InterVarsity Fellowship & The Thought Police

Last October InterVarsity Fellowship (not to be confused with InterVarsity Press), released a 20 page document further clarifying its 2012 statement of beliefs. In this new document IVF required staff to not only agree with the over-all mission statement and moral conduct of the organization, but to not hold any private reservations about the theological statements of IVF. Generally speaking, para-church organizations have adhered to broad doctrinal statements due to the nature of being inter-denominational, but this was not the case here.

By requiring its employees and volunteers to not only adhere to a certain code of conduct but to “think” a certain way as well, IVF forced a number of dedicated staff members to resign. These staff members were trusted friends and confidants of at risk young adults from the LGBTQ community. By doing so Gay teens and college age adults were left wondering if IVF cared about them, or understood their needs and fears. Although Gay marriage was the intended target the church will inadvertently suffer as a result as well. When the church cuts off dialogue and “faithful questioning” (Derek Flood) the result invariably is weakened, not strengthened faith.

A few thoughts on the subject:

First, egalitarian marriage is a Kingdom Principal. In Christ there is neither male nor female. Submission and headship, when applied as a male-dominant theme is neither Christ-like nor does it represent a one-size-fits-all plan for marriage. If it helps, think of Paul’s admonition on marriage as what a “good” Christian marriage looked like in the first century, but that times have changed. Egalitarian marriage has not only been resisted by a patriarchal society historically, but has continued to be vigorously attacked by the church even as Western society has moved on and recognized a woman’s equal worth.

Traditional marriage proponents rely as much on traditional and historical sexual mores as they do on Scripture and it is, indeed, those mores that influence their understanding of Scripture. Conservative Christianity has, for centuries, tried to replicate and keep alive the “household codes” of first century Christians.

Secondly, in building their argument against Same Sex Marriage, IVF, in their literature, refers repeatedly to Wesley Hill as a shining example of the Gay Christian’s “proper” lifestyle of celibacy. Having read “Washed and Waiting” I can assure you Mr. Hill is not necessarily representative of Gay Christians, nor does he deal exegetically with the texts. In fact, the over-all take away for me in reading his book that this poor man is dealing with a great deal of loneliness and unnecessary anguish heaped upon him by well meaning but ignorant Christians unaware of the toxicity their peculiar views on Scripture have on others.

In using Wesley Hill as an exemplary Gay Christian, IVF makes a mistake common to conservative Christianity, that of taking a specific person or circumstance and reapplying it to the whole. This over-simplification of people by assigning them to one group and making broad assumptions about them is why so many moderns refer to conservative Christians as bigoted.

Thirdly, IVF has lost the ability to deal with the emotional and spiritual needs of LGBT youth in a pastoral manner, instead treating these individuals as a theological problem that needs to be fixed. Ultimately this dehumanizes, demoralizes and cuts off communication with a group of individuals who have historically been demonized by Christians.

Lastly, IVF is seeking unity through forced conformity, a mistake the church has made for centuries. This is by far, I believe, the most damaging precedent set here for IVF. Historically the reason Protestants split from Catholicism is that the Catholic Church was unable to allow itself to be questioned. By attempting to control even the thoughts of its staff members, IVF has effectively stifled any opportunity for change, or as Derek Flood says, “unquestioned obedience” takes precedence. This may work well if we were building an army of clones, but when dialogue is stifled in the church it is hard to see how our individual gifts can be used. We need to be able to agree to disagree, yet come together for the furtherance of God’s Kingdom. There is unity in diversity, something that IVF seems to have misunderstood.

Although, historically, IVF has taken a broad non-denominational stance on things like women in leadership, recognizing that various denominations that have a high-view of Scripture can differ significantly from each other, on same sex marriage they have made the decision to draw a line in the sand. This reflects the new test of orthodoxy within the far Right of Evangelicalism. It is my hope, that, in time IVF will reconsider its decision and allow more diversity of thought within its ranks so that it may present a more beautiful Gospel.
http://time.com/4521944/intervarsity-fellowship-gay-marriage/

http://religionnews.com/2016/10/11/intervarsity-authors-and-alumni-protest-policy-terminating-employees-who-support-gay-marriage/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october-web-only/intervarsity-asks-staff-to-choose-stance-on-sexuality.html

https://sojo.net/articles/roots-intervarsitys-line-sand-homosexuality
Justin Lee’s response to the IVF decision and critique of its “inconsistency problem” with the LGBT community:

Freedom vs. Love: When Freedom Prevents Us From Loving

I am reading Bradley Jersak’s “A More Christlike God, A More Beautiful Gospel” (https://www.amazon.com/More-Christlike-God-Beautiful-Gospel/dp/1889973165). In chapter three he contrasts two competing values in Western Culture: “freedom” and “goodness.” He makes the point that of the two, one will always be dominant over the other. Where we have recently seen this most dramatically portrayed in America is in the flack over building a border wall, Muslim immigration and in the so-called attacks on “religious freedom.”

In each of these three cases the safety of our personal freedoms and “rights” is the overriding principal governing protest and the push for legal protections. And in each circumstance someone else’s situation is negatively affected by the insistence on safeguarding our own personal freedoms.

As Jersak puts it, “We live in a culture that so totalizes freedom that anyone who presents an obstacle or becomes a hindrance to what I want is attacking my freedom. I will perceive intrusions on my way of life as the enemy, whether it is a family member, a foreign militant or a government regulator…impositions on my freedom are considered offensive and immoral–attacks–because my personal autonomy (self-rule) comes first.”
…”On the other hand, Christ commands us to love our enemies and to overcome evil with good. He calls us to make love our first allegiance–and his love frees us to do so. Freedom in Christ, ironically, is freedom from the tyranny of our own paranoia-producing self-will and fear-driven self-preservation, which we’ve tragically mislabeled ‘freedom.'” (P. 51)

When self-preservation and personal liberties are promoted by the church as a moral imperative, the result is a Gospel that ceases to be “good-news,” and the church loses it’s “witness” to the Love, Grace and Mercy of God. Extreme examples of this can be seen in the proposal to allow “open carry” on the Liberty University campus and the desire to build a shooting range there. Another sad example can be found in the recent un-Christlike comments of a well-known evangelist towards Muslim refugees fleeing the horrors of war in Syria and the bigoted and false statements made about transgender people by the Right in an attempt to deny safe bathrooms to them.

These are examples of how the church can slip into a self-serving frame of mind and lose sight of serving others first. In most of the recent conversations I have had with conservative Christians they have invariably supported blocking refugees, mass deportations and legislation against Gays on the grounds of preserving our freedoms as Americans and Christians. The argument goes something like this: “the government’s job is to protect us, the church’s job is to minister to others. The government has no business doing the church’s job.” While there may be some truth in that, the church on the Right, unfortunately, has not counteracted with an attitude of selfless love, but has applauded and encouraged self-centered actions by both church and state. In reality, the grasping for “freedom” becomes a bondage that hinders the true freedom we have in Christ to serve others.

Oddly enough, the insistence on my rights taking precedence over other’s rights is almost always couched in terms of “majority” or ‘who’s in control’ rights. Again the over-emphasized concern with majority freedoms at the cost of marginalized individual rights becomes a hallmark of a selfish church. The recent recension of transgender rights by the current administration was hailed as a triumph for the “privacy rights of all of the students who attend their schools” (Kerri Kupec, Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian group). As can be seen, the “freedoms” referred to are not truly freedoms for “all” but freedoms for those who are currently in control.

The church then becomes merely a defender of the status quo rather than a defender of the helpless and disadvantaged. Again, an odd development considering the Evangelical insistence to be seen as a disadvantaged minority, at odds with current society. At the center of this victim mentality is a core resistance to be inconvenienced in any way by the needs of others who are “different” than the traditional status quo, seeing it’s own “minority” needs taking precedence over other’s minority needs, all of which underscores the Right’s weaknesses in the areas of empathy and mercy.

While this can be understood from a political standpoint, it is hard to find justification for it among Christians. So what is the practical upshot of all this? As American Christians how do we wish our government to be perceived? Is it to be generous or does America hoard it’s resources, keeping them to ourselves? Do we expect America to only help others only when it is beneficial to her? Does the church “act magnanimous” while expecting the government to do the “dirty work” of discrimination and marginalization? A lot depends on whether we are selfish or selfless Christians and whether we see America as self-serving or not.

How can the church do it’s job of defending the helpless and those on the outskirts? For one, the church can step back from it’s current support for political actions that marginalize women, minorities and immigrants, remembering that it was once a persecuted minority and in areas of the world it still is. Political action should never simply be in terms of status quo or what makes us feel “comfortable.” Likewise, our fears should not be a primary focus on denying others help when they desperately need it. Ways to adequately meet the needs of the disenfranchised while remaining practical should be sought out. Absolute honest self-assessment needs to take place among America Christians to weed out those attitudes that are based on fear or loss of control.

In conclusion, it would be helpful to remember that Christ did not put his needs above others but calls us to a life where we “lay down our lives” for the benefit of others, family, friends, neighbors and even enemies (1 John 3:16, Mark 12:31, Matt. 5:44). The church cannot fail when it follows the example of Christ, the head of the church.

Science, the Bible and the Lake of Fire

It’s been an interesting week at work. A non-churched friend of mine at work approached me Tuesday all excited, handing me a flyer advertising a debate scheduled for Sunday entitled “BIBLE, Delusion or Divinely-inspired? Does Science Confirm the Bible?” It was billed as a debate between a local pastor and a representative of the local “Freethinkers” (atheist organization). Having shared quite a bit with him in the past about my Christian beliefs, he assumed I would be excited about going. I mean what could be more exciting than to have the Bible “proved” right before our very eyes?

A long pause ensued, during which an Evangelical friend of mine at work jumped in with “you’re going, right?”, more a declaration than a question. I shook my head, “no, I won’t be going.” “But why not,” he asked incredulously. Patiently, I tried to explain that this has been gone over before. Both sides have solidified their presuppositions and biases, and no one “wins.” I further stated I find these attempts at “proving” the Bible embarrassing and rather sad.

I asked my Evangelical friend if the early church’s growth was due to proving Scripture scientifically, or was it due to the cruciform witness and love shown by early Christians? Furthermore, the early church didn’t even have our Bible, which was not compiled for some centuries later. It was a good opportunity to share with my non-churched friends that the world doesn’t need “proof” of the Bible’s veracity. They want to see proof that Christ makes a real difference in Christians lives. They need to see the Gospel lived out in front of them.

I think that these debates ask the wrong questions, and give answers for questions that no one else is asking. If I were an atheist I wouldn’t concern myself with asking for scientific “proof” of God. I would be asking why 81% of white Evangelicals and 40% of white Catholics supported a candidate so antithetical to the teachings of Christ? How they could refer to his predecessor as the anti-christ, or call him unChristian while overlooking their man’s misogyny, bigotry, disregard for refugees and the poor. I would want to know why the president of the Southern Baptist Convention is facing possible impeachment due to his criticism of Trump’s actions and rhetoric. In short I’d like an explanation of why a group of people who claim to follow Christ act so much unlike him.

That was Tuesday’s discussion at work. Today we continued on with my friend talking about how his fiancée was thinking about them starting to go to church. I found this exciting, but also a bit perplexing. They had attended, a couple weeks ago, the church sponsoring the Bible-Science debate. He referred to the pastor as a “hell-fire” preacher, saved from a life of drugs and now preaching the Gospel. As I had already checked out the church’s website, I told him I didn’t think they’d care for it, as it was fundamentalist and non-inclusive. My own church was too far away for them to attend. What became perplexing was recommending a church in an area known for its conservative churches. (I recommended they try a couple Lutheran and Methodist churches in his area).

We continued talking about how some churches seem to talk a great deal about God’s wrath and people going to hell because they are so wicked and that it would be good to avoid churches like that. Well, wouldn’t you know it, another guy, not from our department, walks up and asks, “what are you talking about?” My friend jokingly said “we’re trying to find a church that will accept me,” (my friend is covered with tattoos and is quite…unrestrained socially), lol. The new guy quickly responded with, “well, we’re all sinners, I’m just glad I’m saved and won’t end up in the “Lake of Fire.” It couldn’t have been more apropos and when he left my friend and I discussed it. This was a sad example of having a relationship with God based on fear, of depending on Jesus to, basically, save us from God. This good cop, bad cop dichotomy of the Father-Son relationship in some church quarters is common. It presents us with a God who is quite different than the Jesus who tells us God loves us. I got to tell my friends that God doesn’t want a relationship with us based on fear. He isn’t out to “get us.” All in all the day ended well. I wonder what tomorrow will bring!

God bless.

Time Out to Contemplate…Waiting on God

I missed more than a month of blogging, not because of writer’s block, but because I needed to step back from “the fray.” God was reminding me that we are not at war with each other as Christians. I was becoming too invested in “proving” my views were God’s views, of winning arguments. During a particularly awkward moment, when in the middle of arguing about Trump’s ban on Muslims with a Christian brother as conservative as I was liberal, I ended with a rather self-righteous comment that he was a hard nut for the Holy Spirit to crack! As I closed my iPad it was as if God was whispering in my ear…”he is you!!” At once I was aware of how similar he and I were, despite our theological differences.

Of course God lead me to apologize and we ended on a good note a few days later. But I was troubled with how easily my zeal for the Lord can turn to strife. I decided to give blogging a rest while spending more time in prayer and contemplating God’s great love. What should not come as a surprise, was that God heard my prayers and opened my heart to a deeper understanding of Himself through Bradley Jersak’s wonderful book: “A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel.” …”What if God is like Jesus? What if the personality of God is identical to the personality of the man called Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels?” The result of Jersak’s book is atonement theology centered around a non-coercive, loving and sacrificial God who calls us to sacrifice as well.

I confess, I was quite taken aback by the concept, as most conservative theologies start with the defense of Scripture and move on to God’s attributes, His irresistible Will being a primary one. But as Jersak patiently explains, starting with either assumption will end up with a misunderstood Heavenly Father. In the weeks to come I hope to share more from his book with you. I believe it is the most valuable and challenging book I have yet to read on Christian theology. It is also the most lucid and convincing explanation of the Gospel I have come across.
God bless.

The Women’s March on Washington, Part 2: When Men Think It’s All About Them

This interesting Patriarchal Complementarianist interpretation of the women’s march on Washington was posted recently by Dale Partridge explaining why the women’s march was really about men and that our “dormancy” (insert dominance for what he really means) has required women to step up and take the dominant role (becoming men).

“Men, we cannot ignore last weekend’s women’s march. It was a complex moment fueled by historical wounds, ungodly political agendas, and broken desires. But at the root, it was a reaction to the absence of Godly men. A reaction to generations of fathers who never loved, husbands who never cherished, and brothers who never valued. It was wives, sisters, daughters, aunts, and grandmothers screaming the songs of oppression, of belittlement, and of confusion. Men, the women of our world are hurting for the truth. Their protests are also pleas to us for more love, for more value, and for more leadership. Men, it’s time we recognize the reservoir of wisdom that sits within our women. It’s time we see the value Christ placed on our counterpart. And it’s time to grow up, know up, and show up to the roles God has placed before us. Remember, when men become boys, women become men. And when women become men, our ladies carry our weight at the cost of their femininity. In turn, our dormancy is robbing what makes them so beautiful and distinctive in the first place. God has given men and women different roles. However, He has not given us different value. Men, it is time for us to turn to the women in our life, to pick up our heart, to stand in our responsibilities, and to remind them of God’s word on women, on the unborn, and on intrinsic value. The world will never thrive without their inclusion. Let’s make sure they feel this truth this upcoming year. Please share.” #DaleyWisdom (1)

This is a typical take on male-female relations that I heard time and time again growing up in the 70’s and 80’s. When men give up control, women take over, with dire consequences! The “Truth” Mr. Partridge of course referring to is not that in Christ Jesus we are one, that there is no male or female in God’s eyes (Gal 3:28), but that man was created to rule over the woman (Gen 3:16). In the 50’s the Religious Right concentrated their ire on communism. When JFK ran for President in the 60’s the attention switched to keeping a Catholic out of the White House at all costs. When that failed the Right was shut out of political control and needed a new boogieman to attack. That ended up being secularism and the Cultural Wars began in earnest. (2) Ladies and gentlemen, its all about control. The stuff about showing women more love, gently guiding them into their proper God-given roles, etc., all a smokescreen. When men stop treating women as inferior, as simple children that need to be led by “Godly men,” then and only then, will men get to know women as the way God intended, equal in every way.

I can do no better than this woman’s answer to Mr. Partridge:

Amanda: “Ungodly political agendas? Like equal pay?, access to life saving medical treatments like cancer screenings?, believing all people regardless of color or religion deserve equal treatment under the law? (Remember Jesus was a brown man from the Middle East and basically a refugee)
A reaction to the absence of Godly men? No it was a reaction to the presence of a very ungodly man.
My father loved me just fine thanks.
My brother also values me, thanks again.
Confusion? No I think you are the one who is confused.
Lose our femininity? Because we can take care of ourselves? Not even close.

I guess to sum it up, we marched against men like you telling us how we should feel or why we act the way we do. You are NOT my voice. You clearly have zero clue why we were there. And for you to put out some huge statement talking for the women who were there, stating the reasons, you think, we marched is patriarchy at its finest. Get a clue.”

(1) https://www.facebook.com/DaleJPartridge/?hc_location=ufi

(2) See Daniel K. Williams, “God’s Own Party, The Making of the Christian Right,” Oxford University Press, 2010.

The Women’s March on Washington: When Inclusivity Does Not Mean Everybody

The day after the 2017 Presidential Inauguration thousands of women have marched in Washington seeking to have their voices heard for women’s rights. The march has been promoted as an inclusive event attempting to bring together a diverse group of organizations:

“The marches’ many partners represent a range of causes, including the environment and criminal justice among them. Organizers represent all 50 states, and groups including the ACLU, Amnesty International, EMILY’s List, Muslim Women’s Alliance, Planned Parenthood, and United We Dream.” (1)

For a march that claims to support women’s concerns it is odd and a bit disturbing that 40% of American women have purposely been excluded. Women, who have moral objections to abortion were not included. This is unfortunate as these women share many of the same concerns as feminists do, even when they find the term “feminist” does not adequately describe them. With a president that is so blatantly sexist and abusive towards women, it seems counter-productive to weaken women’s causes by 40%.

“Though the pro-life New Wave Feminists still plan to attend, many women of faith were disappointed in the decision to remove their official designation. Christians spanning from Life Action founder Lila Rose to LGBT advocate Julie Rodgers spoke out on Twitter on behalf of pro-life feminists.” (2)

I suspect part of the problem is historical in nature. The 1970’s saw harsh criticism from Evangelical women such as Phyllis Schlafly against the women’s movement and feminism. Old wounds heal slowly. But things are different today. Conservative women of faith may be wary of their more secular sisters, but also feel a need to stand up against sexism, violence against women and inequality. Unlike their male counterparts, conservative women are much more likely to have empathy for women who choose to have abortions, and to see the issue as more complex and in need of compassionate solutions rather than punishing women such as the president has suggested.

Politically, the Left’s failure to encompass Evangelical and Catholic women was a disastrous decision that may have cost them an election. ““Progressives have a chance to build a broader coalition here, and they are blowing it,” tweeted author Rachel Held Evans.” (3) The “Painful irony of pro-choice stance of Women’s March is that abortion was likely THE issue to tip scales for evangelical women to vote Trump,” said Hannah Anderson, who writes and podcasts about gender and theology for Christ and Pop Culture. “If Dems could have entertained possibility of a pro-life women’s vote, they’d have won.” (4)

Unfortunately today’s feminist movement has taken a decidedly non-inclusive turn, largely due to the Pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America co-sponsoring events like this. While these groups do offer legitimate benefits for women, they have a underlying financial agenda, which raises concerns about a conflict of interest here. The end result is that the women’s movement has been largely co-opted by the abortion industry. “It further proves that this is what the abortion industry does,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life. “They have taken over any talk of feminism in the country to point out that if you are antiabortion, you are accused of being anti-woman.” (5)

Indeed, the new voices within the feminist movement have decided that a Pro-life stance is inconsistent with the goals of the movement as it is now described: “Elizabeth Velez, a professor of women and gender studies at Georgetown University, said that feminism is a political term and that the idea that women should be able to choose what they do with their bodies is fundamental to feminism…Feminism is more than finding personal satisfactions in your life; it’s a political movement, and if you are not part of the political movement, you can’t be a feminist,” Velez said. “If you are pro-life, you are certainly not looking at the struggles across all of us.” (6)

So what the feminist movement is now doing is splitting up women rather than bring them together. It is weakening the cause and marginalizing women who have legitimate concerns, many of which mirror their own concerns. Rather than offer a voice of healing it further polarizes and divides women who, especially with this presidency, should be uniting.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/21/womens-march-aims-start-movement-trump-inauguration/96864158/

2. http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2017/january/womens-march-sets-out-to-exclude-40-percent-of-american-wom.html?utm_source=ctweekly-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=17445998&utm_content=490529671&utm_campaign=email

3. https://mobile.twitter.com/rachelheldevans/status/821217133476675584

4. https://mobile.twitter.com/sometimesalight/status/821157188722970628

5 & 6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/is-there-a-place-for-anti-abortion-women-at-the-womens-march-on-washington/2017/01/17/2e6a2da8-dcbd-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html?utm_term=.64765b4a28bb

The Gospel of Coercion

In a recent Christianity Today article: CT, Evangelical leadership rejected any form of compromise with the LGBTQ community regarding “any legal efforts to protect sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).” While Mormons were able to work out a compromise, leading Evangelicals were not. This not only does not bode well for sexual minorities but will also hurt Evangelicals in the long run.

In an election year where White Evangelicals were seen as self-serving, homophobic, Islamophobic, mysogenistic and isolationist, this could not possibly help their cause. The reticence to agree to afford basic rights to sexual minorities stems from the belief that

“SOGI policies attempt to impose, by force of law, a system of orthodoxy with respect to human sexuality: the belief that marriage is merely a union of consenting adults, regardless of biology, and that one can be male, female, none, or both, again, regardless of biology. SOGI laws impose this orthodoxy by punishing dissent, and by treating as irrational the beliefs that men and women are biologically rooted and made for each other in marriage.” (Heritage Foundation research fellow Ryan T. Anderson and Princeton University professor Robert P. George)

“The Colson Center’s statement shares their position:
We have seen in particular how these laws are used by the government in an attempt to compel citizens to sacrifice their deepest convictions on marriage and what it means to be male and female, people who serve everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, but who cannot promote messages, engage in expression, or participate in events that contradict their beliefs or their organization’s guiding values.”

The irony of this belief is that Christianity has a long history of attempting to “impose, by force of law, a system of orthodoxy on Americans. I just read through the section on Prohibition in America in Stephen Prothero’s “Why Liberals Win The Culture Wars” https://www.amazon.com/Liberals-Culture-Wars-Even-Elections/dp/0061571296 You would think Evangelical Christians would have learned by now, forcing compliance to conservative Evangelical beliefs is not how you spread the “Good News.”

To define the issue as “religious freedom” is misleading. The Religious Right has become so thoroughly enmeshed in Conservatism as a philosophy it becomes increasingly difficult to detect the “Christianity” in it. There are many other sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle agendas going on in the Evangelical mind. I know, I was for many years an Evangelical.

First off, there is a dogged determination among White Evangelicals to regain a mythical past when America was Great (meaning White and Protestant). It is hazy when exactly there was a time when it was “great” for everyone concerned. Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Blacks, women, Native Americans, Atheists, Asians, all have been targets at one time or another of conservative Christianity. So there is a fear that America is losing the “White edge” we’ve had in the past.

Secondly, and this is a biggie, Evangelical theology dehumanizes people. Evangelicals may talk about salvation by Grace, but in practice grace leaves via the back door when doctrinal certitude takes precedence. I see this over and over in the forums and on Facebook. Evangelicals talk about how we are all sinners, but have very little ability to walk in another’s shoes. It is what happens when dogma collides with love. Case in point, Beth Moore stated the following when speaking to a large gathering of 18 to 25-year-olds in Atlanta during the 2017 Passion Conference:

“You will watch a generation of Christians — OF CHRISTIANS — set the Bible aside in an attempt to become more like Jesus. And stunningly it will sound completely plausible. This will be perhaps the cleverest of all the devil’s schemes in your generation. Sacrifice TRUTH for LOVE’s sake. And you will rise or fall based upon whether you will sacrifice one for the other. Will you have the courage to live in the tension of both TRUTH and LOVE?” https://serendipitydodah.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/moms-of-lgbtq-kids-respond-to-beth-moore/

Did you catch that? Doctrine trumps love! You end up not seeing people or their pain, you withhold unconditional love and administer correction instead. If this sounds like legalism to you, guess what, it is. Oh, and guess who gets to decide how to interpret and administer those rules? Yep, right again! White Evangelicals like Beth Moore.

It boggles my mind that a Christian could even say that in light of the sacrifice Christ made, not because we deserved it, but because he loved us in spite of ourselves.

Thirdly, nativism and bigotry disguised as patriotism. Sticking an American eagle clutching an American flag on the window of your pickup truck and posting “Like” if you support our troops on Facebook does not make you patriotic. Supporting individual rights, supporting more freedoms rather than refusing them, allowing others to have a say in Democracy, these make you patriotic. The Religious Right has always, always historically been about removing the rights of others. Freedom among conservatives, including Evangelicals, is far narrower than the concept among Liberals.

Which brings me to my final point. Liberty in America faces a far greater danger from the Right than from the Left. It is far easier to imagine a populist rightist movement promoting a sort of Christian fascism taking control of government than the Atheistic communism that Billy Graham warned us about. The ease by which Evangelicals came to support Trump is frightening. Not only did it reveal the hypocrisy of much of the Religious Right, but completely destroyed the credibility of the claim that Liberals adhere to situational ethics and the “ends justifies the means” while Evangelicals hold to a higher standard. What a bunch of BS!

In conclusion, I would like to state that even though my post might seem a bit harsh or bleak, the future of Evangelicalism is a big unknown at this time. There are small glimmers of hope here and there. A new generation of millennials, that identify as Evangelical, are coming up that are much more inclusive and skeptical. It is my hope they won’t listen to the likes of Beth Moore or Jerry Falwell, Jr., but think for themselves with their hearts as well as their minds.

Suggested Reading:

“American Apocalypse” Matthew Avery Suttton
“God’s Own Party” Daniel K. Williams
“Why Liberals Win the Culture Wars” Stephen Prothero