The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Rome

Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding of the church over the centuries has been related to how the church is to manifest the Kingdom of God in society. One of the main purposes of my blog and indeed, why, a half dozen years ago I decided to “deconstruct” my evangelical assumptions, can be summed up in a desire to better manifest the Kingdom of God. The gospel message is about the Kingdom of God and not, as in evangelicalism, about what you must do to avoid hell and “go to heaven when you die.”

When Jesus was asked by Pilate if he was the “king of the Jews,” his reply of “my kingdom is not of this world,” seems to have never fully registered with his followers in the centuries that followed. Looking at the social milieu in the first century we see a Palestine under Roman control. Israel has faced a number of centuries being conquered and reconquered by foreign powers. In other words, a theocratic state conquered and ruled by secular states. In order to survive and maintain some degree of power, the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Pharisees compromised with the Roman government. In doing so, they took on the methods of Rome: quest for power, control, wealth, in other words, their own self-interests. The common person was largely left out of the equation and reaped little benefit form the merger of church and state. In fact, they suffered because of it. 

In a blatant rebuff of an earthly theocratic rulership, Jesus declares the Kingdom of God is not “of this world.” This is something he conveyed over and over in his parables and is the central theme of the Sermon on the Mount: the Kingdom of God is not like early kingdoms. It is worth pondering for a moment. If God’s Kingdom is not of this world, was a theocratic state, i.e., Israel, ever really a “final plan” of God’s, or was it a misunderstanding, a tribalistic anachronism of Moses and Aaron’s? Certainly, the tribalistic, warrior God of early Israel seems at odds with the Heavenly Father Jesus portrays.

In large part, Jesus’ clashes with the religious leadership was over collusion. When religion merges with the state, it is religion that suffers or is diminished. So how is it that the Kingdom of God is to flourish among men (and women)? The key to understanding is scattered throughout his teaching via parable. Parables were a popular teaching method in the first century and allowed Jesus to be subversive to the Jewish leadership in a way that the common folk could understand and agree with, but not give legal reason for his arrest. It bought him time to get his message out before his inevitable arrest and murder by the state.

Jesus knew, no doubt, that his “good news” was good news to the poor, the sick, those rejected by the religious powers, but would be a threat to those who colluded with Rome. The growth and distribution of the Kingdom of God was not to follow an earthly blueprint. Like a tiny mustard seed it would start small and eventually snowball into something huge. But not by coercion or manipulation. Not by putting the Ten Commandments back in courtrooms, not by putting Bibles in classrooms, not by having compulsory prayer in our schools, not by passing legislation to deny women, minorities and foreigners equal rights, but by the selflessness of people sharing the love of God to others. For almost 300 years this was the paradigm of the early church, in stark contrast to the Jewish-Roman collusion, which did not end well for the Jews.

But, then, in the early 4th century, the emperor Constantine, a ruthless violent man, “converted,” i.e., saw the advantage of merging the growing Christian church with his secular power regime. The early church fathers, tired of the relentless persecution, did exactly what the Jews had done in the first century, they colluded with the enemy of the Kingdom of God. To some, this was seen as a godsend, the opportunity to spread the gospel unhindered by persecution. In retrospect it allowed a perverted and unhealthy church to grow in power, wealth and influence. In time holding the “keys to the Kingdom” meant the religious controlling majority could not only declare heresy, or anathematize “false teachers,” but arrest and execute those who did not toe the line.

History had repeated itself. The lesson that collusion with the state does not end well, as with the Jews, was a lesson not learned. The entire Middle Ages was squandered by the Church of Rome consolidating its stranglehold on Europe. And again, with the Reformation and it’s break with Catholicism, the same mistake of collusion was made. Some finer points of theology had shifted but the Reformers policies were straight out of the Catholic playbook.

Fast forward to the 18th century. Christianity in Europe had become, state religions. Dying institutions propped up by the secular governments as a way of morally legitimizing their harsh governments. Ah, the great American democratic experiment. Unfortunately, again a major misunderstanding of how the Kingdom of God operates. The cries of religious freedom were then, as they are now, primarily not about freedom for all, but freedom to practice particular forms of religion at the exclusion of others. Slavery, the seizure of tribal lands and subsequent displacement of First Nation peoples and the various persecutions of Catholics, Jews, Chinese, Mormons, etc., all an outgrowth of a nation who fancied herself, “Christian.” Yep, collusion again.

Someone once said that the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again, expecting a different result. This is what the American church is guilty of, colluding with the state and eventually expecting it to result in the Kingdom of God. The evangelical church over a two century period, enjoyed a tremendous growth, not only in numbers, but in power and prestige. It identified completely with the nationalist interests of the American government. The government, as conceived by the fathers of our nation, became an object of worship, in its romanticized form by the conservative church.

Any hint of change to the chummy relationship the church had developed with civil government was seen as an attack on “Christian values.” This is the tragedy of Trump Christianity: the Right has so thoroughly mixed partisan right wing conservatism with Christian ideals, that the Gospel of the Kingdom has been pushed out. Now, with the major shift in American ideology away from conservatism and towards equal rights  and inclusivity, the Religious Right is majorly threatened. It would mean the death of “church as usual.”

This is an observation I made a few posts back, that society is advancing morally faster than the Religious Right is. Society as a whole, is acting more Christlike than the church. The goal or methodology of the church, in its endeavor to bring the Kingdom to earth, is not to impose legal sanctions and laws against what it determines to be “sin,” but to simply love others, regardless, and seek justice, mercy and grace for all mankind. This is not meek pacifism, but a call to action. Actions that will have an effect on society for the better.

White Intolerance and Authoritarian Rule

What follows are excerpts from an interesting study on the “Trump Effect” in American politics. Link below.

“A new study, however, suggests that the main threat to our democracy may not be the hardening of political ideology, but rather the hardening of one particular political ideology. Political scientists Steven V. Miller of Clemson and Nicholas T. Davis of Texas A&M have released a working paper titled “White Outgroup Intolerance and Declining Support for American Democracy.” Their study finds a correlation between white American’s intolerance, and support for authoritarian rule. In other words, when intolerant white people fear democracy may benefit marginalized people, they abandon their commitment to democracy.”

“The World Values Survey data used is from the period 1995 to 2011 — well before Donald Trump’s 2016 run for president. It suggests, though, that Trump’s bigotry and his authoritarianism are not separate problems, but are intertwined. When Trump calls Mexicans “rapists,” and when he praises authoritarian leaders, he is appealing to the same voters.”

“Miller and Davis’ paper quotes alt right, neo-fascist leader Richard Spencer, who in a 2013 speech declared: “We need an ethno-state so that our people can ‘come home again’… We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy.” Ethnic cleansing is impossible as long as marginalized people have enough votes to stop it. But this roadblock disappears if you get rid of democracy. Spencer understands that white rule in the current era essentially requires totalitarianism. That’s the logic of fascism.”

“Black people, Asians, Native Americans and women were prevented from voting for significant stretches of American history. America’s tradition of democracy (for some) exists alongside a tradition of authoritarianism (for some). The survey data doesn’t show people rejecting American traditions, then, Miller says, so much as it shows “a preference for the sort of white-ethnocentrism that imbued much of the functional form of democracy for the better part of two centuries.”

“The Founders supported democracy as long as it was restricted to white male property holders. Today, our understanding of democracy is more expansive — at least in theory.

In practice, the GOP has increasingly been embracing a politics of white resentment tied to disenfranchisement. “Since Richard Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy,’ the GOP has pigeon-holed itself as, in large part, an aggrieved white people’s party,” Miller told me.”

“White people continue to decrease as a percentage of the U.S. population; at some point, it’s going to be impossible to win a national, democratic American election with a platform that alienates people of color. The GOP, seeing their coming demographic apocalypse, has pushed voter ID laws and other barriers to voting to try to prevent black and other minority voters from getting to the polls. In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker even attempted to delay elections for state seats that he believed Democrats would win.”

“The GOP has dug itself into such a hole on this that the most practical effort to stave off these impending losses is to disenfranchise the votes of the same ethnic/racial outgroups against whom GOP messaging has been stoking animosity,” Miller tells me. A party built on demonizing and attacking marginalized people is a party that will have to disenfranchise those same people if it is to survive.”

“Blaming authoritarianism on partisanship suggests that both sides are equally to blame for the erosion of democratic norms. But greater commitment to abortion rights and free healthcare in the Democratic party isn’t a threat to the foundations of democracy. The growing concentration of intolerant white voters in the GOP, on the other hand, has created a party which appears less and less committed to the democratic project. When faced with a choice between bigotry and democracy, too many Americans are embracing the first while abandoning the second.

“Social intolerance isn’t just leading to GOP support as we know it and see it now,” Miller says. “It’s leading to preferences in favor of the kind of candidate the GOP ultimately nominated and supported for president.” In embracing the politics of white identity, then, the GOP made a Trump possible — and is likely to make more Trump-like candidates successful in the future.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-effect-new-study-connects-white-american-intolerance-support-authoritarianism-ncna877886

Libertarian or Socialist: What’s a Christian to do?

Faith in action is, by nature, political. In other words, Christians and those of other faiths, when acting out their beliefs publicly, will, inevitably have political consequences. While I tend towards Anabaptist theology and world views, I tend towards political action, hopefully in a bipartisan fashion, rather than eschew political involvement. I do respect many within the Anabaptist fold’s decision to be “above the fray,” but personally feel a responsibility to vote and hold political leaders accountable. To be fair, Anabaptist’s teach that voting is a personal choice, and not a binding rule.

Something I have noted in the past year or so, is that there is a growing margin to the far left and far right politically. On the left in we have Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialists of America. On the right we have Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and an increasing amount of Christians who distrust “Big Government” on social issues. Republican politicians relish the socialist swing in the Democratic Party, as they can equate it to communism and its failures. On the other hand, Democrats can point to the callousness of libertarian ideals and its social Darwinism. Although libertarianism was on the upswing among conservatives before the Trump fiasco, aspects of it still find favor among evangelicals.

Simply put, evangelicals find the libertarian resistance to big government appealing when it comes to social issues like states rights, abortion, gay marriage, and freedom of religion, but reject its aversion to military spending. Also shared is the evangelical general belief that taxes are too high. It is an odd combination of smaller government, support for big business, a rejection of government mandating social reforms at the expense of personal liberties, combined with a willingness for the government to limit the personal freedoms of those who don’t share their evangelical worldview.

While I am not a fan of Ayn Rand’s survival of the fittest, I understand the appeal of “individual freedom through lower taxes and reducing the size and scope of government,” which a few years ago, was the view of 40% of Republicans polled. (1) No one likes to be told they have support financially, things they don’t believe in. However, as a Christian who is concerned about society, there are things that spiritually just don’t line up.

Conflicts invariably arise when Americans define the role of government. Although not strictly libertarian, evangelicals have remained fairly consistent in their criticism that the government spends far too much on social issues that would best be left to churches and private charities. The fact that those non profit organizations cannot possibly meet the needs of so many needy is of little consequence to them. I often hear “those that don’t work, don’t eat,” and the belief that the homeless and those on welfare are lazy and are part of a systemic jobless environment. In other words, only those they deem worthy should receive charity.

On the other hand, the lean towards socialism amongst Democrats raises fears among the Religious Right that they will be forced to tolerate or even support groups of people they mistrust or are in disagreement with. It is no secret that the reforms of the last 100 years are not viewed favorably among evangelicals, who see them as proof that America is sliding towards perdition. And socialism directly affects the pocketbook of Americans.

One should not discount the strong appeal that finances have on the libertarian impulse among evangelicals. It is costly to run social programs and subsidize non profits, especially if one does not agree with the aims of those programs. Hence the appeal of trickle down economics among evangelicals, which, ironically, has had little effect over the long haul on the typical American pocketbook, favoring mainly the upper 1% (2), or for community services like Planned Parenthood. The result of the evangelical love affair with a libertarian small government is an evangelicalism that sides with the wealthiest 1% and eschews government social reforms for some of the neediest and most marginalized in our society. This is totally backwards to the Kingdom principals put forth by the Messiah they are supposed to be following.

While quick to describe what they feel is NOT the role of government, they are eager to give power to the government to enact laws favorable towards evangelicals and unfavorable to non-evangelicals. This is where things get scary, and I think departs furthest from libertarianism. True libertarianism wishes to limit, as much as possible governmental control over the individual citizen. Evangelicals wish this for THEMSELVES but not for others. Pure and simple, this is a longing for a return to Christendom, a time when western governments supported and promulgated a form of Christianity that merged with government. A period that covered most of church history, both Catholic and Protestant.

While I am in support of the teachings of Jesus underlying our laws in principal, I am not in support of the church as institution validating our government. This has been an abject failure historically for society. Repeating the same mistakes of the past expecting a different result this time, is insanity.

So what about socialism? Well, despite the fact that it more closely aligns with Kingdom principals of “doing unto the least of these,” it promotes almost everything evangelicalism has rejected. The problem is that the Religious Right aligns more with a totalitarian, authoritarian view of the Kingdom, than a merciful one. Law and order (affecting non-whites mainly) and the freedom to discriminate freely against those who are “others,” has replaced tolerance and caring for one’s neighbor. The Religious Right has opted for a Kingdom that only they will feel at home in.

A few closing thoughts. We have, I believe, entered an ugly time in America. The conservative church has basically shot itself in the foot with its obvious callousness, selfishness and disregard for the needs of the “others” in society. There are and will be consequences. Civility in discourse, especially in disagreements, has died. While not the reason for the mess, Trump feeds off of and encourages the discord. He has tapped into a very ugly side of America, and the church has done little to dissuade him, and in most instances, sided with him. Where will evangelicalism be a decade from now? It will be far smaller for sure. It will be reforming and repenting, as the current leaders die off, are accused of sexual misconduct or are replaced by younger more inclusive individuals. But Christianity will never be the same again in America. And that, I believe, is a good thing.

1 https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/poll-republicans-libertarian-096576

2 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html

What do You do When Scripture gets it Wrong?

So I have been dealing this week online with the outpouring of vitriol and jubilation by my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ over the SCOTUS reversal on the Colorado Commission’s decision against the Christian baker. As you know, SCOTUS decided the baker did not receive a fair hearing. BTW, we should stop referring to these people as “Christian bakers” but rather as “Christians who bake.” Different meaning altogether, catch my drift? The SCOTUS decision, unfortunately will embolden more divisive and hateful behavior from the Religious Right who seem more invested in their perceived unjust treatment by society than any concern for the rights of others who have been marginalized and vilified for centuries, much of it stemming from the misapplication of their religion. 

I have waded into the fray and tried to reason with people, tried to bring God’s love into the equation, tried to get them to see what science shows us…but they will have none of it. When you have an inerrant scripture, no amount of facts to the contrary matter. Frankly, I am deeply discouraged. It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion and being helpless to stop it. As a nation we have not seen this level of divisiveness and hatred since the Jim Crow South, which conservative Christians were also deeply complicit in.

To simply say, “I believe the Bible,” reflects an incredible amount of self deception, as no one, no matter how fundamentalist, approaches scripture that way. It is dishonest to claim otherwise. So what do you do when scripture seems to accept slavery as a given in society? Or that killing your enemies or the families of one’s enemies is God-ordained? What do you do when the Bible tells you killing children is a blessed or fortunate event under certain circumstances? What do you do when scripture says sex outside of marriage warrants stoning? Or that when a man lay with a man, they both shall be put to death?

Accepting that slavery was morally wrong was a hard sell to conservatives in the South. The Bible “clearly” supported it. In fact, Southern Christians really didn’t concede defeat in the matter but sought ways to circumvent the abolition of slavery, and felt doing so was upholding scripture. The result was a simmering hatred of Blacks that resulted in 4000 lynchings and a continued animus that still plagues the Southern church. That anti-gay “scholars” such as Robert Gagnon don’t see a connection between the slavery issue and the Gay issue is a tragedy of self deception and spiritual blindness.

I am afraid the lesson of slavery was not learned by conservatives. Scripture is still being used to diminish the worth of the “others” that are hated and feared for their difference. It is as though the conservative Christian’s self-worth is determined by comparing themselves to the supposed debauchery of Gays. Just as a White male could feel superior by lynching Blacks and controlling them, today’s conservative wants to regain control over Gays via legislation that marginalizes them and allows for discrimination against them.

Southerners gave dozens of reasons, besides scripture, why Blacks were inferior or dangerous, none of which were true or scientifically supportable, but that didn’t stop them from treating them as “truths.” It is the same with the conservative arguments against allowing Gays to be Gays. When the conservative understanding of scripture conflicts with reason, science, psychology and the law of love, their small minded views take precedent over all else. To further bolster their hatred numerous untruths about Gays were presented by conservative leadership to lead the faithful into believing Gays were dangerous and would lead to the destruction of the American family. The SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage reflected the fact that the justices were not convinced of the truthfulness of those claims by the Religious Right.

Unfortunately, conservatives still struggle with how to be Christlike. Rather than seeing the trajectory of scripture leading away from legalism and a judgmental spirit, they cherry-pick scriptures that can be weaponized and used to exclude others from a seat at the table. If you’ve listened to any of Franklin Graham’s pronouncements it is clear that the gospel is, for many evangelicals, more about exclusion than inclusion. All a part of the delusion of the Pharisee that prides himself that he is not like other sinners. While the Colorado baker thought he was upholding God’s laws against same sex relations he was unfortunately breaking the greater commandment to love others, to serve others whether we approve of them or not.

So does scripture get same sex relations wrong? Does scripture get human sexuality wrong in general? It depends on what we are referring to. Many evangelicals seem to think the Bible has all the answers. It does not. The Bible is first and foremost a sort of “diary” of human thoughts and the progression of those thoughts, about God. It is not God talking about himself, but man talking about God, and what man perceives with his limited understanding about God. To assert otherwise misrepresents what scripture is actually. It is not a marriage manual. Many of the sexual mores presented in scripture are simply no longer applicable. They are culturally bound, and sometimes immoral in and of themselves. They’re based on ancient assumptions of male superiority and women as a reflection of man’s authority. They are also based on prescientific assumptions of biology.

Most evangelicals I have talked to and argued with have no interest in educating themselves or of learning empathy. The reliance on authority figures for their directives and a literal use of scripture to the exclusion of outside sources that may temper their views is disturbing. It displays a remarkable laziness in attempting to come to grips with a complex issue: human sexuality. You would think that the adamant declaration that all same sex activity is immoral and the resulting wish to exclude them would warrant a more thoughtful and thorough study. But it has not.

When presented with these objections, conservatives double down and revert to outdated sexual mores designed to keep heterosexual males at the top of the food chain. Let’s be honest. Few conservatives would claim having multiple wives glorifies God. Yet that is supported by an uncritical reading of scripture. Yet many of those same Christians would declare a woman cannot teach a man, and should not work outside the home. While polygamy is almost universally recognized as demeaning to women, Christian men for centuries have sought ways to circumvent this and still control women for their pleasure.

When it comes to scripture, it must be remembered that male dominance is the backstory. When talking about same sex relations it is necessary to keep that in mind. And that the backstory is over 2000 years old, that we cannot take an ancient culture, uproot it, and simply plop it down in the 21st century and expect it to fit unadjusted. Male dominance is still the backstory, some things apparently do not change.

““But let’s just remember it’s not about the cake. It was never about the cake, and it was never about this one case.

The larger takeaway here is that it’s not only PRIDE month … it is PRIDE month in 2018, FFS, and here we are still talking about this. Still in a fight about whether or not people who love each other are allowed to live together and have all the rights that implies; whether or not they are allowed to have cake; whether or not they are allowed to show up at church and have bread at the table. Here we are, Church, still in a squabble about who’s in and who’s out, who Jesus loves more, and who’s allowed to sleep with who.

This is not about the Courts, and it’s not about the cake. It’s about the Body of Christ needing to get its shit together and love people. All the people. 

“Maybe it was never about the cake, but you know what? We’re here for the cake. We’re here for whatever thing you have to fight for today, because we are in this thing with you until you don’t have to fight for it anymore. And also, we’re here for the cake because we just like cake. And we would love to have a piece at your wedding. But more than that, we’d love to have you at our table.” (Erin Wathen)

God, Country and Guns

This article on Sojourners got me thinking.  What we think about guns…While there is a definite “God, Country and guns” crowd, the dialogue needs, IMO, to center around how we as a society have historically seen violence as the best means of resolving conflict. America was founded on this principal. “Freedom” for men fleeing tyrannical political and religious systems in Europe meant coming to the New World and achieving freedom by taking freedom from those here before us. And how did we achieve that “freedom,” violently, by using guns.

As Americans we have a nostalgia for the simplistic “good old days,” when America was great and conflict could be resolved, not through a lengthy discussion, but quickly, and decisively by consulting Smith and Wesson. It was and is the ultimate male fantasy. We have seen, in the “heroic” portrayals of the dime store novels of the 19th century, to the propagandistic movies of war in the 40’s and in today’s video games, violence as a conflict solver is pushed on society from every corner. Think about movies you’ve recently seen. How many start with the good guy trying to reason with the “bad guy,” which inevitably fails and the bad guy has to be killed by movies end? There are some remarkable exceptions, see Gran Torino for example, but the trend is otherwise.

So some of the problem comes from our entertainment industry that perpetuates the myth that guns solve problems. The industry needs to be more responsible and less concerned with their bottom line. The other angle involves taking a realistic look at other democratic societies that have reduced gun violence. Ironically, you will find that they are some of the most progressive, secular and non-religious democratic countries, again underlying the fact that when conservatism and fundamentalism combine, the result is more gun violence. No doubt having less to do with being religious than seeing issues totally as binary, without nuance.

The current stalemate with the NRA is troubling. It is difficult to resolve because there is no financial incentive for the organization becoming more responsible. Nor an incentive for politicians on the right to resist the $$ coming from the NRA. We are talking a large amount of money! And of course, the gun industry profits from gun violence. So we need to go around them. One way to do so is through education. While right wing adults may be largely unpersuadable, children are more easily swayed. We need school curriculum to counter 200 years of gun culture. This will take time, but children are our future.

Parents too, have a responsibility. When I was growing up their was Bonanza, Combat and a few other gun centered shows. I played “cowboys and Indians” with the neighbor boys, but there wasn’t a constant barrage of violence on TV, video games and smart phones. I have seen these things become surrogate “parents” for our children and grandchildren. Parents, monitor your children’s digital recreation. A constant input of violence for entertainment is not healthy!

In the end, while we need to look at realistic and fair legal enactment, lasting results will best be achieved through better parenting, a responsible, more balanced entertainment industry and education in our schools.

Evangelical Thuggary

If you’ve read my brief introduction to my blog, you are aware my background is (or was) evangelical. When I first woke up to the realization that trouble was brewing in the evangelical camp, I did not know where this knowledge was going to lead me. The current culture wars that were being waged by the Religious Right seemed over the top mean spirited. As a concerned evangelical I thought there must be a way to better present the love of God for humanity. Having gone through the sexual revolution of the 60’s followed by the Moral Majority’s reaction in the 70’s and 80’s, I realized that there was a pattern here.

In both cases, the hard right conservatives within evangelicalism pushed for political control, both within evangelicalism and within the American legal system, drowning out more moderate voices within evangelicalism. It was becoming increasingly difficult to separate neo-fundamentalism from evangelicalism as a whole. As a result, I wanted to understand more of what it meant to be evangelical. So a few years back I somewhat timidly decided to step outside the evangelical “bubble” and get third party perspectives on the movement, especially the unique American manifestation of it.

The first books I read were “American Apocalypse, A History of Modern Evangelism” by Matthew Avery Sutton, and “God’s Own Party, The Making of the Christian Right” by Daniel K. Williams. It was an eye-opener. The history revealed was nothing like the rosy narrative of evangelicalism I had been taught. But it rang true as I had actually experienced a great deal of it coming of age in the 60’s, I had simply submerged it under the more flattering presentation of my chosen tribe.

I soon realized I was going to have to set all my beliefs on the table and begin to examine all in the light of the gospel. At this point I was still very much an evangelical, just a very concerned one. Then, when the Christian Bakery in Oregon refused to bake a wedding cake for the lesbian couple hit the news in 2013, red flags went up. Mind you, at this point I was somewhat typical of most evangelicals: SS marriage was not “Biblical marriage” in my thinking. But the thought of Christians refusing to serve others seemed so anti-Christian. Serving others, even one’s enemies, is so central to the story of Jesus, I could not wrap my brain around how anyone calling themselves a Christian could treat others that way. It also brought up memories of a time past when other Christians declared “we don’t serve your kind here.”

So the last 5 or 6 years has been a gradual move away from evangelicalism to a more inclusive, less judgmental faith in Christ. This was never my original intent, but after a few years I realized I had so little in common now with the tribe I had grown up in, that I was now outside that tribe. This has been confirmed over and over in my interactions since with evangelicals. I have dealt with trolls and bullies, Judaizers and self righteous bigots, my interactions, when they find out I am progressive, are seldom pleasant. There is an unfortunate tendency among the evangelicals I deal with to pummel and bludgeon you into compliance with their “orthodox” views.

I attempt to be thorough, critical and cite sources for my views. This is seldom met in kind. Thuggery and name calling is the more typical response. This seems to be the new norm among what I would call the “Fox News Christians,” the “MAGA Christians.” Evangelicalism is now defined in the public eye, largely as represented by the Christians that put Donald Trump in power. For evangelicals, this is a sad turn of events that has been almost 50 years in the making. Post-conservative and moderate evangelicals struggle to have their voices heard, and are generally drowned out by the thuggish majority that have found a champion in Trump, the much anticipated “Cyrus,” that will return fundamentalism to a major force in America.

This is not just my online experience, either. When I share Christ with friends and coworkers the apprehension is palatable. They assume at first, I am an evangelical. I have to get past that hurdle in order to share the gospel. People this is sad! It is only after they learn I am not an evangelical that they feel free to open up and share with me.

While there are notable exceptions, Beth Moore, Jen Hatmaker, Phillip Yancy come to mind, most I fear have been or will be drummed out of the evangelical camp. Like Andy Stanley and his recent sermon on “unhitching” from the OT, they will be deemed “heretics.” It is a relentless process of gradually cutting off any novel or critical thinking in favor of a Borg-like assimilation of all theological thought by the Pharisaical thought police. I do not think history will look back kindly on the movement. Nor do I think the neofundamentalists are going to suddenly become moderates. They taste victory and victory is sweet.

White House Correspondents Dinner: Is Civility in America Dead?

The White House Correspondents’ Dinners are usually a time of good natured fun at the expense of a current White House administration, with a tastefully concealed political barb or two thrown in the mix. Last night’s 2018 dinner was much more than that. Comedian Michelle Wolf’s comedy routine went far beyond a simple roast of the current Trump administration and ended up being a vicious character assassination of individuals in the White House who were in attendance at the dinner. If Ms. Wolf’s intentions were to garner ill feelings toward the Trump administration, I think she failed miserably. In fact, if anything she strengthened, among conservatives, the image that the mainstream news media is hopelessly elitist and liberally slanted. The mean spiritedness shown merely feeds into the Right’s sense of paranoia and sense of victimhood.

This morning’s ABC “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” guest hosted by Johnathan Karl and the ensuing “round table discussion,” confirmed my belief. The general opinion, with the exception of one panelist, was that the comedy was a low blow and not funny. The one who did not agree with the overall sentiment, defended her view by referring to the Trump administration’s hurtful actions and comments as an invitation to return bad behavior in kind. What happened to the liberal mime of “when they go low, we go high?” Out the window, it would seem.

I suspect a fair number of liberals found Wolf’s attack on Sarah Sanders’ eye makeup (as the result of her burning the truth and applying the ash of lies to her eyes) was something she got coming to her, as well as Wolf’s wishing a tree would fall on Kellyanne Conway, but these attacks only widen the rift between conservatives and liberals. Wolf’s routine was not an attempt to be funny nor to foster a feeling of accomplishment amongst the correspondents, but with Conway and Sanders sitting mere feet away from her, she had a captive audience to bully and belittle. It was embarrassing and humiliating beyond pale. She had an agenda of hate and self-promotion. 

Well, she may not have been a well known comedian before last night, but these things have a way of backfiring as we saw last year with Kathy Griffins beheaded Trump joke. People usually know the difference between humor and vitriol.

What concerns me most, and was the subject of a small survey of people on the Stephanopoulos show, was the growing anger and divide between Americans in the last decade or so, that divides friends and family. As Americans we have gotten to a point where we don’t listen at all to others, but only shout each other down. And we often do it in the most belittling and hateful ways. Technology and social media has enabled instant character assassination and the easy button to spam hateful rhetoric. I have family members who left Facebook because it just got too much. Family get togethers became increasingly more and more awkward as far politics was concerned, to the point that after last Thanksgiving we quietly requested that politics no longer be a subject of conversation at family gatherings. When strong and angry political views are present, dialogue and understanding is impossible.

And this is where we, as a nation, have arrived. One can look at a number of contributing events, and fingers can be pointed, but without a “time out,” and some introspection, it’s all just “wind and fury.” There is a lack of civility on all sides that acts as a rip-current, sucking everyone in its path out to sea. I know, because I too have been caught up in the current. As a Christian, leaning considerably to the left of many friends and family members, I have too often succumbed to a feeling of desperately trying to head off what I perceive to be the wrong direction they are heading, and end up sounding shrill or attacking. On line, in the forums, it is too easy to get caught up in the negativity and sarcastic remarks. I recognize I need to do better. 

As the church we, both liberal and conservative, have taken on the ways of the “kingdom of this world” rather than the “Kingdom of God.” Rather than speaking love and truth we end up sloganeering and jeering the “other” side. This is not Christlike. It has to stop. “Speaking the truth in love,” Ephesians 4:15, does not involve anger, bitterness, sarcasm or bullying. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Ephesians 4:29-32.

God help us all.