Crisis in the Evangelical Church?

For over a month I’ve been turning over in my mind Matthew 4, where Jesus is tempted by the devil. Jesus was promised great power, and wealth, that he could have used to better the lives of the people. He refused. He knew the subterfuge and the danger of allowing such earthly bobbles to distract from the spiritual ministry which Jesus was about to launch.    

I’ve thought of that passage in light of the American presidential election which has created a crisis in the American Evangelical Christian community. It is a crisis that has its roots stemming back to the late 70s and early 80s when the Evangelical Church intentionally and aggressively aligned itself with the Republican party. Today, gaining the support of evangelical pastors and key church leaders is a critical early step for a Republican to be successful in a run for state wide or a national office.    

Since the late 1970s the evangelical community, which admittedly is my spiritual roots, has been steadfastly entwined with the Republican party. For decades they have vigorously spoken about the importance of the nation’s leaders such as the President, Vice-President, Speaker and Senate Leader, and Governors, being of solid upright character. Furthermore, the expectations that an evangelical vote Republican, that in many congregations if a person votes for a Democrat, the veracity and sincerity of their faith is questioned by their fellow worshippers. Such an expectation is so strong that there are Christian colleges that allow a student led Republican club on campus but will not allow Democrat club to be formed or operate.

Christians should be involved in politics and stand as candidates for all parties. The church and its leadership should speak to specific issues, particularly those directly related to morality, but without supporting particular candidates and parties. Because of the respect that they are given, clergy must be careful about stating their voting preference. A pastor who says to the press or congregation, “I’m just speaking as a private citizen, not on behalf of my ministry,” is being disingenuous as they know fully that most of those who are under their leadership will not only follow their lead, but tend to view it as the view of divinity.

When the church aligns itself with a party, it is compromising the gospel. When its clergy openly involved with a specific party on behalf of, or in association in some manner with their ministry, they enmesh the church with a process that ultimately tarnishes the church and its spiritual ministry. As has been evidenced again and again, when the church is in bed with a political party, the unfortunate result is the muting of the church's moral voice. The tendency for the church is to remain silent or speak in muted terms when the officeholder of one's party says or does something unseemly. Its clergy to remain silent on ills and bad legislation rather than speaking out against the party, thereby surrendering the obligation to speak truth forthrightly to officeholders. When the church and its leaders have remained silent so as not to damage the party, the church has accepted earthly power over its moral and spiritual ministry.

The church must speak to issues and help the whole community to come together, working with people to build consensus for the greater whole, not contribute to the broadening of division. To often politicking involves unseemly demonizing, obfuscation, and outright telling of falsehoods. What does it say about the body of Christ when its representatives remain silent because they do not want to damage their party and candidate.

The church is about building people up, thinking the best of people rather than demonizing, helping all to find grace, receive and give grace. In contrast, politics involves forging alliances and negotiations, and seeking ways to position yourself to look better while making those in the other party look as bad as possible. It is about the securing and holding of earthly power, pushing one’s agenda forward by whatever means possible.

Recent history demonstrates how a political position can quickly shift when the other side advocates a similar. In recent years we have witnessed major politicians and their parties attacking vigorously the very policies and legislation that they sought to advance before their opponents started embracing it and even improving it. Too often political positions are postures of convenience masked in language of moral conviction, but such conveniences can be fleeting.

When the church and its leaders cease speaking only to issues, and instead align themselves exclusively with a party, then the community of faith dismisses good policies and legislation out of hand because it is being advanced by the other side, and thereby the church hinders good governance. Further, the politically aligned faith community finds itself forced to switch positions when the party changes, and to demonize those upright and honorable proposals, which though they have shortcomings and flaws, can be honed and made stronger for the benefit of the community, state or nation, but is not because the church demonizes the idea instead of helping to hone the proposal. In so doing the church harms the cause of Christ and its moral integrity as it tows the party line.     

Today, as a collective whole, the Evangelical Church are facing a crisis because it crawled into bed with a political party. The presidential nominee of that party has demonstrated that he is long removed from the character and morality standard the evangelical community has long claimed as being so critical for the office of the presidency. He is a man who claims to be of faith, yet cannot pronounce II Corinthians correctly when even the most nominal church attendee knows to say “second Corinthians” not “two Corinthians”, and has stated on several occasions that he has not needed to ask God for forgiveness for anything in his life because he has not made mistakes.   

Donald Trump is steadfastly supported by evangelicals. This support is most clearly evidenced by the position of the largest evangelical college, Liberty University, whose leadership, staff and students gave their early endorsement, an endorsement that continues to stand even in light of recent reports and actions that do not speak well of his character. 

Has the Evangelical Church and their leadership sold their souls, and thereby diminishing credibility, to a man who has promised them that he will pick Supreme Court judges who will to the liking of Evangelicals?  Have they bought into a untrustworthy man’s promise to make their lives better, to give them full religious liberty while suppressing the same liberties of another religious group? Is that the way to secure freedom for the Christian faith? Has the Evangelical Church accepted the deal that Jesus rejected when the Devil offered him power to rule over the kingdoms of the earth? 

What message is the religious community's silence on atrocious ungodly behavior and bragging of sexual assault, invasion of privacy saying to the community? If there are more reports will evangelicals remain with him? What does it say about the state of the evangelical community when it advocates for a man who daily tells numerous falsehoods, has not guiding principle other than saying and doing what is needed in the moment to gain an advantage, who has used ethically questionable practices to make a buck, and who demeans and bullies people? And as they do, how will they credibly reconcile their endorsement with their proclaimed values of family values?

What is the religious community saying to its youth and the youth beyond its worship communities when its leaders and adult members explain away or accept ungodly behavior? If the world speaks against Trump's character, conduct and statements, and evangelicals remain strong for him when the world at large repudiates him, does that place the church in the place the Pharisees and Sadducees, saying one thing and doing opposite?  

I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters the guidance the novice demon Screwtape is given by his mentor demon, that he could dull the Christian or a church by enticing them blindly think that they are achieving a godly thing, give them that thing but with a load of evil along the way and attached to it. Screwtape is told, when that happens, the Christian's testimony, or the church's, is compromised and becomes more powerless. Are we not seeing such a process at play with the Supreme Court. 

The politician in question, Trump, for a politician is what he is and has been for years, has courted Christians while claiming to be a Christian. He has been embraced and enabled by large segments of the Evangelical Community. As this politician has claimed to be a member of the faith community and has actively sought faith community support using such a claim, then it is right to evaluate him on such a basis, and as an insider. Though others may wish to overlook the words of Paul to the Corinthian church leadership in I Corinthians 5, I will not.

I am disappointed that this narcotic man, who has appealed to the worse nature of the nation, is being viewed by large segments of the evangelical church as God's man for this hour, as a man worthy of their strong support.  The evangelical community explaining away or dismissing this man's statements that fuels division and openly empowers those in the white supremacy movement causes me to recall the condemning words of St. Paul to the church leadership in Corinth for not standing against a man who was having an ongoing affair with his step-mother, by noting that they remained silent to their shame and to the harm of the gospel even when the non-Christian community knows the affair is wrong. While I no longer view myself as a part of the evangelical community, it is my heritage and roots, one of which I'm becoming increasingly ashamed for belonging. 

I absolutely reject the fear of Supreme Court nominations as being righteous. I reject the promise of religious freedom for Christians from a man who will restrict the freedoms of others. Both are forms of idolatry and entrapments. If the Evangelical Church needs the Court, and a flawed earthly power, to save souls and empower faithful witnessing to the Gospel in both word and deed, then the Church has not only lost its credibility to speak on a host of issues, including morality, but is harming the gospel message. When the freedom of worship is denied or restricted to one group, we are all loose for we are only a step away from adding another group as we stand in the doorway to the room into tyranny of the majority. When the church supports a most ungodly man as if he was their earthly hero, then the gospel's power has greatly been compromised for the sake of earthly power, and history will judge harshly the American Evangelical church of this age.

And when Trump is in the White House, and his the debased nature of his character becomes glaring, and when he continue to attack the foundations of the nation, its electoral process, separation of powers, and the press, will the church speak out against him or remain silent? When his tempestuous character comes out, bullies people, and his countless glaring falsehoods become a growing mountain of national shame, will the church's leadership speak out, or remain silent because he is our man? I hope it is not the latter. If it is, it is to the church's shame!

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Defending of the Virginia Amendment - part 2

In yesterday’s post I noted that the 4^th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard a lower court ruling that Virginia’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, civil unions and gay partnerships was unconstitutional. I am troubled after reading several of the arguments put forth by the lawyers defending the amendment, some of which essentially devalue marriage, the very institution the defenders are arguing that they are defending as having high and sacred value.

 

Following are some of their primary arguments, the ones I found alarming. While I am far from being legally educated, I brief note why I found several of the key the arguments defending the amendment to be troubling.

 

Voters by a 57-43 margin approved the amendment to the VA Constitution and their vote should stand: This argument calls for majority rule as the primary rule of the land, that majority rule trumps all including fundamental rights belonging to each person, that a citizen has no preexisting human right to liberty, freedom and happiness. This argument means that any right, even the right to life, can be denied or removed from individuals or a class of people by the state if the majority so decide to do so. The argument means that the claim Americans have proudly proclaimed and boasted about being the nation of fundamental rights is a false assertion. The claim is that a person has a right only if the majority agree to grant the person or class of people a right. The flip side of the coin is that the right can also be taken away at some point in the future if the majority so wills it. The argument means that minorities, whether racial or religious or political or lifestyle, are tolerated only as far as they don’t offend too many outside their group. Hence the only defense against the tyranny of the majority is not the courts, but by either conforming or finding little niches in the nation where your neighbors are tolerant of your kind of minority.  

 

What I find most interesting is that not only does this mean majority rule as the ultimate principal of the land, and contrary to what I’ve understood as the heart of a founding principle of the United States, is that the argument is akin to the arguments King George and the British Parliament used to deny the Colonies representation in Parliament…that the majority of British Parliament, the British citizenry and the King deemed it appropriate to deny the Colonials basic rights that they enjoyed. The Colonies has no right of representation because the majority wished not for them to have such opportunities. Therefore in a way, if this argument holds, this nation has come full circle, that King George and Parliament were right, and the founding fathers wrong.

 

 

Marriage is primarily about procreation, and as gay marriages cannot procreate, such marriages cannot exist:  This argument is simple, that my marriage, and your marriage too, is defined by my wife and my ability to procreate. It means that if marriage is defined primarily by the ability to procreate, there is no reason for the marriage to exist. By extension it means that women who have gone through menopause and men with very low or nonexistent sperm levels should not marry as there is no grounds for such marriages to be allowed. It also means that those who do not have children have marriages of a lesser order than marriages that produce children.

 

Not only am I extremely uncomfortable with any marriage that is defined primarily around having children, I am firmly against any such argument that devalues, and in a sense even negates the companionship and love elements of marriage. When my wife and I stood before the alter of the Paxton United Methodist Church that June morning, not one word in our vows even hinted at procreation. We testified to our love for the other, our commitment to each other, to be mutual companions and comforters for each other, and to cherish and nurture the other through good times and bad times for the rest of our lives. Our marriage was not a contract about having offspring and raising children together. While alarmed by this argument, I am highly offended that Christians are embracing this argument as being solid and proper.

 

For anyone who agrees with the argument put forward in the Court I would point out that if you are a Protestant that this argument contradicts what most Protestant churches have taught about marriage since their founding. Protestant churches have traditionally claimed that their beauty and value in marriage and marital sex. The value of marriage is founded upon mutual companionship and love. For Protestants marital relations is wholesome in itself, a beautiful and enjoyable way to express one’s love for one’s spouse. Marriage they have taught is about the quality of the husband and wife relationship, about the loving couple, not about having children. Children are the by-product of the essence of a marriage, not the ground for the marriage’s existence.

 

If this argument prevails, it does more to undermine the value of my marriage than if the amendment’s defenders lost.  

 

 

The State has the right to determine who can procreate and marry: Wow, reading this one sent chills down my back. The lawyers are claiming that the State has the right to say who can and cannot have children.  Are we going to require people to pass a test or gain permission of some government official in order to have children? Are we going to deny people the right to have children if they lack a certain level of intelligence? Lack a certain amount of annual household income? If to have a child and support the children they are having, the mother would have to work outside the home (after all is it not best for children to have mom at home rather than working in the community?), or the father to work a second or third job?  This rationale sounds too much like a totalitarian state argument.

 

                                                                                                                                      

Marriage is a fundamental right that historically has focused on preserving stable families. As such every child deserves a mother and father: It is the later part that bothers me. If every child deserves to a mother and father, what does that actually mean? Are we saying that children should not be raised in a gay household because a parent of a particular gender is lacking from the home? I’ve heard friends and Christian preachers and talk shows argue this point in the affirmative. Pointing to various studies some conservative Christians argue that children raised without both genders present in the home are at much high risk of socially dysfunctional behavior as children and adults than do children in homes where both a mother and father are found. But is this a result of parental disengagement or the lack of two adults of opposite genders? Are not the at risk rates similar in two adult homes where both parents are disengaged from their children? I can readily agree that when parents disengaged, regardless whether there are one or two parents in the home, and are too busy to nurture and care for their children that children from such homes have a significantly higher at-risk rate than those from loving homes where both parents, or even one parent, is supportive and engaged with the children.

 

While there are studies that support both sides, let’s remember that the body of research into gay households is thin as it has been for the most part lacking. A number of studies are full of unanswered questions, and some are poorly designed, or lack longevity to be reliable. Also we much recognize that some authors of studies have biases, they design studies in a manner and cherry pick data that will help support their desired proof. Further, the general public and politically engaged people tend to pick and choose the studies and data that lend support to their positions while dismissing studies which contradict their position. For me the studies claiming children in gay homes are highly impacted have reliability issues, and at first glance appear to be less scientific than are the climate warming studies those out of my religious tradition so quickly tend to dismiss.

 

Regardless of the quality of the science behind the studies, for the sake of argument let’s say that there is some type correlation. Even if there was some type of harm, if we deny gay marriage based on this argument are we as a nation then going to remove children from all single parent households which have a similar or greater rate of risk? What about homes where one parent is convicted of a felony for children raised in such homes also are at high risk too? What about removing children from homes where wife abuse exists, whether that abuse be physical or emotional? Are we then going to remove children from two parent homes whose household income are near or below the poverty level since numerous studies over the decades have indicated that those homes too have a high risk rate? If we are to be consistent in our arguments our communities should start removing tens of children from their homes, and if we are not going to do so, why not? If the only reason is that I was not to do so because I am talking about a gay couple, then what does that say about me?

 

 

I find myself troubled by the above arguments. Why did the lawyers defending the amendment use such arguments? We did they not craft and put forth more solid and balanced arguments?

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Defending of the Virginia Amendment - part 1

As noted in the prior post of yesterday, Virginia is gay marriage battleground, as well as gay rights in general. Conservative Christians (those who take issue with the use of “conservative Christians” in this context should read the prior post) are staunchly defending the 2006 Virginia Constitutional Amendment that enshrines marriage as being only between a man and woman. The amendment not only prohibits gay marriage but prohibits within Virginia the recognition in any manner of such marriages that occur in other states. If a gay couple is married in another state and move to Virginia, they are not married. Further, the amendment also prohibits “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships”. The message is clear, strong and unapologetic. If you are in a gay relationship, do not come to Virginia for you and your partner will have no recognition in any form.


This week the 4^th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal of a lower court ruling permitting gay marriage.  No matter the ruling of the 4^th Court, the case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court and force that Court to deal with the heart of the matter, whether it is unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage.


Conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, are livid that the current Virginia Attorney General, Mark Herring, is not defending the ban and Constitutional Amendment, leaving the legal team for the two clerks who denied the gay couples wedding licenses to argue the case before the 4^th Circuit rather than the Attorney General. It is argued regardless of his reading of the US Constitution and view of the legality of Virginia’s amendment that the AG is duty bound to defend it, and not to do so is commonly described as a betrayal of his oath, a betrayal the demands his immediate removal from office.


At first sight it would appear that not having the AG office arguing in defense of the amendment means a less skilled team has to take over and that the arguments will be less forceful than would be the AG’s arguments. The implication is that lawyers for the clerks are second string or minor leaguers. I not only disagree but argue for the contrary for the team headed by David Oakley is highly skilled, arguing by conviction and are driven as to the rightness of their cause and the amendment, and lastly, they are being well supported by the religious right with funds, research.


The second team headed by Austin Nimocks is equally strong and are part of highly conservative traditional marriage defense group, a strongly funded group that is well skilled in crafting its message, and have long had their key arguments well formed. As such neither Nimocks nor Oakley are well skilled and positioned for handling this type of case.


Further, who would you rather have argue your case, a lawyer who does not believe in the strength of the case and lacks an enthusiasm for it, or a lawyer who has deep passion, skill and the depth of resources to put forth your sound argument? I would take the latter any day, as would you.


Regardless of what the attackers of AG Herring may say, I doubt that the defenders of the amendment truly want the AG’s office arguing the case. Though he may not defend the amendment, it should be noted that the AG has not sent out instructions to county clerks to start issuing wedding license to gay couples. Rather, he is allowing existing cases to move through the courts being argued by some of its strongest advocates, and awaiting the results. That I can respect. Advocates defending the amendment and the leading voices attacking the AG know full well that if the AG defended the amendment, he could more readily bring about results in keeping with his views by not using the strongest arguments or poorly phrasing the strongest arguments for the amendment. That would be a travesty. Hence, the statements by the AG’s attackers are more about political posturing, stirring the base, raising funds and bullying than about the righteousness of their case against the AG not defending the amendment.

Co-opting of Language

The primary meaning of a word can evolve over decades so that a primary definition in one age becomes a secondary in another with a new primary understanding. An example of that is “faggot”, a word that transitioned in the 1950s and 60s to have a new primary meaning and then transition out from common communication in the 1990s. The word’s historical meaning referred to small branches and sticks that one gathered to start or keep a fire going. By the mid 60s the word was used as a derogatory term to refer to a person who was gay. Due to its derogatory nature, it moved out of polite conversation and then out of acceptable conversation in the 1990s and today is rarely used.

In the past year I have become increasingly concerned about the co-opting of a word in such a manner that the word itself is in the process of being redefined in the United States. The word is, “patriot,” which is a word that means one who loves, supports and defends one’s country. The word is being co-opted by the right wing of the conservative movement in such a way that it is implied, and sometimes outright stated, that if you do not agree with their view that you are not a patriot. In other words, if you do not agree with their social and political agenda then you may well be a traitor.

One’s passion for one’s country can take various expressions. In the United States democratic processes and freedom of expression are highly valued. People are encouraged to debate, to disagree passionately with each other in a civil manner as it helps strengthen ideas, allow its citizens to arrive at a more informed decision, and in the process build a better society and nation. Accepting and encouraging widely differing perspectives, and all points in between, are not only welcome but are the safeguards against tyranny of a single viewpoint and the expectation that all will adhere to that one viewpoint such as is found in tyrannical monarchies and dictatorships.

A person who is far removed from my social and political viewpoint can be just as patriotic as those who agree with me. Though opinions differ, through the exchange and debating of ideas, each of us is ardently fighting in a civil manner to build a better and stronger nation. Hence, my alarm over the co-opting of “patriot” by a political movement that implies by the use of “patriot” that only they are correct and those who disagree with them do not love, support and defend their country. The co-opting of the term brings subtle and not so subtle pressure to conform to that movement’s point of view. The co-opting of the term and its ongoing association with a narrow set of political ideas means that in the coming years, and for the coming generations patriot will no longer mean being a lover, supporter and defender of one’s country but as one who holds a defined set of political doctrines. If we were all to be patriots in keeping with how the term is being used and its implied meaning, the United States will have moved towards the tyranny of a single mindset which the nation rebelled against in 1776.

Paranoia, Conspiracies and Obama

Two the elements of the American character are distrust of government and a bent toward conspiracy theories. These two elements are alive and well in the health care debate. As there were some who did not view Bush as a legitimate President during his first term, there are those who hold Obama is a usurper.

Though the evidence is to the contrary, there are those who still maintain that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore not eligible to be President. Even worse is when a politician like Palin who give tacit support to the claims that officials in Hawaii have falsified records (and the birth announcement in the paper was a recreation).

These same folks hold that Obama is not a Christian but a Muslim. They ignore his statements of faith. They watch and firmly believe videos on youtube that have Obama admitting he is a Muslim. The authors of these videos have vivacious and maliciously edited out words and phrases that would give a contrary meaning to the words. Yet these videos continue to live on, particularly in the church with the “my friend at church” statement testifying to its validity and reliability.

What is interestingly many of these are the same people who attacked Obama for being part of Rev. Wright’s church. They argue that he is a Muslim one moment and then condemn him for being a long time member of a church under the leadership of Rev. Wright without seeing the inconsistency.

This past week the President made a speech to the nation on Afghanistan. Even the timing is viewed, by individuals like Russell Wiseman mayor of Arlington TN, as a nefarious plot to preempt Charlie Brown’s Christmas and keeping people from hearing a character reading the Christmas story (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/dec/04/mayor-fires-at-obama-online/). While I want to laugh at the unwiseman and others with similar views, when there are pastors telling their congregations to pray for the President’s demise, I can laugh. I can only feel disgust at the utter hatred that lies in such hearts and which is masked by religious language.

These are the same individuals who are attacking Obama with the following picture by saying that that on Veterans Day he showed disrespect to the Veterans and Nations by not saluting. At first glance the picture does look poorly upon Obama.

According to Factcheck.org this picture was taken not on Veterans Day (Nov 11) but on Memorial Day. On Veterans Day President Obama was wearing a blue tie and an overcoat, not a red tie without an overcoat. The picture in question was taken seconds after the President entered the platform and “Hail to the Chief” was still being played. In other words, those on the stage, and those in uniform below were not saluting the nation, the flag or veterans, but President Obama, the President of the United States. Yet, the falsehood continues to live on and spread fueled by the paranoia of conspiracy theorists who are anti-Obama and a distrust of Obama and his motives.