The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory, by Tim Alberta: A book review

 

1. I found the book to be deeply emotional, in a good way.  It connected with my own care and concern for the Church in America on a gut level, I could sense the authenticity of Tim's faith and his heartbreak at what has become of the Evangelical world he grew up in.  The personal sections where Tim wrote about his dad's death were at hard to read as expected, but that same heart-on-his-sleave aspect carries throughout the book.

2. Alberta interviewed, and got honest self-aware responses, from the heaviest hitters in the world of political evangelicalism.  This isn't a hatchet job from an outsiders, instead it is a look behind the curtain.

3. Although I knew about most of the episodes that he builds his narrative around (Jerry Falwell Jr.'s fall from leading Liberty University, for example, or Rachel Denhollander's crusade to help the SBC reckon with the sexual abuse in their midst), there were still gut wrenching new details and head shaking low points that were new to me.

4. While a cry for help, the book is not without hope.  In the midst of the most Christ-dishonoring actions of individuals who claim to be doing God's work are sprinkled the stories of other men and women, mostly less well known, who were/are willing to strive to be like Jesus and to do so with honor and decency.

5.  "Christian" Nationalism as a threat to the Church in America isn't going away anytime soon.  It took us generations to reach this point, a point where politics trump theology and ethics, where winning at all cost is met with thunderous cheers instead of the horror that it deserves, and so the path back to a more Christ-like attitude will be a long and difficult one.

Overall, this is an excellent book, sobering in its unflinching diagnosis of what ails the Church in America, Evangelicalism in particular, but also ones written from a man who firmly believes that God is in control and that his Church will triumph.

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

Having just finished Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted A Faith And Fractured A Nation by Calvin University history professor Kristen Kobes Du Mez, I have a few thoughts:

(1) The overall premise: that where Evangelicalism finds itself today, reveling in Culture Wars and embracing Christian Nationalism (or as she usually terms it, militant patriarchy), is not a fluke but rather the logical outcome of a fifty year trend, is compelling.  She backs the thesis up, whether you think the destination is a blessing or a curse for the Church (If you read my blog I don't need to tell you where I stand on these issues), ably tying together strands of culture, politics, and the words and actions of generations of leaders of the Evangelical movement.

(2) While the book contains many examples of men and women claiming to represent God which are cringeworthy, even painful, in how far from biblical ethics and any attempt to model the behavior of Jesus Christ they have strayed, the chapter that hits with the most punch is the sad litany of Evangelical leaders in the last decade that have been shown to be either sexual abusers themselves, or willing to enable and/or cover-up abuse {Chapter 16, Evangelical Mulligans: A History}.  This isn't news, the steady drip of new horrific stories has been poured forth for years and shows little sign of abating, but seeing how the individuals and institutions that had played so prominent a role in the earlier chapters largely turned out to be led by hypocrites who preached male leadership and female submission to them while at the same time preying on the vulnerable and protecting monsters, listed one after another in the chapter, is brutal.  If you grew up in the Evangelical cultural/religious atmosphere, you will likely find that your heroes have feet of clay, if not worse.  It is hard to take the theological claims, especially about the roles of men and women in God's design, of men like John MacArthur or John Piper seriously when looking at their roles in abuse scandals and/or supporting theological allies accused of the most un-Christ-like behavior {Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll for example}.

(3) A sub-thesis to the overall one is that the current Evangelical state-of-mind is more conditioned by culture than theology.  In my experience, this has been proven time after time.  Whether the issue is racism, immigration, sex abuse, or materialism (to name but a few issues), there is a disappointingly low willingness on the part of many (those at one or more steps removed from my ministry here, I'm not bashing my own congregation, rather reflecting on conversations in wider contexts) to hear what the Word of God has to say, and instead a willingness to treat its moral commands as a luxury we can't afford in the battles before us.

In the end, even if you are a complementarian (the theology of firm male leadership and female submission exemplified by MacArthur and Piper), and will likely gnash your teeth at Du Mez's egalitarianism, her criticism of this movement's tactics and leadership has a firm basis in history and fact, reading this book will have value for you.

On the other hand, if you've grown frustrated by the state of Evangelicalism, tired of banging your head each time cultural values displace biblical ones in the words and actions of those who proclaim their fealty to the Bible, Jesus and John Wayne won't make that headache go away, but at least you'll understand how and when things went so awry.  

The Climate Change denialism of Evangelicals will be damaging global Gospel witness for generations to come

 

It was painful, personally and professionally, to watch so many of my fellow Evangelicals (as well as Fundamentalists) in America deny the reality of COVID-19 in the face of ever increasing evidence.  It was also disheartening to hear fake 'cures' touted by some of these same voices while the readily available vaccine was rejected (as part of some global, even Satanic, conspiracy).  Having spent time in our area hospital praying with and for exhausted nurses, and having presided over the funeral of a fellow pastor and his wife who died on the same day of COVID, this lack of acceptance of basic facts and the nasty hostility toward doctors and scientists, has left a mark.  I won't soon forget it.  However, when it comes to the grand sweep of history, as traumatic and disruptive as COVID-19 was to the world for two plus years, it will one day be relegated to the history books along with such momentous moments as the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11.  Future generations will be unlikely to continue to hold the mostly politically motivated, fact denying, COVID-19 related actions of millions of American Christians against them.  Climate change is a different sort of beast.  Why?

The affects of COVID-19 are fast fading, wounds of this sort to the human psyche heal when the harms fade away, but the mounting affects of climate change are increasingly being felt.  If the predictive models are true, the ongoing cost will be upon the shoulders of billions of people throughout the world, and not just once, but over and over again with each successive drought, wildfire, flash flood, and hurricane.  COVID-19's impact lasted 2+ years, and we were all so tired of dealing with it, climate change won't have an expiration date, it will build and remain, year after year.  With widespread suffering, and the pain (as it always is with such things) felt more by the poor and powerless, the world will look to blame those who stood in the way of mitigating the worst of climate change's affects in the early decades of humanity's grapple with it, when decisive action might have made a big difference.  There will be plenty of blame to go around, China will receive some of it, but most will fall upon the West, America in particular, in part because only in America has there been widespread denialism and opposition to mitigating steps, even by private businesses. {In Europe, conservative parties disagree with liberal ones about how to mitigate climate change, not about the reality of it.}

To those on the outside looking in, it may seem curious that American Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have been so deeply and vehemently opposed to the scientific consensus regarding climate change {As if, by force of will, you can change facts}.  Four reasons for this stance stand out among others: 

(1) An anti-science attitude that dates back to the Scopes Trial {Young Earth Creationism paved the way for anti-science / anti-vaccine Evangelicals}

How exactly does one witness to those with a degree in science if your theology demands that they abandon generally accepted scientific conclusions on a whole host of topics in order to become a Christian?  This is a long standing issue, but one that has grown in recent years into outright hostility toward not only scientific facts, but those whose work revolves around science.

(2) An embrace of conspiracy theories, especially when they involve the U.N. {For example: An analysis of Rev. Danny Jones, "Is this Coronavirus a Sign of the End of the World?"}

When #'s 1 & 2 combine, we have the increasingly common acceptance of the notion that any scientific consensus is itself evidence of a conspiracy theory, something we saw manifested during COVID-19.  If 99% of global climate scientists agree that our current era's climate change is largely affected by human activity, that fact becomes a primary reason to oppose said consensus.  One of the reasons why is #4.

(3) A political viewpoint that declares that whatever 'they' support we must oppose, to the death. {The proper counter-point: Afraid of being called 'woke' or 'conservative'? Preach the Whole Counsel of God - Wisdom on this issue from John Piper}

We know this to be true: If the Republican party supported policies to combat climate change, and the Democrats (for whatever reason) opposed them, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would be shouting their support of these policies to combat climate change from the rooftop, and thumping their chests about how important this is to God.  This is certainly not the only issue where we see the Church in America acting as if it has a Red wing and a Blue one, often to our shame.

(4) An in-our-lifetime eschatology that is convinced the End Times are upon us, thus negating any serious commitment to environmental conservation or protection.  If it is all going to be destroyed in the next few years, who cares? {This attitude disastrously applied to COVID-19: The Mark of the Beast isn't what you think.}

Yesterday I saw, for the first time, a meme from a pastor that proclaimed that climate change MUST be false because it violates the sovereignty of God.  A small amount of knowledge about world history will debunk this foolishness.  Humanity has been affecting the environment in which we live for thousands of years, mostly in a negative capacity.  North Africa during the time of the Roman Empire was a productive province, responsible for much agricultural production, things have changed.  God's power and control has not been diminished by this human impact on our world in the past, nor is it in the present.  

In the end, what is sorely lacking in much of the 'Christian' vitriol against the scientific consensus regarding climate change is a proper orthodox understanding of stewardship.  The Biblical narrative begins with stewardship in the Garden of Eden, but somewhere along the way segments of the Church in America decided that environmental stewardship was not our responsibility.  A biblical understanding of stewardship would also act as a check on the rampant consumerism, and disregard for the poort, that affects so much of the American Church, but alas it is a neglected theological imperative.

One hundred years from now, when communities the world over are grappling with the negative affects of climate change, those hoping to share the Gospel in them will have to respond to accusations such as this: "We are in this mess because of American Christians, why should we listen to what you have to say about Jesus?"

On the Anti-Woke hit list: Reading While Black by Esau McCaulley (a review & response, part 1)

Having been singled out in the original petition that started off the "Grove City College is going 'woke'" scare, I thought it worthwhile to read for myself what is contained in Reading While Black by Anglican Priest and Wheaton College professor, Esau McCaulley (I've heard him interviewed previously on the HolyPost podcast and been impressed).  What dangerous ideas are contained herein, or is it all just Culture War smoke?  Is there not value in having students at a college that is 94% white with only one Black professor (himself singled out by the resultant committee as part of the problem)??

That being said, let me share the first passage that made me set the book down and think (from page 11, it didn't take long):

In my evangelical seminary almost all the authors we read were white men...It seemed that whatever was going on among Black Christians had little to do with real biblical interpretation.  I swam in this disdain, and even when I rejected it vocally, the doubt seeped into my subconscious.  Eventually I started to notice a few things.  While I was at home with much of the theology in evangelicalism, there were real disconnects.  First, there was the portrayal of the Black church in these circles.  I was told that the social gospel had corrupted Black Christianity.  Rather than placing my hope there, I should look to the golden age of theology, either in the early years of this country, or during the postwar boom of American Protestantism.  But the historian in me couldn't help but realize that these apexes of theological faithfulness coincided with nadirs of Black freedom. (p. 11)

As someone who grew up in a county that was 95% white, going to a school that was 99% white and a church that was 100% white, I had no direct knowledge of the state of the Black Church in America, but Esau's observation that much of Evangelicalism has written off the Black Church as hopelessly tainted by the Social Gospel is an accurate reflection of the vibe that I felt as a young person.  I can't point to a specific moment or person who advanced that notion, but it was there.

While it is true that the theology of any era of the Church could be tainted by the failures of that era in specific areas of sin, and the failures of a culture do not necessarily infect individuals within it {For example: Bonhoeffer rising above the Nazi-tainted theology of the Germany he grew up in}, that being said, the connection between leading American theologians and the dehumanizing treatment of Blacks should not be papered over.  How could it be a Golden Age when so much of the American Church was acquiescent to, or even championing, such injustice?  How can Evangelicalism be healthy if we don't reckon with this history, or worse yet, try to dismiss it?  {For example: The troubling whitewashing of Jonathan Edwards' ownership of slaves by John Piper}

I learned that too often alongside the four pillars of evangelicalism...were unspoken fifth and sixth pillars.  These are a general agreement on a certain reading of American history that downplayed injustice and a gentlemen's agreement to remain largely silent on current issues of racism and systematic injustice.  How could I exist comfortably in a tradition that too often valorizes a period of time when my people couldn't buy homes in the neighborhood that they wanted or attend the schools that their skills gave them access to?  How could I accept a place in a community if the cost for a seat at the table was silence? (p. 11-12)

And here is where the strong push-back against the idea of racial reconciliation following the murder of George Floyd comes into play.  McCaulley's book was published in 2020, since then the amount of conversation and effort poured into being 'anti-woke' and anti-CRT, including official statements from the seminary presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, speaks to the truth of the 'unspoken pillars' that he refers to.  Efforts to speak to some of the true horrors of American history or efforts to understand and combat the racism that still infects our society today, have been condemned as threats against Christianity {thanks, in part, to the merging of Church and State in Christian Nationalism, to be a 'good Christian' one must be a patriotic American}.  In his analysis, Esau McCaulley is speaking the truth, but it isn't one that many within Evangelical circles want to hear, hence the drive to purge Christian Colleges of such viewpoints.

{Further reading: When the shameful past of Racism hits close to home, a response to Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law which details the history of Redlining (the practice of keeping minorities out of white neighborhoods)}

I had difficulty with how the Bible functioned in parts of evangelicalism.  For many, the Bible had been reduced to the arena on which we fought an endless war about the finer points of Paul's doctrine of justification...But I wondered what the Bible had to say about how we might live as Christians and citizens of God's kingdom...what about the exploitation of my people?  What about our suffering, our struggle? (p. 12)

Here too I can relate to his observations about much of Evangelicalism.  There is great emphasis on getting theology exactly right, but much less emphasis on the practical implications of that theology in the lives of disciples of Jesus.  The social ethic of millions of American Christians {American is put first for a reason, it reflects part of the sickness} has been reduced to Pro-life (narrowly defined), anti-LGBTQ, and whatever Culture War topic is dominating the punditry at the moment.  Does not the Bible have things to say to us about far more topics than these?  Our call as followers of Jesus is supposed to be all-encompassing, yet only a handful of issues dominate all discussion and passions, and racial injustice is decidedly not one of them.

Rather than being a voice that Christian college students should be sheltered from, Esau McCaulley is sharing hard truth that the Church needs to hear, another indicator that the controversy at Grove City College is far more about politics than theology.

Biblical and wise thoughts of Esau McCaulley that I interacted with in October 2021: We ignore "repay evil with blessing" at our peril: the Culture War, politics, and 9/11

Sermon Video: Peter's Folly - "Even if all fall away, I will not" Mark 14:27-31

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" sums up the episode that occurs as Jesus and his disciples walk to the Garden of Gethsemane.  Jesus warns them that they will "all fall away", but Peter responds to this not with contemplation but defiance.  When Jesus assures him that this very night he will indeed disown Jesus, Peter foolish digs in and insists otherwise.  Why?  Some combination of pride and stubbornness, with perhaps misplaced zeal added in, leads Peter down a fool's path.  Seeing him begin, the other 10 follow by also insisting against Jesus' prediction that they will remain steadfast.

For the Church today, this offers a reminder that pride and stubbornness are not the traits God is looking for from his people.  Neither is 'rugged individualism' (i.e. the philosophy of Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh) the path to discipleship.  The Church requires servants working together to further the Kingdom of God, more Clark Kent, less Superman.  Like Lewis and Clark on the way to the Pacific, we'd be wise to seek a guide and companionship.

Josh McDowell's folly in addition to racism: Claiming that the Bible only talks about individuals

In a recent speech author and apologist Josh McDowell caused a significant commotion by proclaiming the the primary cause of inequality for Black families in America is that Black households don't prioritize education and hard work.  That he was doing so in the midst of a speech lambasting Critical Race Theory as unbiblical because it sees oppression in systems and not just individuals made his statement ironic in addition to its casual racist stereotypes given that Josh McDowell is blaming the systems of Black families and culture rather than the individual young people he claims are growing up to not value education and hard work.  Here is the quote:

"I do not believe Blacks, African Americans, and many other minorities have equal opportunity. Why? Most of them grew up in families where there is not a big emphasis on education, security — you can do anything you want. You can change the world. If you work hard, you will make it. So many African Americans don't have those privileges like I was brought up with,"

After the uproar McDowell attempted to backtrack claiming that his statement didn't reflect his own beliefs, but much damage has already been done to his reputation.

Josh McDowell apologises for race comments, by Jennifer Lee of Christian Today

Josh McDowell steps back from ministry after controversial remarks on black families By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter

That racism is indeed a structural problem, and not just the actions of individuals is not a difficult proposition to establish, although it is anathema to a significant portion of Evangelicals in America today to say so.  I've already written against such rampant Individualism:

When the shameful past of Racism hits close to home {An analysis of The Color of Law, an incredible book}

The Prophet Amos: What provokes God's wrath? - Injustice and False Worship {Amos had no trouble seeing Israel's problems as being more than individual choices}

Especially this: Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"

And this: "What does the Bible say about systemic racism?" by WWUTT.com - an error filled and shameful tragedy that only makes things worse

Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong

Systemic Racism: The casual racism of the phrase "Black on Black crime" {Also contains links to Phil Vischer's videos from the Holy Post, very helpful}

So yeah, I've written a lot in the last couple of years against the notion that systematic racism doesn't exist and against the over-dependence of Evangelicals today on Individualism.  It turns out that a false individualism is at the heart of Josh McDowell's theological error as well.  Also from that same speech is this fiasco that is being overshadowed by the racist stereotype that went with it:

During his talk, McDowell also criticized critical race theory (CRT) which he claimed "negates all the biblical teaching" on racism because it blames systems instead of individual sin.  "There's no comparison to what is known today as social justice with what the Bible speaks as justice," he said. "With CRT they speak structurally. The Bible speaks individually. Make sure you get that. That's a big difference." {quoted from the Christian Today article}

Wait, what??  The Bible speaks individually ONLY and NOT structurally?  The prophets don't excoriate Israelite society, its government and rulers because of their unjust laws and practices?  Jesus doesn't flip tables in the temple, upbraid the power structures in Jerusalem time and time again?  How Josh McDowell came to a place in his worldview that he would believe and teach this nonsense is itself a hard question, but there is no doubt that he is in deep error here, and that he is not alone.

My rebuttal (link above) of the PragerU video goes into much detail against this false individualistic version of the Gospel, this is a political gospel, one rooted in Ayn Rand style individualism, but antithetical to the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview.

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

When is governmental action morally justified? The morality of COVID-19 responses to protect less than 1%.

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

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

Another example of rampant Individualism: A Moral Hierarchy: A refutation of William Barr's, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

The response of many Christians to the COVID-19 pandemic has put into plain view the paucity of Individualism, the utter failure of an ethic based on the needs/wants of the individual and neglecting community responsibility.  McDowell's dismissal of systematic racism (as part of his political assault on CRT) is equally foolish, and equally unbiblical.

The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson

Given the recent insanity of the "Empathy is Sin" movement {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism}, I've looked back a bit into recent history to try to understand the pieces of the pattern that led Pastor John Piper, who is well respected even by those who disagree with him, to put his weight behind the likes of Doug Wilson, Joe Rigney, and James White in this endeavor to pulverize empathy toward abuse victims.  Which is where I came across a trend that I was previously unaware of: the use of Potiphar's Wife from Joseph's story in Genesis to insinuate that some (if not most) women (and others) who claim to have been sexually abused, secretly really wanted the sexual activity that was forced upon them.

It turns out this trend is fairly widespread.  In a public letter to then SBC President J.D. Greer, Russel Moore, the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC, an SBC entity) wrote, "You and I both heard, in closed door meetings, sexual abuse survivors spoken of in terms of 'Potiphar’s wife' and other spurious biblical analogies. The conversations in these closed door meetings were far worse than anything Southern Baptists knew—or the outside world could report."  In some circles, evidently, it is routine behind closed doors to treat the entire MeToo movement, and even the larger Clergy Sex Abuse scandal, as a nefarious plot.  It should be little wonder then, if this is how those entrusted to lead portions of the Church are acting privately, that Rachael Denhollander was treated shamefully in public by many of these same people.

The SBC dis-fellowships a church which continues to employ a child-sex offender as their pastor: a step in the right direction, but not enough.

"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

The use of Potiphar's Wife to defend those in power accused of sexual misconduct is both despicable, in that someone would use the Word of God for such an immoral purpose, and exegetically a very poor interpretation of the text itself.  The balance of power in Joseph's story is the exact opposite of that when adult, males, in positions of power/authority, abuse others.  Joseph has no power, he's a slave.  The story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife is a cautionary tale on behalf of the powerless in society, not a defense of abusers.  This analysis further examines the text: The Real Sin of Potiphar’s Wife:

The story of Potiphar’s wife and Joseph isn’t the story of an ordinary woman falsely accusing a man of assault and not suffering the consequences; it’s the story of a powerful person using her power to exploit someone weaker, and then bearing false witness against them to cause them to suffer even further in the midst of their vulnerability.  

But most importantly, it’s the story of the good news that there is no human power so great that it can ultimately thwart the purposes of an all-powerful and all-loving God.

Another capable explanation of what the story of Potiphar's wife is actually teaching: STOP USING POTIPHAR'S WIFE TO DISCREDIT SURVIVORS BY JUSTIN COBER-LAKE 

To be clear, it is true that Potiphar's wife made a false allegation. No one denies that false accusations happen but using this story to somehow discredit all women coming forward devalues holy text, turning it into a political bludgeon rather than a liberating truth. Doing so is a political error leading to dangerous eisegesis; the text isn't about the reliability of women, victims, or witnesses. Making that issue central misses the larger point of Joseph's story and the redeeming work of God.

That's not to say we can't apply the story to current events. What we primarily see is a person in power using that position to try to gain sexual access to a subordinate.

The Bible repeatedly speaks to this sort of abuse of power. The structural forces that landed Joseph in prison are largely the same forces that prevent modern assault victims from having a voice. Power oppresses individuals in multiple ways, and one of the most immediate is through enforcing silence. We have no knowledge of Joseph's response because he was likely allowed none.

I am reminded of the classic trope from The Princess Bride, revolving around the word Inconceivable. So it is here with the misuse of the story of Potiphar's wife, it doesn't mean what they think it means.

It isn't surprising that those who would attack victims to defend abusers would also twist the Word of God to that unholy purpose, but it is dangerous.  In an attempt at satire, Pastor Doug Wilson in 2017 reimagined Potiphar's wife as a modern-day feminist, eager to destroy men: Potiphar’s Wife, Survivor

Then that fateful afternoon came when he tried to rape me. Yes, I am no longer afraid to use the word rape. If he been a little more patient, if he had groomed me for just another month, I might not have cried out. I had been almost completely absorbed into the rape culture that Joseph truly embodied. I was truly in a vulnerable place, which my therapist has really helped me to finally grasp. I still am in a vulnerable place, in so many ways. My therapist is so kind and gentle . . . not at all like Potiphar. He truly listens to me. He actually believes me when I dare to share my innermost thoughts. I am almost to the point where I can tell him what would really satisfy me.

What is the point of this sexually suggestive nonsense?  Pastor Wilson uses the Word of God to suggest that (1) mental health professionals are part of the problem, (2) downplay real dangers from sexual abusers like grooming their victims, and (3) hint without much subtlety at the end that 'women really do want it'.  This is, very much, a dark place, and one that fits fairly seamlessly with the more recent call to abandon empathy lest we identify with those claim to have been abused.

Dig further, and you find that Pastor Wilson views marital sex in terms of rape, in fact he believes that this is the God-ordained dynamic, as he wrote the following: 

A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence. When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us.

In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed. -Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 86-87. - emphasis mine.

I don't have the proper words for how disgusting this attitude is, and how unbiblical.  This is not two halves united as a whole, not a man treating his wife's body as his own for her betterment.  Here is a similar response to the above quote from Rachel Held Evans: The Gospel Coalition, sex, and subordination

There is so much about this passage that I, as a woman, find inaccurate, degrading, and harmful that it’s hard to know where to begin.  That Wilson blames egaliatarianism for the presence of rape and sexual violence in the world is ludicrous and unsubstantiated.  His characterization of sex as an act of conquering and colonization is disturbing, and his notion that women are little more than the passive recipients of this colonization, who simply “accept” penetration, is as ignorant as it is degrading. 

In addition, the Apostle Paul flat-out condemns marital sex that is one-sided in a passage full of mutual submission: 

1 Corinthians 7:3-5   New International Version

3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Lastly, here is a examination of Wilson's view of marital sex from a fellow Complementarian, who also utilizes 1 Corinthians 7 to demonstrate how dangerous this viewpoint is: Does Doug Wilson endorse marital rape?

Pastor Doug Wilson is a central figure in the charge to abandon empathy (because it is helping the Libs).  Even without the theological refutations of that argument, which are many, looking further at the overall worldview of the source is damning.

 

The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism

Sin is a big word for Jews and Christians, it is an especially toxic word among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.  When some attitude, thought, or behavior is put under the label of sin, people take notice.  When I was much younger than I am now, it was not uncommon for people in my sphere to talk about going to the movies or social dances as a sin.  In fact, both of those things were banned by the Christian College, Cornerstone, that I attended.  In both cases, blanket bans and talk of sin was unproductive, and unnecessarily legalistic.  What should have happened was a much more nuanced discussion about temptation and stewardship of time and resources that led to much more accurate conclusions like, "Some movies should not be viewed by Christians, and would thus because of their immoral content be sinful to attend." Or, "Some social dancing, because of its connection to both alcohol and potential to inflame lust in young people who may not be capable of saying no to that temptation, should be avoided by Christians."  Statements of that nature don't fit on a bumper sticker, don't feel tough enough by those rooting on the Culture Wars, but actually conform much more closely to both the teaching of the Apostle Paul about the confluence of Christian freedom and responsibility {1 Corinthians 10:23 New International Version “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.} and the actual reality of how Christians deal with and overcome temptation.

That being said, the choice of Pastor Joe Rigney {with the support and agreement of Pastor John Piper, Pastor Doug Wilson, and apologist James White} to label Empathy a SIN cannot be set aside as hyperbole or click-bait {if that was the goal, to gain notoriety and ultimately sales, this discussion takes on a whole different tone; let us not assume the worst}.  Rigney, and those like minded leaders in the Church, want Empathy to be reevaluated, judged, and jettisoned from Christian discipleship, ministry, and counseling. 

The following quotes are from Pastor Joe Rigney's, The Enticing Sin of Empathy HOW SATAN CORRUPTS THROUGH COMPASSION   Unfortunately, Rigney considers himself to be somehow C.S. Lewis' literary successor and has written his indictment of Empathy in the style of the The Screwtape Letters.  It worked well for Lewis' genius, less well here.

When humans are suffering, they tend to make two demands that are impossible to fulfill simultaneously. On the one hand, they want people to notice the depth of their pain and sorrow — how deep they are in the pit, how unique and tragic their circumstances. At the same time, they don’t want to be made to feel that they really need the assistance of others. In one breath, they say, “Help me! Can’t you see I’m suffering?” and in the next they say, “How dare you act as though I needed you and your help?” The sufferer doesn’t want to be alone, and demands not to be pitied.

Rigney sets forth an example of the complex emotions of traumatized people.  He evidently considers it a tool useful to Satan that those who have are experiencing deep pain may at the same time struggle to accept help for that pain.  Traumatized people don't have straightforward emotional responses; that's not news.  He really shouldn't be surprised, is not the Bible full of examples of people who didn't feel worthy of God's redemption, Peter saying to Jesus, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” (Luke 5:8) being but one example.  Moreover, in ministry I've experienced this, as have countless other pastors and lay Christians.  When we reach out to someone in desperate need of help, that person either struggles with pride (not being willing to admit they need it) or with despair (not seeing that help is possible for someone like them).  The human condition, especially apart from the involvement of the Spirit, is a mess.

Now, sufferers have been placing such impossible demands on others from time immemorial. In response, our armies have fought for decades to twist the Enemy’s virtue of compassion into its counterfeit, empathy. Since we introduced the term a century ago, we’ve steadily taught the humans to regard empathy as an improvement upon compassion or sympathy.

Here is Rigney's premise: Empathy is a twisted mirror to Compassion, a counterfeit modern opposite.  For this to be true, one would need to search the Bible in vain for empathy on display and only find compassion.  Let's take a look, does God show compassion ONLY, or empathy too under its umbrella?

Matthew 9:36 New International Version

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

1 Peter 3:8  New International Version

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.

Romans 12:15  New International Version

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

John 11:34-36New International Version

34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

35 Jesus wept.

36 Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Hebrews 4:15  New International Version

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Beyond these examples from Scripture, passages where Compassion is not devoid of emotional connection, there is one simple act of Jesus that puts aside any thought that Jesus only felt Compassion and not Empathy: He touched the lepers.

Matthew 8:3  New International Version

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy.

To touch a leper was forbidden, it made one unclean according to the Law of Moses, and risked infection.  Why would Jesus touch this man before he healed him?  He could just have easily healed him first, and then (after presenting himself to the priests to be declared 'clean') this man could have had all the hugs he needed.  Why?  Because Jesus felt his pain, his isolation, his loneliness.  Was Jesus thus unable to see what the man really needed?  Did he lose sight of Truth?  Of course not, his Empathy was one of the reasons why Jesus was able to transcend conventional wisdom and accepted limits, to show the mercy and love of God to someone in desperate need of both.  In all honesty, this one passage is a deal-breaker for the notion that Empathy is Sin.  Jesus felt the pain of others, it didn't hinder him from remaining true to his calling and purpose one bit.

In addition, this entire pronouncement of SIN against those who feel empathy is a semantic exercise with two words that have significant overlap in their semantic ranges, and are often used interchangeably by authors, pastors, and the public.   

According to Merriam-Webster, which actually contains a page comparing the two terms:

What is the difference between empathy and compassion?

Some of our users are interested in the difference between empathy and compassion. Compassion is the broader word: it refers to both an understanding of another’s pain and the desire to somehow mitigate that pain:

Our rationalizations for lying (or withholding the truth)—"to protect her," "he could never handle it”—come more out of cowardice than compassion.
— Eric Utne, Utne Reader, November/December 1992

Sometimes compassion is used to refer broadly to sympathetic understanding:

Nevertheless, when Robert Paxton's "Vichy France" appeared in a French translation in 1973, his stark and devastating description ... was rather badly received in France, where many critics accused this scrupulous and thoughtful young historian either of misinterpreting the Vichy leaders' motives or of lacking compassion.
— Stanley Hoffmann, The New York Times Book Review, 1 Nov. 1981

Empathy refers to the ability to relate to another person’s pain vicariously, as if one has experienced that pain themselves:

For instance, people who are highly egoistic and presumably lacking in empathy keep their own welfare paramount in making moral decisions like how or whether to help the poor.
— Daniel Goleman, The New York Times, 28 Mar. 1989

"The man thought all this talk was fine, but he was more concerned with just getting water. And, if I was going to be successful on this mission, I had to remember what his priorities were. The quality you need most in United Nations peacekeeping is empathy."
— Geordie Elms, quoted in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, Autumn 1992

In some cases, compassion refers to both a feeling and the action that stems from that feeling:

Compassion, tenderness, patience, responsibility, kindness, and honesty are actions that elicit similar responses from others.
— Jane Smiley, Harper’s, June 2000

while empathy tends to be used just for a feeling:

She is also autistic, a disability that she argues allows her a special empathy with nonhuman creatures.
— Tim Flannery, The New York Review of Books, 29 April 2009

Thus if Rigney is correct, and compassion is a virtue, but empathy is a sin, the only thing that a Christian can do to have compassion, which is required, is to understand the pain of others, want to help them alleviate it, but NEVER feel that pain.  The primary distinction between the two terms is the emotional connection that empathy makes beyond that of some forms of compassion.  I've known this many times in ministry.  There are some people I have helped in their distress whose emotional state, for whatever reason, does not powerfully connect with me at that time.  I help them just the same.  And yet, there have been others, perhaps in the same circumstances, whose emotional pain hits me powerfully, even causing me to loose control over my emotions and shed tears.  In both cases I offer such help as I can give, am I to believe that the emotion-less response, Spock like, is a virtue, and the one that causes me emotional pain too, the more empathetic response, is SIN??  This conclusion I reject both categorically, and whole-heartedly.  I have my mother's heart, I always have.  When she cries, I can't hold back tears, the things that tug at her heart have always tugged at mine.  It is a gift of God born of both my nature and my nurture, and something that I am profoundly grateful to my mother for the role she played in giving it to me.  Why?  Because it has produced some of the most powerful and transformative moments in my ministry.  In addition, it has shaped my heart and mind, bringing me closer to the suffering of others, shutting down excuses and rationalizations against helping others in need, because at times I can feel what they feel (at least in part).  That Christian Fundamentalism (or Evangelicalism, the two terms, ironically, have much overlap) has degenerated to the point where a seminary president lays this down as the Rubicon that cannot be crossed, is an indicator of just how ill this patient has become.

Of note: In his discussion Rigney is defining Empathy in a way foreign to both the dictionary definition and common usage.  He is putting on empathy all manner elements that are not required, not part of what this emotion actually is.  Those who just read the headlines won't notice this, they'll assume that a minister of the Gospel has warned them not to feel the pain of others because it is sinful, and walk away even more misguided than if he/she had tried to maintain the hair-splitting definitions Rigney is favoring.

Think of it this way: the Enemy’s virtue of compassion attempts to suffer with the hurting while maintaining an allegiance to the Enemy. In fact, it suffers with the hurting precisely because of this allegiance. In doing so, the Christians are to follow the example of their pathetic and repulsive Master. Just as the Enemy joined the humans in their misery in that detestable act of incarnation, so also his followers are to join those who are hurting in their misery.

However, just as the Enemy became like them in every way but sin, so also his followers are not permitted to sin in their attempts to comfort the afflicted. Thus, his compassion always reserves the right not to blaspheme. It seeks the sufferer’s good and subordinates itself to the Enemy’s abominable standard of Truth.

Our alternative, empathy, shifts the focus from the sufferer’s good to the sufferer’s feelings, making them the measure of whether a person is truly “loved.” We teach the humans that unless they subordinate their feelings entirely to the misery, pain, sorrow, and even sin and unbelief of the afflicted, they are not loving them.

Here Rigney builds his Straw Man to dismantle.  His false dichotomy states that one can ONLY have empathy if one abandons the desire to seek the good of the other person, that while Christ did indeed suffer 'with' those who were hurting, in other words he felt their pain, this was somehow not Empathy, but only Compassion.   The last sentence above is instructive: Rigney has now redefined empathy to be feeling the pain of others WITHOUT any recognition that pain might be, at least in part, caused by sin or unbelief on the part of the person one is feeling empathy towards.  But why??  Even if there is an attempt to demand such unquestioning, truth-less, empathy on the part of a person in pain or from segments of society, why must a Christian accept it?  This is a classic example of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'.  Joe Rigney, as a Culture Warrior, fears that 'they' are trying to use blind empathy to advance their political causes, and thus 'we' must reject empathy, in its entirety, to deny them that tool.  In other words, let us surrender this field of battle and retreat.  The answer is no.  No, I will not allow the Culture War to dictate my theology, I will not adjust my ministry focus and methods to avoid any taint of looking/acting/sounding like 'them' to satisfy the knee-jerk reaction of political partisanship.  

By elevating empathy over compassion as the superior virtue, there is now an entire culture devoted to the total immersion of empathy. Books, articles, and social media all trumpet the importance of checking one’s own beliefs, values, judgments, and reason at the door of empathy.

This is the what Rigney believes the Left is doing.  If taken at face value, why would the Church change in response?  One can first listen to those hurting and in pain without making judgments either way until you know what is going on.  One can simply say instead, "I do feel your pain, but my devotion to Christ shows me what the ultimate answer to that pain is."  Why must we abandon Empathy to protect Truth??  This is the dangerous false dichotomy of this position.  We are being asked to make a sacrifice by abandoning empathy, 'for the greater good', that is unnecessary.  I, as a minister of the Gospel, am fully capable of understanding the pain of someone I'm trying to help, even feeling some of it myself, without abandoning my own connection to Truth and Righteousness.  

Is it possible for a minister or a counselor to lose objectivity, to get too close to someone they are trying to help?  Of course it is,  but Rigney didn't say, "Be careful because sometimes people take empathy too far."  The "Sin of Empathy" is a much catchier title, but also foolish.  

Rightly used, empathy is a power tool in the hands of the weak and suffering. By it, we can so weaponize victims that they (and those who hide behind them) are indulged at every turn, without regard for whether such indulgence is wise or prudent or good for them.

Here is where it seems the 'quiet part' is said out loud.  The reason for this diatribe against Empathy is that victims have been 'weaponized' in the last few years.  The primary examples of this are the MeToo Movement and BLM.  Women are starting to believed when they report sexual abuse, and questions of ongoing systematic racism are starting to be taken seriously.  Rigney, and those echoing his fears, view such victims as a Trojan Horse, threatening both Complementarianism, what John Piper is best known for, and the longstanding dominance of Whites in America.  If we feel the pain of women and minorities, if we take the harm done to them by individuals and institutions who have not traditionally been held accountable seriously, will we not be seeking what is True and Righteous?  Is this not the call of the Church, to defend the powerless against those who harm them?

This reminds me of the attempt to smear Rachel Denhollander, a sexual abuse victim and advocate for those being abused, by some within the SBC. {"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}  This Christian woman was connected to 'godless ideologies' by Founders Ministries, despite the fact that her efforts were both God honoring and biblically correct.  Her crime?  Working on a 'Blue' issue that was shining the light of Truth on the sins committed in churches on the 'Red' team.

How do we know that this push against Empathy is connected to blowback against MeToo and BLM?  In other words, that it is a Culture War response of the Team Red against Team Blue, and not simply the seeking of theological Truth?  The ouster of three pastors at John Piper's church, known for their empathy and willingness to work on behalf of the oppressed, makes the connection clear.  Read the article from Christianity Today, it provides important context for this discussion. {Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture’ A debate over “untethered empathy” underscores how departing leaders, including John Piper’s successor, approached hot-button issues like race and abuse. by KATE SHELLNUTT}  

 Empathy demands, “Feel what I feel. In fact, lose yourself in my feelings.”

Why must it be thus?  Even if some demand that Empathy be this, it isn't, nor does it have to be.

When faith is abused by some, do we declare faith a sin?  When love is abused by some do we declare love a sin?  Of course not, don't be ridiculous, so why would we cast empathy out into the darkness simply because some may want to use it for unhealthy purposes?

The Culture Wars make for BAD theology.  When we look at what is happening in the Culture, and then design a theological response to bolster 'our side' against 'them', the results are not pretty.  The Church is supposed to be above such swaying to and fro, supposed to be firmly planted on the Solid Rock.  This is yet another example of how we endanger the Church, its purity and its mission, when we marry the Church to politics.  Empathy is not a sin, it never was.

For further discussion:

Holy Post Episode 472 The “Sin of Empathy” & Spotting Toxic Leaders with Jamin Goggin & Kyle Strobel  This topic is discussed from the 33:20-59:00 mark.

Empathy is Not a Sin by Warren Throckmorton

“Your Empathy Is a Sin”: A Response to Desiring God by Rebecca Davis

Empathy is a Virtue, by SCOT MCKNIGHT

The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. By David French

Sermon Video: Jesus: Pay your taxes, and serve God - Mark 12:13-17

Hoping to trap Jesus, two rival groups that otherwise hate each other asked him if it was moral to pay taxes to Rome. Rather than answer with a Realpolitik answer, "What choice do we have?" or with rebel's "Give me Liberty, or give me Death" response, Jesus instead asks them to examine the coin and note that Caesar's face is on it. This leads Jesus to conclude that God or Rome is a false dichotomy, an attempt to force the people into a 'lesser of two evils' type situation, but God doesn't work that God. God doesn't choose any kind of evil. Instead, Jesus commands God's people to serve both their governmental authority AND God. The obligations are not mutually exclusive, they often overlap, and despite our grumbling about our obligation to the government, that which we owe to God is far more expansive, comprehensive, and stringent. After all, God demands heart, mind, soul, and body...In the end, the growing anti government attitude within American Evangelicalism is a sign of unhealthiness, a focus on pride and 'personal freedoms' over and above obligations and responsibilities, as such it is one that is foreign to Jesus' teachings in the Gospels.

Young Earth Creationism paved the way for anti-science / anti-vaccine Evangelicals

Political tribalism is the foremost reason why millions of Evangelical Republicans are avoiding or refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, given our hyper-partisan cultural moment, it isn't hard to see why.  However, this particular manifestation of an anti-science attitude was made possible because for generations many of America's Evangelicals have been taught that the vast majority of the world's scientists, including medical doctors, geologists, astronomers, biologists, chemists, archaelogists, sociologists, and more are involved (whether or not they are aware of it) in a global Satan inspired (and/or led) conspiracy to hide the truth about the how and when of Creation.  It is assumed, and often boldly stated, that most scientists are atheists who hate God.  These scientists, as the conspiracy theory goes, falsify data, publish things they know to be lies, and seek to destroy the courageous few that try to get the truth out to the public.  I've heard this tale, many times, from many people, since my childhood.

There was no need to offer proof that Science was so corrupted, this was a theological conclusion, not one built upon indepentent facts.  This global cabal of Satan aiding scientists believe that the universe is old, far older than 6,000 years, and that life as we know it is the result of evolutionary processes.  In opposition, Young Earth Creationists, led by Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, offer a starkly different viewpoint, one framed not primarily as a scientific debate (although they do offer a vast array of explanations and attemtped rebutals) but as a spiritual battle between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil.  Wether stated explicitly or not, there is a very strong implicit understanding that Science, and the vast majority of scientists, are evil.

If you begin with the premise that the vast majority of scientists are either evil, or beholden to evil, it won't be long before that attitude bleads out into other realms and has real world consequences.  In other words, Pandora doesn't stay in the box arguing about Creation, it spills out.

Previously to COVID-19, one of the most visible areas where, "they're all lying to you" anti-science beliefs came to the forefront was in denial of human caused Climate Change.  For example: The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault! by Dr. Alan White or Climate Change Hysteria—Is It Justified? by Ken Ham among many others from Answers in Genesis.  

Regarding COVID-19, like Climate Change in years previously, politicians are not causing an anti-science attitude (to make one from scratch would be no small task), they're merely riding the wave of one that has been building since the Scopes Trial in 1925.  

In the end, many American Christians, particularly Evangelicals, have been led to believe that they must make a binary choice.  Either the Bible is true, God is real, the universe is 6,000 years old, OR the Bible is a lie, God is dead, the universe is billions of years old.  Everything hinges on the age of the universe, the proposition is an All or Nothing, Either/Or.

But this forced choice is false, and dangerous, as we are now witnessing regarding COVID vaccination anger and outright hostility among a group of people who've been raised on the notion that Science is full of liars.  

There is a third, less traveled, choice: The Bible is true (but doesn't claim to be a science book), God is real as a matter of faith (for Science can neither prove or disprove God's existence), and the universe is billions of years old as far as we can tell from the evidnece at hand.  Science, in this middle position, although fallible and in need of correction when it is wrong, is a tool given to humanity by God when he made us in his image.

The binary choice is necessary when only ONE way of understanding Genesis, while taking it seriously as God's Word, is allowed.  This isn't a question of inerrancy, but of interpretation.  Those who see other possibilities, ones compatible with modern scientific understanding, are not negating or denying God as Creator, nor doubting his Word, rather they are open to the idea that our own certainty about how these ancient words were understood then, what their ultimate purpose was, and what they should mean to us today, may be misplaced.  What if Y.E.C. is not what Genesis is supposed to convey?  What if Genesis wasn't intended by God to give nearly as many answers as we've tried to find there?  What if we've been reading Genesis like history/science when in fact it is primarily a book of relationship (God to his Creation, God to people)?  

In the end, this fight isn't going anywhere, and the anti-science attitudes, now fueld by partisan politics, are likely to only grow more hardened and more violent.  Why did I back away from the Y.E.C I was taught in my youth?  I saw this trend coming, didn't believe that God intended his Church to be anti-science, nor beholden to conspiracy theories, so I sought more perspectives on Genesis that both honored God as Creator and Science as his gift to the human mind.

For some additional perspective on these issues: 

Christian Worldview self-destruction: A culture without Facts is a culture without Truth

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

And some helpful videos from Phil Vischer and the Holy Post:

Phil Vischer: A Brief History of Young Earth Creatinoism

Phil Vischer: Science vs. the Bible with John Walton

Phil Vischer: The Lost World of Adam and Eve, with John Walton

Phil Vischer: The Lost World of Adan and Eve, with John Walton, part 2

Christian Worldview self-destruction: A culture without Facts is a culture without Truth

 The trend away from general acceptance of the idea of universal Truth, with a capital "T", has been centuries in the making.  It was helped along by the individualism of the Enlightenment, even inadvertently by the stand against collective authority taken by Martin Luther.  While Truth was losing ground in the realms of ethics, philosophy, and religion, Fact (again with the capital letter) was gaining ground in a host of scientific endeavors through the Industrial, Agricultural, and Modern Medicine revolutions.  We, as humanity, knew with certainty more facts about the universe we inhabited than our ancestors could have imagined possible.  Their senses were limited to their own eyes, we could examine the world through both microscopes and telescopes.  Even if we were losing firm ground in the spiritual realm with the breakup of Christendom into competing Catholic and Protestant camps, and the splintering of Protestantism into still further groups, we were gaining a common understanding of objective reality that led, not without bumps along the way, away from Thomas Hobbes' description of life outside of society's embrace as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'  Life expectancy was on the rise, starvation and childhood death rates were plummeting, work was less back breaking, leisure was invented.  In short, aside from the rude wake-up calls of war and genocide, optimism was a warranted conclusion.

In this world of increasing scientific fact, there was an opportunity for religion, Christianity in particular, to trumpet God's proclamation that lying is beyond his nature.  In other words, Christianity should have embraced scientific discovery as a further revelation of God's nature.  The relation between science and religion, which could have been harmonious, was instead rocky.

Hebrews 6:17-18 (NIV) 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.

The Church made the mistake of viewing Scripture as a scientific journal rather than simply observational reporting.  The prime example is the way in which the heavens are described, the 'firmament' of Genesis 1, as it was observed by the ancients.  This was not a scientific description of what lay beyond earth's atmosphere, but only how it looked from where they stood.  Without telescopes, what more could they have known, and why would God have explained it to them in ways they could not have understood?  Thus when Copernicus and Galileo revealed through observation that the earth revolves around the sun, the Church should have welcomed this new insight, but instead insisted that Scripture declared that the geocentric model was correct.  Thus began a long and fruitless fight against scientific discovery that later encompassed numerous fields beyond astronomy, all fought misguidedly in the effort to defend things that holy scripture had not asserted.

Fast forward to 21st century American Evangelicalism (and to a lesser extent American Christianity in general).  The cause of objective spiritual Truth is seemingly at a nadir, long held moral beliefs are challenged forcefully by the culture at large, and what is the response of the Church?  A seemingly all-out assault on Fact.  Rather than defend Truth, American Evangelicalism has largely embraced a no-holds barred war against science.  It began, in earnest in 1925 with the Scopes Trial pitting an interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis against the theories of biology, but quickly expanding to hold that interpretation also against discoveries in archaeology, astronomy, geology, physics, and more as the defense of an earth that could be no more than 6,000 years old was seen as the Rubicon of scriptural inerrancy.  If Science is allowed to explain the origin of the universe and of life on earth, the war would be lost and religion would be discarded, so we have been warned with increasing fervor.

With what end result?  A significant portion of evangelicals now believe that the scientific community is engaged in a massive demonic conspiracy to discredit the Bible.  It is now common belief among many that your average paleontologist or astronomer is an atheist that hates God.   On the flip side, many of the West's most educated people have grown cynical about spiritual things in general, and Christianity in particular, in part because of this anti-science stance.  What we are left with is never ending trench warfare with evangelicals touting attempts to refute science through organizations like Answers in Genesis, a process that has inevitably become more and more political, less and less theological.

In recent decades this war over the Facts of Creation has expanded to touch upon other scientific discoveries.  Because millions of evangelicals look at science with disdain once reserved for Voodoo witch doctors, there is little wonder that an anti-vaccine movement has developed, that Climate Change is one of the most divisive political issues in America today, or that we now live in an era when a phrase like 'alternative facts' can be uttered with a straight face.

Is Science, if something so nebulous can be taken as a whole, blameless in all this?  Certainly not, one need not be a fan of Michael Crichton (I am) to recognize that human genetic engineering requires significant safeguard and raises massive ethical questions, nor to agree that recreating carnivorous dinosaurs would be a bad idea, if it were possible.  In virtually every field Science has ethical questions to answer.  As Crichton's character Ian Malcolm says in Jurassic Park, “Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something.”  Here's the irony in all this, Science can't answer questions about what whether or not they should do something.  Those questions are ethical questions, and ethics lies in the realm of philosophy and religion.  Science NEEDS the spiritual realm to answers questions that go beyond the test tube, that are not answered by a peer reviewed study, but rather than act as a counselor and guide, much of American Christianity has treated Science as the enemy.

No matter what you believe about HOW God Created the World, the war on Science has already begun to boomerang. 

I know that many Christians are firmly convinced that only a literal 6 Day Creation occurring approximately 6,000 years ago can possibly do justice to Genesis.  {I've written about this issue previously: Faith, Science, and Creation, is there a way forward?}  If this is the only option, we are at an impasse, for scientific discoveries have not invalidated previously put forth theories about the age of the universe.  To continue in this stalemate is a lose-lose situation.  The more Facts are eroded by religion, and especially by the politics of the religious, the less and less trust will be placed upon Truth by the culture at large.  Facts and Truth are inextricably linked, you can't have one without the other.  Faith and Science NEED each other, whether either side is willing to admit it or not.

If there are no objective Facts that can be agreed upon, there is no Truth either.  On what basis will you build the case that the Bible is True while at the same time you preach that human beings cannot trust their own senses?  Radical empirical-ism, that each of us can only trust what we sense and no objective reality lies beyond our senses, is a death knell not only for any hope of a democratic republic, but of organized religion as well.  But that radical individualism is the foreseeable end result of a constant dismissal of Facts.  If Facts and Truth do not exist independent of us, but are rather subject to our will to believe or disbelieve them, they cease to have any useful meaning.

2020 has shown us the acceleration of this process.  Recently highly influential evangelical pastor John MacArthur has declared against a mountain of scientific evidence, "there is no pandemic", a statement that was met with thunderous applause by the 3,000 non mask wearing people in the sanctuary of his church.  Here's the problem, the virus doesn't care if you believe in it or not.  Science denial is now a political badge of courage, but this is not surprising, it was the next step in the ongoing assault on Fact by many Christians.

{John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation}

{John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response}

It doesn't have to be this way, we don't need to sow the seeds of our own destruction.  We can't have Truth without Facts.  When you assault one, you attack them both.  If Christians want to be people of Truth, they need to be people of Facts too.

For more on the topic of Truth and its relationship with Fact: 

The apparent blasphemy of My Pillow founder Michael Lindell regarding a COVID-19 'cure'.

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

Why is the Truth treated like a second rate commodity? Life lessons from an ESPN article: Happy 59th! Or is it 58th? Cracking the mystery of Don Mattingly's birthday - by Sam Miller

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

The ungodly growth of Holocaust Denial

Those are just the last two years, when you minor in philosophy the idea of Truth is never far from your mind. List of 37 posts on my blog about Truth