kingdom of God. As gun-control opponents like to point out, people with hatred in their hearts will find a means to cause harm. So do we just accept that, or do we pray for the reign of Jesus to address the hatred that drives these events in the first place? Australia is often used as the prime example of effective gun-control, yet the same day as this shooting there was a mass shooting in that country. (Only the second in twenty years, but still.) Meanwhile, one person was killed and several others injured in a knife attack in France. Hatred and division still rule in our hearts, laws or no laws.

Thankfully only one person was shot and the suspect quickly apprehended. After an hour of being glued to media online, I was able to take a deep breath and get back to work.  This shooting was no longer “breaking news” and was quickly forgotten. Even locally the shooting was overshadowed by a double homicide the night before and a neighborhood lockdown the following day. This shooting appeared to be over a personal dispute, so didn’t fit the narrative of either side. Just another day with another shooting, and our lives go on.

Yet as I write this, I’m following reports of the mass shooting at Santa Fe High School in Texas. At this time, it is reported between 8 and 10 people have been killed. This follows another shooting in Illinois just two days ago where the shooter was engaged with law enforcement, thankfully preventing further harm. Is the day called “today”? Then there’s probably a shooting at a school somewhere.

“See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.” (Heb 3:12-13)

Thoughts and prayers
Lord, have mercy; Lord, come quickly
Kyrie eleison, maranatha
Not our will, but yours be done
May your kingdom come
Thoughts and prayers

I Pledge Allegiance

I Pledge Allegiance

Frank

Yesterday in the United States we celebrated our nation’s independence.  My Facebook feed was mixed between friends sharing pictures of barbecues, parades, and fireworks and pastors/authors writing about the co-mingling of patriotism and faith (pro and con).  All day I was wrestling with the feeling that I had to write something, but what more is there to be said?  Then I saw this article on the Babylon Bee: ‘Dozens Accept America as Lord and Savior at First Baptist Dallas Service’ (which is satire, in case you weren’t sure).

For a little background, the pastor at First Baptist Dallas is Robert Jeffress, a very outspoken Trump supporter.  Last week he held a church service with his church adorned with the American Flag and worship songs centered on patriotic themes (including, without any hint of irony, Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land”).  Then on Saturday, a choir from the same church sang a hymn based on President Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” at a “Celebrate Freedom Rally” in Washington, DC.

photo credit: KNEB-TV via The Blaze

I’ve always been uneasy with the assumption by many that faith and patriotism (both likely to be blind) can coexist in the heart of a sincere disciple of Jesus.  That’s not to say that we shouldn’t make political decisions based on our religious convictions, or that it is impossible to love both Jesus and America.  But idolatry is probably mankind’s greatest temptation, and we frequently elevate our politics, our patriotism, even our religious convictions (for just one example, see all the debate over Biblical inerrancy) to a degree of allegiance higher than our confession of Jesus as Lord.  So I struggle even with placing my hand over my heart to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it calls into question where my allegiance truly lies.

Like I said, this debate is nothing new for those who follow these sorts of things.  But my intention behind this blog is to call these things out and to call us higher- that our allegiance isn’t to red or blue, right or left, rather it is to a Savior-King and his kingdom.  And I want to do that not by cutting down those with whom I disagree with politically, or mock the sincerely faithful that unfortunately are a product of a corrupt religious system, but by encouraging us to focus our attention higher and develop a deep conviction regarding the Kingdom of God.

So I think the recent book by Matthew Bates titled Salvation by Allegiance Alone is so critical and timely.  His thesis is simple- what if the Greek work often translated as “faith”, pistis, could better be translated as “allegiance”.  This opens up a host of implications, not the least of which is the notion of what we consider to be patriotism.

While this may seem like a politically-motivated reach, there’s a lot of quality scholarship behind his assertion.  But I want to point out two specific examples while thinking about what it means to “pledge allegiance”.  The first is from 1 Maccabees, where rival King Demetrius asks the Jews to “keep faith” (Greek pistis) with him over Alexander the Great.  He is not asking for a confession that leads to salvation, rather for a pledge of allegiance.  The second is from Jewish general/historian Josephus who writes about how he urged a rebel leader to “repent and believe in me” using the adjective pistos.  Again, this can be interpreted as to “repent and pledge allegiance” because Josephus wasn’t offering any type of spiritual salvation.  So if you think about it, isn’t that what Jesus is calling each of us to do in Mark 1:15 when he proclaims, “The kingdom of God has come near.  Repent and believe the good news!”

Another clue for interpreting “faith” or “believe” in this way is Jesus’ own words above linking belief to the “good news” (AKA the gospel) and the kingdom.  The word we often translate as gospel or good news, historically gives the connotation of declaring a military victory or the coronation of a king.  So the “good news” Jesus is referring to here isn’t personal salvation but the inauguration of his kingdom and the defeat of sin, which becomes accessible to us through faith in Jesus.

If you’re in a war (spiritual in this case) and a king is offering you salvation (or more accurately deliverance) in exchange for a confession of faith, what then does this “faith” mean if not allegiance?

So that brings us back to debate over faith and patriotism that arises this time every year.  What does it mean to pledge allegiance?  What does it mean to salute the flag?  What does it mean to be patriotic while at the same time being a believer who has made a confession of faith, or rather allegiance?

Jesus challenges us in the Sermon on the Mount when he says, “no one can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24)  In context he is talking about money, but his words are true whatever the other master may be (Abraham Lincoln applied this idea to politics when he quoted Jesus from Mark 3 that, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”).  Jesus furthers this point with the parable of kings at war in Luke 14:31-33 where if you know you can’t win with the army you have you go to the opposing king to ask for terms of peace.  What do you think the other king will request if not undivided allegiance.

It wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for a church to teach that we need to have undivided faith in our savior Jesus Christ.  But if we change the word’s intent to ask for undivided allegiance, a church suddenly becomes a cult, or overly-political, or unaccommodating.

So I’ll just leave this here for you to chew on.  You may have lit off all your fireworks and already packed away the red, white, and blue decor, but the next time you hear the National Anthem, or God Bless America, or stand to recite the Pledge consider what it means to declare to have faith in Jesus.  Is it just a intellectual ascent, a cultural acceptance, a routine religious ritual, or does it mean something more?