Christian Nationalism #5  

The Reconquista – The Beginning

I am old enough, and have been a part of the Evangelical world for long enough, that I am now struggling with understanding what exactly (or even in-exactly) is an “Evangelical.”  In an earlier post I gave a short overview of the history of Evangelical social engagement starting with the 1940’s.  The difference between early 20^th century Fundamentalism and mid-20^th century Evangelicalism was social engagement.  The early social engagement of Evangelicals gave birth to institutions such as World Vision and Inter-Varsity.  There was a genuine effort to mix concern for the poor, the desire to right the wrongs of racism and other items that could be categorized as “mildly progressive” together with a commitment to a historic and orthodox version of Protestant Christianity.  Thus Evangelicalism was willing – at least on a limited basis – to take up the concerns of the earlier social gospel movement without compromising or watering down theology. 

This new engagement did not make Evangelicals into political liberals, but it also was very far from the reactionary politics of the early 21^st century.  Institutions such as Wheaton College, Fuller Seminary and Christianity Today reflected these values.  With my own familiarity with Southern Baptists, I can also testify that this phenomenon was not just a Yankee thing.  The Christian Life Commission, Southern Seminary and the WMU all had strong components that reflected this new social awareness.  Perhaps the greatest example to the new Southern Evangelical was President Jimmy Carter. 

I remember as a college student going to the library and reading The Sword of The Lord.  This was the publication of John R. Rice, Jerry Falwell and Jack Hyles, and represented the last remnant of Fundamentalism that had survived into the 1970s.  The paranoia, the anti-intellectualism and the fierce hostility to any who did not completely accept their version of Christianity: these were the characteristics of their world.   I had a sort of perverse – almost schadenfreude – delight in reading their version of Christianity, knowing that they had lost.

I was wrong.  Starting in the late 1970s, a series of events and theological controversies began the reversal of the 20^th century Evangelical renaissance.  Today, Evangelicalism much more resembles the Sword of Lord style Christianity than the progressive movement of earlier years.  Modern Evangelicalism represents a re-conquest of the conservative Protestant world by a version of Fundamentalism that accepted the call to social engagement of earlier Evangelicalism but took it in a much different direction.  In my next blog, I will cover the Re-conquest from 1979 to 2000. 

Christian Nationalism #4

Five Principles for Discerning the News - cont'd

(Principles 3 – 5)

In my early blog post, I talked about the first two principles.  Now I will continue with #3,#4, and #5.

3. The enemy is never a monolith.

One of the myths that exist in any situation of conflict is the over-estimation of the opponent.  I remember some years ago when I was working for a group that was advocating for affordable housing in the City of Chicago.  We had put together a loose coalition of people and groups that had very little internal cohesion, but who were willing to tolerate each other for the common purpose of this effort.  Perhaps I exaggerate, but this was no unified front.  As I talked with the city officials – people who were well educated and pleasant people – they clearly communicated that they knew our ulterior motives: namely, to undermine and defeat the political career of the current mayor.  We were the enemy, and all they saw was a powerful and unified front that stood in opposition to everything that they cared about (at least from a political point of view). 

This was perhaps the clearest personal experience that I have had of a phenomenon that I observe happening with increasing frequency: the idea that we are under siege by a powerful enemy that wants to destroy us.  It also allows us to look beyond the current issue at conflict and see the real battle as some sort of cosmic struggle of good vs. evil.  This is really a problem because it prevents us from engaging in healthy dialogue over important civic issues.  How can we talk about healthcare reform when the real agenda is the imposition of a dystopian Brave New World?  Civic discourse stops and civil war begins.

The way out of this morass is to better understand those who disagree with us.  I have been fortunate in living at various times on both sides of the Left/Right divide in our country.  The Left is as diverse as the Right.  In fact, those labels are actually not helpful.  There are a few dedicated Marxists out there, but they are not powerful.  The largest group of progressives is well-meaning people who have no other agenda than the actual issue for which they are advocating.  The Left, like the Right, is fluid, and alliances change depending on the issue at hand.  The same for the Right.  Left-wing anxieties about some sort of theocratic Handmaiden’s Tale society are nonsense, yet the myth exists.   The dedicated extremists, either Left or Right, are few, yet they feed into the false narrative.  Most political disagreement is just people like us disagreeing. 

4. Beware second hand news.

There has been a breakdown in how we get information from trusted sources.  Thirty years ago, we had local newspapers and three television stations whose editors served as a filter for the information that we received.  Some of us who were particularly curious would subscribe to the Atlantic or Wilson Quarter and get more of an inside scoop on things.  That is no longer the case. Today there are many sources, most of which are not completely reliable.  One of the greatest dangers that I have heard through these new media sources is the anecdotal story that reinforces a political narrative.  I will give an example:

During the 2016 election year, there were numerous stories of “caravans” of illegal immigrants invading the United States, and embedded within these caravans were Al-Qaeda operatives (or perhaps ISIS, take your pick).  People I know and respect would repeat the story as if it were true.  Often they were uncertain of where they heard it, but it was true none-the-less.  When it was pointed out that the U.S. was at an historic low mark for illegal immigration, the fact was dismissed as untrue.  When it was pointed out that the Muslim population of Mexico was relatively small, it was dismissed as untrue.  Only the overarching narrative was true, and contrary facts were rejected or simply not heard.

We need to become better editors of our news.  We need to know the difference between reliable sources and sources that are engaged in political propaganda. Because this is difficult, perhaps the best approach is to be a news skeptic.  Information given during the standard news programs is more reliable than those given by “opinion hosts.”  Most of these hosts are considered entertainment by the broadcast company, and are thus held to a much lower standard when it comes to reliability. Know that stories are promoted to further political interests.

5. We are in God’s hand, not the hands of politicians.

I believe that the crisis in the church today is one of faith.  For some reason, we now doubt that God is truly in control of events.  During times of genuine persecution of the church, the saints of old held forth, firm in their faith.  To accept martyrdom was the ultimate statement of God’s being in control.  The body they may kill, but God’s kingdom will prevail.  And it did prevail. 

The desperate grasp for political power by many Evangelicals is the exact opposite of the witness of the martyrs. The Evangelical political agenda has the underlying assumption that God is not in control, and God needs us to re-establish control.  God needs us to fix the problems in society.  And we can best fix those problems by exercising power over others: We need Christian judges to mandate morality upon a restive population.  We need legislation to enforce our moral preferences.

A healthier and more Biblical way of advocating for change is to win the hearts and minds of the people.  Every significant social change in our society has happened not through the political power of a few, but by the changes within the broad public.  The fight for civil rights took more than 100 years following the Civil War, but changed only happened when the country was ready for the change.  The forces of segregation lost the public moral argument on a bridge in Selma. We may not win every argument, but we should never believe that God requires us to use force to enact his will on earth.

Christian Nationalism #4

Five Principles for Discerning the News

(Principles 1 – 2)

I recall a meeting with a community organizer many years ago.  On her wall was a framed Hagar The Horrible cartoon.  The caption said: “Allies come and go, but a good Enemy will last a life-time.”  I remember that because in the world of political organizing you need a good enemy.  However, what is pragmatic for politics is deadly for the Church and the Gospel.

Evangelicals need to be better at discerning the sign of the times, and a central part of that discernment is interpreting news.  In this blog, I want to suggest a couple of principles that will help us become better discerners of the news.

1. The Gospel needs to be our filter.

Jesus lived in a time and culture where people felt under attack and desired clear boundaries and clear loyalties. Rome was the oppressor.  To compromise or cooperate with Rome made you “one of them:” an enemy to be rejected and feared.  May Jews took up arms and planned for insurrection against the Romans.  Into this environment, Jesus said: love your enemies.  His miracles cured both religious Jew and pagan Romans.  He accepted into his fellowship both the radical Zealots and collaborators with Rome such as Matthew.  His examples of righteous behavior used non-Jews as examples.  His teachings and his life style undermined any suggestion that the world was divided between “us” and “them.” 

We cannot be faithful to the Gospel and believe in a world divided between “us” and “them.”   This way of thinking is absolutely prohibited for the Christian.  This means that we must reject any narrative of events, conspiracy theory, or teaching that paints a picture of Christians at war with an earthly enemy. 

2. We need to hear many sides and be humble in our judgment.

As a practical matter, if you only get your news from one source, you will have a distorted sense of the world, be that MSNBC or FOX News.  I recall not too long ago, I followed a link that seemed like news and it went to a story about a well-known celebrity moving into a community near my home.  This surprised me, but the article seemed genuine, so I believed it.  I shared this with a friend and to my great embarrassment, he pointed out just how wrong I was.  I fell for it.  What I learned is that this sort of thing can happen to anyone.  Fortunately, the misinformation was about something harmless.  However, when this type of information causes you to change your thought patterns or behavior, it is dangerous.  This is particularly dangerous when the misinformation “seems right.”  It fits into concerns or fears that we have, or it confirms something that we had been thinking.  At that point we are less inclined to be skeptical.

The Gospel answer is humility.  My need to know with certainty needs to be tempered with humility.  I might be wrong.  If the information causes me to behave or act in a certain manner, I need to ask: what are the consequences if I am wrong? 

In order to keep this blog to a reasonable length, I will cover principles 3-5 in the next blog

--- to be continued ---

The Lie

In my previous post, I said that I would talk about next steps to restore a Christ-centered orthodoxy to Evangelical Christianity and rid us of the scourge of Christian nationalism.  This is the first step – we must confront the loss of truth.  

In Ephesians, Paul admonishes us to speak the truth in love.  This has two parts: 1) a commitment to truth, and 2) a commitment to love.  Following this guide, I want to say that I love Evangelicals.  They are my brothers and sisters, and I greatly desire that the truth of the Gospel is lived out in their lives and in their witness to the world.  In believe, in fact, that the vast majority of Evangelicals are loving people.  They care deeply about the people in their lives and will go out of their way to both minister to needs and share the message of Christ.  

However, no matter how loving they are in their personal relationships, when it comes to their witness to the world, love dies.  Not for all, but for many.  Instead, paranoia and a victim mentality gives them permission to become very hateful in their witness.  This paranoia comes not from the Bible or a spirit-filled life, but from sociological conditions of which they are often unaware.  

A friend shared a quote from Bible scholar Earl F. Palmer.  It was written many years ago, but it bears repeating because it fits so well with today’s situation:

“Persons who most often are entrapped by cultic movements are individuals who were programmed for the entrapment in pre-cultic homes. Perhaps they grew up in a family where the mood at every meal was pessimistic and cynical. The result for such an individual and for the family was the gradual development of low-grade paranoia, adriftness, a feeling of helplessness, a conviction that all people are basically hypocritical, all systems bad or hopeless. Such a person grows up starved for warm relationships and a sense of hope because a human being cannot live on cynicism and pessimism. If such a person does not find true food, then false foods will find a welcome in his or her life.”

Low grade paranoia describes well this situation in so many Evangelical households.  Distrust of government, of social systems, a feeling that everything is corrupt: these all leave the believer in a state of helplessness. Our family and our community are alone on an island surrounded by enemies who are out to get us.  The cult movement gives comforting answers in the form a powerful individual who both validates the fears and offers solutions that require unquestioning loyalty on the part of the follower.    

The clearest proof that Evangelicals have fallen into this cult-like state is the Lie.  By every objective measure, Donald Trump lost both the popular vote and the electoral college.  Republican officials in Georgia and Arizona confirmed this even though their interest lay in the opposite result.  William Barr, the attorney general who was so eager to turn the Justice Department into the president’s personal attorneys, never the less was not able to find any objective evidence of election fraud.  The President’s own White House Counsel spent weeks tracking down each and every claim.  They all hit a dead end.  Everything, from midnight camera recordings to ballots in a dumpster, was seriously looked into.  Nothing.  Not a cover up by the President’s enemies, but an earnest effort by his allies.  

The power of a cult leader is that he can demand that his followers confirm their loyalty by denying reality.  This is what is happening now.  It is the surest proof that the disease infecting so many Evangelicals is serious.  The Lie and the willingness to engage in either active violence or passive support of efforts to undermine democracy are the result.

There is a way out.  It requires a step of faith and a willingness to allow God to be in charge of our fears.  And most of all, it involves letting go of the Lie.  If we are willing to let go of the Lie, we have broken one of the powerful strongholds that the cult strongman has over us – namely the subservience of truth to loyalty.  When we let go of it, we can look back and see the ugliness that the Lie with its demand for unquestioning loyalty has left behind.  Then, we can truly say that the truth has set us free.

Christian Nationalism - Part 2

Should we engage society?

In my last blog post I talked about the theological error of Christian nationalism, and its danger to Christianity because it undermines evangelism and attempts social reform through the use of power.  Having stated what I think is wrong, I feel the need to suggest a way forward.  The next couple of blogs will address that.

First, should Christians be concerned with social reform? If you look at our history, we discover that modern Evangelicals defined themselves as the socially engaged version of conservative Protestantism as they separated from fundamentalism after World War II.  Perhaps the most important work at that time was Carl F.H. Henry’s “The Uneasy Conscious of Modern Fundamentalism.”  Evangelicals had become alienated from the social reform movement at the beginning of the 20^th Century, and Henry made the case for them to become engaged in society and promote reforms that make for just society.  Christianity, Henry argued, has a public face and does not live in an isolated corner of the world.  For Henry, Christianity had a message that addressed not just problem of personal sin, but also addressed the social problems of the 20^th century. 

In many respects, the phenomenon of Christian nationalism can be seen as a way of addressing Henry’s concern.  However, Christian nationalism also grows out of a kind of cultural religion that has been with the country since before its founding.  The Pilgrims were intentional about founding a commonwealth built on Christian principles.  Throughout our history, religion and politics have mixed.  I am old enough to remember when there were Public Service Announcements on television encouraging people to “attend the church or synagogue of your choice.”  One of my favorite tellings of this tale is Richard Niebuhr’s “The Kingdom of God in America.”  This cultural American Christianity became, in Niebuhr’s famous conclusion: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”  This was liberal cultural religion.

Liberal cultural Christianity ended with a whimper in the 1960s as events overwhelmed the “kum-ba-yah” narrative.  Evangelical Christianity, which was on the rise in the last half of the 20^th century, attempted to take up the challenge of social engagement.  Some of the results, such as Prison Fellowship and World Vision, have had a remarkable impact on society.  However, so much of the current cultural engagement has devolved into Christian nationalism.  To attempt to answer how this happened would take much more than can be covered in a blog.  However, in my next blog, I want to suggest some ways out of the swamp of nationalism.

Today, especially in the wake of the events of Jan 6 in our nation’s capital and the aftermath, there have been many thoughtful things written about the dangers of Christian nationalism.  One writer said: “The split we are seeing is not theological or philosophical. It’s a division between those who have become detached from reality and those who, however right wing, are still in the real world.”  I disagree.  I believe that the problem is theological, and the healing can only happen when we deal with the underlying spiritual issues at work here.  Bad theology (another name for heresy) blinds us to the underlying spiritual truths.  

I want to begin with the 18^th century: Specifically the revivals and evangelistic campaigns of Finney and Moody.  The pattern at that time was revival of the church then evangelism of the community.  Revival was not about changing the culture or the community; it was about changing the heart of the church.  The life-transforming work of the Holy Spirit can be stifled by unconfessed sin which hardens the heart.  The challenge of unconfessed sin is that it is often deeply hidden in our hearts – or to use modern language, it rests within our subconscious.  It is something repressed so that we, perhaps, have a vague sense of something wrong, but in our everyday life it cannot be fully grasped or acknowledged.  The revival of the church happens when we individually and corporately search the depth of our souls.  It comes with the deep conviction that we are sinners in need of grace. That humility at the feet of the Cross gives us the power to break through the normal human defenses that hid our own sin from our self.  It is with the spiritual renewal that comes from revival that the church is then empowered to witness the Gospel of Christ to the surrounding community.  The power of the gospel comes out of human brokenness – a brokenness that has experienced the power of grace.  

The theological error of Christian nationalism is that it reverses the process and confuses revival with evangelism.  The narrative of Christian nationalism is that the nation needs a revival and that revival can only happen when more people become Christians.  The sin-focus is not on unconfessed sin within the church, but on the moral failings in the society.  The believer comes not broken but empowered, having the answer to society’s problems and using power to bring about moral reform.  This error is especially dangerous because it blinds us to our own failings.  We never get to the place of soul searching and confession of sin.  It replaces the truth of our own brokenness with the lie that Christians are powerful.  It then closes off the most important truth of the gospel: our own need for grace.  Thus falsely empowered, we use our sin-warped power – in the name of Jesus – in inflict more damage.  In this way, Christian nationalism transforms itself into a political ideology and becomes the enemy of true evangelism.