Alabama, and the Harsh, Judgmental Jesus

The recent shock of a number of Southern States passing laws prohibiting abortion and the excessive punishments to offenders left me in a quandary as to how to best respond. The pro-life movement in the US is largely a conservative Christian response to Roe v. Wade, involving Catholics, Evangelicals and the Republican Party. As such, there is no one consensus as to how to solve the abortion problem, nor indeed, a consensus as to when a fetus is a “person.” The evangelical lawmakers and Christians behind the recent draconian measures in states like Georgia and Alabama represent only one faction of Christians in the pro-life movement. I will call them the followers of a harsh, judgmental Jesus.

It should come as no surprise that the states most eager to implement these extreme laws have ugly histories of racism and denying civil rights: Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, the Deep South and Utah. And of course, the fact that religion in those areas tend strongly patriarchal, thanks to both Mormonism and the Southern Baptist Convention. What troubles me most is that those claiming to act on Christ’s behalf are resorting to punitive measures (punish the woman and her doctor) rather than looking at root causes. Poverty, systemic racism, income inequality, misogyny, unaffordable health care, childcare expenses and the resistance to sex ed in schools, all are contributing reasons why we have abortions. While we spend billions on war, the military and incarceration of more per capita than any other Western Democracy, we balk at spending for affordable health care, childcare and thorough sex education.

Although this punitive, judgmental wing of the movement does not reflect the entire movement, Catholics for example, are much more consistently pro-life, they have had great success in influencing the language and tone of the debate. What began in the 70s among fundamentalists largely as a knee-jerk reaction to the Carter administration’s firm stance against “segregation academies,” (Christian private schools that denied Blacks), ended up being an effective dog-whistle to rally Catholics and evangelicals to the conservative political causes of the Republican Party and the Moral Majority.

While there is no doubt in my mind that misogynistic patriarchy (men in charge of women), racism and partisan politics play huge roles in this judgmental wing of the movement, these are symptomatic of a larger problem, a problem that has dogged the church for centuries: a coercive Kingdom of God. The overt “dominionism” that has plagued the church for a millennium and a half, the misguided belief that the church is to use the same playbook as Rome, is to blame here. Rather than seeing Jesus as anti-Pharisee, Jesus becomes the Uber “law-giver.” Rather than forgiver, he becomes a Jesus who would force the victim of rape or incest to bear the pregnancy, and then, to not even offer to cover medical expenses.

This wing of the movement has consistently shown little regard for a true “pro-life” ethic, concentrating on the rather convenient “rights” of the “unborn,” and neglecting the rights of women, minorities and the poor: others that would inconvenience them and require empathy and compassion. Being pro-life in this manner requires little personally of these modern day Pharisees. No, they will suffer not at all from these laws, but will cause great hardships and sufferings, if implemented, on “the least of these.”

As the Methodist minister Dave Barnhart has stated: 

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.” (Facebook, June 25, 2018)

While I personally view any abortion as a tragedy, I recognize the moral “grayness” of much of the decisions we are forced to make in this life. Life does not offer us a series of clear-cut, black and white choices to make, in spite of what the followers of the harsh, judgmental Jesus would like us to believe. This is why I believe that, rather than letting the Pharisees control a woman’s womb, these decisions are best left to the woman and her doctor.

An Easter Service That Missed the Mark

So, Easter 2019 has come and gone, and it couldn’t have been more awkward or spiritually depressing. I was too disturbed emotionally to post an uplifting Easter message on my blog, so I shared one from another blog: Letters to the Next Generation which I had found inspiring. My wife and I take my 94 year old mother to her Assemblies of God church, the denomination I had been raised in, every Sunday. As I have “deconstructed” my belief system over the past half dozen years I have come to realize that my faith has become at odds with that tribe’s belief system and have been looking for a “graceful” way to transition to a more open, affirming church, but in the meantime…we are kind of stuck with things the way they are.

As usual, the worship portion of the service was vibrant and uplifting, as is befitting a Pentecostal service. Unfortunately, the sermon was anything but. The pastor is a good man and means well. He has all the pieces of the puzzle, as do many evangelicals, but doesn’t seem to realize how the pieces are supposed to fit. He follows the same tired pattern of fitting the pieces together that Bible School has taught him, ignoring the solutions that don’t fit the evangelical dispensational narrative and forcing pieces together that don’t quite fit.

He started with some humorous antidotes and pictures from his recent trip to the Holy Land, a sort of Mecca for evangelicals. He remarked on the serine beauty and foliage surrounding the purported tomb of Jesus and pointed out the emptiness of the tomb and the promise of life rather than death it and the surroundings denoted. So far so good… Then the sermon took a turn: he started comparing other religions to Christianity. He tried to spin things so that it appeared he was taking, not about Christianity as a religion, but a relationship, but in evangelicalism “relationship with Jesus” ALWAYS means “religion,” belief in certain orthodox doctrines. So his attempts at painting other religions as man’s attempts to reach God, and Christianity as true “relationship,” sounded hollow.

Then he expounded on a frequent hot button issue recently, and a big factor in the Religious Rights war on society: inclusivity. In describing salvation he likened other religions and those outside traditional Christianity to Little League players who receive “participation trophies.” In his mind’s eye there should only be winners and losers. Participation trophies are for losers. As in all evangelical churches I’ve come across, evangelicals are the winning team of course, while all else earn a place in hell, no matter how good their intentions or how sincere the effort. This obsession with declaring who the losers are permeates much of evangelical teaching and in my opinion weakens the atonement and declares the Cross a failure.

In building his argument he used the usual scripture: “no man comes to the Father but by me,” John 14:6, to be interpreted as exclusive rather than a declaration of what God has done through Christ for ALL. Oddly, he quoted Jesus’ words from the Cross: “Father forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing,” Luke 23:34, as showing what great love God has for us, yet didn’t see the correlation between the two different verses. This is what I mean by evangelicals have all the pieces to the puzzle, but don’t know how to fit them together. How can Jesus’ request to the Father be sincere if God’s love is conditional? Did God then say, “sorry Son, I know you mean well, but only a few will be forgiven?” The request becomes entirely rhetorical and utterly meaningless in evangelical teaching. And, of course, it puts Jesus at odds with the Father, another problem altogether.

Without getting into the early church teaching on Universal Reconciliation, which was the default for almost 500 years, I will say that Jesus IS the means by which all will be saved, and it is ONLY through Him that the Father has accomplished that, and that ALL will eventually declare Him Lord, and every knee shall bow Philippians 2:10-11. This is not a forced obeisance, a powerful overlord demanding worship from the vanquished, as some evangelicals believe, but the accomplishment of the fruition of the Coming Age, when YHWH is declared Lord of all. The evangelical God is too petty, too vindictive and to tribal to be Lord of All.

So in conclusion, a missed opportunity, a service that did not provide hope and was more bad news than Good News. A sermon that predictably followed the usual confirmation biases and settled for “alternate facts,” having the pieces but not following the picture on the box cover. So close, yet so far.

Ps. I don’t think I have stressed strongly enough the implications the pastor was suggesting in his attack or critique of “inclusivity.” In the “culture war” that the Religious Right has been waging, a war that has its roots in the antebellum South, the resistance to inclusivity has strong racial and sexual overtones. Although the sermon weaponized the Bible against people who fell outside evangelical conventions, historically evangelical exclusivity has been used to exclude, not just those of other religions, but women, minorities, entire races (other than Whites), and people of non-binary sexual inclinations. It is a White, patriarchal dog-whistle that divides, rather than unites people.

While I am sure that the good pastor was not intentionally implying those exclusions: most White evangelicals are oblivious to their subconscious biases, it was there, nonetheless. The problem with the whole winner-loser approach of evangelicalism is that it totally misses the point of Jesus’ interactions with women, Samaritans, sinners, outsiders and the Romans themselves. Jesus was very inclusive…it disturbed the leadership of Second Temple Judaism deeply, and like the frustrations of evangelicals with inclusivity today, brought Jesus into direct conflict with the religious leadership of Jesus’ day.

A point I hear raised repeatedly by evangelicals I interact with online, is the belief that Jesus was religiously conservative. I firmly believe, had he been so, he would have fit in nicely with the Pharisees and Sadducees of his day. He would have sided with one on some topics and the other on other topics. He would have simply been just another rabbi arguing the finer points of the Law of Moses. But he was not. His teaching was a shot across the bow of Second Temple Judaism, a call for religious conservatives to repent. I wish evangelicals could see the Pharisee within their ranks.

Finding God’s Purpose for Your Life

Recently proudly posted on a family member’s Facebook timeline was a story entitled: “THEY GAVE ME THE MIDDLE FINGER AT THE ALTAR,” by Jeremiah Johnson. In it Mr. Johnson told the story of a engaged young couple that came up front to be blessed before marriage (honestly I don’t know what that’s all about, but it must be something done at his church). In a moment of (I’m sure of pure wisdom), the Pastor asked if the couple we’re sleeping together. Basically he read them the riot act about God’s condemnation of them in their sin. Slut-shamed, they fled the church, giving him the finger as they ran out.

Just a few days earlier, the same family member posted a meme about the first slaves on American soil being 100 Irish children. A simple Google search and visit to Scopes, of course, proved it to be a reoccurring post started by White Supremacists to discredit Black slavery in the US. My family member didn’t think to check if it were true or not because they came from a background of White privilege. 

I love all my family members, but so many are evangelical “Trump,” Fox News Christians. And, of course, post things about the wall, immigrants, etc.  It makes me very sad. I attend (for now), an evangelical church, which has a discipleship program (as many do), to learn your “purpose” in life. Finding “God’s purpose for your life” seems to be a popular theme in evangelical circles, especially Pentecostal ones.  Books have been written about it. The teaching is usually geared to fill Sunday school teaching positions, welcome desk and greeters. But God’s purpose is clearly outlined in Jesus’ teaching: love God, love your neighbor, love your enemies. It’s that simple. Love abundantly, extravagantly and unconditionally.

The problem with evangelicalism is there is so many exceptions and strings attached to loving.   

Church: Giving Answers to the Wrong Questions

I am reading Diana Butler Bass at the moment, “Christianity After Religion.” Tucked away in the midsection of the book is some profound statements that I believe are spot-on in describing why traditional Christianity badly misses the mark when it comes to making a connection with the concerns and needs of modern Western society. Both traditional Protestantism, especially Evangelicalism, and Catholicism start with a concept of man’s sinfulness, that we are somehow “bad” in our core, and need to rid ourselves of that core to be forgiven. Usually unspoken but inferred, is that we should feel badly about ourselves and repent of that “sinful nature.” Sin, then, is basically pride in ourselves and the refusal to admit that we are “sinful.”

I understand how the church arrived at that conclusion, based on the gospel narratives involving John the Baptist, and of course, Jesus’ calls for repentance. But the church, in its zeal to be true to scripture, has failed to understand or acknowledge that, while “the field may be ripe for harvest,” the disease affecting the crop has changed. Hubris is no longer the issue. There is a different kind of “lostness” that affects Western culture, and the church exacerbates the problem by preaching against the sin of pride.

What was shocking about both Jesus’ and John’s message is how it attacked the notion that the Jews were automatically “saved” because of their birthright: being Jewish. They had a leg-up over the Gentiles. They had superior knowledge that their enemies, the Romans, didn’t have. It was this hubris that John the Baptist, Jesus and, especially Paul riled against. It insulted those in power: the religious leadership of the first century. It attacked the very foundation of religiosity: that believing the right things made you superior to those that didn’t believe the right things.

It is why Jesus chose a Samaritan, who didn’t believe the right things, to illustrate what a loving neighbor looks like. Imagine how that hurt the Pharisees’ pride! Fast forward to the 21st century and some things have changed, some things haven’t. We still have religious Pharisees, those who “believe the right things,” who call others to repent of their pride, not realizing that it is they who are prideful. But, I will let Diana Butler Bass speak for herself:

  As Western society has been overtaken by faceless consumerism and seemingly uncontrolled technologies, do men still feel like gods? I doubt it.

    Instead, in the last fifty years, most Europeans and North Americans—male, female, gay, straight, transgender, black, white, brown—have most likely succumbed to the sins of ‘triviality, distractibility, and diffuseness,’ having lost any real sense of self in a world of broken memories, entertaining technologies, and frenzied materialism. Indeed, philosophers and popular observers alike have noted that many people are now reconstructing their sense of self through nostalgia or consumerism. Saiving’s description* of female sinfulness has come to represent much of the human condition. Thus, ‘Who am I?’ may well be the driving theological question of the day and the starting point for reflection on spirituality—that lived experience of God longed for by so many people in the once Christian West.

   If sin was once seen as a twisted, self-centered quest to become God, then salvation was deliverance from self in order to become other-centered. If the self is a problem, then the church’s job was to help people diminish the self and make room for God. Thus, salvation was freedom from ourselves, our humanity, and our ambitions. The church taught that anything self-driven was evil and shaped communal prayer, ritual, worship, and penance around stamping out our humanness and striving instead for divine ideals of goodness. In the West, Catholics and Protestants took different routes to the same end—Catholics emphasized confession, penance, and sacraments as a way out of the human dilemma; Protestants (depending on the sort of Protestant) emphasized right belief, reordered hearts, and moral action as the paths away from sin. Fundamentally, however, the outcome of salvation was the same: pushing back, replacing or burying our human nature in favor of submitting to a transcendent—and often distant—God.

   This, I suspect, is the root of many people’s anxiety about church—that religion is the purveyor of a sort of salvation that does not address their lived struggles. So those who once ‘believed’ in this sort of salvation migrate away from the church, seeking instead something they call spirituality.

   Pride and hubris do not particularly seem to be humanity’s problem at the moment—they began to erode when the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima.

…Salvation is not being saved from ourselves, escaping some dreadful fate of judgement, damnation, and hellfire at the hands of a wrathful God; rather it is being saved to ourselves, finding what was lost and the joy of discovery in the hands of a loving Creator. Although the word ‘salvation’ has come to mean ‘eternal life’ in most religious circles, it is helpful to return to the word’s Latin root salvus, meaning ‘whole,’ ‘sound,’ ‘healed,’ ‘safe,’ ‘well,’ or ‘unharmed,’ as a way to understand the spirituality of salvation.”**

Understanding this, that as humans we have lost connection with ourselves, and each other, that there is an aching aloneness that pervades much of Western culture, the church would find connecting to the real needs of humanity and society much simpler. A simple illustration of this pertains to parenting. Is it effective to belittle a child with low self-esteem or is it wiser to to build them up, show them how much they are valued and loved? 

Ironically, the sin of hubris, while not a problem typical of Western society as a whole, does have a hold on the church. The danger inherent to any exclusionary social construct is that the included can feel “above” the excluded. Coupled with the belief that the church gets it right while everyone not in one’s particular religious click gets it wrong, only strengthens that conviction. Furthering the disconnect is the fact that people see beyond the facade, that those outside the church see that Christians are really no better than themselves, and the air of religious superiority is merely self-righteousness. The church would do well to understand that the gospel message of repentance and conviction of sin was largely leveled at the traditional religion of the first century. The message Jesus preached was, in large part, a deconstruction of status quo religiosity. The failure to see Jesus’ call of repentance as applicable to the institutional church is due, in large part, to the modern Western influence of “individualism,” the Western “sawdust trail.”

It is this over-emphasis on individual sinfulness that has blinded the church to its corporate sinfulness, explaining why it has been so hard for the church to see its own culpability in racism and sexual exploitation. Institutional religion is very difficult to reform from within. As we have seen in the SBC over the last few years, and more recently in the  UMC denomination, reform meets great resistance from those who rely on the “perks” their religion gives them, almost always at the expense of others. When individuals within the church see that it is all a power play, they leave, and those outside the church find their worst suspicions validated. Once seen for what it is, it cannot be unseen.

But the church cannot offer solutions to society until itself has repented. This is a core issue. Next, the church needs to understand what people need…what they are looking for. What they are lacking. Can the church meet that need? That people are broken is a given, but what is the fix? Simply quoting cherry-picked Bible verses about salvation no longer works. The way out of the situation is simple. Live Christ, be Christ, show Christ. I will further elaborate in a future post.

*Theologian Valerie Saiving, “The Human Situation: A Feminine View.”  

**Bass, pp. 181-183.

Is Evangelicalism a Threat to Democracy?

—Oh boy, where to start? The title sounds like click-bait, and I wish it were. As I have stated in the past, I grew up in the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world and 4th largest Protestant denomination. Although fiercely non-Calvinist, the denomination shares much of the same inclinations of conservative Calvinist churches. Although I have very little in common with the denomination now, I have always held out hope that they would move into the 21st century and leave the 19th century behind. This of course, is my hope for the Calvinist groups like the Southern Baptist denomination as well.

—The Assemblies is the fastest growing church body in the Global South where Pentecostalism is spreading like wildfire, growing 3 times as fast as Catholicism. While Christianity is shrinking in the Western Hemisphere, in Asia, Africa and Latin America it is growing rapidly. But there is a disturbing side to all this. Those countries have been politically swinging to the hard right as of late. Brazil is one such example. (1)

—Brazil has had its share of financial and political problems and scandals. Socialist reforms have, in large part failed in the Global South as a result of widespread fraud and governmental corruption. Pentecostals have been slowly building influence and political clout in Brazil. Tired of the problems in their country, they have turned to a right wing politician that has expressed disturbing views. I bring this up as it fits a pattern we are seeing among evangelicals: support for and enthusiasm for authoritarian leaders. They fit the pattern of populist support of right wing oligarchs that promise “law and order.”

—Instead of the Global South bringing a new perspective: a non-white perspective, to evangelicalism, we are seeing the same fears and xenophobia exhibited south of the border as we are seeing among white evangelicals north of the border. Any hopes I previously held in this regard for the state of evangelicalism have been dashed.

—So what does this have to do with democracy; it fits into a broader ultra conservative backlash that we are seeing around the globe; a pushback, if you will against progressive ideals. This is exactly what is behind the almost monolithic support among evangelicals for such an antichrist figure as Donald Trump: he feeds off their fears, and represents a past where they felt they were in control of things.

—The ironic thing about the “average” evangelical, American or other, is the sense of “patriotism” they feel they are exhibiting. But in fact, the controls they wish to enforce on others, the limitations on other’s personal freedoms, the restrictions on immigration and asylum, are antithetical to a free democratic society. What we are seeing among many evangelicals is similar to a “soft fascism.” The yearning for a regimented society, strict laws and an ultra-Nationalist viewpoint; all hallmarks of the Trump agenda as well as Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.

—As Trump has recently expressed, he is a “nationalist,” (2) so too are most evangelicals. Evangelicals in America have so completely identified with a white brand of nationalism that true democratic principals are almost impossible to find. Let me be clear; all forms of government are man made attempts to solve real world problems and evolve the use (or misuse) of power. Democracies, dictatorships, communism: all fall under the category of “principalities and powers.” As such they are more or less antithetical to the Kingdom of God as they operate on the principals of coercion rather than self-sacrificial love. But some systems allow more leeway for the principals of the Kingdom of God to operate than others. Fascism is definitely not one of those systems that allows for free expression of a cruciform church.

—This is what I have tried to express in past posts; a church that is controlling, that seeks power, that marginalizes others is not in the will of God. It is not reflecting the cruciform love of Christ. This is not only bad news for the witness the Church is supposed to have in society, it is bad news for a free democratic society. I didn’t think I’d ever say this, but I think evangelicalism has become dangerous!

1 https://theconversation.com/brazilian-evangelicals-swinging-hard-to-the-right-could-put-a-trump-like-populist-in-the-presidency-96845

2 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/texas-trump-speech-takes-turn-nationalist-181023143833295.html

Smallfoot: Too “Liberal” for Evangelicals?

Last week I saw a delightful little cartoon, “Smallfoot” in the theater. I expected a silly kid’s cartoon but was surprised at the postmodern message. I found it had a much deeper message than I expected. And of course, was curious to see the evangelical response as the movie’s agenda was to reassure kids that it was ok to question dogma, that it was not bad to question authority.

I won’t go into the details of the storyline but it involved a society of yetis whose culture revolved around the sayings/rules written on small stones and worn as a robe by the spiritual leader of the yeti clan. The stones were unquestionably excepted as propositional truth. Sound familiar? In short, the stones were devised by the “stonekeepers” to protect the yeti clan from the dangers “out there” beneath the clouds, i.e., humans.

The parallels to modern evangelicalism were not lost on the evangelical gatekeepers: the Gospel Coalition. The response was, swift and negative. First off, the author, Bret McCracken uses a typical evangelical response by reversing a fundamentalist principal and applying it as a negative to liberals:

“If one stone is wrong, then others could be as well,” one yeti says, voicing an argument that is suspiciously similar to liberal claims that any seeming inconsistency or scientifically implausible thing in the Bible means the whole thing is up for grabs.”

This is odd, because it is not actually a liberal statement, but one fundamentalists use constantly as a reason for the inerrancy of scripture. The Bible as a whole must be entirely inerrant or it cannot be trusted at all. It is the “house of cards” analogy that fundamentalist like James Orr (1844-1913) rejected outright as “a most suicidal position for any defender of revelation to take up.” I had a rather lengthy and unproductive dialogue with an inerrantist on my blog last year, Inerrancy At any rate, this is an entirely misleading and dishonest assessment of progressive thought on the inspiration of scripture.

McCracken goes on to state “Smallfoot joins films like M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village and Peter Weir’s The Truman Show (among many others) in showing how seeking truth can be disruptive and dangerous, but ultimately freeing. These films also show how safe, utopian communities, insulated from the dangers outside (whether in different people or different ideas), never work if they are sustained by deception and fear-based control.”

I wonder if Mr. McCracken actually understands how evangelicalism works? He goes on to declare that the above is not the problem but seeing knowledge as “power” is: “This sort of faith is about fear and control, suppressing knowledge in order to preserve power. And thus the flipside is also about power. Knowledge, curiosity, facts, discovery—these are framed in the film as tools of empowerment. Taking down the man. Breaking free from systems of control. Putting power in new hands. Getting woke.”

If only the religious right was not about power, but it is naive to think otherwise and this is where The Gospel Coalition’s blindside resides: the inability to see that the Religious Right is ALL about power. By nature, authoritarian structures are not question based, but based on the few in power who establish the rules of governance. I will address whether or not evangelicalism is a threat to a free democratic society in a future post.

”Taking down the man,” is the real fear here. Who is the “man?” Well, white evangelical men is the obvious answer. The framers of the Democratic experiment known as the United States…all white men. In American fundamentalist Protestant circles, yep, all white men. And what else is the doctrine of eternal torment and hell for unbelievers about if it isn’t about “fear-based control?” American culture has been framed almost exclusively from the perspective of white male privilege, including conservative Christianity.

Evangelicalism as a whole is based on “if-then” propositions. Only, the ifs are not really ifs but self-evident “truths” that are excepted unquestionably, and that my friend is what the movie is getting at. Roger E Moore is one evangelical who “gets” this and has written why this propositional approach among evangelicals prevents true reforms within the movement. The stones in the movie are accepted as “facts,” even though they are not. This is a problem when we approach religions based on doctrinal “facts,” especially when the truths are not self-evident and at times contradictory.

McCracken goes on to say, “The film’s obsession with power is certainly of a piece with the 2018 zeitgeist, where gender, race, politics, class, even the NFL, are partisan, bitter battlefields over power. To our shame, many evangelicals have indeed become more known for our desperate grip on power than our Christ-like, gospel-shaped lives. And grievously, science, knowledge, and “facts” have also become pawns in the great power battles of our time.

Smallfoot mirrors this dysfunctional world and sadly encourages the next generation to follow suit. It shrinks knowledge into a power play wherein we get woke and the old order gets gets exposed.”

In this McCracken unwittingly betrays the problem with evangelicalism and its interaction with the non-evangelical: it views itself in a cosmic power struggle with society, “gender, race, politics, class, even the NFL.” Rather than seeking ways to work WITH society to achieve a better world, the world’s attempts are suspect and to be avoided. Unfortunately, this puts most evangelicals and certainly their leadership actually working against a better, more loving and exclusive society.

The movie ends on a happy note with the barrier between humans and yetis torn down and the beginnings of a diverse cooperative society. But this does not fit the evangelical narrative at all. First of all, it removes the “us vs them” mentality that shapes much of evangelicalism. Authoritarian structures need inferiors in order to maintain their superior status. The Romans had the Christians, Hitler had the Jews. Fundamentalism has had numerous inferior people groups in the past: Jews, Catholics, Liberals and black athletes who dare suggest there is a race problem in America.

Secondly, authoritarian structures like evangelicalism and fundamentalism function on the premise that there is unity in conformity. Conformity plays a big part in the movie. The yeti clan moves along smoothly because no one is allowed to rock the boat. Let me be very clear about this, evangelicalism does not entertain much diversity. Authoritarian structures are not set up for diversity. They crumble under non conformity. Conformity was the strength of the Roman Catholic Church for a millennia. Because Protestants could not agree on the “stones” to follow, but still had to have absolute conformity, they split into numerous denominations, and at numerous times actually killed each other. So it is not the search for answers that is the danger here, but denial of that search in favor of a “hive mentality.” In fact, those in yeti society that are nonconformists are forced to meet in secret to avoid being astracized. Christians should do well to remember that once they had to meet secretly in the catacombs because they did not fit into an authoritarian society.

Perhaps a more balanced assessment can be found Here 

“One of the characters in “Smallfoot” says something like this: “Truth is complicated and can be scary, but it’s better than believing a lie.” Truth is what we should always seek. We should blindly accept nothing, and our Lord does not ask us to do so. He has given us a world which showcases His creativity and declares His glory. He has given us His Word which resounds with truth and reason. Its claims can be answered. Its Author can be trusted. Its Savior can be called upon. Faith is not blindly accepting the flawed traditions of men… it is trusting completely in the One who made us and sustains us. And when we do so, we see that empty traditions, the world’s lies and the secular teachings of mere man that we may have once believed now ring false.”

“Much of the allegory will be far above the heads of very young children but should provide lots to think about for preteens through adults. Can a lie be a “good” lie? Should we ever be willing to deny the truth in order to protect others? Is it okay to question what we have always been taught? I am actually thankful for a film which presents a platform for such thought… or better yet, discussion. Even if this film may have been intended to cause viewers to doubt religious teachings, it is always good to examine why we believe what we believe.”

And with that I agree. It is always good to examine what we believe.

—————————-

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/smallfoot-saying-faith-science/

https://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2018/smallfoot2018.html

Evangelicalism and Why Fundamentalism Matters

—I’ve been struggling for a week now trying to determine how best to approach my next blog post. I have recently been interacting with quite a few very conservative evangelicals, who are more fundamentalist than evangelical. The dividing line between the two is becoming increasingly fuzzy these days. This is due in large part to shared presumptions about the Bible, the death of Jesus and the shared view of premillennialism. Part of my hesitation has been due to not wanting to write a “hit piece” on evangelicals. I know a great many of them, I was raised in that “tribe,” and for the most part, they are very decent people. It is therefore quite frustrating, when in dialoguing with them, they discard the struggle for social justice and equality as a “distraction” from the gospel, or as a number have suggested, not a part of the gospel at all. This is especially ironic as the church itself has been a perpetrator of social INJUSTICE often in the past. (See: https://weseeinamirrordarkly.com/2018/09/20/the-church-as-contributor-to-social-injustice/)

—Two years ago I started blogging on WordPress. One of my main goals was to elaborate on and to learn more about The Kingdom of God as described by Jesus. Having grown up evangelical, I have had to fight past my own preconceptions, what I had been taught from an early age: namely that Jesus’ message was a message about escaping God’s wrath against mankind, and going to heaven. This is the gospel in a nutshell for most American conservative Christians.

—Along with those preconceptions I had been taught a particular time frame of events concerning the coming Kingdom, namely dispensationalism. In that school of thought a number of unrelated passages of scripture are woven together rather imaginatively to suggest the “End Times” will include a sudden “rapture” of believers (removal of the church), a 7 year period of “tribulation” of those left behind, persecution by the antichrist and the beast followed by a great battle where Christ returns and kicks $!&. Then the “millennial reign” of Christ would begin.

—This was uncritically excepted as “Biblical teaching” in all the churches I attended before Seminary. The majority of evangelicals in America fall into agreement to some degree or another with this belief. The fact that this is a modern interpretation and has no previous antecedent in church history seemed to matter not, as most churches I attended had little or no knowledge of church history anyway.

—The historical backdrop for this particular time frame for the Kingdom of God owes its development to a number of events toward the end of the 19th century. Revivalism stoked by fears over a rapidly changing America. The industrial revolution and the diminishing of rural America. Growing social unrest over women’s rights. Violent protests against immigrant workers, Italians, Chinese and Irish, Catholicism and socialism. For Americans that had taken White male Protestant privilege for granted, these were scary times.

—Into this mix came a longing to escape. From the perspective of many white Protestant Christians, things were going down hill fast. It seemed to many that we were in the “last days,” spoken of in scripture. “Nailing down” the minutiae of scripture concerning eschatology became an unhealthy obsession. Numerous prophesy conferences were called to set all the facts in order. Fundamentalists increasingly withdrew from society and viewed themselves as set apart from a perverse generation.

—As a result, fundamentalism grew increasingly inward and tribal. Society had become so “wicked” and the Kingdom of God wouldn’t occur until AFTER Christ returned, so the goal became to “reach” as many sinners as possible before the return of Christ and the removal of the church before the “tribulation.” 

The postponement of the Kingdom of God until after the return of Christ (post millennialism), basically absolved fundamentalists from any obligation to seek social justice before Christ’s return. It dovetailed nicely with the racism and social injustices of Southern Christianity. As a result a particularly ugly pattern of Christianity flourished in the Bible Belt bolstered by post millennial eschatology and an inerrant Bible that was used to support unChristlike behaviors.

—So what does this have to do with evangelicalism? Unfortunately, American evangelicals share some “DNA” from fundamentalists. Fundamentalism “birthed” the evangelical movement. Looking back on my own history within evangelicalism I can only surmise that the evangelical narrative is purposefully designed to obfuscate the truth of its racist underpinnings as much as possible as to present itself as standing on the higher ground in opposition to a degenerate world. In a way it is scapegoating, a primitive form of blaming others for wrongs so that in comparison one can feel better about oneself. It is a form of deflection.

This inability or unwillingness to “own it” when it comes to accepting responsibility for injustices is hurting evangelicalism badly. To be unaware or in denial of the past almost guarantees a repeat of past mistakes. And we are seeing that play out in real time. Of course, this is not true of ALL evangelicals, but there is enough unification of belief to talk about a monolithic white culture of privilege that pervades much of it. In retrospect, understanding how much race played a part in the narrative of fundamentalism, it should come as no surprise that the majority of white evangelicals simply do not see bigotry as something they need be concerned about.

—There are some encouraging signs that some evangelicals are concerned that the movement has steered too far to the right, but their warnings have largely been ignored by those in power. When these brave souls dare question the pervading evangelical juggernaut all hell breaks loose, literally! Books are removed from Christian book stores, speaking engagements cancelled, teachers fired, death threats are made. They are told they are being “too political,” (immensely ironic considering the pack of evangelical “advisors” bowing and scraping at Trump’s feet). The price of being a prophet has never been cheap.

—Unfortunately, the evangelical identification with the Republican Party has never been higher than it is now. This is not to say that the Democratic Party has God’s ear and the Republican does not. But it is to say that evangelicals have increasingly aligned themselves with a political machine that since the 1960’s, has sought to marginalize others based on ethnicity, sex and sexual identity. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the 60’s,70’s and 80’s saw a mass defection of Southern fundamentalist Christians to the Republican Party as a result of their former Party pushing social reforms benefiting blacks. The move was entirely racially motivated.

—Not satisfied with changing the face of the Republican Party for the worse, fundamentalists are at work trying to change the face of evangelicalism as well. This is underlying reason for the recent attack on social justice by John MacArthur, and why so many pastors signed on to it. The objections of moderates like Russell Moore have largely been drowned out. It does not bode well for evangelicals.

Further reading:

Mark A. Noll, “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.”

Daniel K. Williams, “God’s Own Party, The Making of the Christian Right.”

Matthew Avery Sutton, “American Apocalypse, A History of Modern Evangelicalism.”

Stephen Prothero, “Why Liberals Win The Culture Wars (Even When they Lose Elections).”

The real origins of the religious right: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133