The harms that "Heritage America" will do to the Church, our Gospel witness, and our republic.

American Progress (1872) by John Gast

Heritage America: Wise Men Have Left Us an Inheritance Ben R. Crenshaw, August 23, 2024 at Americanreformer.org

Ben R. Crenshaw is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Declaration of Independence Center at the University of Mississippi. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.

I came across this article by Ben Crenshaw posted at Americanreformer.org while reading an article about the effort (unserious as it may be) of some complementarian pastors to revoke the 19th Amendment because they believe that women are too empathetic to be trusted with the right to vote.  Needless to say, I reject that sexist view as utter nonsense {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism or The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson}as have other Christian thinkers {The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. David French}.  While thinking about how foolish some pastors willing to rail against women voters have become in mixing their politics and adherence to the Culture War with their responsibility before God to preach the Gospel, I decided to click on the link in the article about a term that I've seen thrown around of late: Heritage Americans.

I would imagine that some who use the term "Heritage Americans" are full-on "blood and soil" racists no different than yesterday's Klan members, and some others may use it out of a love for American culture and history without any racial overtones or designs on wielding power over others, Crenshaw's article leans toward the former, even though he denies that it is so.  In the end, this entire concept of "real Americans" is dangerous to the Church, our Gospel witness, and ultimately our Republic.  Let's look at some quotes of particular concern:

"Not all people merely by virtue of being human are capable of self-government. In fact, self-government is rare in human history, as most people are too poor, slavish, stupid, or vicious to establish good government and run it well. They are instead better fit to be ruled without, and even against, their consent." 

This line of thinking is the same sort of racism that was rampant during the era of Colonialism.  Crenshaw seems to think that Englishmen (and those like them) are the only ones capable of good government and self-rule {He says as much in the article), the world's other "inferior" people are best ruled against their consent.  His views are ugly, immoral, and entirely ahistorical.  In other words, this should be condemned plainly and as often as necessary to get the point across.

This racial viewpoint offered by Crenshaw is also poison to the Gospel.  God didn't create tiers of people, some inherently different than others, to suggest otherwise is to malign the goodness of God or to call into question his ability as Creator.  If that were not bad enough, this view would also taint evangelism because how could one expect a people who are too "slavish" and "stupid" to govern themselves to be able to understand / accept the Gospel, and even if they do, how could such lesser people make good disciples?  This whole pit of racism is revolting, it has nothing to do with a theology actually derived from scripture.

"Heritage America is unique in that it is not merely a Christian people seeking to govern themselves well, but to order themselves under intentional Christian government and civil law. To be a Heritage American, then, is to accept this form of religious polity and be willing to submit to laws and institutions that are explicitly Christian in their origin, nature, and purposes."

The problem with this is, as it is with all 'Christian' Nationalism, a question of who gets to decide which civil laws are "Christian" and which are not.  What Crenshaw wants to do is blur the line between theology and politics so thoroughly that all civil lawmaking becomes a theological exercise.  As we will see later, he also wants to limit that exercise to Protestant Christians with little regard for our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, let alone any regard to those who are not followers of Jesus.

In addition to the problem one can see with a legal code that is supposedly endorsed by Christianity with respect to who makes that definition and who it leaves out in the cold, we also have the little problem of Church History.  We have tried this game before, and it did not end well, at all, for the Church.  From the time of Constantine until the rise of modern nation-states, the Church was intertwined with the power of various kingdoms and empires.  This embrace of power over others rather than Jesus' power under others via a servanthood model {See my 6 hour seminar for a very deep dive: The Church and Politics} redefines Christian discipleship as a matter not of serving others and showing them the value of the Gospel, but instead one of compelling by force and punishing those who do not accept the Gospel.  In the past this resulted in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the burning of heretics at the stake.  Needless to say, as a Baptist who believes in the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and who considers Rogers Williams to be a hero worth emulating, this lust for power on the part of those who think they are helping the Church is terrifying.

"As already mentioned, the Americans were overwhelmingly Christian, and so religious liberty and tolerance was more specifically Christian liberty and Christian tolerance. That tolerance was intolerant toward many world religions and religious practices judged to be harmful to soul and body; instead, toleration was primarily extended toward overcoming denominational differences among Protestants."

Tellingly, Crenshaw admits that the Heritage Americans he so much admires and wants to give power to failed to give liberty or freedom to anyone that didn't fit within their own definition of being "one of us."  Honestly, he's giving them too much credit.  There was a reason why Roger Williams was forced to flee Massachusetts Bay Colony and found Rhode Island, the Puritans with power in the colony abused it just as any student of human nature could have predicted. 

"Heritage Americans must love liberty in its fullest sense—freedom from external tyranny and internal despotism—and seek spiritual freedom in community with family, friends, and neighbors. Heritage America embraces religious liberty and tolerance toward Christian differences, and might even tolerate Christian-adjacent religions if its adherents agree to live according to Christian civil laws, norms, and cultural expectations."

We have seen this fail miserably in John Calvin's Geneva, in the slaughter of the Thirty Years War, and in the rise of antisemitism that ran parallel to the launch of the Crusades.  It doesn't work.  Freedom for us, but not for you if you disagree, is a recipe for disaster.  It will result in oppression, violence, and evil done in the name of defending Christ and the Church.  The thing is, never once did Jesus Christ ask his disciples to force anyone to follow him.  Never once did Jesus tell his disciples to seize civil power and enforce "laws, norms, and cultural expectations."  This quest for power is popular among today's 'Christian' Nationalists, like Crenshaw, but it is foreign to the work and words of Jesus in the Gospels, and it has harmed the Church each and every time it has been tried.

"These traits are what constitute Heritage America. You might formally be an American citizen by birth or naturalization, but unless you understand these deeply-rooted and traditional aspects of American identity, you cannot be a Heritage American—a true American. Nor is it the case that one can merely pay lip service to these ideals. Instead, what is outlined above is a description of a tangible way of life. Because Heritage America is a habit of living, those outside the tradition can be grafted in. The concept of engrafting—of adopting and integrating into the trunk of a tree branches that are foreign to it such that what was once separate becomes one—is the best way to think about becoming a Heritage American if you are not one currently. It is a particular way of life that is proud and exclusive, but it is welcoming to those who want to live in this manner"

And here is where Crenshaw's racism moves beyond harming the Church and our Gospel witness to threatening the future of the Republic.  The moment we allow there to be an ideological test for "true Americans" we've lost.  If one must pass a test of beliefs in order to be considered a "real" American, the 1st Amendment is a joke.  This trend toward those in the Blue and Red partisan camps viewing each other as un-American (or even, as "enemies of the state") has already caused violence and a dramatic erosion of kindness and decency in our politics.  Rather than seeking to heal this partisan divide, Crenshaw and the concept of "Heritage Americans" would purposefully rupture it further.

"Can you be a Heritage American if you’re not a Christian? What if you are a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist? Ideally, of course, all Americans would be Christians, whether sincerely or nominally. However, a polity of pure saints is not practical or likely, and so toleration of those who dissent is necessary. There is a balance that must be struck on this point. Non-Christians can be tolerated, as long as they acquiesce to living in an unashamedly Christian America (i.e., submitting to Christian civil law, government support for Christianity, Christian moral, civil, and religious norms and customs, etc.). At the same time, both public and private citizens should be concerned to help the Christian Church flourish in our nation, since a collapse of Christian conversions, church plants, and influence will mark the end of America. Toleration of non-conformists thus presupposes cultural and religious dominance of some sort. This dominant culture ought to be Christian culture."

The end of the second sentence tells you everything you need to know about why this is absolute madness for Christianity and the Church: "whether sincerely or nominally." That is exactly what doomed the expressions of Christianity in Europe prior to WWII.  Everyone was "nominally" a Christian, but many were just paying lip service to that faith, or were counted as being a part of the Church with zero evidence that they even wanted to be.  This Cheap Grace horrified Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to have faith in Jesus Christ reduced to something that one could simply claim with zero discipleship simply because a person was meeting "cultural expectations" is a slap in the face of the Gospel.  The truth is, I don't want nominal Christians in my Church, and nor should any pastor worth his/her salt.  We need committed Christians, we need men and women willing to embrace self-sacrifice and service for the sake of others, we need people willing to pray for their enemies, and willing to turn the other cheek.  'Christian' Nationalists will eventually say the quite part out loud if you give them a chance.  Here Crenshaw has admitted that "nominal" Christians (i.e. ones without real saving faith) are good enough to be Heritage Americans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a much higher bar for inclusion: real genuine life-altering, Fruit of the Spirit producing, faith.

By the way, I don't want government support for Christianity.  That support is a Faustian Bargain, the costs are in the fine print.  Far better to have a government that is neutral, that protects the rights of all, and allows the Gospel to compete in the marketplace of ideas.  On a level playing field, the Gospel has nothing to worry about.

In the end, an article such as this one will garner enthusiastic cheers from those whose primary concern is earthly power for people who look, act, and think just like "us."  It should also make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up if you happen to look, act, or think outside of the mythical Heritage American mold.  The concept of Heritage Americans could be rejected solely on the basis of how it dismisses the slaughter of Native Americans, enslavement of Blacks, and contributions to American history of those who weren't White or didn't speak English.  On that basis alone this idea ought to be soundly rejected as an ugly relic of the racism of the past.  However, the way in which Crenshaw, and many others like him, present this as a boon to Christianity and the Church only enhances the danger that these ideas pose.  Make no mistake about it, there is no room at the Cross of Jesus Christ for racists, and no need for the Gospel to wield power over others.

For further reading, see also:

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

Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.

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

The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer

The posts in my ongoing "Scripture refutes Christian Nationalism" series

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #48: Using Midrash to limit Jesus and bash the Church, plus hypocrisy about taking scripture "literally."

 

One of the challenges in responding to the massive amount of output coming from FFOZ is to not become numb to seeing the same tactics used and claims made over and over again.  At a certain point, it becomes repetitive as I read another time where they are placing limits on the person and work of Jesus or bashing the Church, "If I've seen it once, I've seen it a thousand times."  That numbness can't happen.  These teachings are not normal, and they need to be called out again and again, as the TV sitcom character Clair Huxtable would say, "Let the record show..."

Lesson 48, page 12

"If one were allowed to suggest such a thing, it almost seems as if the limitations on multiplying horses, wives, and wealth entered the Torah in reaction to the excesses of King Solomon's kingdom."

As an organization that teaches that Torah is eternal, going so far as to say that it existed before Creation, and can never and will never change in the least way, it shocked me (yes, that's somehow still possible) to hear Lancaster muse about the idea that the Torah was edited in Solomon's day to include commandments that would retro-actively make Solomon's sins a violation of the Law.  The idea of the Torah being edited as late as the post-Exile period is common in some academic circles, but typically rejected outright by most Evangelicals.  Needless to say, Torah can't be an eternal reflection of the "lifestyle of the redeemed community" {A phrase FFOZ uses in many publications} if parts of it were situationally added as time went on.  

Lesson 48, page 14

"The obligation of writing a copy of the Torah for himself reminded the king that he is not above God's law - even if He is the Messiah (Matthew 5:17-19)."

"Group Discussion: Read Matthew 5:17-19 and discuss the problem with the common assumption that Yeshua was exempt from literal compliance to the authority of the Torah."

FFOZ likes to use loaded phrases, "above God's law" is one of them.  Jesus was, and is, the Word of God.  Jesus is God.  He cannot be under the Law's authority as if he were an ordinary king.  Jesus is the heir of David, to be sure, but he is also the Son of God.  In their effort to elevate Torah (a form of idolatry) they proclaim that even Jesus' authority must be placed beneath Torah such that he can only point backward to Torah, only be a reformer, never a new law giver.  To them, Moses is the lawgiver, Jesus is not.  Jesus submitted to the Law, just as he submitted to the will of the Father, not because of ontological inferiority, but because of his great love for humanity.  However, in the end, the Son of God is not a hired hand, he is the heir, and the Law serves his purpose, not the other way around.

The Group Discussion question likewise contains the loaded term, "literal."  Yes, it does bother me as a former English teacher to see how often Lancaster chooses to wield "literal" like the term itself contains power to silence FFOZ's critics.  I saw this same fixation on the term literal with Fundamentalists in my youth, they were misguided in doing so like Lancaster.  

It is not, by the way, a teaching common to any portion of the Church that Jesus did not fulfill the Law by fully keeping it.  Notice that the term chosen is the "authority" of the Torah.  It isn't about Jesus willingly obeying the Law fully in order to be the perfect sacrifice, they need Jesus to submit to its authority, to not teach by his own authority.  The Gospels paint a much different picture, remarking again and again that Jesus' ministry and mission was by his own authority {Mt. 7:9, 9:6, 28:18, Mk. 1:22, 2:10, Lk. 4:32, 5:24}.

Lesson 48, page 14b

"The Midrash Rabbah transmits a legend about King Solomon that seems to be the source behind the above teaching from Matthew 5."

This theory isn't proven in any way, just asserted.  Of course, we have no idea if Jesus was responding to the content of Midrash Rabbah, given that it only existed in oral form during his lifetime and did not reach its current iteration as a written text for at least four hundred years after.  What, then, the rabbinic teaching on this text looked like in Jesus' day is unprovable.  If, however, we assume that Jesus was aware of the legend (in some form), it still would only be one among many possible contextual ideas he may be addressing, AND it is a legend not part of the scriptural story, so there is zero evidence that Jesus in any way approved of the way in which this particular midrash handles the story of Solomon.  Maybe Midrash Rabbah is wrong about Solomon's thought processes.  Remember that rabbinic commentary is not inspired scripture..  Last, but not least, Jesus is not a rabbi like his contemporaries, he does not rely upon the authority of others to bolster his teachings, he is his own authority.  Thus, to look at anything Jesus taught and seek its "source" from human authors is going to be a stretch, at best, and a dangerous game, at worst.

Lesson 48, page 15

"Solomon felt that he understood the spiritual intention behind the letter of the law against multiplying wives.  He thus reasoned, 'If I keep my heart from going astray, then I am free to multiply wives.'  He also felt at liberty to edit the text of the Torah to reflect his new insight.  He felt that because he understood the principle of the law, he did not need to obey the literal meaning."

According to the Midrash Rabbah, as usual, FFOZ treats rabbinic sources as if they are fully true and applicable to scripture.  This may be a legitimate insight into why Solomon sinned, then again it may not.  It reflects the opinion of one human author, not divine revelation.  Scripture does not offer any evidence that Solomon felt he had the authority to edit the Torah, nor that he sinned because he was trying to keep the "spirit of the Law" rather than its "literal meaning."  This view fits with FFOZ's legalism, nothing more.

Lesson 48, page 16

Group Discussion: Make the relationship between the midrash and Matthew 5:17-19 explicit.

Lest anyone think that the Midrash is just a tool to provide background information, the Torah Club group discussion will make the "relationship," remember that none has been proven only claimed, "explicit."  Again, I have zero issue with studying rabbinic sources to learn more about the background, but using them as the lens through which the text of scripture must be viewed is deeply problematic.  This is true of even the OT passages, but grows even more tenuous in the NT.  Why?  Remember, these sources were not codified (written down) until centuries after the time of Christ.  They are influenced by a reaction against the claims about Jesus made by his followers.  It will always be anachronistic to connect them directly to Jesus' teachings, and at times will be promoting a viewpoint he would not have endorsed.

Lesson 48, page 17

"What Solomon meant by these words is this: 'Because I tried to be wiser than the Torah and persuaded myself that I knew the intention of the Torah, did this understanding and knowledge turn out to be madness and folly.' (Exodus Rabbah 6:1)"

"Through reinterpretation and rationalization, he ignored the literal meaning of God's commandments.  In so doing, his wisdom turned to madness and folly with bitter consequences for his life."

FFOZ's current (4th version, so who knows if it will be the last) teaching about Gentiles and the Torah is that we are only obligated to keep the portions that apply to "sojourners" in the commonwealth of Israel, Gentiles do not need to keep the identity markers that God gave to Abraham's descendants at Sinai, but is it any wonder that those following them on this pro-Torah path naturally end up adopting those observances, even converting to Judaism and leaving Jesus behind?  The focus is nearly entirely on pointing back to Torah as the key to living well, the Fruit of the Spirit are rarely mentioned, so people in Torah Clubs hear this loud and clear and respond accordingly.

Lesson 48, page 17b

"Solomon's folly is still with us today.  It's easy to rationalize away the literal meaning of God's commandments.  It happens ever time the Torah is read from the perspective of replacement theology.  The ceremonial commandments are explained away as allegorical, symbolic, spiritual, or just plain obsolete."

"Likewise, the interpretation of replacement theology effectively move boundaries established by God.  Replacement theology eliminates the boundary between Israel and the nations, thereby neutralizing Jewish identity and the covenant.  It redefines the boundaries of Scripture by declaring the Torah to be canceled by grace.  It eliminates the boundaries between clean and unclean and the boundaries between holy and profane."

So, Midrash Rabbah proves that followers of Jesus who don't live Torah observant lives are sinful fools.  Got it, actually they'll say something much stronger than that on the next page.  As a general rule, it is not "rationalizing away" one of God's commands when his people seek to understand if there is a principle that it is demonstrating, something that could be more readily or more widely applied than the specific rule alone.  Legalists talk like this, they draw bright lines in the sand on specific rule iterations and decry the ability of people to use wisdom, reason, experience, compassion, hope, or any other God-honoring quality to think through life's circumstances on their own.  This doesn't mean that one can excuse murder or adultery by talking about the principle at issue, but it does mean that many commands that God gave to Israel that were specific to the Ancient Near East and an agrarian economy will still be able to offer some insight to his people today.  The way FFOZ views the Law, if you don't own an ox, for example, all such portions of the Law of Moses have no meaning or purpose for you, they can ONLY speak to those who do and no one else.  In a sad bit of irony, for all their talk about an eternal Torah that can never change, their literalist and legalist view of it makes it less relevant for today than among the so-called "replacement theologians" of the Church whom they mock as fools.

The boundary between Israel and the nations was destroyed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I know that FFOZ has redefined Paul's words in Ephesians 2:14, "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility," but the Jewish context (they should like this, right?) of the verse is Paul talking about the literal (more irony) wall that kept Gentiles from coming any closer to the Temple being destroyed by Jesus.  The Church didn't make one new people out of two by uniting them in the Body of Christ, Jesus did that.

The Torah isn't "canceled by grace," that's more pejorative language framing the victory of Jesus in a negative light.  Jesus established a New Covenant, in his own blood, with all the peoples of the world.  This idea is anathema to FFOZ, their false zeal will never accept that God would make a covenant with Gentiles.  The New Covenant is established by grace, just as the Mosaic was.  Grace has always been God's mechanism in relating to humanity, it can be no other because God is holy and humanity is most certainly not.  Once again, it was not replacement theology that removed the designation of clean and unclean food laws, but God himself {the Gospel of Mark (7:19) and the book of Acts (Peter's vision in chapter 10)"}.  The problem FFOZ has isn't actually with the Church, it is with what God chose to do and revealed in scripture. 

Lesson 48, page 18

"The Torah curses anyone who moves a boundary stone (Deuteronomy 27:17).  According to the Prophet Hosea, God pours out His wrath like water on those who move boundary stones (Hosea 5:10)."

"1. List replacement theology's four preferred methods of explaining the Torah's ceremonial commandments."

"2. What boundaries are either moved or eliminated in replacement theology."

"Group Discussion: Employing the same metaphor of a boundary stone as an established social, legal, or religious distinction, what are some other boundaries that should not be altered."

It probably isn't healthy if I shout at the screen while typing the quotes for this presentation, but it wasn't easy to refrain this time.  Lancaster just finished lecturing the Torah Club on the need to NEVER abandon the 'literal' meaning of Torah in favor of an allegory or spiritualized meaning because this would lead to the folly of Solomon, something he says the Church has done, and ONE PAGE later he does exactly that by turning Dt. 27:17's commandment about actual physical (i.e. literal) boundary stones {something very important in the A.N.E.} into a condemnation of the Church for supposedly moving God's ("allegorical, symbolic, spiritual"?) "boundary stones" contained in the eternal Torah.  Are the people in Torah Clubs awake?  Can there be a more blatant use of, "Do as I say, not as I do."?  

This blatant hypocrisy shouldn't keep us from also seeing that FFOZ has pronounced that the Church (Lancaster has defined "replacement theology" as Church orthodoxy, so it is all of us) is cursed of God for this supposed moving of boundary stones.  FFOZ has pronounced that God will pour out his wrath upon the Church for not upholding the literal eternal commands of Torah.  How can anyone be in a Torah Club, answer these questions, and then fellowship with his/her church again?  The publicly stated goal of Torah Clubs is not to pull people from church fellowship, but the teaching absolutely makes this more likely.  That this bashing of the Church happens over and over again and has been going on throughout FFOZ's history, makes it likely that this is a deliberate act, a purposeful choice.

If you need more evidence, the Group Discussion question calls the boundary stone command a metaphor.  It spiritualizes the commands and asks Torah Club participants to think of new ways to apply it. Can this really be the same lesson that was calling such actions the "folly of Solomon" one page earlier?  Yep.  The open-ended discussion question feels creepy to me.  What "boundaries" are they seeking to reinforce?  

Lesson 48, page 20 (quote begins on page 19)

"The apostles extended the Torah's prohibitions...Didache 2.2, 3.4)"

I know, you might be saying, "Let it go, Indiana."  Just a short reminder as we close that the author of the Didache is unknown.  We don't know if the author was "apostolic" or not.  Keep in mind, that while FFOZ is willing to quote a few short lines from the Didache to try to portray it as a pro-Torah observance document, they are at the same time claiming that from the 2nd generation of the Church onward the teachings of the Apostles was already lost, which feels odd if the apostles worked to "extend" a Torah prohibition.  The lack of consistency is noted.  Ok, so this is really the last thought: If the Didache "extends" the, as they believe, eternal and unchangeable Torah, isn't that wrong?  They think Torah can never, ever, be modified even by Jesus, how could the Didache choose to further define idolatry?

 

sermon video: Christ and the Church - Ephesians 5:29-33

In the beautiful conclusion to his analogy between Christ and the Church and husbands and wives, the Apostle Paul emphasizes what we already know from history: Christ loves the Church as much as he loves himself.  In fact, there is no relational love that can surpass the love of Jesus Christ for the Church, not even that of a husband for his wife (or a parent for their child).  God's love for us, in Christ, is perfect in every way.

Our response, then, as we seek to be Christ-like in our discipleship, is to recommit to loving our spouse as we love ourselves.

 

Professor Solberg and The Bible Roots Ministries joins the dialogue about the dangers of the First Fruits of Zion

 I'll be honest, it hasn't been easy to be the primary online voice discussing the First Fruits of Zion these past almost three years.  I've put a lot more effort and passion into the effort to warn the Church about FFOZ than I ever imagined I would when I first heard about Torah Clubs in the Fall of 2022.  From the beginning the entire Franklin Christian Ministerium has supported me, that has been invaluable.  My whole church, including my board, have supported me, that has been crucial.  But until now, I had only been able to have private conversations with people in leadership at various groups affected by this movement, the public element was missing.  Today that changed.  The reach of Professor Solberg's platform is roughly 1,000 times that of my own, this dialogue about FFOZ has needed to be moved into the mainstream conversation within the Church, that reality moved much closer with the release of this interview.

If you're new to my blog, or my YouTube channel, note that all of my research has been primary source.  I don't write about what people say about what FFOZ says, I write about what FFOZ teaches in their own publications, the things they choose to publish and profit from.  You may not agree with all of my conclusions, that's ok, they come from an Evangelical Baptist perspective, I wouldn't expect them to be universally understood and embraced.  If my thoughts get in the way, look at the direct quotes, I flood my posts and videos with them.  I  believe in the priesthood of all believers, and I believe that the Holy Spirit is more than capable of guiding each follower of Jesus Christ into Truth.  Weigh what FFOZ is saying against the Word of God for that is the ultimate judge, not me.  I am doing my best to apply God's Word to these weighty matters, if I fall short God's Word will not.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #33 Acts 5:29

Acts 5:27-29     New International Version

27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

One of the things that has fascinated me as a parent is how silly words, phrases, even jokes, get passed down from one generation to the next.  My daughter Clara has come home from school with all sorts of things that I recall from my own childhood, it just goes to show that time-honored concepts like the cooties will never really die.

A phrase we haven't heard yet from our daughter, and don't care to, but one that teens have been using for quite some time is, "You're not the boss of me."  In the sitcom that ran from 1984-1992, we learned that Tony Danza's character Tony Micelli was the boss, sort of.  At the same time (1984-1990), another sitcom starring Scott Baio was telling us that Charles was in charge.  This is a fundamental staple of sitcoms, much of the humor of I Love Lucy, All in the Family, or Everybody Loves Raymond is the never ending struggle for the upper hand. 

In the real world, the struggle for power often takes on a deadly earnestness.  It is well understood that many people throughout history have been willing to kill to obtain or maintain power over others, but it has also been demonstrated over and over that other people are willing to die rather than live under tyranny.  World History is many things, among them it is a story of would-be dictators/tyrants and the revolutionaries and martyrs who opposed them.

When it comes to ultimate authority, the kind with real legitimacy that doesn't depend upon the threat of violence, the most common struggle in human history has been between material and spiritual lordships.  For much of history kings and priests have take up common cause, propping up the same dynasty that benefits them both.  It doesn't hurt that these two classes often came from the same aristocratic families, making cooperation between them more likely.

But when the vision of secular and religious power do come into conflict, who has the true claim on being the final authority?  There is no doubt, no doubt at all, that the Word of God proclaims that final authority rests in the spiritual realm with God himself.  We see this play out in God's liberation of the Israelites from Egypt as Moses asserts his authority over that of Pharaoh.  It is central to the story of the first king of Israel, Saul, whose power was dwarfed by that of the prophet Samuel.  And prophets like Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel again and again proclaim that God's will is above that of kings and even empires.  In fact, the prophets make it very clear that it is God himself who reserves the right to raise up, and tear down, kings and kingdoms to suit his purposes.

Which brings us to yet another reason why 'Christian' Nationalism is doomed to fail: It overvalues secular power.  Power in this world is fool's gold, it won't last and it can never be the ultimate authority.  The people of God are called, instead, to imitate the Apostles by defying the powers that be when they go against the revealed will of God.  Rather than bow before them willingly, or bend before them under duress, we must follow the example of the heroes of our faith who stood for righteousness and against evil in whatever form it took, including their own government.

Who is the boss?  Who is in charge?  God.  God alone.

Sermon Video: Jesus: The Name Above All Names - Ephesians 1:19b-23

In one of the Apostle Paul's beautiful rabbit trails in his letters, he muses on the power of God that both works in/through his people and raised Jesus from the dead.  This thought leads Paul to contemplate the glory and authority that belongs to Jesus, as the risen Lord, declaring it to be above all others that every will be.

The Church in Franklin (Venango County) PA: How are we doing? - What serving here more than a decade has shown me.

 

My wife Nicole and I moved to Franklin, PA in January of 2012.  I'm not a native Pennsylvanian, but we've invested our lives in this town for more than a decade, and raised our daughter here.  We hear a lot about trends, good and bad, with respect to the Church in America, in various other parts of the world, and globally.  But what about the Church, the collective Body of Christ, here in Franklin (with some thought spilling over, by necessity to the larger Venango County)?  How is it doing?  Is it healthy?  Growing or shrinking?  United or divided?  On mission or distracted?  I'd like to try to answer those questions from my own, admittedly limited and potentially biased, point-of-view.  My answers are drawn from my own interactions with pastors, church members, and non-Christians in this community.  I've also been instrumental in organizing and leading ecumenical ministries and worship for most of my time here, so my chances of knowing what is going on are better than most.

Let's leave the question of whether or not the Church here is healthy to the end, that's a fitting conclusion.

1. The Church in Franklin has neither significantly grown nor significantly shrunk in the last decade.

Since we arrived in 2012, our area has seen several elementary school closures, and the loss of most of the workforce at Joy.  Those losses fit with the trend of the population in this town and this county slowly declining for the past several decades.  At some point, unless the percentage of people choosing to be a part of the Church rises significantly, we would expect to see church closures as well.  For the most part, that hasn't happened yet.  On the contrary, we actually added a couple of growing congregations in the area, including Oil City Vineyard (Pastor Charlie Cotterman) and Redeemer Anglican (Pastor Eric Phillips, they worship here in 1st Baptist's building down the hall from us).  Over the past decade plus, some of the local congregations have grown and some have shrunk.  Here at 1st Baptist we've experienced both trends in that time period.  Overall the congregations of the churches have grown older, along with, on average, the residents of the county.  Unless my sense of things is mistaken, we have neither seen great revival, nor significant loss in recent years.  We have challenges on this front to be sure, but certainly no reason to panic.

2. The ecumenical spirit of cooperation and corporate worship remains strong.

As with many things, the Covid stoppage sapped the momentum of our two primary county-wide worship opportunities (Thanksgiving and Palm Sunday)  Prior to 2020 they had grown to 150 or more including upwards of a dozen pastors.  Since they restarted, we've only been in the 40-50 range with 5-6 pastors on average.  The numbers are disappointing, but the spirit of joyful fellowship and worship remains strong with those who continue to participate. 

As a contrary bit of evidence, the Franklin Good Friday crosswalk has not suffered a loss in participation after Covid, we're still in the 125+ range (weather dependent).  

I would be happy to see more opportunities for ecumenical worship, and more people enjoying that Spirit honoring worship, time will tell if we can better recapture what had been one of this community's best features.

3. Distractions are tempting, but Gospel-inspired ministry in the community continues to be central to our daily mission.

We have had a few flare-ups of things that don't truly impact our calling to Gospel mission, but by and large the cooperative church ministries and para-church ministries have grown and continued to impact the lives of those in need in our area.  I'm thinking of our multiple food pantries (shout-out to the hosts St. Patrick's and St. John's) as well as ABC Life Center, Mustard Seed Missions, and Emmaus Haven.  Along with other partners like Salvation Army, Community Services, Child Evangelism Fellowship, Youth for Christ, Meals on Wheels, and on and on.

I grew up in a small town with a minimal amount of this kind of para-church ministry happening, particularly missing were intra-church cooperative efforts.  Some of you reading this may not understand how good we have it here in Franklin because you haven't known what it is like to be in a community without these blessings.  As a pastor it is deeply refreshing and encouraging to see so many lay leaders and lay volunteers doing their part to be the hands and feet of Christ.  Don't take this blessing for granted, be a part of it moving forward.

4.  The health of the Church here is strong and vibrant, but with significant challenges.

In the end, irrespective of how our community might compare to generations past here, or how it might compare to the Church in other portions of rural America, we still will answer to God for what we have done with the opportunities and resources that were available to us in this time and place.  I, for one, think that we've done well.  Without minimizing the failures that have occurred, we have much to be proud of with respect to working together to make a difference, worshiping together, and being a representation of the "salt and light" that Jesus has commanded us to be in the world.  We could always be doing better, Christ-likeness is after all our sky-high standard, but in this case the perfect is not the enemy of the good, Christ is our inspiration and we've made progress in that direction.

For more specific thoughts on the health of the local Church, see the 4 further points below:

4a. Historic / orthodox Christianity is being taught consistently, but it is also being attacked by a Hebrew Roots inspired cult.

In the fall of 2022 I first became aware of an organization that was now operating in our community: First Fruits of Zion.  They had started what they call Torah Clubs and were teaching something I hadn't seen before.  After some research, I spoke with the men and women who serve the church alongside me at a Franklin Christian Ministerium meeting.  The response was both a deep testament to the shared commitment to orthodoxy that connects our various churches, and what a community needs from its pastoral leaders when facing a difficult challenge: They unanimously supported a public statement affirming orthodoxy and warning people not to participate in this group.

Long story short, and those of you who follow my blog and/or YouTube channel know it is a long story, the ministerium stood firm on the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith, the historic and apostolic Gospel, and everything else associated with this controversy.  I was, and am, proud of them.  {For more on this matter: The Dangers of the First Fruits of Zion and their Torah Clubs}

4b. Nationalism has divided the devotion to the Gospel of some, but it is not at an endemic level.

The response to Nationalism has been more difficult to gauge given that it is a much more subtle danger to the hearts and minds of those in our congregation than it would be if it was a defined cult like FFOZ.  I certainly have been troubled by some of the local social media posts, including a upsetting furor aimed at local business people about a rumored (but untrue) arrival of immigrants {Venango County businesses were harassed on social media, again, based on rumors. We need to be better than this.}  We have also seen a local couple attempt to turn property in the area into a haven for Nationalism, but so far this seems to have failed to gain the traction that they hoped for. {Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.}

Would I like to see a healthier understanding on the part of the Christian community that our kingdom is not of this world and our citizenship is in heaven?  Certainly.  Would I like to see less politics and more theology in our discussions and fellowship?  Absolutely.  That being said, there have been much more dangerous reports of churches around the country going all-in on a political / culture war version of the Gospel, we have largely avoided that trap here locally; thanks be to God.

4c. Finding new pastors is becoming an increasing challenge, but the men and women who serve here now are Christ-honoring leaders.  This area is blessed to have them.

One of my responsibilities for the NW area of the American Baptist Church of PA & DE is to help congregations in the pastoral search process (Baptists don't assign pastors, we're all independently employed).  In that capacity I've come face-to-face with the demographic realities confronting every church in America that show we have a significant pastoral leadership shortage, something that will only get worse in time.  I can't speak to who might serve in these roles in the future when finding new pastors becomes more difficult, but I can absolutely endorse the men and women who have served alongside me in the spiritual trenches.  We are truly, and powerfully, blessed by God with honorable servant-leaders.  Some of these have moved on to other places since I got here, I deeply miss Bill Hastings, Mother Holly, Scott Woodlee, David Janz, and my dear friend Jeff Little, and a few of them have gone on to their reward, the losses of Tim Tygert and Steve Henry were felt far and wide.  Yet we have retained some amazing men and women, and gained some new leaders who have risen to the occasion.  I won't name names lest I leave out someone who deserves the praise, but I would gladly recommend a couple dozen pastors in our area whom I know to be honorable servants of Jesus Christ.  We are truly blessed here.

4d. Reasons for pessimism can be found, but most of those regularly connected to an area church maintain hope for our future.

A last thought: We could find reasons to be pessimistic about the Church in the Franklin area today, and/or about its future.  There are problems and challenges, some of which we will overcome, some perhaps not so much.  I'm not in that camp.  I've served here since 2012, which makes me, somehow, one of the longest tenured pastors in the county, and I can say that I remain strongly positive about our present, and deeply optimistic about our future based on the countless conversations, interactions, and joyous moments I have witnessed.

How are we doing?  We are doing well.  We are doing well together: One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Optimism?  Yes, I have it, and you should too.

Sermon Video: Thanking God for you - Ephesians 1:15-19a

After reminding the church at Ephesus about God's wondrous blessings given to them in Christ, the Apostle Paul continues by sharing that he personally thanks God for them.  Not only is Paul thankful to God for saving them, Paul also prays for them that they might grow in their faith and know God more.

Why do they think God is a failure? A question for those who think they alone have the true Gospel

 

One of the things that the First Fruits of Zion (HRM), Christian Fundamentalists (KJV Only zealots), and Latter-Day movements (JW, LDS, etc.) have in common is the belief that they alone have the Truth with respect to Jesus Christ.

But what are the implications of such a belief?  What does it say about God if 99% of those who have ever put their hope in Jesus Christ were actually in fundamental error?

The answer is that in their view God is weak, a failure.

But that's not what the Word of God proclaims.

The Hebrew Roots Movement: Analysis by Pastor Randy Powell of the survey conducted by Ben Frostad

 

 

This material was previously published as a simple blog post, now I've recorded it as a YouTube video.

The following analysis is taken from a thesis written by Ben Frostad, by his own account an ardent follower of the Hebrew Roots Movement (or, as he chooses to call it, the Messianic Torah Movement). It was written as a graduation requirement for the Torah Resource Institute (A One Law organization), and was sponsored by Tim Hegg, who until 2009 held a leadership role with the First Fruits of Zion. In other words, this paper and the survey it contains were created by, and overseen by, true believers in the Hebrew Roots Movement on behalf of an organization promoting those beliefs. This is thus NOT the supposition of critics of this movement (which I admit to being in my defense of orthodoxy), but the views of those from within the movement as portrayed by someone within the movement.

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #20: Equally blasting the Church and Judaism, claiming both "have concealed the knowledge of God" (because FFOZ believes that they alone have it).

 

I'll admit off the bat, this section contains one of my pet peeves, "taking the Bible literally."  In most cases, when someone talks or writes about taking the Bible literally it is a indication that he/she is about to do an awful job of interpreting the Bible.  Why?  Because the Bible's author's don't take the Bible "literally," and those who have learned to interpret the Bible according to its own ideas know that full well.  Biblical authors write with a host of analogies, metaphors, similes, parables, as well as prophetic and apocalyptic language.  What I think Lancaster is trying to say is that the people he is lambasting don't take the Bible "at face value" or "as authoritative."  But I digress, the real issue with The Beginning of Wisdom lesson 20 is that here Lancaster reveals his contempt both for the modern Church and for modern Judaism.  This is yet more evidence that FFOZ is trying to carve out their own unique (and new) niche in a space that is neither Christianity nor Judaism but some amalgam of both that is unrecognizable to either.

This is not the first time that I've demonstrated the animosity of FFOZ's leadership to both the Church and Judaism, but it is a reminder that the canard that their intention is to help followers of Jesus witness to Jews rings hollow when they choose to display this level of contempt to both Christianity and Judaism, and teach it to their followers.

Let's look at the specific claims to see if they hold any water or are in fact more straw men.

"Rather than teaching the Bible's wisdom, churches prefer to teach creeds and sacraments construed from elaborate theologies that are only loosely based on cherry-picked collections of Bible verses.  They don't know the Torah or understand it."

Now, when the Church is in error, both historically and today, it has earned honest criticism.  This isn't that, I'll give FFOZ credit for writing against things like "Christian" Nationalism (as I have done many times) and other such perversions of the scriptures, but that's not at all the focus of Lancaster's ire here.  It isn't the materialism and greed of the Prosperity Gospel or the charlatans in the New Apostolic Reformation that he's aiming at, but the ordinary churches that are going about the business of sharing the Gospel they inherited and making disciples.  FFOZ, through Lancaster's Torah Club materials, is teaching its followers that the whole Church is adrift and in error, not because of sin or a lack of the Fruit of the Spirit, but because they are not teaching obedience to the Torah.  It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the Church is solidly trinitarian, while FFOZ is not, in Lancaster's telling the thing that makes the Church hopelessly lost is a failure to place the yoke of the Law of Moses upon those who have faith in Jesus.

Perhaps that feels like too much of a conclusion based on this one lesson, and it would be if this was all we had from FFOZ on the topic, but as my seminar and writings have demonstrated, this theme runs through the entirety of their work because they've elevated Torah to an idolatrous level making it the very nature of God, and thus eternally unchangeable (even non-expandable, non-updatable), even by Jesus himself.

Should the Church be doing a better job of teaching the, "whole counsel of God"?  Absolutely.  We need to be open to God's direction and correction to overcome our blind spots and the sins we tolerate.  Is our answer to cling to the Law of Moses as if it has the answers?  Not at all.

"Liberal synagogues steer their flocks away from taking the Bible literally, preferring to offer popular social platitudes instead of the unpopular mandates of the Torah's laws.  In academic circles, men and women who make careers out of studying the Bible rarely believe the words they are studying."

I've spent my whole life within Christianity and the Church, so I won't hazard to speak about the integrity of either the liberal or orthodox branches of Judaism in the world today, but it appears that Lancaster has no such qualms about ripping into both.  As the example at the end of this post demonstrates, FFOZ's leaders have equal contempt for Messianic Judaism as well.  Who is left?  Who is it that is interpreting the Word of God aright and doing God's will in this world?  Ah, that's right, FFOZ and the HRM, and nobody else.  

As I've written about Fundamentalist Christians who think only those who believe exactly as they do are acceptable to God: If 99.9% of those who proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are still lost in sin and heading to hell, according to your own view, how pathetic is the Gospel that you're proclaiming and how weak is the Holy Spirit that you're talking about?  We believe that Jesus Christ overcame Sin and Death, and yet your thesis is that only you know the true Gospel, that God was incapable of implanting it correctly in anyone else??  The hubris is stupefying.

Here is that hubris in action from Boaz Michael's own mouth, "Your efforts as Torah Club leaders and students is a direct, and in my opinion, fulfillment of these words of our master. The reconciliation of Israel and the restoration of the world are in God’s hands, but the mission is in yours." (Michael, Boaz, Malchut Conference 2022, session #5, "Then the End Will Come")

I have seen Torah Club supporters over and over criticize the Church for following the "teachings of men."  The irony is incredible, they're risking everything on the belief that Boaz Michael, Daniel Lancaster, and the rest are true prophets in sole possession of the key to God's Word.  That's an awful lot of faith in men.

For other examples of how they view Christianity, Messianic Judaism, and their own self-aggrandized role in God's will: 

An example of of Boaz Michael espousing an antisemitic trope (that they only care about money) at Messianic Judaism:  By espousing these premises, Messianic Judaism has maintained a convenient niche right next to the evangelical Christian church. Since they are not teaching that the Torah is the biblically prescribed way of life for all peoples and nations who call upon the name of the God of Israel, they can conveniently co-exist in cooperation with the Church’s anti-Torah theological assumptions.  They can receive financial support, utilize their buildings, speak at their conferences… – (Michael, Boaz, “Encounters with an Ephraimite: Identity through a Lost Heritage”, p. 8)

An example of Boaz Michael claiming Messianic Judaism falls short of God's will (something he believes that his organization is fulfilling in their place): The matrix of the Messianic Jewish Movement simply is not big enough for the restoration that God is doing in the Body of Messiah. The Hebrew Roots movement has outgrown Messianic Judaism. - (Michael, Boaz, “Encounters with an Ephraimite: Identity through a Lost Heritage”, p. 11)

An example of Boaz Michael claiming that his movement alone has the Truth of the Gospel, unknown before this generation: So, the responsibility of this message falls on us, a small minority of God‘s people who’ve come to an understanding of the gospel of the kingdom and whose lives are being transformed by the undiluted power of Yeshua’s message. And we’re called to take this gospel message to the kingdoms: 'Repent for the kingdom of God is it at hand.' And this prophetic movement has only become possible in our generation. It’s our responsibility. (Michael, Boaz, Malchut Conference 2022, session #5, "Then the End Will Come")

An Example of Daniel Lancaster saying that FFOZ's followers are the only true disciples of Jesus ready to face the End Times: "Until then, however, there’s a small remnant, right. It’s a pretty small remnant of the kingdom on earth. There’s a few of us. There’s a few of us clinging to the Commandments in the testimony of Yeshua as it says in the Book of Revelation." (Lancaster, Daniel, Malchut Conference 2022, session #9, "Band of Survivors")

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.

Sermon Video: The Competency of God's People - Romans 15:14-16

 

Are you an optimist or a pessimist about the Church's future?  No matter what generation or geographic location that question is asked in, scripture itself gives ample reasons for more than optimism, it offers certainty.  Romans 15:14-16 is one such example, in it the Apostle Paul tells the church(es) at Rome that he has full confidence in their goodness, knowledge, and competency to teach each other.  This confidence flows from: (1) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is common to all believers in Jesus, (2) the sufficiency of scripture for our faith and practice, and (3) the priesthood of all believers which enable each of us to approach the throne of grace on an equal footing, all equally heard by God and all equally capable of serving the Kingdom of God.  As Baptists, we take these truths and find two connected implications: (1) Freedom of Conscience (aka Soul Liberty) and (2) the autonomy of the local church.  Both ideas flow directly from the competency that we have because of the work that God has begun in our lives and our faith in God's promise to complete that process of transformation.

The difference between self-sorting and self-preservation: Why people choose to leave a church is important

 

An interesting thing happened to me two Sundays ago that has been gnawing at my mind since.  As I always try to do when we have visitors join us for worship, I spoke with a new family in the brief moments before church was to begin.  They were, like so many individuals and families that had joined us for a week, or two, in recent years, looking for a new church home.  Other than visitors from out-of-town, and those who join us of their own accord without a previous church background (an answer to prayer!), most of those who seek a new church are doing so because of something that was amiss where they had previously attended.

Given that this happens fairly regularly, and that some of these new folk will stick around while others will keep looking, my brief conversation with this family wouldn't have stuck in my mind if I didn't have a pertinent section in my sermon on Romans 15:1-6 that I had actually written in as an addition that very morning when I was reviewing my message:

"A quick note, the current habit of Christians self-sorting into homogenous local churches which only contain people who look, act, and think like they already do is in part an attempt to avoid this hard work of self-transformation and discipleship, and thus inherently an unhealthy development in the Church as a whole.  Given modern mobility and technology it will not be easy to overcome the tendency of most people to seek out a church primarily on the criteria of being 'comfortable' there."

At that point in the sermon I added an ad-lib to the effect that the people here in this congregation don't need to agree with me on everything, especially the cultural and political issues of the day (about which most wouldn't know if they agree with me or not given my reluctance to speak publicly on them, as I've noted over the years).

Without sharing the particulars of why that one family had joined us a few weeks ago, I knew it wasn't because they were avoiding the challenges of discipleship by seeking out a homogenous church community.

But, as pastors often do when they realize that a portion of their sermon touches directly on the life of someone sitting in the pew, I hope I wasn't misunderstood, I hope it didn't feel like I was aiming those words in their direction. 

{FYI, 95% of the time the whole, "He's talking about me in the sermon!" phenomenon is the thought of the person in the pew not the intention of the person behind the pulpit.  After writing and delivering more than 750 sermons, I can honestly say that it has never occurred to me to aim what I'm writing at one individual or family, that's just not how the sausage is made.}

Here's why I hope I wasn't misunderstood: There is indeed a big difference between those who seek out a "comfortable" church where they won't be challenged in their beliefs and attitudes, and those who seek out a healthy church where they will be discipled and asked to serve.  

It isn't an easy decision to leave a church, at least it shouldn't be, even if that church has become an unhealthy, even a toxic place.  To leave feels like giving up, like conceding that you don't see much hope of things changing anytime soon.  Honestly, this topic ought to feel different to single people than to parents.  I may feel confident that I can protect myself from negativity in a church that has grown unhealthy and still be a positive influence on those around me, but taking that risk on behalf of your kids is no small thing.  Honestly, I wouldn't let my kid be a part of a church overflowing with the hatreds of "Christian" Nationalism or the materialism of the Prosperity Gospel, to give two common examples, even if I felt called to stay there myself and try to make a difference.  

In the end, I'm not in the business of "sheep stealing."  If people come to our doors because there is a problem (real or imagined) with the place they previously worshiped, we will welcome them with kindness no questions asked, that goes without saying.  Maybe God is leading them here, maybe he isn't, I'm certainly not in a position to judge that matter for them.  If where they were previously wasn't a healthy church, for whatever reason, they will be welcome among us, and hopefully they will find God's presence and the challenge of discipleship in our midst.  But I'm not trying to grow this church on the back of disgruntled Methodists (sadly a numerous bunch in our county given recent events), disillusioned Presbyterians, or angry Catholics.  What I hope for, and what all of the clergy I've known and worked with in this community for more than a decade likewise hope for, is a collective Church in our community that allows those who don't know Jesus to see glimpses of him in us.  What I hope for, and so do my fellow pastors, is that we together may add new members to the family of God, new sinners saved by grace, new lives redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.  There will always be a rearranging of chairs within our various congregations, some growing some shrinking, and a flow of people between us, what matters in the end is whether or not that migration is making the Church healthier or unhealthier, whether or not it is supporting or harming our universal collective mission of being salt and light in this world.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #31 John 17:20-23

John 17:20-23 (NIV)

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

"Oh, we're halfway there, O-oh, living on a prayer..."  That is of the chorus of "Living on a Prayer" by Bon Jovi, one of my favorite songs and one I invariably try to sing at Karaoke (that key change is brutal).  I started this series of 62 posts about "Christian" Nationalism, each with a specific verse of Scripture that speak against that corrupt idea, on August 9th of 2022.  I'll admit, after a steady stream of posts my focus wavered and for much of 2023 has been replaced with the need to combat the spread of Torah Clubs [The Dangers of the First Fruits of Zion and their Torah Clubs} in our area.  But, once you've taken up a task, it is hard to let it go.  This post, then, marks the halfway point, the rest will continue to be created as time and my need to focus on other things permits...

The passage from John's Gospel is Jesus' prayer for unity among his followers offered up to the Father on the eve of his Passion.  One of the remarkable things about this particular prayer at this particular time is how laser focused it is upon the need for unity among the body of believers who would soon be called Christians, drawn together as part of the Church that Jesus founded to continue his work after his return to Heaven.

OK, so Jesus wanted his followers to "be one," what does that have to do with "Christian" Nationalism?  A whole lot if you take a few minutes to think about it.  One example will illustrate why Nationalism, especially "Christian" Nationalism is antithetical to Jesus' prayer: During WWI, tens of millions of British, French, German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and American young men tried to kill each other.  That the vast majority of these young men claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ, who were being order to try to kill other followers of Jesus Christ, didn't matter at all to those in power because the enemy belonged to a different nation.  One's national allegiances superseded, nay even extinguished in this case since it condoned killing other followers of Jesus, one's faith.  This wasn't the first time, similar wars had raged since the break-up of the Roman Empire, pitting Christians against each other in order to further the claims of their feudal lords, kings, and eventually nation-states.  

There isn't an objective way to look at Church History without concluding that God would consider this bloodshed to be sinful.  One may be able to defend those who fought in defense of their family and community, but that rationale evaporates in every other scenario, not to mention the wanton rape and pillaging that walked hand-in-hand with these wars.  It is impossible to say that participation in this militant violent behavior made those who did so more Christ-like.  Perhaps the horrors of violence brought some few to repentance afterwards, but God is not in the business of using evil on the chance that some will be repelled enough by it that they turn and seek the light.

If, then, one accepts the premise of "Christian" Nationalism, that our allegiance to Jesus Christ must be in some fashion melded with, even subsumed to, our allegiance to our country, there is NO hope of unity within the Global Church.  What we will end up with is a host of church bodies split along political lines, and a never-ending sorry tale of rivalries and violence between them that mirror those of the nations to which they belong.

A current example: Why do you think that the Russian Orthodox Patriarch has dubbed Putin's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine as a Holy Crusade?  [Moral Clarity: God help us if we can't see that Vladimir Putin and his war are Evil.]  The sad truth is, the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church has chosen the kingdom of this world, and in so doing, has made a mockery of its claims that it is a defender of Christianity.

After supporting Ukraine invasion, Russia's Patriarch Kirill criticized worldwide - by JONATHAN LUXMOORE for National Catholic Reporter, March 15, 2022.

The Church cannot fulfill its mission if it allows lines drawn on a map to divide those whose first allegiance must be to Jesus Christ, yet another reason why "Christian" Nationalism is biblically untenable.