Resistance on Behalf of Reconciliation!

It is no secret that we are living in a very fractured, fragmented, and dangerous world, the instability of which has only increased since the end of the Cold War and increasing even more during a post 9/11 world.

According to an old African proverb It “takes a village to raise a child.” Yet according to Tom Burke, a British environmentalist, “it takes a planet to raise a child.” 

But this doesn’t seem quite possible on a planet that is so dangerously fractured and unstable as our world is today.

Hold these thoughts for a moment.

Many Christians are surprised to learn that the Apostle Paul’s biggest contribution to the emerging 1st century Christian movement was not the idea of a personal salvation but rather something far more relevant to our planet today. 

Paul’s main focus was on reconciling two very different communities (Jewish and Gentile) into one body. This was in fact his major contribution to the early Jesus movement.

In other words, Paul’s focus was on the ministry of reconciliation.

Unfortunately this focused has given way to an overly individualized version of salvation.

Paul believed that God intended for the world to be reconciled into one new humanity—a global humanity for that matter (see Genesis 12:1-3); a humanity God wants to bless.

The following words are from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

According to Paul Jesus came to break down all walls that divide us; the walls erected because of hostility between people and nations. The cross thus became the reconciling bridge between God and a fractured humanity. 

Unfortunately, as the history of the emerging Christian movement unfolded, we witness numerous divisions and fractures between the different Christian assemblies or groups, which over time had worldwide implications. 

Yet Paul makes it clear that the main purpose of Jesus’ coming was to create “one new humanity” without abolishing human diversity.

Jesus came primarily to reconcile all humanity. He came to break down all those visible and invisible barriers (walls) that we have historically erected to divide ourselves from another (cultural customs and politics, color of our skin, our ethnic identities, our sexuality, our economic status, the neighborhoods in which we live, etc.).

The most important thing the Church can do in today’s fractured world is to model the work of reconciliation; to offer a witness to the power of God's reconciling love for all of humanity. 

One way we Christians can do this is to offer resistance to any and all attempts to separate people from one another, policies that prevent people from entering our country based on their religion or background, and worse of all pass legislature that marginalizes people simply because of the color of their skin or ethnic identity (unfair voting laws for example).

We have a responsibility as Christians and as the church to publicly resist any and all forms of social or government policy intended to separate and marginalize any one group of people from the mainstream. 

As followers of Jesus we are called to follow him in the work of reconciliation. If we fail in this mission we then become nothing more than a state controlled religion bending to the will of a secular government; or even worse we demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of what it means to engage the world on behalf of the Gospel.

We are called to do the work of reconciliation as followers of Christ. 

Anything less is to miss the whole point of Jesus’ coming.

Is God In Cyberspace?

Is God in Cyberspace?

Cyberspace may be defined as that space that is occupied by the World Wide Web, the Internet, and the Social media. Cyberspace is the new Supernova.

This was the question asked of author Thomas Friedman on one of his book tours a few years ago. Friedman confessed that he did not know but he would find the answer. He later entitled a chapter in he latest book by the same question (Thank You For Being Late, Chapter Eleven).

So he consulted with and asked his mentor Rabbi Tzvi Marx. He asked the Rabbi the same question: 

“Is God in Cyberspace?” 

Marx replied: 

“It depends on your view go God.”  

The Rabbi went on to explain and I am paraphrasing his response:

If you believe God controls everything, including all human actions and behaviors then I would have to say that God is not in Cyberspace. However, if God gives us humans the freedom to behave in such ways that reveal his presence to the world then yes, quite possibly God is in Cyberspace.

So Friedman now answers the question this way: 

“He sure wants to be.”

Now if one actually believes that God has created us with the freedom to make ethical and moral choices and to live in such ways that reveal God’s presence then the answer is “yes” God may very well be in Cyberspace—if we invite him.

Back in the 1990s I heard a medical ethicist make the astonishing claim that advances in medical technology was seriously outpacing our capacity to keep up with appropriate ethical decisions.

Perhaps we are now witnessing the same phenomenon with regards to Cyberspace in general and the Social Media in particular.

God just might show up on Facebook if we behave in ways that honor his presence. The same may be said for other Social Media networks (e.g., Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, etc.). 

Yet from what I am witnessing today God seems unwilling to join us in this new cyber-arena of our lives. I have never witnessed so much vitriol, so much hate, so much toxic language, and so much character assassinations in my life—so much childish behavior in fact. Over what? A matter of disagreement?

Ironically many of those who use their Social Media networks as a platform to vent their anger towards those who disagree with them, are probably pretty decent people for the most part—at least in person. Some are downright likable if you were to meet them in person. 

But they are also just one click away from being a really nasty person in Cyberspace.

With just one mouse click or smartphone prompt all ethics and morals go flying out the window. It seems that not only is medical technology outpacing our ethics so is Cyberspace technology. 

Our nastiness may be excluding God from Cyberspace.

We had better get a handle on all this sooner than later. We live in a very dangerous and fragmented world to begin with and our personal support of a Social Media network devoid of ethics, rules, and moral values may lead to some serious consequences in the not too distant future.

So what can I do personally to help clean up some of this cyber-mess some of us have helped create? 

Think twice about what you are posting. How will it affect others? How will it diminish the quality of our lives? What does it really say about you? Cyberspace is real life; even in the cyber-arena we have created. Cyberspace is not make believe folks even though we sometimes treat it as an alt-reality. On its own Cyberspace is valueless and amoral. We add values and morals by our cyber-behaviors.


We each play a significant role as to whether God is in Cyberspace or not.

Just because we have all this advanced technology does not mean that we can toss all our social and religious values aside for the sake of defending an opinion, or being right. I’m all for healthy debate but it seems we have thus far demonstrated our lack of ability for any healthy cyber-debate.

Perhaps an cyber-ethical and cyber-moral revolution is needed to help us keep pace with advances in cyber-technology. Perhaps we just need to learn some good old fashion manners and social decorum. I mean, calling one another names is really childish, don't you think?

Think twice before you make the next mouse click or prompt the next smartphone or iPad when you jump into Cyberspace. 

Are you inviting God to jump online with you?

Can't We All Look and Think Alike Please?

As someone who grew up on such a small piece of real estate I was absolutely blown away when I first discovered that the world in which I had been living for nineteen years was much more diverse than I could have ever imagined. 

For the most part we were all white, all Christian (at least nominally) and mostly all fairly conservative. It was shocking for me to learn that not everyone looked like me, shared my religious and political values, and who sported much different views of the world than I did.

Quite frankly, I was blown away. This was my first real experience with what is aptly called “culture shock.”

Even though I wasn’t aware of it back then, I had so much to learn about the world that existed on that postage stamp sized island situated off of Virginia’s coastline (pictured above). My entire world consisted mostly of a parcel of land seven miles in length and two and a half miles in width. Talk about small!

I have spent much of my entire adult life discovering that the world is so much more complex and larger than I could have ever imagined. Every single day I learn something incredibly new that helps me adapt to the swirling changes that are occurring around me at an increasingly accelerated pace.

I know, it is not easy to embrace change. But if you must have a simple answer to a complex issue try this:

Those who refuse to change become extinct.

This is the grand lesson of Mother Nature and one we had better pay attention to if we desire to make it deep into the present century.

This is why author Thomas Friedman contends that Mother Nature is the best mentor we humans have for learning how to survive in a world that is changing far faster than many of us can handle.

In his newest and most compelling book, Thank You For Being Late, Friedman rather strongly suggests that we humans would do well to learn from Mother Nature, if we expect to survive in what he calls the “age of acceleration.”

Quoting Leon C. Megginson, Friedman writes: “the civilization that is able to survive is the one that is able to adapt to the changing physical, social, political, moral, and spiritual environment in which it finds itself.”

It should be noted that Megginson made these comments back in 1963. I am not so sure that we have gotten the message to date. We simply are not adapting to rapidly changing realities in our world.

This seems to be what lies behind so much global unrest today.

Well, I have tackled a subject this morning that is far too complex and large for such a small blog post. I do hope, however, to have stirred your curiosity to read Friedman’s book.


With that said, I would like to comment on one small, but critically important lesson, I’ve learned from Mother Nature (Friedman certainly helped me see this):

Diversity is what makes us strong. 

It is what provides us with the sustenance to survive. Biologists observe that whenever diversity exists in Mother Nature life flourishes. If diversity is removed from the scene death follows rather quickly.

Of course social scientists, some thoughtful theologians, and even knowledgable politicians all know this. Diversity is not the enemy as so many believe it is. Our world is becoming more and more complex and diverse and singular easy answers won’t work.

When we resist diversity we become parochial, narrow-minded, and overly protective of our own kind (nativist). When diversity is resisted our attitudes quickly become “us against them” and this narrows the incredible possibilities available to us for continued survival.

When diversity is resisted we end up with either/or solutions to the many complex issues we all face as human beings. Quite frankly, the world is not so black and white. There are no quick fixes. There are no easy answers, although easy answers are what nativists want.

Truth is, our world (even the USA) cannot survive with this nativist mentality. Such thinking too often leads to conflicts, violence, wars, and divides us into artificial categories such as “us against them.” Such a mentality leads to death and extinction.

Such thinking creates artificially opposing groups such as conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. These artificial categories lead to either/or approaches to complex problems that cannot be solved in such a diverse world. Why do you think we have FOX News and MSNBC?

We are in this together even if we don’t all look alike, believe the same things, worship the same gods, or live on the same parcel of land.

Diversity is not the enemy folks. Diversity is what God gave to the world in oder for us to survive and flourish together—just ask Mother Nature.

Check her out!

America is not a Theocracy Folks!

I will never forget the shock I experienced the first time I read about the time the church became a State Church. I was stunned to learn how the church first became the Empire’s favorite child. It was called the great "Constantine Shift!"

Actually there are countless numbers of Christians today who have no earthly idea that such a shift ever took place, let alone understanding its tragic consequences. This is perhaps why so many today continue to be hung up over the "prayer in school" issue.

For the first three hundred years of church history Christians were marginalized, persecuted, and were second class citizens in an Empire that didn't want them. This is the context behind most of the book of Revelation. Yet ironically the church grew the fastest and the farthest  during this period as well.

But then in C.E. 313 the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, thus moving it from the margins of Roman society to becoming the centerpiece of Roman life. It’s a long story but well documented.

Now granted the church immediately experienced the benefits of a now hospitable Empire. Christians could now express their faith in public without fear of persecution. This had to have been a great relief for them; who wouldn't have been pleased with such a development?

The churches of the Empire also reaped a financial windfall from the Emperor and eventually gained political power themselves.  Christian orthodoxy was also established at the insistence of the Emperor in a place called Nicaea. The marriage of Church and State was an accomplished fact. 

This period of Christian history (C.E. 313 to roughly the middle of the 20th century) became known as “Christendom.” The unhappy result of this marriage was the attempt to airbrush Jesus out of the center of the church’s life and mission and make him more compatible with this new Church/State relationship.

There are church historians today who believe that the teachings of Jesus (Sermon on the Mount) were reinterpreted in ways that would have been foreign to Christians prior to the Constantine Shift. For example, loving one’s enemies does not sit well with an Empire that used violence and war as a means to expand its interests. Jesus bringing peace came to be spiritualized as inner peace within the individual; justice came to be understood as "righteousness" (with a moralistic flair of course).

Many of Jesus’ core teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount were spiritualized or considered instructions for the Age to Come, but definitely not intended for the current age. Some even taught that Jesus' most difficult teachings, like enemy love, were meant to show just how incapable we humans are of living up to such expectations and therefore stand in need of God’s grace for salvation.

The sad truth is, historically speaking, the Constantine Shift marked the day that Christianity got into bed with the Empire and over the years lost more and more of its prophetic edge; having shifted from the margins of Roman society to its center, the voice of Jesus became much more muted to the ears of those living in Christendom. 

So when I hear so-called Christian leaders or politicians today suggesting that they want to see Christianity once again become our national religion, I cringe. They want to reinstall Christendom and reboot another Constantinian Shift. 

I resist any such movement.

The State needs a Christian voice and witness that comes from the margins of American society. It cannot hear the prophetic voice of the church if the church is embedded at the center of American society. 

The yeast cannot do its work if it becomes the loaf of bread. We must remember the words of Jesus that we live in the world but are not of it.

Christendom is dead, it’s just that many don’t know it yet. National flags need to be removed from Christendom sanctuaries. Christian worship needs to be centered on the Christ Event rather than national holidays. Jesus (the Cross) needs to be the centerpiece of the church's life and mission, and the Christian Faith needs to be situated on the margins of American society once again. 

We live in a very dangerous and frightening world. There is no telling what lies ahead. But this we do know: 

When we Christians live and behave according to the teachings of Jesus and the values of God’s kingdom we will more than likely find ourselves situated at the margins of American society—and this is not a bad thing. This is not cause for grief but rather reason for celebration.

Christendom is dead. The divorce has already occurred. It was never intended for Christianity to become an embedded instrument of the Empire, or the State, or even American Democracy. 

The Church cannot be Christ’s true Church when the State holds the mortgage over our heads.

Put a Warning Label on the Cross!

“If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”

                                                                                                               -- Luke 9:23

This Monday America will recognize the birthday of a man who bore the cross of Jesus and it cost him his life. Perhaps a warning label on such a cross is needed.

The late Mennonite John Howard Yoder once quipped: 

"The believer's cross is, like that of Jesus, the price of social nonconformity.”

Such was the case for Martin Luther King, Jr whose social nonconformity and political activism cost him his life. He resisted the Powers that insisted upon the injustice of racial segregation and the inequality of people of color.

He carried the cross of social nonconformity and it cost him his life, just as it did Jesus.

Yoder, I believe, was correct. The cross was a brutal instrument of death. It was not encased in gold and hung around Jewish necks, nor was it adorned in liturgical colors and hung in places of worship. It was not just a symbol of salvation, as it has become for so many today (it is but, it is so much more).

The cross in Jesus’s day was the result of all those who resisted the Empire; it was an instrument reserved for zealots and political activists. Social and political nonconformists were executed on a Roman cross.

When Peter cut off the Roman soldier’s ear Jesus rebuked him not because he was afraid that Peter’s actions might prevent him from fulfilling his main mission, which was to die for lost souls and get them to heaven when they die.

This tunneled vision understanding of why Jesus died has contributed to our misunderstanding of what it means to bear the cross of Jesus. MLK, Jr. did not make this mistake nor should we.

If Jesus is portrayed accurately in the four Gospels, which I believe he is, then it seems pretty clear to me that he was a political figure; or to say it another way: 

He engaged the political Powers and agitated them to no end. 

It cannot be denied that he was crucified on the grounds of sedition, which by the way was a political crime. To claim that Jesus wasn't political is a serious mistake.

Bearing the cross of Jesus in the public arena may carry with it serious consequences; for one to do so is to live as a nonconformist to the prevailing political and social norms of the day. 

Whenever a Christian opposes political policies that are harmful to people, especially people who live on the margins of society (the poor, the immigrants,the homosexuals, the weak, and even women), Christians are responsible for calling out those who implement harmful policies towards those whom Jesus referred to as “the least of these.” 

To do so sometimes evokes painful consequences and this is what is meant by bearing the cross. This is what I believe Jesus himself meant by the phrase.

It has been said that Jesus came to comfort the afflicted. This is true but unfortunately so many Christians have come to believe that this is all he came to do, and that the Gospel is all about making people feel good about themselves. 

He also came to afflict the comfortable—To call out those leaders whose political actions bring harm to those they are sworn to protect. 

Perhaps it may be more appropriate to consider Jesus a political agitator as opposed to an activist. Perhaps he was both. I believe he was. It cost him his life simply because he painted a picture of an alternative political and social order that the Powers (both religious and political) could not and would not accept.

The same may be said of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Christians are needed today more than ever to become political agitators/activists right where they live. Not in a partisan way, but as agitators on the fringes of normal political agencies. Resist if you must. Revolt peacefully if necessary. But also realize, as have so many such as Martin Luther King, Jr, and the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that cross bearing can be hazardous to one’s life.

Being apolitical was not an option for Jesus nor should it be an option for Christians today.

It cost Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr. their lives and it could very well cost us ours as well.

Who said Christianity is a comfortably safe religious practice?

I'm Blaming You . . .

“Scapegoat theory refers to the tendency to blame someone else for one's own problems, a process that often results in feelings of prejudice toward the person or group that one is blaming. Scapegoating serves as an opportunity to explain failure or misdeeds, while maintaining one's positive self-image” (iResearchNet).

Scapegoating has been around for a very, very long time. One may even find scapegoating in the Bible as a way to deal with the sins of the people. The sins of the tribe would be placed upon the shoulders of the scapegoat (a real goat) and then sent out into the wilderness to die.

Everyone breathed a sigh of relief: “All is well because the scapegoat carried away our sins.” Life would return to some sense of normalcy, until the next time a scapegoat was needed.

Understood in this way it is clear why the late Rene Girard considered Jesus as the ultimate and final Scapegoat needed.

Yet Social Psychology has expanded this definition of scapegoating to include the element of blaming others for one’s failures, shortcomings, or problems in order to affirm one's own self-esteem (see definition above):

"If I blame so and so I can then feel good about myself or my position."

Such scapegoating was historically evident during the rise of Adolf Hitler in pre-World War II Germany. Hitler blamed everyone from the Treaty of Versailles, that ended World War I, to the Jews for Germany’s woes; Gypsies and homosexuals were not excluded in this blame game. 

The tragic effects of such scapegoating are now a part of the historical record. The Holocaust is one of the darkest blots on human history and was instigated in large part by scapegoating.

Most of us would wipe our brow and say: 

“Thank the Lord that’s over with.” 

Well not so fast, it isn’t. 

Maybe not to the extent we saw in Hitler’s Germany, but nonetheless the scapegoat tendency is alive and well and this concerns me because I know where such blame casting (scapegoating) can go. 

In actuality scapegoating is rarely based upon facts, but instead upon innuendo, half truths, and outright lies, some even intentionally fabricated. For the Christian to engage in this brand of scapegoating is in serious violation of “bearing false witness” towards another (or another group of people).

When I hear people scapegoat homosexuals for the demise of the traditional family my heart breaks because it’s not only unfair but untrue?

When I hear folks scapegoat President Obama for political correctness I wonder what really lies beneath their disgust for respecting another person’s integrity (which is what political correctness is all about)? Let's also remember that political correctness has been around longer than Mr. Obama has been President.

When I hear folks scapegoat liberals (insert “conservative” if that applies to you) and accuse them of "destroying America" I wonder if they have ever studied American history and realize the many contributions both liberals and conservatives have made to America? 

My point is that scapegoating adds no quality to our lives together as a nation. It aims to separate, segregate, divide, and subvert our social contract to live together as Americans. 

More importantly, scapegoating of this type violates the very essence of the Christian Gospel, which is to reconcile humans rather than divide them.

More tragically, scapegoating is a poor way to build up one’s own self-image. Tearing another person down or another group of persons down in order to make yourself (or your group) feel good about yourself is awfully sad.

Such scapegoating leads to horrific conflicts, bloody wars, and horrible atrocities such as the Holocaust. History is full of tragic atrocities caused by scapegoating. It serves no profitable purpose for any of us. It’s just too easy to cast blame upon others while excusing yourself for any responsibility for  society’s problems. 

While in college I read the incredible account of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 12 year experience in a Russian Gulag (prison) in Siberia. It was a brutal and nasty Imprisonment. Solzhenitsyn was nothing more than a Communist scapegoat. 

Yet he emerged from that horrific experience with one of the great insights of human history: 

That the world cannot be simply divided into the bad guys and the good guys. 

Such insight compelled Solzhenitsyn to write: 

“The battle line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man.”

Perhaps this is the grace and wisdom we need to end our scapegoating once and for all.

Would Jesus Have Been a Facebooker?

Would Jesus have used Facebooker?

I bet you never thought to ask such a silly question, did you?

But certainly not as silly as some the memes I see posted on Facebook; memes that purport or at least imply to contain truth none of us could deny. Really?

Whenever I see one of these mindless memes I mentally recall the famous words of Jack Nicholson in the movie, A few Good Men:

“You can’t handle the truth!” 

But then I think:

“I could if the truth were actually revealed in this silly post.”

Come on, a meme is the ultimate insult to anyone's intelligence. It requires absolutely no work, no thinking, no investigative process, no research; just cut and paste (a favorite tactic for many Facebookers).

“Oh, that sounds about right, guess I’ll post it in order to change the minds of those who disagree with me.” Really?

Would Jesus have used Twitter and reduced his message down to 140 characters? 

Would he have been a fan of Instagram and posted pics of he and the twelve roaming across America?

Would he have used Snapchat? I do doubt that!

Quite frankly I don’t know what Jesus would have done had he lived today, although my imagination sometimes runs wild with speculation. I can only guess that he may have used the social media, but certainly not in the same ways we often do (shame on us).

But this I do know: He always told the truth.

When Jesus said: “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword” I take that to mean that violence is not a good conflict management tool (sorry gun lovers). Truth!

When he said: “Love your enemies” and “do not resist an evil doer” I take that to mean that he has another strategy in mind other than the use of bombs and bullets (which never solves anything anyway). Truth!

When he says: “Deny yourself and follow me” I take that to mean that being a Christian means more than just saying some prefabricated sinner’s prayer and mentally acknowledging him (just so I can escape hell and go to heaven no less). Truth!

When he says that we should care for “the least of these” he doesn't mean bitching about how much of our tax dollars are going towards the poor and welfare recipients. The poor are not pretty and they present little to no eye candy. But they are not the problem. Truth!

When he says: “Blessed are the peacemakers” I take that to mean that we are not just peace keepers but “makers.” Following Jesus implies that we seek peace by peaceful means. Truth!

When he tells me: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free,” I take that to mean full truth is contained in him and not in some political ideology (let alone some Facebook meme). Truth!

Whether Jesus would have used Facebook, or Twitter, or Instagram, or Snapchat as an effective medium for his message is really not the right question to ask.

The better question to ask ourselves is this:

“Have we actually heard what he has already said and have we really embraced his full message?” 

Not just the parts that make us feel good about ourselves, or the parts that give us comfort, or the parts that support our theology or political ideology, or affirm our worldview.

The message of Jesus cannot be reduced to a meme or a tweet. It can’t be done folks.

Has the Messiah Appeared?

Is Donald Trump the Messiah Evangelicals have been clamoring for these past several years? Or at least since the first election of Barack Obama?

In fact, one noted Evangelical pastor suggested that if Trump is not he Messiah then perhaps the forerunner of the coming Messiah, suggesting that he may be preparing the way for the return of Christ and the thousand year reign.

These are disingenuous and dangerous calculations in my opinion.

But such assertions say a lot about the state of Evangelical Christianity in America today; or at least a certain sector of Evangelical Christianity. Not all Evangelicals are this naive. 

The stunning announcement last year, that the then presidential candidate Donald J. Trump had “accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior” by Evangelical Pat Dobson, was not surprising.

If Evangelicals are going to throw their hat in the political ring with anyone then certainly a born again candidate is a must. It would not be appropriate to support an “unbeliever.” Supporting a Mormon would have been bad enough (many did in the last election) but an unbeliever? That's a whole different issue.

I guess it didn't matter that Trump had already confessed to have been a member of a Presbyterian Church, which would have implied he was a baptized Christian. That would not have been enough I suppose.

“So let’s do what we can to get our candidate to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior so that he can become a member of the born again tribe, just like us.” 

Such was the thinking of these particular Evangelicals. 

So why hasn’t anyone called such theatrics into question? Why hasn’t there been anyone that I’m aware of that has had the courage to question such theatrical hogwash for the sake of political pragmatism. 

And let’s not forget that politics is a very dirty and pragmatic business that all too often exploits Christians in order to garner votes.

Is it the fear of being too judgmental that has prevented people of faith from publicly decrying such superfluous use of Christianity for the purpose of political gain? 

Well didn't Jesus suggest that we would know a follower of by the fruit he or she bears?

It just looks awfully suspicious to me that Trump’s reported conversion beyond his confessed Presbyterian faith is nothing more than a theatrical political ploy to win Evangelical votes. Look, at least Jimmy Carter came into the presidential race already a bonafide “born again” candidate and his presidency was nowhere close to being Messianic (and he would acknowledge this today).

Well white Evangelicals got their man, or at least 81% of them did. They got their perceived Messiah in Donald J. Trump. He’s going to make America great again as any good messiah would do. 

A savior unto us has been elected!

Yet for those of us who already have thrown our hat into the ring with the real Messiah (Jesus) the next few years are going to be a challenge. 

The first thing we can do is acknowledge that no President is the Messiah, since that true Messiah has already come. He has already launched his Kingdom (of which we are citizens) and it in no way resembles the kingdoms of this world or their secular values. 

The second thing we can do is to prayerfully engage the political process based on our faith in the true Messiah. Become the yeast that marinates the bread. Become the mustard seed that mightily grows. Become the one who cares for the least of these. Become the subversive influence letting our representatives know that they are going to be held accountable for their actions and their upcoming political decisions. 

Remind them that America is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. 

Shout that mantra loud and long.

The third thing we can do is stop complaining about who is going to be in the White House the next four years. Granted less than nearly three million of the majority of American voters voted for Trump. Only 27% of the overall electorate voted for him. He did not get an overwhelming mandate. 

But this is no reason for Christians who serve the true Messiah to stick their heads into the proverbial sand and hide for the next four years; or to become nauseatingly apolitical, as if politics and faith are not to kiss one another; or understand our faith as some spiritual thing and not relevant to the real world; or for the next four years whine and complain as others did over the Obama presidency.

Thank God that Jesus is the true Messiah. 

He was not a politician even though he was political as we are. But our politics must conform to the values of the full Gospel as much as possible. It is to this reality that we are called to hold our leaders accountable. Our faith demands that we do. Our Messiah expects no less.

So let us do so with the courage and dignity necessary to withstand the rancor of those who have eyes that do not see nor ears that do not hear.

Thinkin' Problem

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect”—Saint Paul

Several years ago Country music singer David Ball had a big hit entitled, “Thinkin’ Problem.” It’s a clever song with the usual Country & Western theme of love gone awry. Is it possible that we Christians have a thinkin’ problem too?

2017 has arrived on scene and finds us thinking we can solve the world’s problems by using the same  old thinking strategies we’ve always used. But have you noticed that very little ever changes? 

Albert Einstein once quipped: 

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

This is called insanity.

Franciscan Richard Rohr offers a piercing critique of American Christianity as part of his New Year’s message to his readers. Writes Rohr:

“Our religion is not working well. Another year has ended—a new year begins—in which suffering, fear, violence, injustice, greed, and meaninglessness still abound. This is not even close to the reign of God that Jesus taught. And we must be frank: in their behavior and impact upon the world, Christians are not much different than other people.

The majority of Christians are not highly transformed people, but tend to reflect their own culture more than they operate as any kind of leaven within it. I speak especially of American Christians, because I am one. But if you are from another country, look at the Christians where you live and see if the same is true there.”

A friend of mine once mused:“If all Christians in America disappeared no one would ever notice.” I don’t agree but it is frightening to consider the possibility that he may be right. If all Christians thought as the world thinks wouldn't they be indistinguishably invisible?

It seems that a large swath of American Christianity has not listened to Saint Paul’s advice and has conformed its thinking to the ways of this world. I must include myself in this critique. It is really hard to admit but so necessary if one hopes to be transformed in the way one thinks.  

The ways we have been thinking about issues such as politics, poverty, crime, suffering, violence, war, militarism, and racism have done far too little in solving the problems they all seem to create? 

Perhaps is it high time for American Christians to write a bill of divorcement to the world’s preferred way of thinking.

Saint Paul said it quite clearly and without apology:

 “Be transformed by the renewing of your minds” which is precisely Rohr's point: “The majority of Christians are not highly transformed people.”

We are not transformed people simply because we have not allowed the love of God to change the way we think about life.

The central core value that will transform our thinking is our love of God and neighbor. Jesus called this the "Great Commandment." When our thinking is saturated with God’s love we will then experience a transformation of our minds. Love is the prerequisite for transformed thinking.

Only the love of God can truly transform the way we think. It certainly transformed the Apostle Paul from a brutal persecutor of Christians to a champion of the Way. But before that happened the love of Christ had to infiltrate his mind and heart. 

It sounds so simple, doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t simple but certainly available to us all.

If enough of us resolve to allow the Spirit of God to transform our thinking it would transform our society in ways none of us could ever imagine. 

The love of God and neighbor is energy enough to transform the way we think about life. 

The alternative of course is to keep thinking in the same old habitual ways while expecting different results. 

Perhaps this is insanity.