Has the Lesson From I Samuel 4 Been Lost by Many Evangelicals?

In I Samuel 4 is a rarely noted story which is unfortunate in that it has great importance for modern Christians. In this Old Testament chapter, the Israelites our battling the Philistines who have driven south to invade Israel. On the first day of fighting, the battle does not go well for the Israelites, and they start to wonder why. They come to believe that they lost that day’s battle because they did not have God on their side, and men were sent out to bring the Ark of the Covenant into their camp.

The army celebrates and rejoices when the Ark of the Covenant arrives for it means that God in in their camp and that they will be victorious the next day in battle. The next day, the battle does not go well for the Israelites. The battle turns into a complete defeat with the army running for their lives and the Ark of the Covenant captured as a war trophy by the Philistines.

Besides poor strategy, the Israelites, the people of God also lost the battle because they trivialized God and their relationship with God. They treated the Ark as a lucky rabbit’s foot, that all they needed was the supreme representation of God to be with them to win. The passage indicates that their thinking is wrong and that trusting in a religious object and earthly powers is a fool’s errand. Many centuries later Hosea wrote in Hosea 6:6 that God seeks people’s heart, them living merciful lives and heart level acknowledgment, not their religious ceremonies and their empty routines.

Today have large portions of the American church forgotten this lesson by putting their trust in a dishonest, despicable and bombastic man because he promises them to appoint church friendly Supreme Court justices? Are large swaths of the American church willing to have a leader who undermines the democracy that they value, whose grasps of a plethora of issues is paper thin, and who has by his behavior and conduct indicates that he will restrict the press and short-circuit the judicial system? Are they thinking clearly by trusting a dishonest, self-absorbed man to keep his word just to have a Supreme Court to help safeguard their spirituality and bring them victory?

If the belief that restricting and demeaning those of another faith is appropriate as a means to help safeguard the religious freedom of Christians, and that the Supreme Court is critical to safeguarding the future vitality of the Church, then has not the Church lost its way? While many evangelicals are not voting for Trump, many still are. They make up a significant portion of Donald Trump’s base of support, standing fast with him even when serious questions have been raised about his character, holding to his word and truthfulness. Then as such, has not those believers surrendered the moral ground for speaking to issues regarding upright leadership, leadership, rape, sexual assault, truthfulness and honesty, humbleness, personal sacrifice, and the importance of character?

While the evangelical community is my faith background, and still have the affinity with traditional evangelicalism, the term "evangelical" is a term that I ceased applying to myself for at least fourteen years ago. The term became covered in distasteful and restrictive political clothing versus a broad summary religious believes about the sharing of faith in a respectful and non-imposing manner (as noted in an earlier blog, the Church harms itself whenever it aligns itself with a political party). 

I will not be counted in such a crowd. I will not be casting a vote for a debased, tempestuous, egotist who by his actions and conduct undermines a key foundation of our democracy, freedom of the press and the electoral process.

Arguments Not to Use

Yesterday I was looking at a Christian channel on the hotel’s cable selection. I cannot recall the name of the show but two men were talking about evangelizing the lost and drawing into the church those who do not believe in God with sound and compelling arguments. Both men were engaged in some disconcerting Christian apologetics.



The first line of reasoning runs this way…there is a God because the Bible tells us there is a God. The rationale is that in Scriptures God self validates His very existence. Furthermore, as the Bible is God’s Word, we can trust it, and because we can trust it and it tells us of God’s existence, God therefore exists. They claimed that all argument is over as A validates B and B validates A. While very common within the church, it is nothing less than circular reasoning….”A” exists because “B” tells us so, and “B” is reliable and true because “A” exists. In a court of law, one criminal of a crime can claim to be somewhere else and have the alibi validated by a second criminal when that second criminal is using the first to validate his alibi. What the two men fail to realize is that to the outsider this logical is shallow and makes little sense for if B is not reliable than A is not proved, and if A does not exist than regardless of what B says, it is not a reliable testimony.


Another argument that they encouraged their viewers to use when they encounter agnostics or atheists was the “play it safe argument”. Not only is this a laughable argument it is one that Scriptures invalidates. The argument is to encourage those being evangelized to live and believe as Christians just in case they are wrong. In other words, just in case, con God and others into thinking you are truly a Christian. While there are other flaws, the two primary ones are the nature of belief and the basis of divine judgment as per Scripture. Belief is a deeply held conviction that is evidenced in how one lives, not in a collection of behaviors. This approach positions faith as a collection of behaviors, not a heartfelt firm belief. Lastly is troublingly flaw found within Scriptures, God judges the heart, not the actions. In other words, one can go through the right motions and behaviors and be judged harshly, unworthy and cast out. God by moving beyond the superficial to examine the motives, the heart if you will, cannot be conned. Furthermore, living the life without the correct heart orientation not only has little value but may expose one to a harsher judgment. Yet these two evangelists, these ministers of the Gospel were encouraging people to come to church as a means to con God…a means to fill the church with people thinking that they have an eternal “just in case” insurance that at the end turns out to be worthless. Ah but in the meantime there will be more people in the pews and adding to the church coffers which is nothing less than a modern version of the middle ages indulgence system that led to the Reformation.

Why Are Evangelicals Silent

Within a few decades of the American Revolution, the American political environment has gone through cycles of intense animosity and division. The bitterness ahead of the election of Thomas Jefferson and during the Andrew Jackson era are particularly notable periods if division. Of course the most divisive period was the fifteen years before the start of the civil war. America has cycled back to age of nastiness and where doing anything to gain political advantage over the other is viewed as expedient, justifiable and rationalized as good for the country as it keeps the enemy out of power, or frustrates the enemy’s legislative agenda.

As evidence by the governor’s race in South Carolina, the nastiness has spilled into internal politics where Nikki Haley is running against Andre Bauer. Haley, a woman who converted to Christianity from the Sikh religion has been called a “raghead” and her conversion many years ago questioned as been part of a great subterfuge to put a Sikh into the governor’s mansion. Out of respect for her parents, Haley occasionally attends Sikh ceremonies for which she has been criticized.

To undermine her credibility, without offering any proof two men have come forward saying that they had affairs with her. Innuendos and the subterfuge claim are intended to undermine her credibility. She denies the charges and though there is no evidence Bauer has outlandishly argued that she should take a lie detector test.

The party which proclaims to be the family value party and cries for honesty frequently turns to such tactics such as unfounded character attacks, use of derogatory terms, subterfuge, obfuscation and other negative attacks as a tool to destroy an opponent. And this from the party that aligns itself with the Christian Right and the Christian Right staunchly supports. What is further unfortunate about the Christian Right is that they not only remain silent on the use of such tactics, or say “that is them but not us,” the evangelical community is often the tool being used to help spread such attacks rather than being a tool to criticize their use.

Evangelicals should not be silent, but they are. Where is the outrage? Just as they were silent on the abuses and unethical actions of the Bush administration, evangelical leaders and pastors by enlarge remain silent. To those outside the church's influence it appears that they support the telling of lies and unethical attacks and conduct. It says to the world that religious beliefs take second place to helping their person get elected.

Love the Sinner Does Not Apply to Gays

“Love the sinner but hate the sin” as been an evangelical mantra for generations. Preachers point to Jesus as an example of living this out. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, both of whom were the lowest of sinners in his culture.

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality I question if this is true. One senior Salvation Army officer said to me back in 2002 that in many ways the evangelical church, including many Salvationists (officers and soldiers) treat homosexuals as the modern lepers. I agreed then and still do so. Jerry Falwell blaming homosexuals for the 9-11 attacks is an example of how homosexuals are viewed as the escape goats for society’s problems. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in tossing his evangelical rage far and wide has proclaimed homosexuality to be “abhorrent, immoral, detestable…and a crime against nature.”

Dr. James Kennedy, another major evangelical leader, has stated about gays in the military, “would you want your son, daughter, or grandchild sharing a shower, foxhole, or blood with a homosexual?” Dr. Kennedy’s statement along with Moore, Falwell’s and hundreds of other evangelical leaders are similar to the racist statements made about Jews, African Americans, Latinos, Italians, etc. Such fear mongering statements were unacceptable back in the past about ethnic groups, they are unacceptable today.

Loving the sinner but not the sin is not practiced by the evangelical church when it comes to gays. Family Research Council’s posture and admonition against church-gay community dialogue is outrageous and shameful. The Family Research Council has more to do with resisting dialogue and acceptance of gays in society than with building of strong families. Their definition of family is narrow, a married man and woman with children who all go to church every Sunday.

Gays are all around us. We marginalize them and those within the church live in fear of being discovered. While at Asbury College four guys I knew were gay, three of whom were Salvationists. One of the four was in the elementary education program and when it became known to the administration he was gay he was not allowed to do his student-teacher practicum. He was thereby shamefully forced to transfer to a secular school.

The evangelical church by enlarge talk of gays as if they have some sort of contagious disease that can be cured once and for all with the conversation prescription. Such a view is naive and is out of keeping with research that indicates for many gay men and women there may be a genetic and a biochemical basis. Regardless of what Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council claims, such research and evidence is not questionable science. Dobson and his friends at the Family Research Council are like the Church during the 1400s in denying that the world was round. They clung to their understanding of the Bible rather than wondering if their interpretation of various passages was sound. Eventually when ships traveled around the world the evidence was so solid that they changed their interpretation.

According to the Barna group 91% of non-Christians between the ages of 16-30 believe that Christians are “anti-homosexuals” and are confused as their meanness towards homosexuals is out of keeping what non-Christians understand about the teachings of Jesus. I agree with these young non-Christians. Fortunately for the church a rapidly growing number of the Christians in the same age group are coming to the same conclusion.

Religion in America

Last night on the news it was reported that 15% of Americans do not believe or adhere to in any organized religion. During the discussion I found most three things to be most interesting:
1. That 76% of American adults claim they are Christians.
2. That two religion commentators said that most of those 15% are not atheists or agnostics.
3. That Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, an evangelical group, claims that as the economy declines, more people will turn to faith.

Perkin’s statement is most interesting in that by implication he is suggesting that faith has more to do with warm fuzzies and a general sense of security in tough times than it does with true heart-felt convictions. Such a view is different than what I have understood as the evangelical definition of faith.

Church leaders like to grasp onto that 76% as an argument for claiming that America is a Christian nation. Though the Christian faith has influenced the direction of the nation, such a claim is doubtable, particularly more than ever. Church attendance is declining, and for those churches that are growing, the bulk of their growth is coming people who have been attending other churches. In total, fewer and fewer people are attending church each decade.

That 76% of American adults claim they are Christians is a clearly a cultural definition rather than a faith definition. Weekday mornings between 7 and 9:30 the roads are clogged with cars as about 60% the adult population is on the move during that period traveling to work. The one morning a week when the roads are nearly empty is Sunday morning. Less than a quarter of those who claim to be Christians attend church on a regular basis.

I it is interesting that the two religion guests, one evangelical and one Roman Catholic, argued that very few of the 15% who do not have a faith expression are agnostic or atheists. While in a sense they are right, if they were to open their eyes, they could not reasonably hold such a view. They are right in that few have intellectually concluded that God's exisitance can be proved or that there is no God. That said, functionally the vast majority of that 15% by claiming to have not faith or belief in the supernatural (or supranatural as some Christian apologists call it) are living their lives as agnostics/atheists.

Furthermore, a good number of that 76% who claim to be Christian, do so in name only. Many are cultural Christians in that it is their family background/heritage or that they acknowledge that they will be married and burried "in the church", and that Christian values of right and wrong have colored their values. As many of that 76% never darken a Church door even at Christmas, they too are living a life of unbelief. If a person really does not believe and lives out their life part from the church and its values, what does that make them functionally if not at the very least an agnostic.