2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

It would not be difficult to criticize the American political response to the combined blows of COVID-19 and the racial reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd.  It has been painfully clear as both of these unfolded that our current entrenched gerrymandered hyper partisanship is ill equipped to handle either crisis.  As a realist (some would say cynic) about politics I did not have a high expectation given the level of dysfunction that exists in the system.
It would also not be difficult to criticize the American cultural response to the pandemic and race relations, as there are plentiful examples that illustrate where our culture has fallen far short of any number of ideals.
As a minister of the Gospel, however, my primary focus is narrower than the entire American political and cultural sphere.  When I look at how self-professed Christians have responded to COVID-19 and the evidence of ongoing/systemic/systematic racism in America, the results have been little better than that of America as a whole.  This is not acceptable.  If the Church cannot be salt and light, cannot differentiate itself from American politics or culture through its increased commitment to a higher moral standard, especially in times of crisis, what then is the value that the Church brings to society, or what is the appeal of the Gospel?
Before highlighting the areas in which we, as a Church, have fallen short during 2020 thus far, let me explain why I often use the term 'self-professed Christians'.  The Church, in the tradition of Saint Augustine, is made up of both those who have already been saved (saints) and those for whom hope of salvation remains (future proselytes/converts).  As such, it will also contain within it those who are not currently being directed by the Holy Spirit, who remain slaves to sin, and who will likely therefore not be living up to the moral standards expected of those redeemed by Christ.  In addition, the Church today, like Judaism in the 1st Century, contains its version of Pharisees (self-righteous) and Sadducees (theologically misguided) who while not new to the Church, still lack the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because they have failed to live by faith.  In contrast with would-be converts, this minority within the Church is not actively seeking redemption as they wrongly assume they have already attained it.  To make a long story short, the Church will always have those within it who represent the Church without actually being a part of the Bride of Christ; they have joined the Church in the physical/social realm, but not the all-important spiritual realm.  Some of the criticism to follow is aimed at Christians who (should) know better, but have failed to live up to the high calling of being a disciple of Jesus Christ during these trying times, and some of it lands upon those who are 'in the Church, but not of the Church'.  As God is the only one who truly knows hearts, I won't attempt to judge which is which, for the call to repentance remains for both groups.  Lastly, I do not believe that what follows is true for the majority of the Church in America, although quantifying such things is difficult, it does however appear to me to be true for at least a significant, often vocal, minority, and that is concern enough.

So, how has the Church failed during the challenges of 2020 to live up to its calling?

1. By not putting Truth above personal beliefs
There are two primary ways in which this has manifested itself: (1) Denial of the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic in favor of a variety of politically expedient counter-narratives and/or the embrace of conspiracy theories.  (2) A refusal to admit that racism remains a real issue in America, even within the Church.  While uniformity of opinion on these issue is NOT required by those who would value Truth with a capital 'T', for those who would claim to follow a God who does not lie, the willing, often gleeful, embrace of half-truths and self-serving narratives by many self-professed Christians is a stark warning sign that all is not well in our hearts.  As Christians, we must be servants of the Truth, we must be those unwilling to utilize lies even when they seemingly benefit us, and we must be those willing to confront uncomfortable Truths, even when they indict us.

See also: Faith is not anti-fact, at least it's not supposed to be.

Being a Habitually Accurate person

2. By not putting service/self-sacrifice above freedom/rights.
Lost among the cacophony of noise about COVID-19 restrictions has been the call placed upon all Christians by both Jesus' demonstration of a servant's heart, and Paul's call to respect governmental authorities in Romans 13.  The requirements of Romans 13 are not absolute, and immoral laws are not to be obeyed by a moral people, but the words of Jesus, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35, repeated in various forms throughout the Gospels) have no limitation.  I previously wrote about dangers of a "You do you, I'll do me" attitude {"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview}. As the pandemic's role in our lives continues, there has been a noteworthy lack of Christian voices saying in one accord that other people's lives ought to be rated far above our comfort or preferences.  Again, this is not a call for uniformity on the question of how best to combat the pandemic, but simply dismay that so many Christians seem to lack a servant's heart when considering these issues.
Likewise, when considering racism in America, too many Christian voices have expressed a, "I don't see any racism, therefore it doesn't exist." attitude.  A heart of compassion, one built upon imitating the servant-heart of Jesus Christ, would instead consider the experiences and testimonies of our minority brothers and sisters.  It would also readily admit that my own personal experience is insufficient, that my anecdotal evidence is not the final word on the matter.

See also: My rights are less important than doing what is right

Why are we free? Galatians 5:13-14

3. By not putting humility and repentance above pride and stubbornness. 
We were never going to get the pandemic response exactly right.  We were also never going to resolve something as complicated and deep seated as racism in one fell swoop.  Mistakes were inevitable, some medical advice was bound to be proven later to have been in error, and some demonstrations against racism were bound to devolve into looting.  How do we respond to these imperfections?  As Christians, what do we do when the situation becomes muddled?  Sadly, there has been far too much chest thumping, and far too little listening.  Too many cries of, "Stay the course!" and far too little openness to change when new facts (remember #1's issue of Truth) become available.
Aside from outright heresy, there are few things as dangerous to the future health of the Church as pride and stubbornness.  When God's people close their ears to the moving of the Holy Spirit toward repentance, they drift further and further away from the will of God.

2020 has held up a mirror to American politics, culture, and the Church.  The results have not been pretty.  Some have responded to one, or both, of the issues with a proper Christian worldview and a servant's heart inspired by Jesus.  Perhaps those doing so may even be a majority of those claiming to be Christians, but the ugly truth remains that a sizable minority, numbering millions, have embraced falsehoods over the Truth, rely upon their rights more than their obligations to their fellow man, and are pridefully unwilling to consider change.  What does this mean for the Church?  Only God knows.  I pray for repentance, for renewal, for change.

"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

If you're like me, this meme below has floated through your Facebook feed at some point since the pandemic hit America.  It presents a binary choice that is not compatible with how contagions work in a pandemic, and of course makes it clear which of the two choices is to be preferred by anyone who is "not afraid" or who wants to choose freedom over the unspoken but implied opposite of tyranny.  Rather than delving into the topic of COVID-19 restrictions (which I'm guessing we're all tired of talking/hearing about by now), let us consider the foundational philosophy of this meme from the standpoint of a Judeo-Christian worldview, that is the way of thinking that is molded and shaped by Judaism (the Hebrew Scriptures) and Christianity (the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament).

A classic either/or false dichotomy

"You do you, I'll do me" is a very American sentiment.  It sums up nicely the Laisez Faire attitude of Ayn Rand {The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the Authority of God}, as well as the 'Rugged Individualism' championed by Rush Limbaugh {Pope Francis' views on Capitalism and Rush Limbaugh}, and the 'Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' mantra that is far easier said by those who had ample help in achieving their level of success than by those with extra hurdles in their path.  "You do you, I'll do me" also touches upon the American distaste for governmental authority, as evidenced by the ongoing popularity of "Live free or die" and "Don't tread on me" slogans.  It is then not surprising at all that the American governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic has created a backlash, nor that the heart of the messaging of the backlash is individualism.

What then is the disconnect between individualism, as evidenced by "You do you, I'll do me" and the Judeo-Christian worldview?

1. God judged Israel (and other nations) collectively regarding both blessings and curses.
The principle of collective judgment, whether it be positive or negative, seems incompatible with modern legal systems and with American civil rights in particular.  It is, however, one of the ways that God consistently acts in history.   When seeking to understand God's judicial actions in the day of Noah, or with Sodom and Gomorrah, with Egypt during the plagues of Moses, or with the inhabitants of Canaan during Joshua's invasion, it is impossible to comprehend the divine justice involved without seeing that entire towns, tribes, and peoples were being judged as a whole for the evil committed by some, many, or most of them {including their ancestors no longer living} .  That these passages are brought up consistently by atheists, agnostics, and apostates as one of their reasons for rejecting either the Bible as God's Word or the idea of God itself, should show just how difficult this concept is to square with modern views, particular those of post-modern Western peoples. 
Israel is treated the same way under the Covenant of Moses.  While there are examples of individuals being rewarded or punished for their actions, there also abound instances where the actions of a leader (think Saul's defeat at the hand of the Philistines) or of a significant portion of the people affect many others, including those who are in our minds, 'innocent bystanders'.  The point is simply this, my actions do not affect me alone, and your actions do not affect you alone.  No man is an island (to borrow the phrase from John Donne's poem), every action of both good and evil has a ripple effect, even if there were no God, doubly so when God's judgment is factored in as well.

Exodus 34:6-7 New International Version (NIV)
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

Leviticus 18:24-28 New International Version (NIV)

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

2. The repeated teachings of Jesus about responsibility for others.
Of the teachings of Jesus regarding our responsibility toward our fellow man, these three will suffice to demonstrate: (1) The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31, (2) The Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37, and (3) The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46.  When combined with his own actions in reaching out to "tax collectors and 'sinners'" along with the reviled minority Samaritans, lepers, and the demon possessed, it becomes clear that for those who wish to follow Jesus' example and heed his teachings, a philosophy which draws a thick line between myself and other people, for whatever reason, will be unacceptable.

3. The call for Christians to embrace the heart of servant.
Compassion for the needs of others is the beginning, working with a servant's heart is how we put it into action.  Jesus demonstrated this through word and deed, famously washing his disciples' feet before the Last Supper (John 13:1-17).  Likewise, the Apostle Paul was willing to go to great lengths, and set aside rights and privileges in order to fulfill the call of the Gospel:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version (NIV)
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Self-sacrifice for the greater good is at the heart of Christianity, as is laying aside 'my rights' to help others.

4. The Church as one body with many parts.
Lastly, the very idea of considering myself as an individual without responsibility toward those around me flies in the face of the way in which the Word of God describes the function of the Church.  The entirety of the Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians has value (in full here: 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), but the last three verses in particular make the point:

1 Corinthians 12:25-27 New International Version (NIV)
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Whether or not one agrees with any particular restriction or recommendation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the foundation for that belief cannot be, "You do you, I'll do me" if holding a consistent Christian worldview is to be accomplished.  Individualism is simply not a philosophy/morality of either Judaism or Christianity.  The same principle of collective responsibility holds true in the racial tensions involving the shootings of Ahmaud Marquez Arbery in Georgia on February 23rd, and the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25th.  While I may never be targeted for any form of discrimination because of my appearance, it is not 'their' problem, it is our problem. Know this: we share a common humanity with every oppressed and mistreated individual and group.  We also posses the clear teaching of God's Word that we were not called to individually pursue discipleship, nor to care solely for ourselves and are own family, but to an understanding of all of humanity as created in the image of God, of collective concern and responsibility which includes 'the least of these', and of service together to a cause greater than ourselves.  Stop thinking about you and me, we need to figure out what we can do together.

Friendly Fire? Why examination and censure by Christians belongs primarily on us, not them

I have been asked variations of this question, "Why all the focus on Christians?"  (Or conservatives, evangelicals, Republicans).  And while for some people, there tends to be a blind spot or rose colored glasses regarding those like themselves, that is a flaw that Christians cannot afford to indulge.  So then, if I interact more with the words and actions, including criticizing them, of pastors than lay people, that's purposeful.  When I focus more upon baptists, evangelicals, or conservatives, that's in part because of familiarity and the ability to understand where they're coming from and 'speak the language', but also partly an intentional choice.  The same holds true on the larger categories, with more focus upon Americans than the rest of the world, and more focus upon Protestants than Catholic or Orthodox Christians.  From time to time an idea put forth by, for example, a British liberal atheist may be significant enough (for better or for worse) to merit a response, but those on the outside of Christianity, while remaining the focus of evangelistic efforts, are purposefully not the primary audience of my preaching or teaching (nor by extension, of this blog).  Why?

1 Timothy 4:6 New International Version (NIV)
If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 New International Version (NIV)

24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Jude 3 New International Version (NIV)
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

1. The example of Scripture.
The book of Jonah is a prime example.  While the purpose of the book is ostensibly the journey of one of God's prophets to condemn the wanton immorality of the people of Nineveh, as the story unfolds it becomes evident that the real problem is not with the godless Ninevites, but with the prophet himself, who does not want God to show mercy to the enemy of his people.  Likewise, when reading the Gospel accounts one discovers that while Jesus certainly called all people to repentance, it was only the self-righteous Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-36),corrupt Sanhedrin (Matthew 21:12-13), and the people from near his hometown who had witnessed his many miracles but rejected him (Matthew 11:20-24) to whom he responded with anger or scorn.  When examining the Hebrew Scriptures, it is certainly possible to find God's anger directed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, or the Canaanites (whom he commanded Joshua to wipe out), but the vast majority of the prophetic utterances are issued against the failure of God's own Covenant people to obey the Law of Moses.  God does not forget the immorality of those who have not seen his wonders or heard his Word, but the focus of Scripture remains squarely upon God's chosen people, whether in the Old Covenant or the New.

2. Am I not my brother's keeper?
In Genesis 3:9, Cain famously asks, "Am I my brother's keeper?"  The answer to that question is, yes.  The Church of Jesus Christ is one body (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-30), and while we have individual congregations and separate denominations, what is going on in other parts of the body of Christ affects us all.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon those called to shepherd the various flocks in God's pasture, that we be on the lookout for wolves, even if they are not targeting our flock directly.  Likewise, the integrity and reputation of the Church as a whole, and all those who make up its many parts, is of concern to all of us.   Dangerous ideas within the body of Christ are a cancer, if left unchecked they will spread.  The great Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church offer us an example as they brought together leading Church authorities from across the Roman Empire (and beyond) to by consensus condemn with one voice the heresies denying the deity and humanity of Jesus.  In our much more divided global Church, it would be impossible to duplicate their unanimity (316 out of 318 bishops voted in favor of the Council of Nicaea's decree), but the example of contending together for the sake of the purity of the Gospel and the health of the Church remains for us to emulate. 

3. The Gospel I preach is affected by the Gospel preached by others.
When the true Gospel is preached from any pulpit, we all benefit, and when a false gospel is spread, we all suffer.  It is not the duty of the Lost to make a distinction between Steven Anderson's Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, AZ and that of Pastor Randy Powell's First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA.  It would make my life easier if nobody gave credence to ministers who spread heresy or who are in this profession to seek wealth and fame, let alone those who will eventually be caught in a sex scandal, but it is certainly not a realistic expectation.  I have been asked, "What's the connection between your church and Westboro Baptist?" (Topeka, KS)  Fortunately, there is no direct connection, but the prominent use of the name Baptist in every story about that church's protests at the funerals of fallen American soldiers is a stain that all of us who share the name must bear.  {A similar burden falls upon our Catholic brothers and sisters following the child sex abuse scandal, although that shame has since spread to other denominations too.}
Like it or not, the world connects us to the charlatans, whether they be fake faith healers, those telling their audience that God wants them to have a private jet (naturally connected to the request for $), the outright heretics, and those simply consumed with hatred (wrongly) in God's name.  Thus, for the sake of the Gospel mission, a "Christian" minister preaching death to homosexuals or a holy war against Islam is far more dangerous than a secular humanist praising abortion or a Muslim Jihadist preaching "Death to America!".

4. I hold us to a higher standard (as does God).
Those who are Lost, who are enmeshed in the world's false promises can be expected to live their lives by a moral code that falls short of the Law of God.  This is not unexpected, nor is it even correctable as those who live outside of the Covenant do not have the Spirit of God to empower them.  The best of those living apart from God seek to follow a noble morality while falling short as all people do, while the worst embrace the rebellion of hedonism and narcissism.  The people of God, however, are called to a higher standard.  The Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) being a monumental way to live, and one certainly only within our grasp through both God's power and his grace, nevertheless it is this very standard of Christ-like behavior by which we must judge both ourselves and the rest of our fellow Christians.
What about, "Judge not lest ye be judged?"  This oft misunderstood passage (Matthew 7:1-5) ends with this key thought, "and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."  It is not the suspension of all judgment, as if each individual Christian is an island unto him/herself, which would not fit well at all with Paul's vision of the members of the Church as part of the same body, but rather a strong warning against judgment that is not self-aware and thus hypocritical.  As I was told many years ago, before you preach a sermon, preach it to yourself first.  I certainly do not claim to be entirely free of the faults that infect the body of Christ, nor even of the ones that I have pointed out over the years when refuting the actions/words of others, but imperfect vessels are the only type of preacher that Christ has to work with, and we must hold ourselves, our congregations, and the Church as a whole to a higher standard.

5. There is ample criticism, already, of the immorality of the world from a variety of Christian sources.
One of the additional reasons why I spend less time railing against the 'godless abortion providers' or the 'Hollywood heathens' (to pick two random ones among the many potential targets) is that those topics are already being covered many times over by voices that represent, rightly or wrongly, Christianity .  At some point, this criticism becomes counter-productive, sounding in the ears of the Lost like the condescension of the Pharisees toward the "tax collectors and 'sinners'", rather than Jesus' compassionate "Go now, and leave your life of sin."  In the end, those who need Jesus will more often be swayed by Christians living morally upright lives who build personal bonds with them out of genuine compassion, than they will by fiery denouncements from the pulpit.  There is a time and a place for pronouncements from God's Word against the World, but for many Christians it has become to central a focus.

6. A common worldview is the ground upon which my reasoning stands.
The vast majority of my appeals are based upon the assumption that those reading my words hold the Word of God as authoritative over their lives.  I am capable of arguing from the perspective of moral philosophy, i.e. aiming at the common good necessary for a civil society to function, but that is not the heart of either my own reasoning nor my exhortations.  When I appeal to fellow Christians it is on the basis of a shared history, a common bond in Christ, and a fundamental willingness (hopefully) to accept that God's Word is the final arbiter when we disagree.  If I say, "The Word of God says", what is that to one who does not believe in God?  There is thus a presupposition in all of my thinking that is built upon Martin Luther's "Sola Scriptura", and where that presupposition is not shared my potential for persuasiveness will be inherently less.  It is certainly possible, and frequently a reality, that those who likewise value the Word of God as the final authority will disagree with a position that I hold, and vice versa.  This does not negate the commonality of our shared worldview, and isn't even necessarily a negative provided that neither of us are adhering to an immoral position, as it does still offer us the ability to stand upon the same foundation, share the same motivations, and ultimately seek the same goal of advancing the Gospel and glorifying our Father in Heaven. 

7. The doer of the thing does not affect the morality of the thing.
Motivation aside, evil is still evil, truth is still truth, and compassion is still compassion, no matter who the person is that is responsible for it.  When Christians commit acts of evil or distorts the truth, the consequences are real.  The fact that we're forgiven because of God's grace has an obvious impact upon our eternal disposition regarding these acts, but it doesn't mitigate the impact of that immorality upon the world around us here and now.
In the end, that which is morally upright for a Christian is morally upright for a non-Christian, and that which is sinful/evil when done by a Christian is sinful/evil when done by a non-Christian as well.  How these actions are judged by God in eternity will certainly be affected by the relationship (or lack) that each person has with God, for those who are redeemed will be clothed with the righteousness of Christ and those who are not cannot please God with their own righteousness.  That being said, in our world here and now, the morality of an action is not materially affected by whether or not the hero or villain of the tale is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or atheist.  To use an example from recent history: It is equally dangerous for the sake of our republic when President Trump is called Hitler by liberals as it is when Speaker Pelosi is called Hitler by conservatives.  However, for the sake of the Gospel, and the integrity of the Church, if either of those speakers, whether liberal or conservative, is claiming to be a Christian, there is an additional concern, and one that concerns me even more as an ordained minister than the negative impact of such behavior on America, namely the negative impact upon Christ's Church.

The theology of mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools is atrocious, its implementation would be worse.

Prayer is not a "to whom it may concern" letter.  Prayer is a conversation with God on the part of those who have a relationship with him, not a magic formula that if said by enough people will cause God rain down blessings on a land.

I write this knowing that a number of my brothers and sisters in Christ, whose motives I am not assuming or judging, will strongly disagree with this assessment of prayer in public schools.  This issue is, however, connected to numerous others respecting the separation of Church and State, the impact of politics and political tactics upon the Church, and our intended role as Christians first and Americans second.

Note: I put the word compulsory in the title alongside mandated because any practical application of mandating that prayer must be administered by public schools would naturally entail a compulsory element to force compliance upon the schools themselves (the most likely thing being the threat to withhold federal education funding) and the students (detentions, expulsions for those who refuse?).

Why is mandated/compulsory prayer in our public schools such a bad idea?

1. Prayer is already in public schools, each time a teacher or student chooses to pray.

Contrary to what you may have heard, prayer in schools (or anywhere else) has never been illegal.  How could it be?  Prayer is a conversation between yourself and God, one that nobody else is privy to, nor able to control.  In addition to the continued availability of private prayer, prayer that is student initiated and student led (See You At the Pole for example) has always been, and will remain perfectly legal.  {No, having a student lead a prayer over the loudspeaker while students are required to be quiet and listen is not the same thing}

2. We have no need to be led in prayer.

I'm not talking about corporate worship, when the people of God are gathered together and one person leads either a pre-written or spontaneous prayer, as that individual (pastor or otherwise) is acting as a spokesperson for us and focusing our group prayer in one direction; we are praying with him/her, they're not praying on our behalf; that's an important distinction.  With that caveat in place, it is absolutely clear in Scripture that because of the nature of the New Covenant, with Jesus serving as our mediator, that we can approach God directly in prayer.  We have direct access to the Father. 

Ephesians 3:12 New International Version

In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

Hebrews 4:16 New International Version

Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Romans 8:14-15 New International Version

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

3. Rote, compelled, and thus insincere prayer (like worship) is not only not honoring to God, it actually offends and angers God.

What would mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools actually be?  Would it be sincere acts of worship?  How could it be for the millions of school children (and teachers) told to pray to a God in whom they do not believe, or told to pray in a way contrary to the dictates of their conscience?  How could these prayers possibly be genuine and from the heart?  What they would actually be is a repeated affront to God, as if God is compelled to bless our nation because we've required everyone to pray, as if God is beholden to us, and not the other way around.  God will not be manipulated, and God will not be mocked.

Jeremiah 7:9-11 New International Version

“‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? 11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord.

Hosea 6:6 New International Version

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:11-15 New International Version

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
    what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
    of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
    in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
    who has asked this of you,
    this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
    Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
    I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
    I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
    I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
    I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

4. Requiring non-Christians to pray a Christian prayer hurts evangelism.

How does evangelism work?  What are the most effective methods for sharing the Good News that Jesus Christ has died for our sins and been raised from the dead for our justification?  An important question, and one studied and debated by those engaging in missions and evangelism both here in America and throughout the world.  The answer to that question is never: force people to read the Bible, pray, and attend church.  Why not?  Because it doesn't work.  Only God can make a planted seed grow, only the Holy Spirit can soften the hard heart of human rebellion.  The only thing that compulsory participation, in a religion that you don't believe in, consistently causes in those it is forced upon, is resentment and anger.  State mandated 'Christian' prayer demonstrates to Muslims, Hindus, or Atheists that we do not respect them as Americans, let alone as human beings, how exactly are we creating an opportunity for them to hear the Gospel?

5. A one-size-fits all prayer to God(s) that tries to please everybody, is the most likely outcome.

The last thing I want is a politician or a government employee writing the prayers that our children are required to listen to, and/or recite.  A prayer not directed at God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is not a Christian prayer.  What kind of prayer would we be talking about?  It would have to be one mandated/written by the Federal government at the Department of Education, and thus one designed to please Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, Agnostics, Atheists, and thus equally offensive to all and pleasing to nobody.  I absolutely believe in intra-faith prayer, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians can and should pray together.  I absolutely do NOT believe in inter-faith prayer, for how can we pray together when we don't agree upon who we're praying to?

6. Focus on prayer in schools is thinking like an American 1st, a Christian 2nd.

This may be hard for some to accept, but as a Christian my citizenship is in Heaven.  That I am an American, while being an honor and a blessing for which I give thanks and a responsibility that carries with it civic duties that I take very seriously, is still in the end, only incidental compared to knowing that my soul has been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.  As such, I must always consider what is right in God's eyes, what is beneficial to the Church and its mission to share the Gospel, before considering what I think is right for America.  Often the two are compatible, but there is a divergence more often than many of us are willing to admit.  For example: It may benefit (at least in the short-term) America to 'win' at the expense of another nation economically or militarily, but those who live in that land are human beings just like me, created in the image of God, and thus either fellow followers of Jesus Christ, or those in need of the Gospel.  Either way, as a Christian I look at the world, and my nation's place within it, differently when I consider myself a Christian 1st and an American 2nd.  We call this a Christian Worldview, and it is something more Christians need to embrace.  Trying to revitalize Christendom, through official governmental pronouncements and symbols like prayer in schools, is a nation centric-view, not a Christ-centered view.

7. Societies with compulsory Christian behavior were NOT more Christian in their outcomes.

History teaches us, clearly, that requiring Christian behavior like baptisms, church attendance, and public confessions doesn't create the thoroughly Christian society that the outward appearance projects.  This is not a question of public morality, and has nothing to do with marriage, abortion, or other topics where Christian morality is in conflict with a secular viewpoint.  Morality is a different issue that requires a different theological basis.  We have already seen from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea (which Jesus quotes) that insincere public acts of worship have the opposite affect of what is intended by those who do them or require them.  This is born out by the clear cut examples of Spain following the Reconquista in which the Inquisition utilized threats and torture to force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity, and the more recent example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Germany, where nearly everyone was a 'Christian', having been baptized at birth, supporting the Church through taxes, and in his words so fooled by "cheap grace" that their unredeemed hearts still enthralled to sin readily swallowed the godless hatred of the Nazis.  Where did the Holocaust occur?  In the heart of 'Christian' Europe, with the help of millions of people who would have claimed that they were Christians.  Are more examples needed?  Calvin's Geneva, where the Church literally ran the town, was not sustainable (and burned heretics at the stake), nor was the Pilgrim's isolated community (Witch Trails being the most well known flaw).  As we have seen time and time again with the Amish, compelled behavior leads to rebellion, even among those who do believe.

8. Our ancestors in the faith died as martyrs to governments that tried to compel them to not worship, or to worship against their conscience; how can we do that to anyone else?

As a Baptist, this is the final nail in the coffin regarding mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools.  The Roman Empire persecuted Christians because they would not worship the Emperor, murdering untold numbers of them, often in purposefully cruel ways.  During the Reformation, and especially during the horrors of the Thirty Years War, Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians all were willing to persecute the Anabaptists who insistence upon believer baptism (the idea that the Church is not everyone in town, only those who demonstrate genuine faith) offended all sides equally.  Many of them were drowned in rivers, by those claiming to be 'good Christians' in mockery of their embrace of immersion baptism.  Sadly, years later when the Puritans came to America and finally had power over their own society, they immediately began persecuting anyone showing signs of dissent.  The United States of America was a bold social experiment in that at the time it was one of the few nations in the history of the world to not have an official state religion.  More than that, religious tolerance was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, protecting the Church from the State, and the State from the Church.
I find it ironic that many of the same voices crying out for a ban on Sharia Law in the United States (where it is not even a remote possibility with the Muslim population at 1%), and who, correctly, decry the oppression faced by our brothers and sisters in Christ in Muslim countries and in Communist China, will then turn around and call for the shoe to be on the other foot here in America.  The degree of compulsion may not be the same, nor the penalties for stepping out of line, but the idea of mandating religious behavior is.  What is morally wrong in other countries ought to be morally wrong here as well. 

Kids and teachers pray in school every day that the school is in session, when they choose to.  God is not asking us to pretend that America is a Christian nation through insincere public acts, but to transform our families, churches, and communities through deep commitments to righteous living and sustained efforts at evangelism.  What will propel the Church in America forward is not policies foisted upon an unwilling or indifferent public, but sincere worship, servant's hearts, and morally upright living on the part of God's people.  If you want to transform America, start with the Church.

Why would we celebrate the death of the wicked?

When word spread that Adolf Hitler had taken his own life on April 30th, of 1945, most of the world rejoiced, for a great evil had been removed from the world, and perhaps peace might not be far off, at least in Europe.  The war in Europe officially ended on V-E Day, May 8th, with Germany's unconditional surrender, with WWII continuing until V-J Day, on August 15th, after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombs.  Millions had died, and more would die in the refugee crisis that followed, but citizens in the Allied countries rejoiced at the cessation of war, as well they should.  As Christians, it is incumbent upon us to adopt a Christian Worldview, a way of thinking and feeling that reflects the teachings of Holy Scripture, and in particular, the life of Jesus Christ.  The ending of a war can certainly be a moment worthy of celebratory feelings, but should we feel the same way about the death of the wicked, however it comes about?  Two recent events have brought this question to the forefront: the killing by a church member of an armed intruder after he had taken the lives of two people during a church service in Texas {‘I Feel Like I Killed Evil’: Jack Wilson Praised For Killing White Settlement Church Shooting Suspect}, which was a split second reaction to a gunman, and the calculated decision by the government of the United States to kill Maj.Gen. Qassim Suleimani, an Iranian national, in a foreign country, with a missile fired from a drone. {What to Know About the Death of Iranian General Suleimani by Karen Zraick of the NY Times}  These two incidents had one primary thing in common: the person killed had been responsible for the death of innocent people prior to being killed.  Beyond that, the circumstances vary greatly, as does the debate about the legal and moral justification for responding to violence with lethal force, but there remains one more thing that both have in common and share with many other incidents when criminals, terrorists, and/or those accused of being involved in evil behavior are killed, whether in the moment or after judicial proceedings, whether by private citizens acting in self-defense or governmental authorities: the tendency to rejoice at the death of the wicked.  And while the call to celebrate the death of the Texas church shooter was muted (but still noticeable), the request to celebrate the death of Suleimani was instantly amplified and muddled by American politics {GOP lawmakers celebrate Soleimani’s death: ‘He was an evil bastard who murdered Americans’ by Mike Murphy of MarketWatch}.  The question, then, that we must ask ourselves, as Christians seeking to live by a Christian worldview, is this: Does God celebrate the death of the wicked, even when it is necessary to save lives?  The short answer is: No.

Ezekiel 18:23 (NIV)  Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Luke 6:27-28 (NIV)  “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

2 Peter 3:9 (NIV)  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

The above texts are simply a sampling, and while the Bible certainly contains repeated examples of the wrath of God in action, and calls for God's intervention against the enemies of the righteous (see David's Psalms in particular), it at the same time makes it very clear that God takes NO pleasure in the death of the wicked, even when his own judgment brings their lives to a close.  Why not?  Every life of a human being that ends with that person remaining in a state of rebellion against God results in a person created in God's image who will be separated from God for eternity.  Whatever opportunity for repentance that existed is now over.  While it may be a common question to ask seminary students to grapple with the notion of God's mercy in Christ Jesus being sufficient to forgive even the worst humans in history, like Adolf Hitler, had he repented in his bunker after having the blood of millions upon his hands {which to our knowledge he showed no signs of repentance, although other mass murders have done so}, it is not merely a hypothetical question.  Why not?  Because the vilest of human beings can be saved by the grace of God, the worst among us can receive forgiveness, IF they repent and receive God's salvation in Jesus Christ.  Thus the killing of anyone, even those most deserving of death because of their extreme evil deeds, is still a spiritual tragedy, for it is a soul lost from the Kingdom of God, one less person to celebrate at the Wedding Supper of the Lamb and glorify the name of God.  Even when there is no choice, as in the case of the Texas church shooting {aside from the view of total pacifists who would deny that any killing is justified}, there is no room in a Christian worldview for celebration. 

Some additional related thoughts...

1. Not all our enemies are God's enemies.  The people of God have at times condemned the righteous, or at least the innocent, alongside (or instead of) the wicked.  See for example: The Thirty Years War, the Inquisition.  What if the 'evil' we eliminate turns out to be closer to the martyr Jan Hus burned at the stake rather than Jack the Ripper?  We dare not pretend that our designation of human beings as an 'enemy of God' is anything but a folly.  FYI, and this may sting a bit: The enemies of America (or Israel) are not synonymous with the enemies of God (that distinction works on the personal level too, those people who are your 'enemies' may be just that, your enemies).

2. God will judge the wicked, but in his time, and according to his righteousness and mercy.
Romans 12:19 (NIV)  Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.  The related warped thought of those who hope for the destruction of Muslims in general, {in response to terrorism, or in reaction against the calls for a worldwide Caliphate...In the past this, "kill 'em all, let God sort them out" sentiment was expressed toward Native Americans, with the vile, 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian'.} rather than their acceptance of the Gospel, thus showing an emphasis on physical/temporal issues above the spiritual cause of the Kingdom of God.  Is the Gospel not capable of overcoming the resistance of any religious/ideological group?  The Vikings were an existential threat to the Christian communities of Medieval Europe, and then missionaries (some of whom were martyred in the process) brought the Gospel to them, and the threat evaporated as God's grace transformed their culture.

3. Governmental authorities do have a mandate to protect the innocent and punish the evildoer, but it is not limitless.  For example: The firebombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while part of a cold calculation about potential lives lost without those actions, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. (see below about the 'lesser of two evils')  Or more recently, the now almost ubiquitous use of a drone missile to blow up a house containing a terrorist(s) but also potentially innocent bystanders, and of course the numerous Death Row inmates who have been exonerated after their innocence was proven.

4. Choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing evil.  IF the choice must be made, it ought not be celebrated.
Romans 12:21 (NIV)  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.  Throughout Church history, God's people have been tempted to embrace 'the lesser evil', but is this not a lack of faith, and/or a lack of living as citizens of Heaven whose kingdom is not of this world?  The Civil Rights Movement demonstrated the power of overcoming evil with good, but as a tactic/strategy it has been utilized rarely, often only when desperation (i.e. a lack of power) eliminates other, more conventional, choices.  It is folly to think that good came come from doing evil, but is it not also dangerous to believe that a 'greater' evil can be prevented by doing a 'lesser' evil?

In the end, it has been the general consensus of Christian thinkers throughout the centuries that there is a legitimate role for the civil and military use of force {See the Apostle Paul's thoughts in Romans 13 and Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas' thoughts on Just War Theory}, but we must not allow ourselves to celebrate the destruction of the wicked, even when it is justified, even when there seems to be no other choice, for in the words of the Christian martyr John Bradford, as he watched a criminal being led away for execution, "there but for the grace of God, go I."

Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission

The list of companies being boycotted by various Christians and/or conservatives has grown rather long: Walmart, Kroger, Walgreens, CSV, Disney, Nascar, Amazon, Google, basically the biggest and most popular corporations in America, all having done something regarding guns, homosexuality, or politics to put them on "the list".  No, I'm not going to enter into the boycott argument, and yes, a similar list exists among liberals listing different companies (or sometimes the same companies for different reasons).  What do we make of this, and how does it impact the Church and the Gospel?
We are currently trending, heavily, as a culture and a country toward greater degrees of self-segregation.  Not the old-school racial segregation enforced by zoning laws and bat wielding rednecks, but instead a version we are choosing to embrace based upon politics/morality/religion, which is showing itself both in the urban/rural divide and in the coastal/interior divide.  The Red areas are becoming deeper shades of Red, and the Blue areas are becoming more uniformly Blue.  People are moving within their communities to neighborhoods were people are more like them (it can mimic racial segregation in that people who look like us are more likely to think/act like us, but it has now transcended that as well), within their states to areas where people are more like them, and within the country to states where people are more like them.  We are more likely to live in an echo chamber, massively assisted by social media and cable news/talk radio, where the only voices we hear are ones that reinforce what we believe and demonize what "they" believe.  Some of our politicians are thriving in these chum-infested waters, some talking heads are getting rich off of it, but the American Republic is much worse off.  {FYI, gerrymandering is a symptom of this, making primaries the only race that matters}.  I won't tell you how to solve this problem on the political/national level, but I can intelligently (I hope) ponder what this is doing to the Church.
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, the Apostle Paul quotes the Greek poet Menander when he writes, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.'"  In that particular context Paul is discussing the resurrection and those who disbelieve it, people we would call heretics or apostates.  He utilizes a Greek poet to remind the Christian minority in Corinth that they can be negatively influenced by those around them.  In his next letter to that church, Paul broadens the warning a bit in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 when he writes, "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 Therefore,“Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.  Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 And, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”  Twice then, Paul warns about becoming too entangled, "yoked together" with unbelievers (whether the Lost or those who have walked away from the Light, i.e. apostates).  At the same time, the Apostle Paul spent decades risking his life to take the Gospel, as an observant Jew, among the Gentiles to show them the light of Christ.  Certainly Paul did not withdraw from the world, enter a monastery, and seek to be free from the 'infection' of the pagan culture that he lived and worked within.  Paul was aware of the danger, yet it didn't stop him from seeking the Lost where they were.
What then is the answer?  Jesus also highly stressed the need for purity, even emphasizing that our thoughts count as well as our actions, and yet he ate with 'tax collectors and sinners' as recorded in Matthew 9:10-17 (and Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39) 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”  Nobody has lived a pure life of comparison with Jesus Christ, and yet he was willing to be scorned by the Pharisees, the group who stood for strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the rejection of Greek culture, in order to minister to the outcasts of society.  In fact, Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees for focusing on ritualistic purity without having hearts of mercy.
This seems like a contradiction in the Scriptures, a gotcha moment for agnostics and atheists to laugh at our silly devotion to 'God's Word', but it isn't.  Instead, it is something extremely profound and often overlooked by Christians (and Judaism before us): purposeful tension.  That's right, the Scriptures contain opposed but complimentary ideas that are designed to be held in tension.  It was a college professor of mine, Dr. Ronald Mayers, who first introduced me to the idea of a Both/And rather than an Either/Or perspective in Scripture. {Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic by Ronald B. Mayers}  Not all issues, to be sure, but many of them contain a Both/And element.  For example: As Christians we are already saved, and yet we are not yet what we will be for we our sanctification is ongoing.  We are already in Christ, but not yet Christ-like.  Likewise, we believe in the sovereignty of God and the freedom of human beings to make real decisions, both God's will and human freedom.
Which brings us to the current situation in America and within the Church.  At the same time we are called to be pure, 1 Peter 1:16, " for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'" AND Matthew 5:13-16, "'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."  We must be 'in the world, but not of the world' (An attempt to summarize the teaching of Scripture on this issue), a delicate balance but one we must not shrink from finding.
This is our challenge as the Church in America in the 21st century.  We are interacting less and less with those who are non-Christians, and even those who are fellow Christians, but who disagree with us.  We are called to be salt and light, but within our own echo chamber, what good are they?  We are called to not be "yoked together" with unbelievers, but also to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'".  As much as we might want to retreat into our own world, to wall ourselves off from that which makes us uncomfortable and that with which we disagree, we cannot.  We must be pure, but not at the cost of disengaging from those who live in darkness. {As some are calling for us to do, see one popular version of the retreat strategy: The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post Christian World - by Rob Dreher}
Our mission is not to save ourselves, our mission is not to save our church, our mission is not even to save The Church, our mission, given to us by Jesus Christ, is to use the Truth of the Gospel, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to save the World.  Salt must stay salty in order to be effective, but salt left in the salt shaker doesn't help anyone.

Faith, Science, and Creation, is there a way forward?

Something isn’t right in the modern western world in the interactions between Faith and Science.  We may not understand what the problem is, how it started, or how to solve it, but the tension is palpable, we can feel it.  Antagonism is the most visible interaction on the part of Christians (and/or those claiming to be Christians) with science, treating the two as mortal enemies, but we also see accommodation, a long-shot hope of wedding the two peacefully, and finally we see rejection, an attempt to pretend that science doesn’t exist or at least have anything useful to say.  This can’t be the way things are supposed to be, but are they the way they have to be?  Is there an option other than being enemies, part of a one-sided arranged marriage, or strangers?

                To trace the history of the relationship between science and faith is a massive undertaking, but one area in particular is a microcosm of the strange interactions between the two: Creation.  How did we get here, when, and why are universal and fundamental questions of humanity.  They have been asked and answered all over the globe since the beginning of recorded history in innumerable ways.  The people of Israel were given a definitive answer to the question of why in the book of Genesis: to fulfill the good pleasure and further the glory of God.  God created because God wanted to create, and beyond that, God created beings capable of interacting with him because he desired both love and worship from them.  As Christians, heirs to the philosophy/worldview of Judaism, we know why we are here.  We have a purpose and a direction given to us by faith.  Do we also know, from Holy Scripture, how and when?

                It was assumed that we did, that such questions had easy answers related to divine fiat in the not too distant past.  And then science came into its maturity and threw those assumptions into confusion.  Astronomy, archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics, and more have each taken a chunk out of the assumption that God created the universe, as we see it today, a few thousand years before the time of Abraham.  What then ought to be the response of faith to these assertions by science?

                Denial was the first response of the Church, beginning with Galileo and Copernicus, and denial still has a prominent role in various Christian responses.  These responses range from saying that the evidence proposed by scientists is wrong (either a claim of ignorance on the part of scientists who don’t understand their own fields, or a conspiracy theory by them to falsify their findings), to saying that the evidence is indeed what it is, but that the interpretation is wrong because the evidence itself is a ruse, a type of red herring, placed there by either God or the devil to lead non-believers astray.  In other words, the evidence is real that the universe is billions of years old, but it should be ignored.  In the discussion of Creation, a denial/aggression against science stance typically involves an attempt to take the text of Genesis “literally” (a word to be used with great caution in Biblical interpretation as it means different things to different people and is often abused as a cudgel against those who interpret a text differently), as in “literally six twenty-four-hour days”.  It also involves viewing the description of the six days of creation as a how-to guide explaining what God did and the order/time frame he did it in.  In this view there is no room for an old universe, no room for a Big Bang, and certainly no room for any type of evolutionary processes.  As Gordon Glover wrote in Beyond the Firmament, Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation, “If we raise our children to believe that supernatural explanations are in competition with natural ones, we are basically entrusting their salvation to ignorance and incredulity.” (P. 32) If Glover’s characterization of the various forms of denial offends you, keep reading and keep thinking.

                The second response of portions of the Church to the advancements of science in relation to Creation was accommodation.  If science says that the universe is billions of years old, the response is to find collaboration for that finding in the text of Genesis.  Thus Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory attempt to postulate an alliance between science and faith by molding the interpretation of Genesis to fit scientific theory.  So, rather than insisting upon a Young Earth like those antagonistic to science, accommodation allows for an old one, viewing either time gaps between various points in the story, or the “days” of Creation as the equivalent of eons.  Coupled with this interpretation are things like Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution which preserve a role for God, behind the scenes as the architect, of the natural processes described by science.  Thus accommodation of Genesis with science no longer takes the text “literally”, but allows for both a Big Bang and Evolutionary processes, provided that God is the unseen force behind it all.  This might seem like a win-win scenario, one in which the text of Scripture still has something to contribute while science is not viewed as an enemy, provided that either Gap Theory or Day-Age Theory is a viable interpretation of the text of Genesis, an important caveat.

                The third response, ignoring what science has to say about the origins of the cosmos and humanity, is a self-defeating retreat that will be, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, like that of the Church over Galileo in 1633, a short-sighted decision whose negative consequences the Church continues to reap.

                But what if there is another option, one that retains a faithful commitment to the text of Holy Scripture and works within the framework of the plain meaning of the text, that treats it as God’s Word given to mankind according to his purposes (not ours), but that at the same time doesn’t promote an attitude of hostility to science, nor attempt to force them to exist in the same space, and also doesn’t resort to burying one’s head in the sand or yelling, “Not listening!  Not listening!”  For that to be the way forward, we would need to consider what the purpose of Genesis 1-3 was when it was written, how it was received by its original audience, and which questions it was intended to answer among our most common: How, when, and why.  In the end, it is possible that we can be more faithful to the text of Scripture by admitting that it answers everything we need to know about why (and who), but much less than we had assumed about how and when.

                Perhaps Genesis 1-3 is the story of how God gave the world its functions, taking it from formlessness to usefulness, and setting it up for humanity with God as its sovereign.  Instead of a how-to guide, the text of Genesis 1-3 can be viewed as a Cosmic Temple Inauguration (see John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate), one in which God assigns functions to things he had already created, assigns names to them, and then on the Seventh Day takes his “rest” with the Cosmos as his temple and mankind as his steward.  This viewpoint has the very positive aspect of being compatible with the viewpoints of those living in the Near East in the Ancient World, as most of the ancient accounts which still exist from that area/period involve the ordering of chaos into purpose by a god(s).  In that vein, the Genesis account is not different from them except in its understood assumption that only one God, the true God, is involved, and the clear lack of effort required by that God to make the Cosmos orderly, mere commands suffice to accomplish it.  To the people of Israel being led by Moses out of bondage, then, the story of Genesis would not be odd when compared to those told by the Egyptians or Babylonians except for its monotheism and the universal sovereignty claimed by God (as opposed to the typical local/shared sovereignty of the pantheon of gods).  In other words, perhaps God utilized a format for explaining humanity’s role/purpose that made sense to the ancient people he was telling it to rather than a format that would answer all of the questions asked of it by a naturalistic/materialistic society 3,500 years later.  That might seem like an easy point to arrive at, but human beings have a hard time setting aside their own worldviews in order to see things from the perspective of another culture or time period.  Modern human beings are so immersed in the post-Enlightenment naturalistic worldview of an ascendant science that we by default view ancient documents through our interpretive lens without even knowing it.

                Why would God choose to focus upon the functionality of the Cosmos in the account given to Moses rather than an explanation of the material origins of the universe?  Most importantly, it fit his purpose, which was not to share with his people how he created the Cosmos, but why.  When Job asked God for an explanation which his experience of injustice certainly seemed worthy of, he wasn’t given one, in part because God told Job that he did not have the capacity to understand the answers to his questions.  The collective human wisdom of modern science has scratched the surface of answering questions of how and when, and much remains beyond our grasp; in what way would a materialistic/scientific explanation be possible or even useful to those who lived 3,500 years ago?  When God brought his people out of Egypt with signs and wonders, he didn’t bother to explain to them how he turned Nile to blood or where the plagues of locusts or gnats came from.  How was immaterial, why was the key; they were signs of God’s power and warnings to Pharaoh.  The purpose of being told that God is responsible for an event in history (like Creation or the Plagues upon Egypt) is so that humanity can recognize God’s power, submit to his authority, and worship him.  The purpose is not to satisfy our curiosity, to answer all of our questions, or to convince the skeptical, as if God’s revelation of himself to us has to be on our terms; the “gap” between God’s proclamation (revelation) of his activity and our own understanding of it is the place filled by Faith.  If answers to our questions are available, that’s fine, but we don’t need them when we put our trust in the faithfulness of God.  We don’t need to know how and when if we know who and why.

                If Genesis is indeed not an attempt by God to explain how/when he created the Cosmos, including humanity, it leaves Christians free to accept scientific explanations if they prove plausible, and if those explanations are later refined or rejected thanks to new evidence or new theories, to not have that process impact our faith.  Faith is no longer on defense against science, forever trying to fend off its attacks, nor is it endlessly trying to accommodate science, hoping to be able to squeeze the latest developments in numerous scientific fields into the sparse text of Genesis 1-3.  Christians are thus free to focus upon the most important question: Why did God create us, however and whenever he did so, and what does that tell us about the purpose of our lives?  God is still the ultimate cause, God is still the intelligence behind the natural laws set up by his hand and maintained by his will, and God remains the final destination of each human soul.  Science cannot answer questions of why, it never could and it never will.  Philosophy and Religion are not scientific fields, they seek to answer questions beyond the materialistic realm of science, questions that cannot be verified or disproved by experimentation.  These are the questions which have been of the utmost importance to humanity throughout the ages.  Our ancient ancestors in the faith, the children of Abraham, had comparatively little scientific knowledge to work with, but it did not impact their ability to be a people of faith, dependent upon God and in obedience to his will.  Today we know many things about how the natural world works, but the truly important questions remain dependent upon revelation from the spiritual realm.

                Faith and Science are not enemies, nor are they bosom buddies, and they don’t have to be strangers; they answer different questions in different ways.  Science can make our lives better, faith makes our lives meaningful.  Science can fix some of the problems that humanity has brought upon itself, faith can fix humanity itself.   Science can expand what we can do, faith can tell us what we should do.   Science if forever learning and growing, faith rests upon a bedrock of Truth that stretches back beyond Abraham and calls us to live righteous lives by faith just as did our ancestors in the faith. 

The Culture War rages on; the Church's role in it is toxic.

The recently concluded United Methodist Church General Conference 2019 is the latest example in a disturbing trend of the politics and viciousness of the Culture Wars finding a home within the Church.  Previously, various Christian leaders, churches, and denominations would at times choose to become involved in various political/cultural issues, attempting by doing so to bolster their viewpoint within society as a whole, but largely remaining outside of the debate itself which was taking place between those advocating positions inspired by a Christian worldview and those coming from a secular viewpoint.  And while fights like that continue to rage over a broad range of issues, they are now being joined more and more frequently by fights within groups of those claiming to represent Christ/God's Word/the Church.  In other words, issues like abortion and human sexuality which once enjoyed a reasonably unified response from a variety of American Church sources are now not only polarizing American culture and politics, but the Church here as well.  This is not unexpected, it has been coming for some time.
On its own, division within the Church is troublesome enough whatever its cause or content might be, what makes it more dangerous here is the extent to which the tactics which are currently devastating our political/cultural discourse are being, or already have been, adopted by those within the Church for both battles in that exterior arena and internal fights against fellow Christians.  Even if it is conceded (and part of the point is that it no longer is) that those on the opposite side of these issues dividing local churches and denominations are wrong in their reasoning or conclusions, and even if one believes that the viewpoint of the opposition is dangerous, it is still a massive moral step to take to act in response as if the, "ends justify the means" to defeat them, or that the confidence that one is right justifies a "win at all costs" mentality.
It has been a consistent warning of mine that the marriage of the Church and political ambition/power is an uneven one that eventually sullies the reputation of the Bride of Christ.  Advancing a cause through political means (or its cousin, judicial) regularly entails deception, character assassination, double-talk, evasion, what-about-ism, moral relativism, alliances of convenience against one's convictions, the corrupting influence of money, and the every present corrupting influence of power itself.  And while it ought to always be inexcusable for a politician to use immoral tactics, whether he/she claims to be a Christian or not, and it ought to be out of the question for Christians to knowingly encourage and support such unethical behavior even when it advances "our cause", it is not contrary (and actually beneficial at times) to the oath taken by a politician to support and defend the Constitution for him/her to forge alliances of convenience and to make compromises for the sake of governance.  It is the job of a politician to represent all of the people, even a Christian politician needs to consider the rights/needs of their non-Christian constituents.  Is it in the best interest of the Church to enter with them into alliances of convenience and compromises for the sake of governance?  Corporations, Unions, special interest groups, and lobbyists all have their own agenda; in what way is that agenda a fitting partnership with the Church?  Is it not better for the Church to focus upon seeking God's will through the Word of God and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit?  Do we not have sufficient issues within the Church to address (like the sexual abuse scandal which is certainly not limited to Roman Catholics) and sufficient mission priorities outside of the Church to fulfill?
At this point I don't anticipate the possibility of an American Church that isn't knee deep in the Culture Wars in partnership with politicians/parties.  That ship has sailed, and once involved in the fight, like grasping the tiger's tail, it isn't easy to stop.  The politicians will not stop looking for support (i.e. votes) from Church representatives, and those within the Church who are zealous for various issues will continue to seek help for their cause from politicians.  But make no mistake about it, if the culture as a whole continues to secularize, which seems extremely likely, the battles being waged will occur more and more often within the Church, splitting churches asunder, causing rancor and ill will, and tempting people within those churches to fight back "by any means necessary."  If Republicans and Democrats, at least publicly and on TV, act as if their opponents hate America and want to destroy the country, how long will it be until disagreeing factions within churches and denominations are calling those they disagree with enemies of the Gospel?  {If reports from UMC General Conference 2019 are true, such venom was there in abundance}.  Solutions are not easy to come by, I don't pretend to know the right way to move forward, for our UMC brethren or anybody else, but it is important that we recognize the danger of the path the Church is currently walking upon.  The Culture War rages on, and the role the Church is playing is becoming more and more toxic.

If God "chose" Donald Trump to be President

Beliefs not firmly connected to a Christian foundation, or the implications of which have not been fully examined, can be extremely dangerous.  Recently White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders said during an interview on CBN, "I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there and I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about."  There are several significant objections to the theology of such a statement.  (1)  God does indeed call those who serve him, i.e. disciples of Jesus Christ, to serve his Church as apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists (Ephesians 4:11).  The call of God to such people is a call to service, not self-advancement, to sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not fame, power, and wealth in service of a political agenda.  What is the Biblical basis for the belief that God chooses, and then puts in power, secular political leaders?  If the answer to that question is Nebuchadnezzar, or Cyrus of Persia, both of whom God used with respect to Israel (the first to punish and the second to bless), the objection would be simple: (2) America is not Israel.  We are not a nation being directed by God according to a Covenant of blessings and curses awaiting a promised Messiah.  In the New Covenant, God works primarily through his Church, not through national politics.  When God works "all things" (Romans 8:28-29) he is working for the people he has called to accept the Gospel, to transform them into Christ-like disciples, not for the benefit of particular ethnic groups, kingdoms, or nations.  The Church transcends any grouping of humanity, and the goal of God's will in the New Covenant is clearly stated: to increase the number of redeemed saints worshiping the Lamb at the end of time.  (3)  If God wanted Donald Trump to be president, on what basis was that decision made?  His politics or his character?  On what basis are the politics of Donald Trump, or any politician, judged to be aligned with those of God?  Are there some issues God cares about more than others, and how would we know?  Is God choosing the most Christ-like candidate to support, or the least, or somewhere in between?  (4)  If God chose Donald Trump, did he also choose Barrack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., etc...?  If God chose one, then why not all?  If your answer to that is, "because I like this President's politics, but I didn't like the last one."  Let me simply say that assuming that the will of God, maker of the universe, whose loving-kindness extends to all generations of all of humanity, is aligned with your exact political preferences is an expression of ego worthy of fear.  (5)  If God chose Donald Trump, was it to bless America or punish it?  This one bears thought.  Those who cheer Donald Trump, like Sarah Sanders, assume that the "choosing" they believe in was a blessing, not a curse, but on what basis is that judgment being made?  Is it God's intention, at this point in history, to bless America for its righteousness or to curse America for its wickedness?  There is plenty of righteousness and wickedness to be found in America if you want to support your conclusion, but concluding that this moment is a time of blessing, or a time of punishment, is an arbitrary decision that says more about your perspective than anything else.  (6)  The assumption that the things that "people of faith really care about", are in alignment with the things that God cares about.  Church history, and that of Israel before us, is replete with examples of the people of God focusing upon the wrong things, ignoring things of tremendous importance, and generally being foolish in all manner of areas.  Perhaps "people of faith" know exactly what God would desire for a republic in the 21st century, or maybe they don't, either way, their priorities are not necessarily God's priorities, to assume so is arrogant.  It is the Word of God which declares the will of God, NOT the priorities of "people of faith".  {There is an unspoken word in the sentence from Sanders, one that goes without saying during an interview on CBN, that is "what Republican people of faith really care about."  God, and his Church, are not now, nor have they ever been, limited to one political party.  What of the priorities of Christians who support Democrats, Independents, or none of the above?  God is not a Republican, nor a Democrat, both parties support policies consistent with, and both parties support policies contrary to, the Word of God, neither represent God, it is impossible for a political party to do so.}

Lest you think this is personal, the same objection would have been raised about such a claim regarding any American president, member of Congress, governor, mayor, etc. {Evidently, President is the only office important enough for God to choose who inhabits it, or else objection #4 is much larger}.  I don't pretend to know what God's will is for the United States of America.  I have no idea if God is pleased with our charity and attempts at justice, or infuriated at our greed, immorality, and pride.  To claim to know the mind of God regarding a nation, any nation not named Ancient Israel about whom his Word is specific, is presumptuous and dangerous.  I do, however, know the will of God concerning his Church.  Why?  Because the Word of God has made the mission of the Church, the quality required of its people, and its status as an organization, "in the world but not of the world" clear.  We know because God has spoken through the inspired Scriptures.  We, the Church, have been called of God, to repent and turn to righteousness, and to serve the Gospel.  To speculate what God is, or is not, doing beyond the Church, is just that, speculation, foolish at the least, dangerous at worst.  In the end, the Word of God is our standard for Truth, not what "people of faith really care about."

The foolishness of "stay in your lane"

The slang phrase, "stay in your lane" has recently been invoked by the NRA to tell doctors that their opinion (in reality, bloody and often horrific expertise) is unwelcome in the controversial debate in America regarding gun control.  {Washington Post 11/11/18 - ‘Being silenced is not acceptable’: Doctors express outrage after NRA tells them ‘to stay in their lane’}  Rather than weigh in on the topic of gun control, a topic I have already bemoaned regarding its vitriol and lack of civil discourse {If I say anything about guns}, let me instead pontificate a bit about the phrase itself, "stay in your lane".  It should seem obvious that when such a phrase is used to try to keep women or minorities, for example, in "their place", that it blatantly violates a Christian worldview based upon Biblical principles.  After all, the Word of God takes pains to point out repeatedly that from God's perspective, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28, NIV)  There is no such thing as a legitimate "place" that belongs to men, or to women, to any ethnic or racial group, to the rich or the poor, to citizens or non-citizens, or any other such distinction.  That such "places" do indeed exist in both the minds of many, in the rules and regulations of society and institutions, and is even enshrined in laws, is a testament to the fallen nature of humanity and our endless capacity to divide each other in order to lessen our God-given equality and God-ordained responsibility toward our fellow human beings.
That man-made groupings used to belittle or devalue other people ought to be anathema to the people of God is illustrated by Jesus choosing to make the hero of one of his parables (the Good Samaritan Lk. 10:25-37) and the recipients of his healing (The centurion's servant Mt. 8:5-13, the Canaanite woman's daughter Mt. 15:21-28) be foreigners whom the self-righteous of his day would have certainly told to "stay in their lane" and away from the Messiah.  Jesus didn't stop with demonstrating God's love for people beyond the Chosen People in terms of race, he also made sure to touch lepers when he healed them, breaking a powerful taboo in the process.  For Jesus, nobody was out of bounds, nobody was a lost cause.
Beyond the affront to Biblical principles of equality, the use of "stay in your lane" also exhibits a gross misunderstanding of where problems come from in society and how they can be mitigated.  Societal problems, whether gun violence, drug abuse, prostitution, gambling, or a host of others, do not exist in a vacuum, do not affect only those involved in them, and cannot be lessened without the help of more than those directly involved with them.  Should doctors be involved in gun violence issues?  Yes.  Should teachers be involved in the opioid crisis?  Yes.  Should ministers be involved in homelessness?  Yes.  Why?  Because we are all created in the image of God, we have all been given the task of combating evil in our midst, and while we hold out no hope that the world's ills can be "solved" while humanity remains in rebellion against God, we do certainly believe that we can and must work together to shine the light in the darkness.
I, as an ordained minister, will not "stay in my lane", whatever that is supposed to be.  I will also not tell non-ministers that they have no business commenting on the affairs of the Church, on theology, or on ministerial ethics.  I am willing to, and I ought to be willing to, listen to the laity of the church, to involve them in ministry, and to heed both their advice and their warnings concerning my ministry.  Arrogance is not an option, dismissal of the value of the contributions that can be made by the overlooked or the outcasts is not an option.  I am a shepherd of the sheep, an honor and a burden, but I am also no more than another worker in the field of the Lord.
We as a society face daunting challenges, this is no more nor no less true today than it has been for thousands of years.  If we are to make a positive difference in confronting these challenges, if we are to help those in need and thwart those intent upon evil, we must do so united, willing to accept help where it can be found, willing to give help wherever we can.  There is no room for "lanes" in the Church of Jesus Christ, so don't worry about staying in one.