Traveling in Place

Exhausted but Hopeful

These days, it seems like every election is the most consequential ever. That includes the midterms. Still, a majority of registered voters will likely opt out of exercising their Constitutional franchise on November 6 (even though a record turnout for mid-terms is anticipated).

YouGov recently conducted a poll of 8,000 Americans for the “Hidden Tribes of America” project. It reveals that only 14% of the public is “highly engaged” politically. This number includes people on the hard left and hard right who are fueled as much by hatred for each other as by their own values. Meanwhile, fully two-thirds of us are “politically exhausted,” and that includes 37% of us who are “politically disengaged” or “passive.”  

These results do not bode well for our democracy, but I doubt they are surprising to anybody reading this. Most of the people I talk to – whether they lean left or right – are just tired of it all, if not outright disgusted at the gridlock, the partisanship, the tribalism, and loss of ideals that once defined us as a nation. Of course, if you’re part of that 14%, you are already shouting that those are all reasons to get involved! But we may not appreciate the extent to which our political peril, a downward spiral that is at least 25 years old, has psychologically pummeled otherwise responsible civic-minded people into a state of near hopelessness. (Let me just say that, even if you feel exhausted or disengaged, you can still vote, and I hope you do. Nobody but you and God need to know how you vote.)

Puritanism Redux

“A dangerous movement, undetected by many, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom. [This movement] must be confronted and stopped.” – Attorney General Jeff Sessions on the establishment of the “Religious Liberty Task Force” within the Department of Justice.

I serve as a pastor in the United Church of Christ, a denomination that in part traces its roots to the Mayflower Pilgrims who are celebrated everything Thanksgiving. This group of 101 religious “Separatists” (so named because they separated from the Church of England) had already escaped religious persecution in England by crossing the channel and settling in Holland, where religious toleration was the law. But since all sorts of other licentious behaviors were also tolerated by the Dutch, this devout group of believers decided to risk a voyage across the Atlantic to the New World, where they hoped to form a new community free to practice the Christian faith as they saw fit in what they believed would be a more pristine environment. They named their new settlement “Plymouth.”

The pilgrims’ understanding of “religious liberty” was simple. All people should be free to worship God as they chose. No one should be coerced to accept a particular faith tradition, but all should be free to express their beliefs without fear of reprisal. It didn’t take long for this principle to be tested. The pilgrims soon realized the New World was actually very old and populated by people with their own traditions and beliefs. For roughly half a century, the pilgrims and natives engaged in sometimes tense but always hopeful dialogue and a rich exchange of practices and ideas.

This peaceful co-existence would soon be overwhelmed, however, by another colonial enterprise just to the north. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was formed out of a mixture of commercial and religious interests. Puritans (not Separatists) came to the New World with the stated intention of creating a “New England,” purifying English religion with a more biblically-based church. These Puritans also sought religious freedom, but only for themselves. When confronted with the presence of natives, they were quite clear about their intention either to convert them to Christianity or drive them away. The Massachusetts Bay Congregational Churches were determined to create a new Christian society, a theocracy supported by local taxes. Citizenship and church membership were one and the same.

Weeping and Rejoicing

“Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” (Romans 12:15)

I’ve been reflecting over the past week about how, in the life of the church, we learn to weep and rejoice at the same time. It is nearly always the case that some part of our body is experiencing great sadness while another part is filled with joy. We do not get to choose which of these we will focus on. Paul’s admonition does not contain the word “or.” We simultaneously rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep.

This is one of the precious realities of being a community of faith, and it was put in sharp relief for me recently when we learned of the death of a beloved church member at the same time we anticipated the confirmation of three of our teens on Pentecost Sunday.

Many of us were heartbroken over a great loss, and we wept as we prepared for her funeral. But we did not let our grief diminish the joy we felt for three young men making their professions of faith. On Pentecost, worship was festive, celebrative, and joyous, even though many of us were feeling the sting of loss. And then, two days later, we gathered again for a service filled with tears, but many of us were still remarking about the blessing of Sunday’s worship, as well as noting how good it was to gather in faith, giving thanks to God for someone who has been a great blessing to so many. Functioning as the body of Christ, we rejoiced and wept all at once. It’s what we do.

What is true for our congregation is true for the world. Tragedy somewhere breaks hearts every day. But blessings continue to overflow. As God’s people, we lament all that is wrong and, rather than shield ourselves from the world’s sorrows with saccharine piety, we weep. But our tears do not diminish the joy that is always with us, and that causes us to note all the signs of God’s amazing grace. Because we are able to weep andrejoice, we bear witness to the compassionate presence of God at work in all circumstances. We are hope. We are love. 

©2018 by J. Mark Lawson

Voting Christian Conscience

Even though Roy Moore hasn’t yet conceded the Senatorial election in Alabama, the results are pretty clear. He lost. Even President Trump, his biggest cheerleader in the last couple of weeks, has congratulated his opponent, Doug Jones, on his hard-fought victory.

Now the analysis cycle is in full motion. The women’s vote was key – it was the mirror opposite of the men’s vote, but more women voted than men. Democrats are emphasizing the historic nature of the election. It’s been a quarter century since any Democrat has won statewide office, and an aggregate of polls still had Moore leading right up until Election Day. Republicans, on the other hand, are taking the “nothing to see here” approach, insisting that the unique circumstances of this election make it impossible to draw any conclusions about larger trends.

There is a critical aspect of this election that is under-appreciated by the secular media. Alabama is one of the most churched states in the country, and Roy Moore ran aggressively as a champion of conservative Christian values. His campaign rallies were like revival meetings. He regularly invoked the name of God and called on Alabamians to “stand up for the Lord” by voting for him. He deflected charges of sexual molestation earlier in his life by characterizing them as veiled attacks on his faith. His campaign was presented as a crusade of good against evil, a courageous effort to fight back against the persecution of the Christian faith. The reason he hasn’t yet conceded is because he must “wait on God,” as he told supporters last night. I guess he means that the apparent result of the election is only a temptation not to put our trust in God, who will eventually intervene to see that his favored candidate, Mr. Moore, wins.

Moore framed this election as a referendum on Christianity. To his great surprise, I’m sure, a bi-partisan coalition of Christians banded together to repudiate him and elect Jones.

Surprise?

All the stories in the gospels of the events leading up to the birth of Christ share something in common: the element of surprise.

Mary was surprised to be visited by an angel and told that she would give birth to the Messiah.

Joseph was surprised (and distraught) to learn that Mary was pregnant, but even more surprised to learn that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Zechariah was surprised to learn that he was to become a father.

Elizabeth was surprised to be with child despite her advanced age.

The Magi were surprised to see the star signaling the birth of a king.

Herod was surprised to learn from the Magi that one had been born “King of the Jews.”

The shepherds were surprised by the choir of angels that lit up the night sky where they were tending sheep.

The whole story of Jesus’ birth is surprising. Who knew that God would answer the prayer of the prophet, “Tear open the heavens and come down!” (Isaiah 64:1) with the birth of a baby in the humblest of circumstances?

And yet, the season in which we celebrate Christ’s birth is the least surprising time of the year. It has become so laden with tradition, custom, and expectation that hardly anything happens that has not happened before. In fact, deviation from the norm usually results from some sort of loss, whether of a person, mobility, or a home, and in turn causes grief.

Indecent Christianity

Christianity has been in the news a lot lately – and not for good reasons.

Former judge and Senatorial candidate Roy Moore – who bombastically presents himself as a champion of traditional Christianity – has been publicly accused by five women (so far) of inappropriate sexual advances when they were teenagers. This is the guy who erected a monument of the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court and refused to remove it under court order. Later, he refused to abide by the Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage. Moore believes homosexuality should be a criminal offense. If he had his druthers, all U.S. law would be written to reflect his fundamentalist beliefs.

The accusations against him are far more credible than his denials, especially since he maintains that he is the victim of a conspiracy of left-wing liberals led by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (?) to reject “conservative Christian values.” These women had nothing to gain from speaking out. Most of them are life-long Republicans. They don’t know Mitch McConnell. But they know Roy Moore all too well, and decided the world needed to know about him as well.

But what is worse is how other Christians are defending Moore.

Jim Zeigler, state auditor of Alabama, says the former judge’s dalliances with teenagers when he was in his 30s has biblical precedent. “Take Mary and Joseph,” Zeigler said. “Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter when they became parents of Jesus.” What Bible is he reading? I don’t recall the gospels ever

The Rise of Incivility

As if we don’t have enough breaking news to keep up with, Montana Republican Congressional candidate Greg Gianforte has now been cited by the Gallatin County sheriff for misdemeanor assault against a reporter.

An audio recording and eyewitness accounts confirm that, on Wednesday, Gianforte became angry with The Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, who asked a question about the CBO score of the latest House healthcare bill. Gianforte refused to answer, but Jacobs persisted. Then, Gianforte demanded that the reporter “get the hell out,” complaining angrily that he was “sick and tired of this.” When Jacobs refused, Gianforte grabbed him by the neck, threw him to the ground, and began punching him. Gianforte’s office released a statement defending the candidate’s action against an “aggressive reporter,” but the sheriff’s office investigation has pretty much discredited that version of the story. Jacobs tweeted that the candidate “body-slammed” him and “broke his glasses.” Fox news reporters who were present at the same event said they watched in shock as Gianforte forced Jacobs to the ground and began punching him.

This loss of self-control on the part of a candidate for public office is sad, but really shouldn’t be shocking. It is not hard at all to draw a line from the thuggish nature of the Republican Presidential candidate’s behavior on the campaign trail last year and what happened in Montana yesterday. To be fair, Donald Trump didn’t start drawing that line. He was feeding off of a level of vitriol that was already seething in the electorate among people waiting for somebody – anybody – to channel their gut-level anger at just about everything. At Trump rallies, reporters were taunted, protesters were beaten, and the candidate played to the crowds by yelling such one-liners as, “get’em out of here!” and “I wish I could hit you in the face!”

I’m quite sure that millions of people who voted for Trump did so holding their proverbial noses, judging him to be the least undesirable of two bad options. Still, given his participation in and encouragement of brutish behavior – both personally and publicly – it is understandable that many people interpret his election as the triumph of incivility.

America Needs Churches

As a growing number of Americans drop out of organized religion (25% now say they do not affiliate with any form of it), American society becomes meaner and less civil. That shouldn’t surprise anybody, but in a roundabout way, it does.

For a half century, our nation has been embroiled in a series of “culture wars.” The Religious Right infiltrated and transformed the Republican Party as the defender of “family values” by stressing “traditional” marriage, opposing LGBTQ rights, and seeking to outlaw abortion under all or nearly all circumstances. The so-called “Moral Majority” led by Jerry Falwell determined to inculcate their beliefs through grass-roots political organizing that would legislate, enforce, and uphold their version of Christianity in all three branches of government. The growing influence of evangelicals in public life contributed (along with other factors) to rapid ideological sorting within both political parties and an end to bi-partisan compromise. Not surprisingly, liberal elites blamed religion in general and Christianity in particular for political polarization, and assumed that as America became more secular, the culture wars would cool off. Recent experience proves this assumption to be dead wrong.

In an article  published in The Atlantic entitled “Breaking Faith,” Peter Beinart explores how increased secularization has made our politics worse, not better. He points to research by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) that shows a sharp decline in religious affiliation among people of all political persuasions. For instance, the number of white Republicans who no longer attend church has tripled since 1990. Among church-going evangelicals, Donald Trump trailed Ted Cruz by 15 points during the height of the primary season, but among self-described evangelicals who no longer attended church, Trump led Cruz by 27 points. A similar dynamic was in play among Democrats. Among those who attended church weekly, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a 26-point advantage during the primary season. But among secular Democrats, Bernie Sanders led by 13 points.

A Letter from Christians to the President

President Trump just got some mail – a letter sent to him by 100 prominent Christian leaders. The signatories include Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Catholic archbishop of New York; Leith Anderson, president of the National Evangelical Association; Jonathan Reckford, CEO of Habitat for Humanity; Craig Barnes, President of Princeton Theological Seminary; Christian music artists Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith; denominational leaders, directors of numerous Christian global relief organizations, pastors, and writers.

I daresay these 100 people almost never get together around anything but the broadest, blandest principles of Christian identity. But they’ve all united to oppose the President’s budget proposal, which slashes State Department funding by 28%, gutting in the process various international aid programs. “As followers of Christ, it is our moral responsibility to urge you to support and protect the International Affairs Budget, and avoid disproportionate cuts to these vital programs that ensure that our country continues to be the ‘shining city upon a hill,’” the letter reads, pointing out that the International Affairs Budget, which represents only 1% of the total budget, “has helped alleviate the suffering of millions; drastically cutting the number of people living in extreme poverty in half, stopping the spread of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDs and Ebola, and nearly eliminating polio. Additionally, it promotes freedom and human rights, protecting religious freedom for millions around the world.” The letter makes the point that because our nation has abundant resources, we have a responsibility to aid countries in desperate need, and that promoting our values around the world increases our security at home.

International aid is not the only victim of Trump’s budget proposal. He wants to slash funding of music and the arts, scientific research, and a host of federal programs that support the elderly, give critical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and people living in rural poverty, and encourage national public service. All of these expenditures have received bipartisan support for decades because they are so effective. They represent good government. The stated reason for defunding them is to free up money to expand our military arsenal and build a wall along our southern border. But the numbers don’t add up. The combined savings from these cuts represent only a tiny fraction of the budget’s proposed increases.

Is this proposal just an opening bid from the dealmaker-in-chief? Or is it an actual statement of the President’s values? The fact that we don’t know is one

Don't Destroy the Johnson Amendment

When I heard about President Trump’s typically a-typical speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, I wondered how his audience of dignitaries and mostly conservative religious leaders received him. Did they think he was funny? Did they regard his unrehearsed, stream-of-consciousness ramblings as refreshing? Was anybody offended that he used that solemn occasion to make fun of Arnold Schwarzenegger, his successor on “Celebrity Apprentice,” and his poor ratings? I don’t know. I guess we’re going to grow so accustomed to this sort of performance that we become numb to it.

Significant among his otherwise baffling remarks was the President’s promise to “get rid of and totally destroy” the “Johnson amendment,” the 63-year-old law that prohibits tax-exempt non-profit organizations – including religious congregations – from endorsing candidates for public office. He probably assumed this pledge would be received warmly, even enthusiastically, by those assembled before him. Many conservative evangelical pastors have been lobbying for the law to be rescinded on the grounds that it is a violation of their rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. As he was excoriating this law, Trump maintained that the “sacred right” of religious freedom “is under threat all around us.” What he apparently doesn’t know, or chooses not to believe, is that 80% of the American public, including a large majority of practicing Christians, support the Johnson amendment as a way of maintaining the separation of church and state.

Leaving aside the fact that the president cannot unilaterally “get rid of and totally destroy” a federal law, several thoughts come to mind that I, as a Christian pastor, feel the need to share.