politics

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
#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.

Scandal! What Scandal?

Frank

When I started this blog, my intention was to offer an alternative perspective to the usual religion/politics media-driven dichotomy that I think we get too wrapped up in.  I’m a political junkie in my heart- following political news closer than any other category -but as my faith has evolved over time I’ve come to look at my personal politics differently.

A great example of this is my support to the American Center for Law and Justice.  When I first started blogging I included a link to the ACLJ in my sidebar.  I’d listen to their program on my commute from work.  And I was so intrigued by religious liberty debates that I actually picked up and read David Limbaugh’s book, Persecution.

But like I said, as my faith matured my politics evolved.  I have to confess that I didn’t vote for Barak Obama but I didn’t think he was the antichrist either.  He was the President and it was what it was.  But I noticed the tone on the ACLJ radio program began to turn hostile.  They covered religious liberty issues less, and political policy more.  The straw that broke my back was during the early debates over the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.  The ACLJ was vehemently opposed to it, but on what Christian grounds I could not fathom.  They made the case opposed to abortion funding, but federal law already prohibits it.  They made the case that it was socialist, but we read in Acts that “all the believers were together and had everything in common.  They sold their property and possessions and gave to everyone as they had need.” (Acts 2:44-45)  And they used fear-mongering to manipulate people into giving.  The scales fell from my eyes; the ACLJ wasn’t a Christian organization, it was unapologetically right-wing.

I’d check in on the radio every now and then, especially to get updates when Paster Saeed Abedini was imprisoned in Iran.  But it was clear religious liberty issues took a back-seat to political activism.

Shortly after President Trump’s travel ban was blocked by the courts, Jordan Sekulow, son of ACLJ founder Jay, was on KNX news radio in Los Angeles to discuss the legal arguments for the ban.  He bluntly stated that we need better vetting (“extreme vetting” in the President’s words) using refugees as an example of those who weren’t vetted.  The radio host pointed out the painstakingly long process, including vetting through the United Nations, Interpol, was well as the FBI and Homeland Security, before refugees are settled in the United States.  Jordan didn’t flinch and stood by his argument.  When called out explicitly that he lied, he still didn’t yield.  The host concluded the interview by pointing out that the ACLJ is a Christian organization.  Thank you for the black eye, Jordan.

Then a week ago, it was announced Jay Sekulow was hired on to the President’s legal team.  My eyebrow raised.  It didn’t surprise me that he went around the news just regurgitating the administration’s talking points.  And it didn’t surprise me that many Christians bought his story hook, line, and sinker.

But my blood boiled when I read the news that Jay had funneled millions of charitable donations towards he and his family’s salaries and perks.  And of course, investigations follow, but I’m sure ‘faithful Christians’ will declare this a witch hunt.

I’m not trying to look down on those who still support the ACLJ or rub it in.  I share all this because I believe people can change, politics can change.  Mine did.  But I wonder what level of scandal will cause others to look at their religion and politics more critically?  The scandals of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart didn’t lead to the end of the Religious Right in the 80’s.  Pat Robertson is still on the air despite the ridiculous things he says.  Jerry Falwell Jr has taken up his father’s mantle and then some.  James Dobson resigned from Focus on the Family but is still influential.  So I wonder if the latest controversy surrounding Jay Sekulow will make any difference, or if Christians will see this as just another example of the devil opposing God’s chosen president.

To Sell Your Soul

To Sell Your Soul

Frank

What does it look like to sell your soul?  Maybe you can picture it from movies or cartoons.  Maybe you imagine the musical Damn Yankees, or recall the story of bluesman Robert Johnson at the Crossroads, or when the devil annulled Spider-Man’s marriage to MJ.  But what would it look like today, in real life?  What would it take for a stranger, or a friend, or a cause to convince you to give up everything you believe?

Last month, on the eve of the National Day of Prayer, President Donald Trump hosted his evangelical advisors for a dinner to celebrate his election victory and to discuss the religious freedom Executive Order he would issue the following day.  A blogger I follow posted a picture from that dinner and speculated that was what selling your soul looked like.  I replied that I found it ironic their dinner was lobster (eating shellfish being an “abomination” according to Leviticus 11, just a few pages before the popularly quoted Leviticus 18).  But in the picture I didn’t see money changing hands, or souls being wisped away.

During my Sunday school class this week, I reminded everyone that the “antichrist” according to John wasn’t a specific person, rather anyone who denied that Jesus was the Christ.  More specifically it was directed towards the Gnostics, who believed that since the flesh was inherently sinful Jesus could not be both human and divine.  Yet we like to throw that word around to describe anyone we think opposes our particular worldview (Christian, or not).  George W Bush, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump… you get the idea.

We do this because we are convinced the antichrist is a specific character in the end-times.  He or she is the ruler of the “one world government” that comes before the rapture, Jesus’ return, or whatever other eschatological interpretation you may have.  But Revelation never mentions the antichrist.  Rather there are two beasts in Revelation 13- one, a political leader and the second, a religious leader -who work together in service of the dragon.

Nearly everyone agrees the dragon is Satan.  But there is more debate about identifying the beasts.  The first is often described by terms like “new world order” and can be interpreted as the United Nations, NATO, the global economy, the G8, et cetera.  The second is popularly the Catholic Church or the Pope.  It is sometimes interpreted to be Constantine giving rise to Christendom.

Regardless, the narrative of Revelation describes the beasts as religious authority ceding to political favor.  In other words, selling your soul for the sake of politics.

Later on Sunday, President Trump’s new lawyer, Jay Sekulow, made the rounds on cable news to defend that the president was not under any investigation.  Jay Sekulow, in case you didn’t know, used to be lead counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a counter-organization to the ACLU specializing in religious freedom cases.  But over the years the ACLJ has become more and more political.  And now Sekulow finds himself on the president’s retainer.

In one of the many articles describing his news-tour, someone commented that it was clear President Trump had God’s favor because Sekulow was representing him and therefore no powers of evil can defeat him.

That, right there, is what selling your soul looks like.

It’s not the dinner evangelical leaders have with presidents.  It’s not paychecks received to appear on the news and advance a political narrative.  It’s not even the political maneuvering that is done by religious leaders every time there is an election.

No, it is the common person, the sincere believer, who is deceived because someone they considered a spiritual authority takes a political stance signifying such politics as godly.

After the beasts are introduced in Revelation 13, their followers are then described.  These deceived can be recognized by a physical sign- the mark of the beast.  It’s not the politician or the religious leader we have to worry about selling their soul, rather it is you and me being deceived, being marked.

Choose Lives

Frank

I shouldn’t be alive.  That sounds dramatic, I know, but statistically it’s true.  In high school I remember debating a girl on the topic of abortion.  Her succinct argument was that I didn’t have a right to speak up because I was a male.  But I think I have more of a right than most, simply for the fact that I am alive to say something.

You see, I was given up for adoption at birth.  My biological parents were unwed teenagers; I don’t know their names or really anything else about them.  I was thankfully adopted at two weeks old; my adoptive family is the only family I’ve ever known.  I know many who haven’t been as fortunate- being shuffled between foster families, never feeling settled or ever having a sense of ‘home’.

So I should be militantly pro-life, knowing that adoption is always an option.  I was part of a youth/campus ministry for a time that had “life” as a top priority.  We would pray daily for the unborn.  I even participated in a march or two.  I got in a fight with a friend in college who refused to eat the Domino’s Pizza I ordered because its owner donated to pro-life causes.

But I’m not.

Shortly after the debate mentioned above, a good friend became pregnant.  She was salutatorian of my graduating class.  She was allowed to walk, but she couldn’t speak (our school was small enough both the valedictorian and salutatorian gave speeches).  She was vice president of our student council, but had to step down.  She was rejected, shunned, and made fun of (I confess to participating in the latter).  And when graduation day arrived, I could see the pain in her face as she held back tears.  My politics had a face.

This wasn’t some Christian school in the bible belt.  This was just a small town, rural high school that remembered a time when a pregnant teenager would be sent away to stay with an “aunt” to save her family from embarrassment.

You might’ve seen a similar story in the past week, or maybe you read the young woman’s op-ed in the Washington Post.  To say I relate is only partly true- I haven’t felt that rejection, I haven’t carried a baby to term, I wasn’t afraid of what my future had in store and how every plan and dream I had now had to change.  But I’ve witnessed it.

I’ve witnessed it as an adult too.  I witnessed it as a young girl in the teen ministry I was helping lead became pregnant and was effectively, though not officially, disfellowshipped.  But my wife and I kept our door open- severing her dinner, babysitting while she looked for a job.  Around the same time, a good friend also got pregnant (must’ve been something in the water, as they say).  She was single.  She too was rejected by the church.  So the door to our home opened wider.  Then a friend of my wife returned from deployment in the Middle East and needed help, as a single mom, getting on her feet.  Another women had the exact opposite need, her husband was deployed and needed help with her kids as a functionally, though not technically, single mother.  All of this happened within a couple of years.  I look back at times like these and can see that God was at work, even if I didn’t feel like it at the time; we had our own kids to deal with, after all!

A friend likes to quote the DJ/artist Moby, how Christians care more about the woman entering the abortion clinic than the woman leaving it.

This is how I feel about the pro-life/pro-choice debate.  My politics have done a complete 180 in the years since my Young Republican and College Republican days.

I wouldn’t say I’m pro-choice however.  I just want to say that I understand.

Despite my politics leaning right, I appreciated the (old) Democratic platform with respect to abortion: it should be available, but rare.  Sadly they removed the “rare” qualifier during the last election cycle.

But a child isn’t a right/left, life/choice dichotomy.  A mother is not a political football, being thrown downfield in either direction depending on who is on offense for the next four years.  There must be a “third way”.

Yesterday, I listened to the latest Phil Vischer podcast with their guest Angie Weszely.  Angie was representing the ministry Pro Grace.  And she expressed everything I feel.

Check out the podcast.  And check out the ministry.  To say we are “pro-life” but only care about one of the two lives (really three, the men responsible are seldom considered in the debate) is only being half-honest.  We should be “pro-lives”, plural.  And that is Pro Grace.

Romans 14 in the Age of Fake News

Frank

It happened again yesterday. While scrolling through my Facebook feed I came across an article that I knew right away was “fake”. It was posted by a well-meaning friend as well as being liked and shared by several others. The headline was compelling enough that I had to click the link to read what all the fuss was about. Everything written seemed plausible, despite the obvious typo in the headline, but then I reached the end of the article where it read, “source: ufomania.org”.

Graphic from CNN.com

Thankfully this happens less now that the heat of the campaign season is behind us. But people are still biting on the bait and getting hooked even if it is with less frequency. Later in the day another friend shared a meme (so it was without any source) making a dubious claim that put down another only to score a political point.

Why do we continue to get sucked in like this? There were numerous articles following the presidential election regarding fake news and how social media has become an echo chamber that only serves to reinforce our opinions. Here are just a couple articles that go behind the scenes. I’m going to summarize what many see as driving this phenomenon.

We desire a validation of our worldview. This isn’t limited to politics. It extends to religion, sports, and entertainment. I’m guilty of this- if I watch a move that really gets my wheels turning, one of the first things I do is check reviews to see if anyone else picked up on the same things I did.

We want validation and acceptance. That’s why we congregate around like-minded people. That’s why it is more joyful to watch sports in a crowd versus alone on your TV (and why tweeting during live events has become so popular- so much so that some sports websites even include a social media frame along with live streaming). This is human nature and why headlines that reinforce our points of view are compelling. We tolerate our own cognitive dissonance because being validated is more important than being right. At the same time seeing news, articles, or memes that fit our preconceptions subliminally convinces us that our opinions are right (thereby making other opinions wrong, which is technically impossible).

We want to believe. Sometimes we think we know something but maybe we lack confidence in its truth. So we cling to anything that builds up our personal lack of faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as “confidence in what we hope for and assurance in what we do not see” (going with the NIV translation- you can switch out confidence and assurance with “substance” and “evidence” if you’d rather rely on the King James). So faith is inherently confident and is self-reinforcing with its own evidence. This definition of faith then assumes some level of trust.

But we don’t apply faith that way. We have faith in things we hope for, but hope is only that. We hope something is true, but we lack confidence or assurance so we seek out evidence. This type of faith is the type that implicitly exclaims, “I told you so!” when we find what we think is proof. So we share articles about NASA scientists that proved the calendar is missing a day because of Joshua making the sun stand still thousands of years ago.

We get sucked in by sensationalist headlines. Did you know that in the mainstream media journalists don’t write their own headlines? Did you know that in publishing authors usually don’t come up with their own titles? There are professionals whose job is to write the headline that will get the most attention or book titles that will sell the most copies. There is research in the social sciences that takes this as far as identifying the best fonts, verbs, and even the maximum number of words to use. Online we try to maximize our Search Engine Optimization.

Over the weekend I was watching one news program where a journalist was getting grilled about a sensationalist headline that the host then claimed qualified the news as “fake”. The journalist tried, with little success, to defend his work by noting that he didn’t write the headline. He tried to steer the discussion to make the point that what some are calling “fake news” are simply examples of sensationalism or bias (both of which drive ratings, clicks, and shares).

Yet we’re guilty of promoting the sensationalism we’re being fed. In the example I opened with, which wasn’t a political story at all, the headline was catchy enough to share without even reading the contents of the article. Had the person done so, I suspect she would’ve noticed the suspicious source being “UFO Mania”. But that’s not the only example. During the election a friend shared an article about Planned Parenthood based on a headline that seemed to reinforce her worldview. She apparently didn’t read the article, because the article made the opposite point she was trying to advance. And this leads me to my last reason…

We have a problem with a lack of discernment. Much was made of the “intelligence gap” or “education gap” identified in polls during the election. But this isn’t necessarily a matter of intelligence or education. Discernment is different. A lack of discernment takes things at face value without critical thinking. Discernment is the ability to take information and question its validity, independent of knowledge, information, or opinions you already have. You can be uneducated and have discernment. This is often described as being “street smart”. At the same time, you can be highly educated and lack discernment. We see the same thing in church where someone might be described as “so heavenly minded they’re no earthly good”.

I hate to say it, but the church is guilty of promoting this lack of discernment. We listen to sermons built around verses that are proof-texts for the point that is trying to be made even if taken completely out of context. We do not follow the example of the Bereans who were of “more noble character” for checking whether what Paul was preaching was true (Acts 17:11). Meanwhile we reinforce a leadership structure that assumes a hierarchy of knowledge, holding those with a  DMin or MDiv with special esteem. Even though we have access to more information than ever before, tools that can help us study the Bible with unprecedented depth, we’re really not that much different than the peasants who were kept in line by the church by their illiteracy.

If we don’t dig deeper on matters of eternal importance, why would we expect to be any different when it comes to the media we consume? We blindly trust what a particular news source has to say the same way we nod our heads and proclaim “amen!” during a sermon that makes a point nowhere to be found in scripture.

Which brings me to Romans 14.

Romans 14 would seem like a non sequitur after the discussion of politics in Romans 13 but then we remember that this also follows the Romans 12 admonishments to “not think of yourself more highly than you ought” (12:3) and “as much as it depends on you, live at peace with one another” (12:18). Taken in that context, you could consider Romans 13 and 14 as applications of 12.

Interestingly, Paul immediately follows his discussion of politics with a warning to not quarrel over disputable matters, as if anticipating the obvious divisions to come. At the same time, he tells us to “accept the one whose faith is weak” and uses dietary laws and religious feasts as examples. What we sometimes miss when reading this is that these religious duties aren’t analogous to whether or not it’s ok to watch R-rated movies, rather they are demonstrations of one’s own religious identity.

Follow the train of thought Paul is providing us: live at peace with one another, submit to authority because everything is under the authority of God, don’t get wrapped up in disputable matters, and don’t allow those things to become central to your religious identity. In other words, don’t let politics define your religion. Because if you do, it will prevent you from being at peace with others, make you unable to submit to governments whose policies you disagree with, and lead you into useless arguments over matters of opinion (a literal translation of “disputable matters”).

Sounds a lot like the state of the church today.

Running through this train of thought is the notion that some will be able to do this easily and others will not. Some will have faith that is “strong”, while others will struggle because of their “weak” faith.

It may sound mean to say that those who revel in “fake news” are weak in their faith, but taken in this context it is the truth- they merely lack discernment. That doesn’t mean I get to look down on them or mock them (which I am seeing far too often from Christians on the progressive end of the political spectrum). Rather Paul tells me that I need to be patient with them and put aside my own convictions for the sake of their faith.

So what do we do to confront the fake news we see nearly every day? We need to remember that the Kingdom is not a matter of Republican or Democrat (to paraphrase 14:17) and that “anything not done in faith is sin” (14:23). We need to ground our politics in faith- faith has to come first- and practice our convictions with righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (the rest of verse 17). We have to be humble enough to set aside our political points of view for the sake of others. Really, if our political discourse is causing someone else to struggle- whatever the reason, whether it is based on fake news, or is argumentative, or devalues the unnamed ‘other’- we need to knock it off.

And prayerfully by applying the word we can learn discernment, by having confidence in God’s love we can overcome our need for validation, by growing in faith we can increase our confidence in those things that are unseen, and with our eyes fixed on Jesus may we not become distracted by sensationalism because in him alone is Truth. In Christ there is nothing fake.

Submit to All Authorities?

Frank

Debating politics with another believer? Chances are one of you, and some point in the argument, played the Romans 13 card. Like most trump cards (no pun intended) it is really useful when desperate, but can be ignored if not needed. But what does it really teach us about politics?

A year ago, my church started having adult Sunday school before our weekly worship services. I’ve been helping teach the classes and we’ve covered the Psalms, Revelation, Ephesians and most recently, Romans. Our class on Romans happened to coincide with the elections and many were hoping we’d get to chapter 13 before having to vote. Unfortunately, covering only a chapter at a time, we didn’t get to the thirteenth chapter until well after the elections and into the new year. I lost count of the number of times someone would ask for my thoughts, knowing that we were weeks away from covering the material but feeling the urgency of our political climate.

Photo: Mark Wallheiser, Getty Images

Interestingly, had someone asked for my opinion a year ago my answer would have been much different. But studying Romans following in-depth studies of Revelation (and its condemnation of the false prophet-beast/church-state) and Ephesians (with its emphasis on unity) changed my perspective greatly.

Coincidentally, or perhaps it was the Holy Spirit- who am I to say?, we studied Romans 13 the week before President Trump took his oath of office.
Of course on the surface, Paul is usually quite straightforward- “submit to all governing authorities”. The only qualifier he offers is that governments are established by God to enact justice on behalf of God.
Most of the time when discussing this passage, we add our own qualifiers- as long as the government’s laws don’t conflict with God’s laws, or that the word of God always trumps (again, no pun intended) worldly edicts or executive orders. Unfortunately the oft-quoted, “we must obey God, not men!” is from the book of Acts, not Romans. Paul doesn’t give us any way out. We are to submit. Period. End of discussion.
Except that it’s not the end of discussion. The most common mistake when it comes to Bible-interpretation is to take verses from the Bible as stand-alone nuggets of specific wisdom without considering its context. And the context of Romans 13 is important.
No, I’m not talking about the fact that Paul wrote this to a church under the rule of Nero. Or even to consider the political subtext of its cultural context (see The Arrogance of Nations by Neil Elliott for that discussion). I’m talking about the context within Paul’s letter itself.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that Romans 13 comes after Romans 12 and before Romans 14. Romans 12 describes an ethic that Christians should strive for. It begins by instructing us to offer ourselves as “living sacrifices”, not “conformed to the pattern of this world”. This echoes Jesus, “whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.” (Luke 9:24) If we seek the things of this world- politics, power, wealth- then we will lose our very selves. But if we choose to make ourselves living sacrifices, giving up those very things that the world promises will make our lives better, we will gain so much more.

With that “renewed mind” opening the chapter, Paul continues with a few statements that are crucial to understanding Romans 13. In verse 3 we are told to “not think of yourselves more highly than you ought” and similarly in verse 18 that “as much as it depends on you, live at peace with one another”. (See my post from Romans 12 for more) Paul describes a position of humility as our default state. Then he closes the chapter by urging us not to take revenge because that is up to God. (12:19).

Interestingly, right after Paul tells us that it is up to God to judge and avenge, he then tells us that the government wields the sword in Romans 13. So government is an instrument of God’s. This wouldn’t have come as a shock to Paul’s audience, despite being subject to Nero, because Paul already established this (and Jews recognized this from many of their own scriptures) in Romans 9 discussing how God used Pharaoh to bring about the Exodus.

At this point, it is crucial to examine our own faith. If we truly believe God is sovereign, doesn’t that mean he is sovereign over governments? Much ado was made of “God intervening” in this past election. But would those Christians make the same argument if Hillary Clinton had won? Either God is sovereign or he’s not. He’s not just sovereign only when you get your way.

So what if you disagree? What if government is corrupt? Well Peter gives Christians in Rome similar instructions even while they are undergoing persecution (1 Peter 2:13-15). And we know from history how God used foreign, and assumed to be evil, governments to enact his will- Pharaoh during the Exodus, Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:17), and Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1). So even if a government is evil and corrupt, that doesn’t prevent God from using it for his purposes. (Important distinction there: his purposes, not ours). Again, Paul doesn’t give us any disclaimer to ‘submit only if…’

So we must check our hearts. Why do we disagree? What are our motives? I appreciate Warren Wiersbe for pointing this out- you can outline Romans 13 by our motivations to submit to government: fear of judgment (verses 3-4), our conscience (verse 5), love (verse 8), and Jesus himself (verse 14). Do you disagree because you did something wrong and deserve justice? Not a good enough reason. Do you disagree because of your conscience? Well you need more evidence than that. Do you disagree because of love? In other words, is a law you disagree with inherently unloving? Now we’re getting somewhere. Finally we come to the traditional canard- what would Jesus do? Would Jesus obey this law?

So there’s a progression we need to examine when we oppose our government. Ultimately, if we cannot practice civil disobedience from a posture of love in submission to Jesus then we are only seeking our own self-interest or self-righteousness.

Another point to consider when you oppose government is Paul’s following argument in Romans 14, which can be summed up as the strong must bear with the weak. In other words, you need to put your self-interest aside and think of others first. So is your opposition for your own good or for the good of another? I’ll have more on that point in another post.

So does Romans 13 actually mean what it says and we’re to submit no matter what? Pretty much yes, but context offers some nuance: we are to be humble, God is sovereign, and our motives have to be loving rooted in Christ.

Don’t play the Romans 13 trump card to try an win an argument against someone with a different political perspective than you. Rather apply it to yourself. Check out that log before you worry about someone else’s splinter.

(for more discussion on Romans 13, check out the podcast ‘Theology on Mission’ with David Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw and their episode: Protesting Romans 13)

Perspectve

Frank

Yesterday I watched the Senate confirmation of Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary while monitoring reactions on social media. It was interesting to see how either accepting or rejecting this particular Cabinet pick was taken so personally by so many.

Speaking of taking things personally, the same time I was glued to the TV my wife was a thousand miles away helping some of her family make funeral arrangements. The whirlwind of the past couple of days has helped me put all this political debate into its proper perspective.

So far this year, averaging nearly weekly, either someone close to me has passed away or someone close to someone close to me. Three in the past week alone. As hard as this has been, it has been good reminder that our lives are “but a mist” (James 4:14). That while we debate politics online, people in the real world are suffering- physically, emotionally, or spiritually- and our time is limited to do anything about it.

This isn’t meant to diminish what I see are legitimate concerns with what is going on in the United States politically. But I think politics have become a sport- you cheer your side and boo the other, and defend your colors proudly to everyone you meet. It has become a distraction- I get too emotionally wrapped up in the latest headline while there is a homeless person on the nearest street corder begging for bread.

What I fear most about this distraction isn’t just that it keeps our hearts away from the real needs right in front of us but that it also keeps our eyes from heaven, anticipating the return of Jesus.

Jesus told a parable about a ‘rich fool’ who plans to build a storehouse for all his grain so he can take it easy in the future. But he is a fool because that future never comes: “You fool! This very night your life will be demand from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” (Luke 12:20)

I’m beginning to view politics the same way. We choose who to support based on what we get out of it. But bureaucracy is slow. We won’t see the effect of economic policies enacted now for a couple of years at best. The Department of Education won’t disappear overnight (despite a bill desiring as much) and even if it did, the local school your child goes to won’t just suddenly close. It took a year and a half to craft, debate, and pass a bill for national health care. It took several more months to enact it. We vote for what will benefit us in some future that may never come.

You fools! You vote worrying about your future when your very life may be demanded from you tonight. Or tomorrow. Or in six months.

But what about our children? And their children? These votes aren’t just about us, but their future as well! I understand that, I really do. But it begs the question, in what or in whom are you putting your faith?

“Some of you will say,  ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.’ Why you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.’ As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil.” (James 4:13-16)

If it is the Lord’s will. That’s a big if. And for whatever reason, whether you agree with it or not, this administration is God’s will*. (Romans 13:1) So is our faith in God or our government?

*note, I have a post on this passage coming, so don’t get too hung up on defining “God’s will” quite yet

One last thought, as hard as it might be to put into practice the Bible is still true. “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these thing will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” (Matthew 6:33-34)

Don’t worry about what politics is going to do about tomorrow. Do what you can to seek first God’s kingdom today. Today has enough trouble to deal with, we have to trust God for tomorrow.

Useless Arguments

Frank
“Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way.” (James 4:1, MSG)

Skim your Facebook feed and tell me this isn’t so. Politics, religion, even griping about your boss/job/kids/school- it all comes from the same place in our hearts: we don’t get what we want, so we complain. We may have grown up but we still act like spoiled children. We’ve just taken our tantrums from our bedroom floor to our Facebook wall.

“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.” (2 Timothy 2:3, NIV)

“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.” (Titus 3:9, NIV)

Useless, foolish, and stupid arguments. Sounds like social media.

I’m not saying we should be silent. We can cheer on or favorite sports team, or talk smack against a rival. We can share videos of cats being scared of cucumbers. We can also share headlines that catch our attention, make us scratch our heads, and at times make us question our place in the world.

Yes we can talk about religion and politics, taboo topics at the dinner table. But there’s a right way to do it.

*****

When I was in college, I heard a sermon from Romans 12. At the time I’d go to church when I felt like it, leave feeling justified, and continue living as before. The Sunday I heard this sermon probably followed a Saturday night partying. It is likely I was hungover. But for the first time in a long time, the word came alive. My ears perked. I heard something I had never heard before: what my life was supposed to look like.

I don’t remember the specific passage discussed; I know it wasn’t the whole chapter. But my curiosity was piqued, I had to go back to my room and read the whole thing. I had to know what this was about. And it hit me like a ton of bricks. Romans 12 described what a Christian was supposed to look like. I didn’t look like that. My friends didn’t look like that. My church didn’t look like that. This one chapter rocked my world.

Romans 12 has been a central part of my Christianity ever since. Even last weekend a guest preacher was giving his sermon and described Romans 12 as a “mini Bible”; that whenever we’re not sure what we should do, we can always turn there for guidance.

Even if we debating politics.

For the past few months I’ve been teaching through the book of Romans. The first eleven chapters are deep in theology and history, filled with cultural nuances and relational complexities. But then Paul shifts gears. Therefore… because of everything I just bored you to tears with, live this way.

And as the Bible is wont to do, studying Romans 12 in our current polarized political context brought forth fresh insight. Those same key verses rang true, but they rang more clearly than they had before.

*****

“Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought.” (Romans 12:3, NIV)

Besides our selfish motives, what causes fights and quarrels among us is pride. If I’m arguing with someone, I obviously think I’m right. Therefore, you must be wrong. We don’t communicate with a sense of humility. We don’t consider opinions outside our own echo chamber. We are not open-minded.

So we just shout past one another.

“As much as it depends on you, live at peace with one another” (Romans 12:18, 84NIV)

So we fight and we quarrel and we don’t get what we want. We don’t try and be peacemakers. We have to be right. Our worldview must be reinforced. Our political convictions must be protected at all costs.

And so we don’t listen. We don’t consider other people’s perspectives, their experiences, their feelings. And we continue to divide.

“Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21)

We need to change our political discourse. We need to heed Paul’s instructions. We must speak humbly, be peacemakers, and avoid sowing division.

*****

There is a lot going on in the world right now (there always is!). There is a lot to be concerned about (but not everything, and not everything the media would want you to think). As Christians, we need to stand out as light. We need to change the perception that we are known more for what we are against than what we are for. Bottom line, we need to love.

I wonder, if we all put this into practice what would my Facebook feed look like? Or maybe I should just go back to watching cat videos.