Roe v. Wade gone. Why I hesitate to cheer.

Share

The greatest evil. A stain on our nation. A reason for the decline of America. When I was growing up, this was how abortion were described to me. When it came to politics, I unblinkingly supported Republican "pro-life" candidates and could not fathom how anyone who called themselves a Christian could possibly vote for any Democrat who supported abortion rights. But more than anything, I and those around me longed for the day when Roe v. Wade would be overturned. It always seemed like a pipe dream, but it was a cause worth fighting for. If only this heinous court case could be thrown out, abortion could be illegal again and millions of babies could be saved.

And so, today, as the dream has become reality with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, my younger self would be rejoicing.

But, I am not so young anymore.

Yes, I am still pro-life, but lived experience and complexity of our world means I have mixed feelings about this day, and even a bit of anxiety.

For starters, let's keep in mind what this legal decision does not do--make abortion disappear. Abortions happened before Roe and they will continue after today. You can't legislate your way out of a challenge like abortion. In fact, the actual impact of the Court's decision today may be fairly minimal. Contrary to the belief of some who celebrate today, the overturning of Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal in the United States. Instead, it pushes the decision on abortion back to the states. So, while conservative states will outlaw abortion, moderate and progressive states will largely keep abortion rights intact and may even choose to expand those rights. The fact is, many conservative states have already enacted strict abortion laws and have seen numbers plummet over the past decade as those laws have limited who can get an abortion and have shut down countless abortion clinics. Rather than ending abortion in places where they are happening unchecked, this legal decision only ends abortion in the places where they were already becoming rare.

If this legal decision miraculously made abortion nonexistent in the U.S. then it would be easier for me to rejoice. But, that will not be the reality. Yes, even a small decrease in abortion numbers would be good, but we also have to ask about the cost.

Second, it's hard for me to rejoice because of how we got here. It's no secret that evangelical Christianity has been a primary driver in the fight against abortion for the past three decades. And, I think this is rightfully so as the Christian faith clearly declares that all humans are made in the image of God and science has increasingly shown there is little division between a "fetus" and a human being. It's hard for anyone who has seen a 3D ultrasound and listened to the heartbeat of a child a mere few weeks old to deny that it is a human life.

However, in our efforts to reduce abortions, white evangelical Christians have sold their souls to political devils without concern for the consequences when it comes to pursuing anti-abortion legislation. The rise of Donald Trump and Trumpian politics in Christian circles is a perfect example of this. Despite the countless moral and character failings of politicians like Trump, many Christians were content to jump on board for the sake of a legal blow against abortion. As one friend of mine who voted for Trump put it, "It's all about the Supreme Court."

Even beyond Trump, Christians backed Republicans as they made increasingly questionable moves to secure a "judicially activist" court of their own making. From stonewalling a qualified court nominee for months on end during Obama's final term, to sticking with a nominee with concerning sexual assault allegations against him, to rushing through their own nominee in the final hours before an election and contradicting their own previous arguments, Republicans seemed willing to do whatever it cost to secure a court majority willing to pursue their own agenda.

Of course, these behaviors are not unique to Republicans (one could look at Democratic efforts to pack the court with more justices), but the underlying point is the rule of modern politics is that the ends justify the means. It doesn't matter what you say, who you back, or how dirty and bloody your hands get, as long as the end results turns out in your favor. With Trump, we were willing to excuse vulgar language, fear-mongering, sexual immorality, lack of self-control, questionable policy, xenophobia, racist language, and more, all for the sake of ending abortion. While there's little hope for that attitude to change in politics, Christians ought to follow a higher standard. For Christians, we leave the ends in God's hands and ensure that the means are Christ-like, humble, and point to the Kingdom of God (read the Sermon on the Mount if you need a reminder of this).

As I've said before, the strange alliance between white evangelical Christians and Trumpian politics has eroded trust in Christians and the witness of the Church almost more than anything else in recent history. I have friends whose children are questioning their faith because of the behaviors they see from "Christians" in the political arena. So, on a day like today, it's hard to get excited about the babies that might be saved when there certainly are a whole lot of bodies in our wake that we made on the way to get here. To cheer today after so much ugliness and un-Christlike behavior is like rewarding bas behavior. It's like telling a child "good job" for helping clear the table when he pushed all his siblings down and yelled at them to do so.

We can also turn this concern to the future. Now that Roe has been overturned, what is the next target our political lords will point us Christians at? The only thing that's certain is that there will be another target. Much of this fight was not just about abortion, but also about power. Republicans can count on evangelicals to vote for them as long as the support the fight to end abortion. Now that the dream of overturning Roe has been realized, they will need something else to energize us. After all, we're already hearing about how the Left will be motivated to vote during the midterms because of this massive defeat. Republicans will need a counter issue. Will the topic be same-sex marriage? Critical Race Theory and civil rights? Immigration? Whatever it will be, there will always be some political interest to pull our strings and corrupt our Christian witness with "necessary" ethical and moral sacrifices for "the cause."

The problem with not caring about the means on the way to our goals is that there are always unintended consequences. What will those unintended consequences be here? 

One potential consequence is the legal ramifications of this decision in other areas. In making its decision on Roe, the Court's majority pointed to the lack of a "Constitutional" protection for abortion. Without getting into a deep philosophical legal discussion about the best interpretations of the Constitution, it should be noted that an "originalist" reading of the Constitution has its limitations because there are many things generally accepted today that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Just because something is or isn't in the Constitution doesn't make it morally acceptable (after all, the Constitution in its most "original" form allowed slavery).

For example, interracial marriage is not directly addressed in the Constitution. Neither is access to birth control by married couples. Yet, the freedom to choose both of these things has been enacted and protected by the court in the past. Does the decision concerning Roe v. Wade today open up the door to reverse countless decisions like this because they are not "constitutional"? Could a whole host of decisions be turned back to the states? If so, this could easily open up the door to many discriminatory practices returning in society. And in case you think this is far-fetched, consider that Justice Clarence Thomas has already hinted that these types of decisions could be on the table in the future in the aftermath of today's decision. Could our enthusiasm to end abortion open up other pitfalls for us and our neighbors?

This leads to a third concern over today--will Christians step up? Growing up, abortion was often presented as a sick practice sought by women and parents who didn't want their babies. Or, in cases where parents wanted to keep their babies, it was doctors who malevolently suggested abortion in difficult circumstances of malformations and disease. Feminists were also to blame because they placed working life above family life.

However, as I've grown older and listened to countless stories (and even faced an unplanned pregnancy myself), I've come to realize that the situation is more complex. Yes, there are women who simply don't want their babies for selfish reasons, but there's usually much more to it than that. Many women who seek abortions already have children, but might be in situations where they really would struggle to care for another child. Indeed, studies have shown that existing children whose mother is denied an abortion for a new child are more likely to experience developmental delays and poverty. Other women have been raped and either are not ready to have a child, fear the child will remind them of the rape, or live in a state that will give the rapist parental rights and continued access to the victim. 

Then, many others face the impossible choice of wanting a baby, but the baby develops a health condition which makes viability of the child nearly impossible. In these situations, we must remember that, despite our amazing advances in medicine, childbirth is still a risky process for the mother. Indeed, one friend of ours nearly died during the birth of her first child with an otherwise healthy pregnancy. In situations where giving birth becomes even riskier for the mother, how do you easily choose between your life and the life of a baby who will likely die even if everything else goes well? It's a difficult decision, and every couple and woman is different in how they will handle it. Some will accept the risk to their own life and pray their child also lives or will do so to hold their child for its few minutes of life. Others will look at the probabilities and not want to chance it. These are incredibly painful and difficult personal choices that are hard to legislate or create one-size-fits-all solutions for.

With all this complexity, though, one theme is consistent: tragedy. The hidden truth few want to acknowledge (because it doesn't fit our political mantras) is that no one really wants abortions to have to happen. An abortion always signals a tragedy or disappointment of some kind. No one is intentionally getting pregnant just so they can get an abortion (which is why comparing abortion to "murder" is problematic). Even someone pursuing abortion for selfish reasons to preserve their career is not particularly happy about having to actually get an abortion. An abortion represents a miscarriage, health problems, poverty, teen pregnancy, rape, career and family plans upended. There's always pain and disappointment in the background. Even for those who have no problem with an abortion and will get one without a second thought, the actual abortion is still likely an inconvenience they'd rather not have.

So, I return to my question--will Christians step up? We claim to be "pro-life," but will we step up and support the women and families of those we are now forbidding from getting an abortion? Now that Roe is overturned, will churches begin emphasizing adoption and foster care as a pressing concern for its members in the same way it emphasized voting against abortion? Will we be there to take the child as an alternative to abortion when a women cannot care for that child?

Will we aggressively seek to alleviate poverty and racial discrimination that create situations of disparity in society? If these forces drive people to seek abortions, let us walk alongside people to give them options besides abortion.

Will the church stand firmly against rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, or will we continue to ignore these very issues among our own clergy and congregations, permitting the very culture that is one cause of abortion?

Will we advocate for better and more accessible medical care for everyone so that those facing impossible choices also have the best doctors and treatments at their disposal? Or will we be content with millions of uninsured women and turn a blind eye to their plight?

And perhaps toughest of all, are we ready to stand with families who have lost a mother to a pregnancy gone wrong that an abortion could have prevented? Are we ready to explain to the surviving children that their mother's life is a small sacrifice for saving thousands of other children like them?

While I'd love to believe that the church will step up in the coming years and truly be "pro-life" for the lives of those who will be affected by today's decision, truth be told, I'm not holding my breath. Certainly, there are many Christians who volunteer or work at crisis-pregnancy centers, foster and adopt, or offer individual support to neighbors who are contemplating abortion. But I've also seen too often over the past years how the church has ignored offering these types of support and has marched on single-mindedly against legal abortion and LGBTQ rights. Rather than stepping up to actually make abortion unthinkable, I fear many Christians will be content with the legal win and will move on to the next legal battle (like overturning Obergefell v. Hodges).

All this may sound like I am pro-Roe or pro-abortion, but that is not necessarily true. Incidentally, today is my middle daughter's birthday. On a day we celebrate her birth, I do recognize that today's decision will result in some lives being saved and born. Some children will have the chance to live just like my daughter. That is a good thing.

However, the question remains--what kind of life will they live? Will it do any good to bring them into this world if they live a miserable life? Will it do any good for the church if our actions continue to alienate that child whose life we "saved"? Just as importantly, what harm are we doing to women when all we care about is a legal restriction and ignore complexities? I would love to see abortion rates drop. I don't think a child should be killed simply because their father is a rapist. I believe that a poor woman can have options besides abortion. However, I also know that withholding abortion in these situations without also giving support to the women affected or ignoring their concerns and wishes is to be complicit in their suffering.

At the end of the day, I'm hopeful that some good may come of this, but also fearful that unintended damage will also follow. My emotions are complex, much like the issue of abortion itself. But, at the end of the day, I will simply commit myself to the same task I had before today--loving my neighbor as myself. I will open up my home to foster children. I will work to fight poverty in my community. I will pray for those who are pregnant. I will speak out against laws that create unnecessary hardships for those in my community. I do these things because, at the end of the day, it's not good enough to be anti-abortion, I must be pro-life. I do these things because I am not called to merely care about the ends, but to ensure my means speak witness to the risen Christ and not merely a lust for political power.

Praying for the President

Share

As news broke that the President has COVID, I began seeing some conservative friends post about the need to "pray" for his speedy recovery and condemning liberals who are supposedly wishing for Trump's death. I agree we should pray for the President, but how to pray is a deeper issue. 

First, I am sure that a lot of these posts about liberals wanting Trump to die are somewhat driven by bots and algorithms because I have yet to see any of my liberal or progressive friends on social media say these things. They may critique the President's lack of precautions or see this result as a natural consequence of his actions, but I have not seen the wishes or prayers for him to die as these memes and posts would make us believe are widespread. Are there people who are hoping Trump dies? I'm sure. The comments sections anywhere on the internet are filled with both conservatives and liberals who make similar wishes of their opponents; this is not unique to a political side. For example, comments sections regarding Chrissy Teigens' miscarriage will show you conservatives and pro-lifers rejoicing in her suffering under claims of "God's judgment" and that "she deserved it." Desiring suffering and death for our enemies is a human condition, not a political one. My fear is that creating a straw man with posts that presume a majority of liberals want Trump to die from COVID is not helpful to our public discourse, when in reality many (perhaps most, including Biden) are wishing and even praying for a recovery. Bad apples are out there, but let's not create a boogeyman. 

However, when I first saw Trump supporters and evangelicals advocating for others to "pray for the President's quick recovery," there was something inside of me that initially recoiled. I've had the same reaction over the past few years whenever I see politically charged memes calling on Christians to "pray for the President" in various capacities. It's taken me a day or two to sort out why. 

After thinking about it, the reason for my apprehension was not because I believe we shouldn't pray for our President, but rather because the surrounding context makes such calls seem (even if unintentional) simplistic and shallow. 

What I mean is that, while I've seen both conservatives and liberals offer their prayers for a recovery, the strongest calls for prayers for the President's health have come from many of the same people who have consistently backed Trump and refused to criticize him or hold him accountable. Often these are the same people who feel it is their duty to frequently remind their political opponents (using 1 Timothy 2) that they should be praying for the President's success. At the same time, there was often silence about offering the same kinds of prayers for Obama, or at least with much less enthusiasm. 

This is the crucial context. When some Christians give enthusiastic support on a regular basis to a President the majority of Americans see as immoral, corrupt, and cruel, praise him as the "greatest President ever," and fail to EVER offer critiques, people begin to question the morality of your faith. As I've said before, I believe this uncritical and enthusiastic support for Trump from many evangelicals is driving the final nails into the coffin of the church's moral authority and integrity in the eyes of outsiders (and of many insiders). In that context, your calls to pray for Trump ring hollow and are heard by many as just another partisan ploy. I personally don't doubt the sincerity of my fellow believers, but without a prophetic denouncing of Trump's wrongs or equal calls for prayers for your own enemies, such words fall flat. 

Another reason for my reaction is that such calls to prayer seem simplistic and even a bit condescending. Again, given the context, someone who doesn't care for Trump or has been appalled by him over the past 5 years could easily read these posts as "If you don't pray for Trump to quickly recover and get back to his agenda then you are unChristian!" I know that is not likely the intent, but we also know that a big motivation for Trump supporters in praying for the President's recovery is so Trump's agenda or election chances are not ruined. That's simply not going to be a motivation for Trump critics. 

Indeed, if we oversimplify prayer for our leaders, I also think we do a disservice to Scripture. A holistic look a prayer in Scripture reveals a great diversity. 

At one extreme, you have the imprecatory Psalms--prayers for the downfall and destruction of one's enemies and oppressors. 

Psalm 137 reads "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." 

Psalm 109 says, "May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow."

Psalm 10 reads "Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none." 

Psalm 83 prays that cruel "nobles" and "princes" would be destroyed and "become like dung on the ground." That language doesn't square well with the typical insistence on 1 Tim 2:1-2. 

A concern I have with Trump-voting evangelicals who publicly call on people to pray for Trump's recovery is that they do not consider those who feel harmed and oppressed by this President. I have spoken to and listened to many over the past 4 years who are experiencing heightened fear because of the culture of anger and racism Trump has created against people who look like them. There is little question that the President's flip-flopping on the pandemic, ignoring of scientific advice, and contradiction of his own officials and advisors has likely resulted in several thousand additional deaths that could have been prevented. Others of us are simply disgusted by his lying, cruelty, bullying, and attraction to pride and rage that have real-world consequences. 

The fact is that this President has hurt many people, and many people in this country (including millions of Christians) are longing for the day when he will be out of office. If we take on a healthy view of biblical prayer, then we will not tell people to quickly ignore those feelings of anger and despair, but rather to take them to God. Maybe the first step of healthy prayer for those who oppose the President is being brutally honest with God, even if that honesty, like the imprecatory psalms, admits that they are hoping the virus will claim his life.

 
Likewise, I have spent a lot of time recently reading through both the Psalms and the prophets. The prophets, like in many psalms, call out kings and leaders for idolatry and injustice and warn of consequences for kings who do not heed those calls. For example, in 2 Kings 1, when the wicked King Ahaziah has an accident and lies in his bed dying, he sends messengers to the prophet Elijah to ask God if he'll recover. Elijah's response (multiple times) is "you shall not leave your bed; you will surely die." Elijah offers no prayers for recovery (at least that are reported) because the king has long proven his lack of allegiance to God. 

Similarly, in countless oracles issued by nearly all of the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Amos, etc.) oppressive rulers of other nations are promised downfall as a result of their actions. Perhaps the prophets prayed for wisdom for these leaders and peace for their nation first, but after years of consistent injustice and idolatry there was also an understanding in their prayers that God will deal with unrepentant sin. As citizens of God's Kingdom before any other, the US President should get the same treatment and accountability as any other world leader. 

For those of us who do not line up to support the President, we see years of unrepentant sin and idolatry. Just because he throws out phrases and causes that we evangelicals like doesn't mean the man should be emulated or even has our best interests in mind. He has famously bragged about never having repented, and I can't remember a single time in the past 4 years he has issued an apology for any of his countless scandals or sinful words (if I'm wrong I'll apologize for that assumption). 

 
Even though idols of wood and stone may not exist, Trump is no less ruled by idolatry. His idols are pride, wealth, vanity, anger, revenge, and power. He may not have an Asherah pole at his house, but I suspect he's worshipped before a stripper pole before. And these are not all just past faults; many continue daily. Those that are in the past are ones he has never repented of and sees no reason to. Individuals who are more than happy to offer praise and prayer for the President should consider the depth of frustration among the rest of us. Have empathy; put yourself in our shoes. 

Now, if you think I'm going to say after all this that we should pray for Trump's death, you'd be wrong. As I said above, we should come to prayer with an honesty about how we are feeling, and that includes space for those who hope he dies as well. However, for those of us who claim to follow Jesus, we are living on this side of the cross and resurrection. That means we also follow a King (a true "President" if you will) who calls us to "turn the other cheek," put aside anger, "love our enemies," and "pray for those who persecute us." After we've been honest with God and wrestled with our feelings, we should also strive to pray for our opponent's well-being as hard as it may be. 

 
Indeed, the call of Jesus pulls us toward embrace and empathy. This is especially true with COVID. In the past few days I’ve been reminded of the horrors of this disease. Just today, I received a call from a friend whose father was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance because of his oxygen levels due to COVID. I also saw on Facebook today that a community member I knew just passed away from the disease. As I consider the frightening prospect of a diagnosis for families and the pain of loss thousands have already experienced, I lean on these stories to gain empathy for our flawed President whose own family is likely experiencing their own fears and concerns. 

But one final note is also important (Thanks to Chris Dodson for your recent Facebook post that helped me put my thoughts together here). Throughout Scripture there is also a refrain in prayers and songs asking God to "reverse" the world. Kings and oppressive powers should be brought low, and the humble should be raised up. 

You see is in Miriam's and Moses' Song of the Sea (Exo 15): "In the greatness of Your majesty You threw down those who opposed You. You unleashed Your burning anger; it consumed them like stubble....But You will bring your people in and plant them on the mountain of your inheritance." 

You see it in the Beatitudes, especially in Luke's version (Luke 6):
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh....
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. But Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets."

You see it in Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1): 

"He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty." 

All of these Scriptural pleadings for the mighty to fall are not simply vindictive wishes, but, especially on this side of the cross, they should also carry a hope of justice for the hurting and redemption for the proud and mighty. Like Moses pleading with Pharaoh to soften his heart and avoid destruction, we should hope that the downfall of our own opponents and those who act immorally and unjustly should lead to humility. Adversity and downfall should open their eyes to their complicity in pain and help them see God for the first time. 

Two nights ago I read the story of Manasseh, one of the final evil kings of Judah. He completely reversed the spiritual reforms of his father, Hezekiah, and brought the nation back into idolatry and injustice. And after God spoke to him through prophets calling him to repent, he refused and God allowed the king of Assyria to attack Jerusalem and to capture Manasseh, dragging him away with "hooks" and chains. 

However, there is a part of Manasseh's story I had forgotten about until reading it again. In 2 Chronicles 33:10-16 it details how, while in captivity, Manasseh "humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers." God then allowed the humbled king to return to Jerusalem, at which point "Manasseh knew that the LORD was God." And it seems to have stuck. In the final years of his reign, Manasseh removed the idols from his house, destroyed false altars, and began offering sacrifices to the true God once again. 

The story of Manasseh illustrates how I think those of us who cannot abide Trump should pray. Yes, we should pray for a recovery because Donald Trump is also made in the image of God, even as marred as that image may be. As such, his life is also precious in God's eyes. However, we also cannot turn a blind eye to his idolatries, lies, pride, vanity, cruelty, lusts, greed, anger, and words and policies that continue to oppress our neighbors. So, I also pray that this sickness would bring him low, that it would humble him. 

Because if when you say "Pray for the President's recovery," you mean "pray he recovers so things can get back to normal," I want no part of those prayers. I, and a majority of Americans, are sick of his behavior and lack of integrity. Christians like myself are frustrated with his immorality and amazed by our fellow evangelicals who seem to excuse and give passes for it. We don’t want a return to “normal” Trump. Something has got to give. 

I have prayed for years that Trump would show maturity, wisdom, prudence, and peace. I have prayed he would stand up for all vulnerable people in this country, not just the unborn ones when it’s politically convenient. It has not happened. And in the face of no behavior change, no repentance, and no signs of changing course, the only thing I have left is that God would do something drastic in his life to open his eyes. I pray he would be humbled like Manasseh so that he knows God is King. I pray that in the middle of distress and suffering that he would learn the empathy for his fellow Americans he has often seemed to ignore. I pray that being brought low by a virus which does not care whether you are rich or poor, powerful or weak, conservative or liberal, would teach him humility, patience, gratitude, and compassion. 

Now, if you want to simply pray for the President to recover quickly, that is fine, and you should pray as your conscience and the Holy Spirit leads. But realize that many of your fellow Christians already find it difficult to pray for this man and are struggling for the right way to pray for him. So don't guilt them for not praying your way or be offended when they don't pray exactly like you. 

Yes, pray for the President at this time, but don't expect the prayers of others to match yours. Don't reduce prayer to a political spectacle or weapon. My allegiance is to another King, and the prayers of that Kingdom are deeper than most of us tend to imagine.

 

Share

Anatomy of a Keurig

Share

Timeline of events: Roy Moore--an Alabaman Republican candidate for a US Senate seat--is accused of sexual harassment and assault by several women. Roy Moore refuses to back out of the race. Roy Moore does an interview with Sean Hannity. Many people feel Hannity glossed over the allegations. Several advertisers, including Keurig, pull their advertising from Hannity's show in protest of his apparent lack of outrage. Some Hannity fans destroy their Keurig coffee makers.

Really?

Yes, really. And here's an example:

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/929777702537543681

As the Keurigs shatter on the ground, it seems their pieces reveal a lot about the state of public discourse these days.

First, I'm struck by the language of "offend a liberal" in the above tweet. This is language that is hardly limited to this instance. Google "offend a liberal" and you can find countless memes and images with the same mentality (interestingly you get many of the same conservative memes even when you Google "offend a conservative"). Some progressives likely have the same approach as well, albeit with different language. Whether we label others as "libtards," "libiots," "Teabaggers," or "Re-thug-licans," the effect is the same. And of course, both sides love to throw around the "snowflake" label.

You can completely forget about higher ideals like listening to the other side. We've even moved past trying to persuade the other side. All that matters is winning and upsetting one's opponent. If we can annoy and "offend," that's all we need to do.

I'm also struck (but not surprised) by the oversimplified view of others demonstrated. Seriously, what "liberals" are you hanging out with who would be offended by you destroying your overpriced coffee machine?! I know the friends I have who hold to more progressive/liberal political views wouldn't be "offended." Most of them would just laugh at you. You probably made their day by showing how easily you get "offended" by an advertiser. But, we live in such isolated echochambers that we don't know what people on the other side of the fence are really like anymore. All we're left with are caricatures, stereotypes, and strawmen.

Lastly, it shows how ridiculous we sometimes can be in our "protests" when living in a materialistic culture. We burn jerseys of NFL players we disagree with. We destroy coffee makers of companies who upset us. We refuse to eat fast food chicken because of the owners' position on homosexuality. It's all ridiculous. Ghandi is probably rolling around in his grave wondering why he went on a hunger strike if all he could've done is threw some British furniture out a window. The reality is such "protests" don't actually cost anything. You know those individuals will just turn around a buy another jersey, coffee maker, or chicken sandwich (maybe even from the same place). Where there's no sacrifice, there's not really much substance to that protest.

The sad truth is our public dialogue is utterly empty. It's not even fair to call it a "dialogue" anymore. If you put several angry men together in a room to shout and throw things at each other, is that really a "conversation" just because words exist? Because that's a more apt description of what's happening.

We're not even really concerned with winning arguments any more. We just want to win, period. Dominate the opposition at all costs. But this is a dangerous position. If winning is the ultimate value, then we will be willing to sacrifice our ethics, morals, and our very souls to do so. But once we've sacrificed everything we care about upon the altar of the god of power and triumph, what will we have left? Nothing except a bunch of broken plastic bits, caffeine withdrawals, and a video testifying to how idiotic we look.

Share

What's in a Symbol (or a Flag)?

Share

A little over a year ago we had the same debate: Should NFL players stand or kneel during the national anthem. A little over a year ago I blogged about this. It seems like we're just on repeat now, or that America is simply a skipping record.

Honestly, I don't have much of anything new to say from last year,  but as we enter Round 2 of the NFL-National Anthem debate I have thought more about the symbol of the American flag. It seems that Americans have widely different perspectives on what the flag represents, and this lies at the core of our disagreements.

For most white Americans, we tend to see the American flag in terms of our country's ideals. For most white Americans, the flag represents the best of America. It represents freedom, sacrifice, justice for all, equality, and heroism. We speak in terms of the flag representing what we fight for. In light of this, it's only natural for white Americans to get offended when other Americans use the flag as a site of protest. For many of us, we realize our country is not perfect, but for white Americans the flag tends to represent what we hope to strive toward.

However, for many other Americans (and for others around the world), the flag has additional meanings as well. While the flag still does represent the ideals of America, for many minorities in this country, the flag also represents the institutions and governments that have often oppressed and discriminated against them. There is a realization among non-white Americans that the flag is not merely a symbol of our ideals, but also represents real people, real government, and real institutions.

For a Native American who ancestors were slaughtered by soldiers carrying this flag, the American flag can't help but be a reminder of genocide.

For an African American whose grandmother was denied the right to vote at a courthouse flying this flag, or whose father fought in a World War under this flag only to have the same nation's Housing Department deny him access to a home loan or GI benefits, this flag can't help but be a reminder of discrimination.

When an unarmed man with no violent history is shot dead in his car in front of a child by an officer with an American flag on his police car, the flag loses some of its luster.

And while many around the world do view the American flag as a symbol of hope, freedom, and leadership, there are also many around the world who have been harmed by our international policies and foreign wars and who see the flag as a symbol of American imperialism and meddling.

For people who have experienced oppression underneath the American flag, the flag does not just represent American values and ideals, but also "the republic for which it stands"--a republic they know too well to be harmful to their lives in its current and historic states.

In addition to these differences in perspective, the two go-rounds with the NFL have highlighted another difference. White Americans seem especially quick to connect the American flag to America's military, even when soldiers or military action are not even part of the discussion. For instance, none of the NFL players choosing to kneel during the national anthem have made any statements against war or America's troops. Rather, they hope to point out that the America the flag currently flies over is not the America we want it to be when it comes to race relations.

However, for many Americans (again, mostly white), any perceived slight against the flag it viewed as an attach on America's military and soldiers. The flag ceases to represent anything else and becomes a physical embodiment of our veterans' bravery and sacrifice.

This is very different from the perspective of those protesting. For those protesting, the flag can represent so much more than simply America's warriors. It can represent America's hopes and dreams, but also represents a government and a nation that currently do exist in reality, and that reality is far from perfect.

In summary, what we have is a clash of worldviews surrounding how to interpret the flag. For most (white) Americans, the flag represents America's ideals and war heroes. As such, it ought not be connected with our failings (which most white Americans prefer not to think about or like to pretend is only in the past anyways). Therefore, the flag deserves the utmost respect, even when our country does fail. Failing to show complete reverence for the flag is identical to disrespecting the values and ideals the flag represents (as well as the soldiers who fought for those values).

However, for other Americans, the flag cannot be disconnected from real places, real institutions, and real times. For them, the flag is not merely a symbol, but is an actual piece of fabric that waves over post offices, capitol buildings, armies, and yes, even over unjust actions. It's not that they hate America in its ideal form; they simply hate how America fails to measure up to the ideal. In this view, the flag is not infallible and is open to challenge the actual nation is flies over achieves the ideals so many have fought for. As Kaepernick stated last year, he will protest until "[the American flag] represents what it's supposed to represent."

However, until both sides can find a common ground on how to understand the symbolism of the American flag, we are cursed to continue talking past each other and repeating this conversation every football season.

Share

American Violence & Political Discourse

Share

This past week, comedian Kathy Griffin received much criticism and lost numerous business contracts due to a video she posted of her holding up a fake severed head made in the likeness of Donald Trump.  Many people on both the political Right and Left (rightfully) condemned Griffin's actions. Trump himself tweeted about how the images were disturbing to his children, especially his 11-year old son.

Kathy Griffin and Donald Trump

However, for anyone paying attention, much of this criticism seems a bit hypocritical because Griffin's video is merely the symptom of a larger problem in our society. Were the images Griffin posted offensive and disgusting? Definitely. But, it's also disgusting how often we tolerate such violence on behalf of our political party or our nation.

The truth is violence has always been embedded in American culture. Our nation was forged in the fires of violent revolution, and ever since then we have found ways to sacralize the myth of redemptive violence. We even have national holidays that strip away the ugliest parts of war and serve the public a cleaner version of "honor" and "valor." Looking at our history, we not only spend the most of any nation on our military (more than the next 8 nations combined or about 37% of the world's total military spending), but our country has also been at war for 224 of our 241 years of existence. We truly are a military-warrior nation.

But violence not only permeates the national stage, it also infects our homes. In American, 1 out of 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner or loved one at some point in their lives. Furthermore, this is not just a problem for any single demographic. Domestic violence cuts across all demographic markers--rich/poor, all ethnicities and races, urban/rural, educated/uneducated.

We even see violence infecting the world of sports. Much good work has been done recently on sports and the "warrior culture" within athletics that often fosters violence. Athletes, especially males, approach games as "battles," wear UnderArmour, and celebrate hyper-masculinity. Fans likewise get into the action wearing body paint like warriors, organizing themselves into tribes, and cheering on the events below. Some sports, such as football and hockey, have violence inherently built into the game. And who doesn't love to see a good hit or tackle in these sports? Sure, we might criticize the Romans for their gladiatorial games, but is the heart of our celebrations of violence in our arenas (and the insane amount of money we throw at them) really all that different simply because it's less bloody?

The point is, we cultivate a culture of violence everyday. We could go on to mention other examples. Violent video games, violent movies, violent language, gun culture, news that highlights murders and terrorism. This is the air we breathe and the water we drink.

So, it's no surprise that violence has infected our political rhetoric as well. Kathy Griffin was not the first, but simply the most recent example. Some of Griffin's most fervent critics were Trump's own supporters. However, there's a certain hypocrisy in this as these same individuals often tolerated (and sometimes endorsed) the violent discourse used by Trump during his candidacy. Trump frequently talked about assaulting protesters, argued we should kill even the wives and children of terrorists, and had to deal with a video where he bragged about sexual assault. Trump's violent rhetoric has spurred violence among some of his supporters as well, with one judge even stating Trump may be partially to blame for violence at his rallies.

And Trump isn't the only politician to talk about or use violence in recent months. During the campaign season, Joe Biden made remarks about wanting to "take [Trump] behind the gym," an allusion to physical violence not all that different from Trump's drooling over the "good 'ole days" when you could "just punch" someone you didn't like. Just late last month, a Republican congressional candidate was cited for assaulting a reporter just a day before the election. And yet, such violence did not seem to bother voters as he still managed to win his congressional seat. Likewise, following Trump's victory in November, a number of anti-Trump protesters started violent riots.

As we examine the use of violence in our political discourse, it's evident that violence is a problem for both sides of the aisle. This is because violence begets more violence. We see this phenomenon over and over. Police brutality and violence spurs violent riots. Wars against terrorism fuels more terroristic extremism. As Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

But, an interesting fact is that such violence in political discourse is not altogether new. Despite the fact that many feel like our country and our politics are going up in flames, the truth is we've always had violence in our politics. As mentioned earlier, our country's very inception was in violent revolution and rhetoric. And, throughout American history, our politics and political figures have always been marred by assaults and assassinations. We've even fought a war among ourselves over political differences.

In 1856, Senator Preston Brooks assaulted Sen. Charles Sumner in the U.S. Senate building.

Why is this? I suspect it is for the reasons given above--that we are a culture surrounded by violence and in love with violence. Such violence tends to become more extreme when we also throw in the forces of political polarization and hyper-masculinity/patriarchalism, but the seeds of violence are always there because it's embedded in our culture's DNA.

For Christians, this should be disconcerting as followers of a man who preached "blessed are the peacemakers" and who demonstrated that the way to overcome evil is not through utilizing violence, but through compassionate sacrifice.

To overcome this culture of a violent political discourse, Christians cannot wait on their politicians. We must start this work themselves. We must begin to replace the myth of redemptive violence with the truth of sacrificial love. We must listen more to the values of the Kingdom of God rather than to the values of the nation of America. We must heed the words of peace from our Lord and Savior, rather than the siren call of strength and power offered by our culture.

Calling out the violence of the "other side" is not good enough and often just feeds polarization. We must be willing to also name violence within our own tribe and party. And even harder, we must be willing to take a hard look at our own lives and confess the ways in which we participate, tolerate, and advocate violence in our day to day routines. Most of us don't assault others, but we do all fetishize violence in various forms, benefit from war, have misaligned concepts of "justice," use violence or aggressive language, and otherwise allow violence to sneak into our lives in countless other ways. Until God's people can learn to be a "people of peace" and teach others to do the same, we will continue to see (and support) a violence political discourse.

Share

Climate, Trump, and keeping perspective

Share

The big news this afternoon was that President Trump decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Here are a few thoughts:

1) This is an unfortunate abdication of American world leadership

Although exact percentages vary, one fact is certain--a majority of world scientists believe global warming and climate change are primarily the result of carbon emissions and human activity. And, contrary to many denial narratives about "global cooling" as the previous concern of scientists, climate change is not a new concern that simply arose in the 1990's. Rather, it has been a concern of scientists going all the way back to the 1960's, and warming was actually a bigger concern than "cooling" during this time period.

Even most oil and gas companies today publicly state their belief that climate change is real. BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron have all expressed support for reducing greenhouse emissions. One survey of oil and gas business professionals found that 74% of these professionals were at least "somewhat sure" that global warming is happening (58% were at least "very sure" or "extremely sure.") Furthermore, 57% of those individuals believed this warming is being caused by human actions, and 75% stated that humans could take steps to reduce global warming. Keep in mind, this is from oil and gas professionals, those who have a financial interest in denying human-caused climate change.

The bottom line is that mainline science concurs that this is a problem and that there are steps humans can take to reduce the problem. This is evidenced by the willingness of 195 nations to sign the Paris Agreement. If climate change was actually scientifically debatable, you would not have seen this kind of overwhelming support. So while climate change deniers often charge that this whole push is merely a plot by socialists to increase government control, the scientific consensus begs to differ.

Now, is it possible that the current science on climate change could be wrong? Sure. That's why science always runs tests to try disproving prevailing theories. However, up to this point, the scientific evidence lines up with current theories. As such, our nation's policies should heed the best available science and not deny it.

That's why Trump's decision is a failure of global leadership. If the science is correct, climate change does pose a risk to humans, particularly to humans in poor countries. It's clear the rest of the world recognizes this (indeed the U.S. has the highest percent of climate change deniers of any country in the world). As long as the science holds, it's inevitable that other countries, like China, will step up and continue to lead in this area. If the U.S. backs down, other countries will rise up and become leaders in technology innovation and energy independence.

2. For Christians, our concern should go beyond the truth or falsehood of climate change

For sake of argument, let's say that in 20 years scientists learn that climate change is not actually a human-induced phenomenon. Even if that is the case, Christians should still advocate for cleaner energy for a variety of reasons. First, there is no debate that fuels like oil, gas, and coal are polluters. Even "cleaner" versions of these fossil fuels still produce pollution. And the bottom line is that pollution is harmful. From a public health standpoint, we should attempt to reduce pollution as much as possible. No one wants to be breathing smog or drinking dirty water.

Additionally, Christians have a biblical commitment to creation. In Genesis 2, God places humanity in the Garden and gives them the command to "work it and take care of it." Yes, creation is for our enjoyment and use, but we are also to be good stewards of the good gifts God has given us. Furthermore, throughout the Bible, creation repeatedly has a voice in God's story and continues to come up as something God cares for but gets harmed by sin:

"God said to Adam...“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life." (Gen. 3:17)

"For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:19-22)

"Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; Let the sea roar, and all it contains; Let the field exult, and all that is in it. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy before the Lord, for He is coming, For He is coming to judge the earth." (Ps. 96:11-13)

"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:7-10)

There are many other such verses. For instance, many places in the Bible reiterate the point that the earth is "the Lord's" and that it  does not simply belong to humanity. Passages like Exo. 19:5-6, Lev. 25:23, and Ps. 50:9-12 all caution humans about their use of natural resources because ultimately it is God who created and owns the land, the beasts, and the fields.

With such a biblical narrative, Christians should be among the first people to advocate and push for more renewable and sustainable forms of energy that not only improve our health, but also the health and well-being of God's good creation.

3. Market forces will trump Trump

While many environmentalists are lamenting Trump's decision, the truth is things aren't that bleak. The reality is the economy, public opinion, and market forces will continue to push us toward cleaner energy regardless of Trump's actions. Sure, Trump may slow things down a bit, but we are at the point where fossil fuels are not likely to make a strong comeback. Even with low oil prices, renewable energy has continued to boom. And it's not just because of tax subsidies.

Like any new technology, the cost of production and operation for renewable energy sources has dropped significantly in the past 5 years. Solar, in particular, has become much cheaper to produce, even to the point where India recently scrapped plans for new coal power plants in favor of solar power.

Here in the U.S., many large corporations are demanding renewable and sustainable power sources. For instance, in the traditional coal country of Kentucky, companies like Ford, Wal-Mart, and Toyota have all expressed plans to reduce their emissions and have demanded cleaner energy. Toyota has even gone so far as to build their own sources of clean energy when the Kentucky energy grid failed to offer enough clean energy. Likewise, most American consumers want cleaner, more sustainable energy if offered the choice. Even entire American cities have signaled they'll ignore Trump and continue to abide by the Paris Climate Accords.

Furthermore, for all the talk politicians have done over the years of needing  to be "energy independent," it's worth noting that one of the best ways to do this is to switch to renewable and sustainable forms of power. There is no shortage of sun or wind in our country, and unlike oil prices, wind and sun are actually more reliable over the long run.

This means that even if coal, oil, and gas industries get a bump from Trump, the long-term outlook is still not great. With the forces of the free-market moving towards cleaner power, Trump will not be able to save many of these jobs, which brings me to my final point.

4. Jobs are an important piece, but we must expand our thinking about jobs

Trump's main pitch in this area has been that environmental regulations and support for clean energy have strangled oil, gas, and coal industries and have put people out of work. This is certainly partly true (although as pointed out above, market forces have had as much, if not more, of an impact than environmental regulations). One of Trump's main reasons for pulling out of the Paris Agreement was that the concessions in the agreement were "bad for jobs" in America.

One of the mistakes environmental advocates make (and that Hillary Clinton made in her campaign) is not taking seriously enough the struggles of families who rely on work in fossil fuel industries. Living here in Texas, I've gotten to know a number of individuals who work or have worked in oil fields, offshore oil rigs, and coal plants. They are good people and don't hate the environment or anything. However, they also need the income that comes from these jobs. As such, the necessary move to renewable energy is a real threat to their livelihoods and their financial security.

So, yes jobs are an important issue. However, we must also look at the whole picture. For the reasons stated above, we need to be making the switch to cleaner energy. Just because there are costs to an action does not mean we avoid that action. For instance, the government's crackdown on tobacco companies over the years certainly hurt those businesses and cost people jobs, but this was a move that needed to be made to promote the public's health. Likewise, there are equally good reasons to pursue an agenda to combat climate change and pollution. The challenge is how to do this while minimizing the damage and pain to real life families caught in the crossfire.

No one can really dispute that renewable energy is what will be used in the future. The only question is when the switch will be complete. Just like automated elevators, "horseless carriages," and automation in factories, technology will continue moving forward and changing the job landscape. Our task is not to oppose these inevitable changes, but to embrace them and change with them.

So we do need to talk about protecting jobs, but we need to do so in a way that neither Republicans or Democrats have done. Republicans typically just try to protect "dirty energy" jobs, while Democrats inhumanely try to put an end to those industries in favor of cleaner industries while real workers get lost in the mess. What we should be doing is supporting efforts to offer education, job training, and job opportunities for those in oil and coal industries. As clean power takes off, this will inevitably create new job opportunities both in the energy sector and elsewhere. We need to take advantage of this and help people move into new jobs. Just as we talk about moving to "sustainable energy," we need to do more to move people into more "sustainable" jobs. This should be a bipartisan effort.

Until clean energy advocates find meaningful ways to help those currently working in coal and oil, there will continue to be opposition to climate change initiatives, and rightfully so.
----------------------------------------------------
In summary, yes it was unfortunate that Trump bailed on the Paris Agreement (particularly when the U.S. had the option to modify the conditions without jumping out completely), but it's not the end of the world. The world and the U.S. will continue moving in a direction that will reduce greenhouse gases, but as we do so we must all come together from both sides of the aisle and talk about how to make these transitions as smooth as possible for everyone involved.

The Johnson Amendment and a Diverse Church Life

Share

Yesterday at a National Day of Prayer ceremony, President Trump signed an executive order directing the government to "honor and enforce" protections for religious liberty. He also said this order would make it easier for churches and pastors to engage in politics so their free speech would not be "bullied" or "punished." These comments were in line with others Trump has made in the past about discarding the Johnson Amendment and telling the IRS to use "maximum discretion" before penalizing churches that get involved in political campaigns.

Trump signing his "religious freedom" executive order on May 4, 2017. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

Admittedly, the actual text of the executive order does not actually change the application of the Johnson Amendment, but nonetheless, the general trajectory of this administration does seem to be to minimize or do away with it. And it's not too much of a stretch to think that Congress may act on this issue as well between the urging of Trump and the voices of some swooning conservative religious leaders. As such, Christians need to think intentionally about what such moves might actually mean for their congregations.

First, Christians need to recognize that the Johnson Amendment really does not pose a serious threat to their churches. The IRS has only investigated a few church violations of the Johnson Amendments in its history. There have been even fewer negative results as only 1 church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. One main reason for this is because the Johnson Amendment does NOT prohibit political speech from the pulpit or for pastors and ordinary Christians as Trump has often characterized it as doing. Rather, the Johnson Amendment simply prohibits any registered, tax-exempt non-profit (which many churches are) from endorsing a political candidate or participating in political campaigns of candidates (activities like donating church money to a political campaign). However, pastors and Christians are more than free to discuss political issues and positions. You can take positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, war, taxes, and other political issues from the pulpit all day long. You just can't say "this candidate is horrible" or "I endorse this candidate" or give congregants' tithe money to a campaign.

It's also important for Christians to note that the few investigations that have occurred have been opened against both conservative and liberal churches. So, when you hear Republicans like Trump depict the amendment as an attack on conservative religious values, please remember that this is simply not true. In fact, the original intent of the law was to target supposed communist funds flowing from non-profits into the campaign of Lyndon B Johnson's campaign rival.

The Johnson Amendment was proposed by then Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson

In short, churches have little to fear from this amendment. It's unlikely an actual violation will even get investigated (especially if you don't attend a megachurch with a famous pastor), and even if your church or pastor got investigated, it's even less likely that anything will come of it. But if it did, Christians would do well to remember that this would really only impact their tax-exempt status, not their ability to gather, worship, teach, preach, evangelize, or anything else.

All that aside, Christians need to think about this from another angle, namely the role of politics from the pulpit. After all, that's really what this debate is about.

Personally, even if Trump succeeds in repealing the Johnson Amendment, I strongly believe churches should still abide by its restrictions. Here's why:

When we allow pastors to start going beyond teaching general Christian principles or worldviews and let them begin advocating for specific candidates, parties, and policies, we run the risk of doing incredible damage to the health of that congregation. Let me give you an example.

A few months ago, I visited a church where the pastor decried "liberalism" as evil and as a sin in the middle of his sermon. This immediately turned me off for several reasons. First, his usage of "liberalism" was really nothing more than a scare word as the word "liberalism" is incredibly vague. What do you mean by "liberalism"? Are we talking theological liberalism, political liberalism, economic liberalism? Each of those are very different concepts and don't always go hand in hand. The use of that phrase was not substantive but simply a way to energize the rest of the congregation, who by-and-large held to conservative theological and political views, which leads to my second concern.

My second concern with the pastor's denouncement of "liberalism" is that it only served to further the uniformity and lack of diversity within his congregation. I don't personally consider myself a "liberal" or "progressive," but I tend to be a moderate who does happen to share a number of perspectives with liberals on some issues. As I listened to that sermon, I immediately felt excluded because the sermon's assumption (at least what seemed to be communicated) was that any liberal ideas (including political ones) were sinful. As such, I was to be viewed as an outsider to faith.

Now, if I felt that way, imagine how any number of my sincere, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, Christian friends who are much more liberal than myself would have felt sitting through that sermon. That pastor might as well have said, "Your faith is wrong and invalid. You don't really love Jesus or believe the Bible. You're not welcome here unless you repent."

Take that another step further. If we start having pastors condemn or praise specific candidates or politicians (haha, I said "start," when in reality I've sat through too many such sermons already), how is that good pastoral care or good church practice when a healthy church will hopefully have members who sit on both sides of the political aisle and who will vote for different candidates. Those members with different opinions will feel uncomfortable or maybe even be driven away from the congregation.

Even worse, what if a church donated tithed money to a political campaign. If there are members of the congregation who plan on voting for an opposing candidate, do you think they want the money they gave to the church to be used for a candidate they don't support?

At this point, I can hear some Christians say, "Well, if they want to believe differently they should just find a more liberal/conservative church to attend." But this is not how it ought to be! As we look at the book of Revelation, we see a picture of the people of God united together from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. The Kingdom of God is diverse. A few years ago, I heard a saying that aptly describes what the Church should look like: "Unity without uniformity; diversity without division."

Thankfully, many Christians agree with me that pastors should avoid becoming too political. According to Kimberly Winston of the Religious News Service, "A 2016 LifeWay poll found that only 19 percent of Americans agree with the statement 'it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service,' and a 2013 Pew Research Center survey that found two-thirds of Americans think clergy should not endorse political candidates." Nonetheless, according to research done by the Barna Group presented in the book UnChristian 10 years ago, one of the top perceptions of churches by those outside the church was that churches are "too political." Given the intensification and polarization of the political arena recently, I suspect that perception has not changed much in the past 10 years. It may be even worse now.

But this goes so much beyond the Johnson Amendment and politics. A few days ago, I blogged about how our lack of a corporate theology in the act of baptism reinforces homogeneous churches and potentially feeds racism in the midst of the Church. We so desperately need more diversity in our congregations!

Sadly, much of the way we teach and preach in churches is both the cause and symptom of this lack of diversity. Pastors and teachers within a church make polarizing, one-sided statements because there is no differing opinions within the congregation to put a check on them or to help those leaders think about different perspectives. At the same time, when such statements are made from positions of leadership, it also drives away any diversity that might happen to come through the door for a visit. It's an endless cycle of confirming uniformity, and this creates an echo-chamber of group-think.

So, if you are a pastor, teacher, or church leader (or even just a congregation member), please think abut your public speech within the church. How would your comments be interpreted or accepted by a Christian of a different political viewpoint, or a different race, or a different social class or country? Too much of what gets confidently declared as "truth" is actually more influenced by the micro-cultures we create within our congregation and community than it is by the Bible or God. So, whatever happens to the Johnson Amendment, let's be careful in our words and find way to increase cross-cultural dialogue and diversity within our congregations.

Share

Why Trump?

Share

I think I echo the sentiments of most Americans in saying I'm ready for this election to be over. But, we still have a few more weeks to go. So, I figured I'd address one aspect of my approach to this election cycle.

Typically, I try to avoid writing or posting things that overtly favor one party or the other. I personally consider myself a moderate and am registered as an Independent. Even when I have strong opinions about particular candidates, I usually try to avoid disclosing those opinions openly. This is especially true when bringing issues of faith into politics. I understand that many Christians have different opinions and that good people come down on both sides of the spectrum. As such, voicing my support or displeasure with specific candidates is usually not productive.

For instance, during the past 2 election cycles, I might have privately told someone who I favored if they happened to ask, but I did not go about promoting or attacking particular candidates on Facebook or my blog. I didn't have pro-Romney or pro-Obama posts in 2012 despite having a preference. I've never even gotten a yard sign or bumper sticker for a campaign because I don't feel people really need to know who I'm voting for.

However, anyone who has followed my posts over the past year know that I've gone against this personal rule in strongly advocating against Trump. Several have asked me why I have spoken so harshly against Trump. Well, I really have 2 main reasons for this.

1. Trump is a unique candidate, and one that poses a risk to our democratic system

Inevitably, some readers will say that it's not fair to attack Trump and give Hillary a free pass when "she's just as bad." A few thoughts here. First, the reason I focus almost exclusively on Trump relates to my audience. I grew up in a red state, went to college in a red state, and currently live in a red state. Most of my Facebook friends would identify as conservative Christians. As such, many of my friends and contacts are contemplating voting for Trump rather than Hillary. In fact, 65-70% of evangelicals still plan on voting for Trump.

It's not that I don't think Hillary has her problems (we could certainly talk about her lack of transparency, her overly pragmatic approach to politics, her desire for repealing the Hyde Amendment, etc.), but doing so would not accomplish much as many of the same Christians defending Trump go out of their way to slam Hillary. (I also find it a bit curious when people critique me for only going after Trump yet those same people don't call out other Christians who only go after Hillary). Needless to say, there's no need to preach to the choir about Hillary's faults, but there is a need to get people to admit the depth of Trump's faults.

Second, I really am not convinced it's fair to compare Trump and Hillary. It's like comparing apples and oranges (no comment on who is the orange). Truthfully, I don't see Hillary as fundamentally different from most presidential candidates that have come before. Most prior candidates have been opportunists, have lied to get votes, and have been involved in scandals. One difference is that she has been in public office for longer than most, giving more time for political scandals to come up and more time for the negative narratives and rumors of her opponents to take root.

Furthermore, much of the "Hillary-hate" and fear-mongering being floated out there consists of the exact same charges pronounced 8 years ago about Obama ("He's going to trash the economy," "He's going to take away all our guns," "Abortions will skyrocket," "He's going to declare open season on Christians," etc.). Yet, most of these fears never came to fruition. Some were simply false (the economy has recovered steadily, people own more guns than ever before, and abortions are at their lowest levels since Roe v. Wade). Many attacks also never came true because a President is not responsible for everything that happens in our country and is not all-powerful (for instance, they still have to work within the law and work with Congress). Needless to say, when I hear many of these same charges 8 years later I don't take them too seriously.

In short, I do think Clinton is a seriously flawed candidate, but I don't see her as "evil" or an existential threat to America or as something substantially different from countless candidates and Presidents before her.

However, I do view Trump as something different, and I don't simply mean that he's an outsider to politics (we've had those candidates before). I mean that the way he talks and behaves, the people he energizes, and the ideas he floats out there are dangerous. It's his boasting about sexual assault (and his supporters who incidentally support rape culture by defending him). It's the support he gets from groups like the KKK. It's the chilling ways in which he denounces free press and gets followers at his rallies to follow suit (I recently heard a Trump rally on the radio chanting "CNN sucks" and could not escape how eerily these chants resembled the chants of mobs following dictators throughout history.) It's how he feeds the masses' appetite for circumventing due process and promises to jail his political opponents like a third-world dictator if he wins. It's how he regularly spits upon democratic values and human rights. It's how he has claimed the military will obey his orders even when asked to do something illegal. It's how he talks about undermining a peaceful transition of power post-election and claims the election is rigged (but only when he is losing). And finally, it's how he normalizes lying and routinely creates his own reality when the facts are against him while a societal culture that also ignores facts and votes on pure emotion and rage.

These things truly do set him off in a league of his own, and it's a scary league. I've never felt a need to publicly denounce the political candidate I'm voting against, but Trump's gross immorality on multiple fronts, his lack of concern for Christian values, his ridiculous policy ideas, coupled with his disdain for democratic values and authoritarian tendencies simply cross the threshold where I feel a moral obligation to take a stand against him. Again, that's not to say other candidates are perfect or praiseworthy, but I see Trump as unique. I have still refrained from endorsing any other candidate or from publicly indicating who I am voting for (or if I'll vote at all), but I feel I must be public about my disapproval of this one campaign.

BUT...

2. My main concern is really with what Christian support for Trump says about the American Church

This is really my main reason for speaking out publicly. If it was just that Trump had gotten the Republican nomination, I may have had a few posts about him, but I might still largely stick to my public neutrality about political candidates. However, what has really concerned me about this candidate is the high number of Christians who have so willingly thrown their support behind him.

Before I go further on this point, it should be noted that I do make a distinction between core Trump supporters and those Christians who presently feel forced to vote for him (despite disliking him) simply because they are convinced "Hillary is worse" or because the fear of a liberal Supreme Court. I realize many Christians feel they have no other option. But, what really shocked me was how many Christians started supporting him back when there were other choices.

For instance, I posted this on Facebook over a year ago when the Republican primaries were still in their early stages:

https://www.facebook.com/micah.titterington/posts/803752807546

I felt free at that stage to comment on Trump because I thought for sure Republicans (and Christians) would reject such an immoral and outlandish choice. For me, it was more of a comment on a phenomenon than a comment on an actual, serious political candidate.

But I was wrong.

Now here we are, and to those Christians who were early Trump-supporters we have now added many more Christians who are reluctant supporters. Again, about 70% of white evangelicals still plan to vote for Trump (although it's interesting to note the number of pastors voting for Trump is significantly lower).

My concern with the vast Christian (and specifically white evangelical) support for Trump is three-fold.

First, it seems this support for Trump stems from several idols American Christians have served.

One such idol is political power. By confusing the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of America, many American Christians have become concerned that losing power or influence in Washington is an abomination. We fear it and so we fight violently against it. I suspect this idol is at the heart of arguments over the need to get conservative Supreme Court justices. But since when has God needed a conservative Court or President to do His will in the world? For that matter, since when was God a conservative (or a liberal)? While we may prefer a certain ideology in the White House or in the Courts, the truth is God is bigger than any human ideology or philosophy. At some point we need to ask how much compromise on our Christian values is too much just for the sake of gaining worldly power and influence. Ironically, we when worship political power, it's then that the powers take advantage of us and offer us nothing meaningful in return.

Another idol we seem to have served is the marriage of the Republican party and platform with evangelical Christianity. For several decades now, religious conservatives and evangelicals have aligned themselves with the Republican party in an alliance known as "the Religious Right." This alliance has primarily centered on the key issues of abortion and sexual ethics, namely opposing same-sex marriage.

However, this alliance became too close-knit and resulted in evangelicals confusing "conservative values" with "biblical values." Suddenly, you have Christians advocating for politically conservative ideas and baptizing them as biblical. But when you step back, many of these conservative values really have no better biblical backing than their liberal counterparts.

Flash forward to today, and this marriage between the Republican party and white evangelicals is so strong that many evangelicals practically consider it heresy to even contemplate voting for a Democrat or liberal. To call another Christian a "liberal" is intended as an insult and to question their faithfulness. (I should note here that the same can also apply to progressive Christians attacking conservatives, although evangelicals have traditionally wedded themselves to Republicans). But as alluded to above, God is not a Republican or a Democrat. Both parties hold bits of the truth. Both conservatives and liberals have policies that resonate with what Jesus taught, and both have policies Christians should denounce. Christians should never be considered a "reliable voting block" for either party.

Yet since this marriage exists, many Christians, particularly middle-aged and older ones (as many Millennials evangelicals are eschewing this mentality), feel compelled to vote for Trump. They've been conditioned to believe that liberal values are anathema or a betrayal of their faith in a way that conservative values are not. They've been trained by years of voting Republican that to vote Democrat is to vote against their faith and that only a Republican ticket is able to carry a Christian platform. Likewise, the two-party system of American politics have persuaded them that to vote 3rd party or to abstain is to "waste a vote," or worse, to vote for the enemy. But when we buy into this idol of Republican ideologies, we allow American politics to co-opt and corrupt our faith.

One final idol I see is America itself, and perhaps even democracy itself. "Make America Great Again" has been the mantra of the Trump campaign, but one wonders at what expense? What are we willing to sacrifice to make America "great again"? Are we willing to treat other nationalities as second-class human beings (if that)? Are we willing to promote torture and war? The fact is that America is a great place to live, but she is not holy. She is not God's chosen nation or people. Even democracy itself, while certainly my preferred form of government, is not inerrant or divine. After all, I suspect we won't be voting on who should be King at the end of the age. We shouldn't idolize "making America great again" if it comes at the cost of making the Church sick again.

But thankfully, as one of my former professors, Myles Werntz, pointed out, our glorified image of America is being shattered by this election. We've witnessed how nasty people on both sides can be. We've seen how sometimes our electoral system fails us. We've watched as the masses nominated the two most unpopular candidates in modern history. And we've observed countless people, including many Christians, back the anti-democratic, authoritarian rhetoric of Trump. Even I have been shocked over the past year at how much we actually look like other troubled nations in the world. We might think we are above violence and giving into the voices of oppression, hatred, and authoritarianism, but we aren't.

However, as Werntz points out, this can actually be a good thing. For when our idols get smashed, we are more likely to turn to the real thing.

Second, I'm concerned about how support for Trump will create deeper divides within the Church.

Of course there are always divisions between Christians who disagree about policies and who to vote for. However, this is not my biggest concern. I hope that our friendships and faith are strong enough to overcome these partisan differences. I know a number of people that plan on voting for Trump next month, but I hope we are still able to speak after the election.

Rather, my concern relates to the diversity within the church and how Trump's campaign is decidedly anti-diversity. As Christians, our primary allegiance belongs to the Kingdom of God, which is a multi-national, multi-ethnic reality. As I've written about before, citizenship in God's Kingdom means I, as a Christian, may have more in common with an Iranian or Iraqi or Mexican than with my next-door neighbor. The blood of Christ is stronger than nationality.

Contrast that with Trump's nationalistic, exclusivist rhetoric. He has instilled fear of Mexicans and Arabs. He has insulted the black community. He has retweeted KKK leaders and been endorsed by KKK leaders. He promotes policies that treat non-Americans as less deserving of human rights and dignity. Furthermore, his speeches have incited the worst kind of violence and rhetoric from his most ardent followers.

Think about this in light of the broader Church. Although I mentioned earlier that many "Christians" are voting for Trump, it's really just white Christians who will be voting for Trump. When you ask Hispanic Christians or Black Protestants about Trump, most of them strongly oppose him. Let's widen that even further. How do you think our brothers and sisters in Mexico, or Syria, or China, or Iran feel about us voting for Trump? If the majority of world leaders (excluding tyrants like Putin) look down on and mock Trump, I doubt many foreign believers think highly of him.

The fact that Christian support for Trump is mostly a white phenomenon should give us pause. It's most certainly not because all other races or nationalities are idiots who can't see the light (such a response would most certainly be racist). Perhaps we white Christians should pay a bit more heed to our brothers and sisters of color.

In other words, a second reason I vocally oppose Trump is because I fear Christian support of his candidacy will imply that the Church is racist, or that only white Christians matter. As Christians, is this really the message that we want to send?

Third, I have concerns with support for Trump because of how it will (and is) impacting the Church's reputation

Several years ago, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons published a book entitled UnChristian. In it they detailed how non-Christians in America predominantly described Christians in un-Christlike terms. Among the primary adjectives used were "judgmental," "antihomosexual," "hypocritical," and "too political." The Church already had an image problem long before this election.

Now certainly, we should not expect the world to always give us favorable reviews. Indeed, if the world is never critical we probably have a different problem. Jesus did tell us to expect persecution.

But at the same time, the early church was respected by outsiders for many things. Pagans didn't understand it and thought it was foolish, but they did admire Christian chastity. When plagues ravaged the Roman Empire and only Christians remained to help the sick, this drew admiration from non-believers, even if such actions were seen as suicidal and stupid. Or if we look at Jesus, his compassion and mercy drew large crowds. So while the Church will inevitably be misunderstood and opposed, the Church should be seen as attractive and praiseworthy by outsiders as well (1 Pet. 2:11-12).

One particular verse that has lodged in my brain this election cycle has been 1 Cor. 5:1. Here, Paul calls out the Corinthians for approving or ignoring an incestuous relationship in their midst. In response, Paul says this act is a double tragedy because it is an "immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles." It's one thing for Christians to sin, but it's especially egregious when that failing is recognized as evil by those who do not even know Christ.

This is what I see in our current election. Almost no one, Republican or Democrat, approves of the things Trump has said and done. Many of the things Trump has done or is alleged of doing (sexual assault, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, lying, defrauding workers, etc.) are things that even non-Christians almost universally condemn. And yet, we have many Christians willing to vote for this man, minimizing and ignoring these behaviors, and sometimes even arguing he is a "moral choice."

Here is my concern. When the Church weds itself to a political ideology and feel a duty to vote for that party's candidate, and when that candidate spews immorality from just about every pore of his being, how can the Church claim any moral authority? Look at some of the many hateful, disgusting, immoral things Trump has said that I've compiled; how can we vote FOR him? After all, we don't simply vote against a person, but are also voting for someone. The world looks at the church and laughs cynically:

"If you claim to be 'pro-life,' how can you support a candidate who never talks about abortion, is willing to kill the families of terrorists, approves of torture, and who will leave desperate refugees to rot and bleed to death?"

"If you claim to be for family values and against sexual sins, why do you endorse a sexually promiscuous candidate who has boasted of sexually assaulting women? You realize he once boasted about not taking care of his kids, right? The Church as pro-family values? Yeah right!"

"All your talk about morals, character, and righteousness is just a load of crap. All the church really cares about is political power."

"Did you see that another pastor endorsed and posed with Trump? Don't pastors usually preach on Sundays against everything Trump stands for?"

"Oh sure, you Christians say the Church is for everyone, but it definitely seems like the Church only cares about you if you're a white, middle class or wealthy American."

And on and on the inconsistencies come.

I've repeatedly asked pro-Trump Christians, "At what point does Trump become unacceptable? What moral failing makes him unelectable in your view?" Sadly, I have not heard a satisfactory answer here. If anyone answers, they usually just say: "If he were running against a different candidate," "If he changed his policy statements or Supreme Court promises," or "If he did what Hillary has done." But these are all lacking. They all point the finger elsewhere and ignore Trump's character. And for Christians, this should alarm us.

Again--and I can't stress this enough--I am NOT saying that rejecting Trump means voting for Hillary. I understand many Christians feel Hillary is also morally intolerable. However, there is no objective way to say that Trump is morally superior. Every single moral criticism of Clinton also sticks to Trump, and often with more force. If we must reject Clinton on moral grounds, then we better do the same with Trump, regardless of what he promises us. Anything less is hypocrisy. The faithful Christian response to facing two evils has always been to creatively and subversively choose a third option.

You can make an argument that engaging in politics will always involve some level of compromise (one reason why the Anabaptist tradition often eschews politics altogether), but at some point we must face the reality that too much compromise jeopardizes the identity and authority of the Church.

The current acquiescence of white evangelicals to American partisan politics is even more embarrassing given that Mormons (a tradition viewed as heretical in traditional Christian theology) seem poised to give an Independent candidate--Evan McMullin--the top vote in Utah. What's happening in Utah shows what politics can be when people of faith choose to stand up for their consciences against a system where they feel comfortable with neither side.

Sadly, it's a Christian heresy taking the moral high ground rather than evangelical Christians who are supposed to have a better concept of Jesus. Christians are called to a counter-cultural politic that challenges the politics of our society. We are to be committed first and foremost to faithfulness to God in all matters. If we feel neither major party represents our consciences and convictions, then the task is to create an alternative, not simply bow before the powers and hope for minimal damage.

But we have compromised and acquiesced. Polls have even come out showing that white evangelicals are MORE likely than non-religious voters to ignore and excuse immorality in political candidates. The facts are there. We are doing irreparable damage to the image and integrity of the Church. And this breaks my heart.

In summary, my concern is less a political one than a religious one. What happens after the election? If we sully our vote by marrying it to Trump and to a morally compromised Republican party (or Democratic party), what will that say about us as Christians and about the Church going forward? How will the world accept our preaching and teaching about morality and character if we sacrifice all that for the sake of political power and expediency? For me, I care a heck of a lot more for the Church than I do for my country because it's the Church, not the U.S.A, that's the bride of Christ.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. There's my confession. I hate feeling the need to post about Trump in this election year--and part of this compulsion is probably a weakness on my part--but I truly do see great harm in this candidacy that I cannot attribute to any other candidacy (Republican or Democrat) in my life. And while I have concerns about how irrational Trump-support can be and how Trump poses a likely threat to our country, the PRIMARY concern I have with Christians voting for or supporting Trump is the long-term damage it is doing to the Church.

I don't have a particular stake in either political party and I don't care who a person votes for beyond Trump, but I do feel an obligation to defend the Church. This is what Paul, Peter, and other apostles did. They called the Church to repent of her deficiencies and to "come out" of the world. It's a shame when the Bride of Christ blemishes herself with other lovers. And that is why I have been speaking out.