Is Christianity Corrupted?

 

 People of all persuasions are dumping Christianity, and for several years I tried to reason that it’s not Christianity they’re rejecting, it’s “bad” Christianity. But lately I’ve begun to see that bad Christianity, although affecting specific tenets of faith, stains the whole name of Christianity.

Some groups have opted for the prosperity gospel and rationalized wealth as a sign of God’s favor. They use verses like II Corinthians 9:8 “And God is able to provide you with every blessing [For a definition of “blessing”, look at Matthew 5:2-11; however, in the original language, II Corinthians 9:8 uses a different word: χαριν (Ka – riv), meaning, literally, gift or grace.] in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in every good work.” Note the reason God gives the blessings/graces/gifts is “that…you may share abundantly in every good work!” The gifts are given, not to own or hold, but to empower good works!

Some Christian groups, having failed through witness and evangelism to convert the world to their high-demand version of the faith, crawled into bed with political power to force compliance. Churchmen (Yep, most of them are men—white men) like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell opened the door and more recent names like Franklin Graham and Doug Wilson have kept the momentum going.

From the other direction, political leaders like House Speaker Mike Johnson and U. S. Representative, Lauren Boebert joined hands with church leadership to consummate the affair.

It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this case, did power corrupt, or did corruption motivate the hunger for power? Either way, Christian Nationalism (not to be confused with patriotism) is the love child conceived by the merger of church and state.

Some elements (and there’s a lot of overlap throughout these observations) have reduced Christianity to an obsession with abortion, guns, and any expression of sexuality that is not heterosexual and married.

Some factions have been sucked into the Trump/MAGA cult, which currently is doubling down, putting all its eggs in the basket of Immigration.

Strangely silent in all the above are specific ethical teachings of Jesus, like “Love your enemy” (Matthew 5:43), “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9), “…I was a stranger and you welcomed me…” (Matthew 25:35ff). In the original language, stranger is ξενος (zee – nos), the root of the English word, xenophobia. In Matthew 5:43, various English versions translate it “stranger” or “foreigner.” Elsewhere in the New Testament it is translated “alien” (Ephesians 2:12 and Hebrews 11:13).

In all cases the Judeo/Christian Scriptures are consistent in exhortations to welcome the stranger/alien/foreigner and in the accountability extracted from one who does not extend hospitality to the foreigner.

I have heard no one advocate for open borders without accountability. Nor have I heard any credible source opposing legal action regarding the undocumented. The illegality of undocumented presence (a civil, not a criminal offense) is offset by the illegality of detaining without due process or bench warrant, not to mention the indiscriminate detaining of the totally “legal.”

 Not only is there silence regarding the ethics of Jesus; indeed, many are quite open in their selective dismissal of Jesus’ ethical teachings, especially those that don’t comply with their political agenda.

In a 2023 NPR interview, former Southern Baptist pastor and denominational leader, Russell Moore, spoke of many pastors who receive serious pushback when they preach about the ethics and values of Jesus.

He shared that one pastor preached Jesus’ admonition to turn the other cheek and love your enemy, and after the sermon an angry church member raged, “Where did you get all those liberal talking points?”

Moore said, “What alarms me is that in most of these stories, the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus from the Gospels,’ and the response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.’”

Moore concluded, “When the teachings of Jesus are seen as subversive, we’re in a crisis.”

I believe we’re in a crisis. When partisan political ideology takes precedence over the ethics of Jesus, Christianity morphs into Christian Nationalism, a corruption of and a deep treat to both Christianity and our nation.

The temptations of power and wealth are strong enough to receive a lot of biblical attention, none of which is positive. Applied to Christianity I sense the focus emerges from the assumption that “I/we” have the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth: absolute, infallible, non-negotiable and from the conviction that God has made “me/us” responsible for the salvation of the world’s population; therefore, we must use every means available to us, ethical or not, to enforce compliance with our doctrine.

It may be nobly intended; but an end-justifies-the-means ethic cannot be supported by Judeo/Christian Scripture and particularly not in the words and actions of Jesus. And once the mission morphs into an obsession, the purpose of the mission gets lost in the power struggle, and the focus narrows increasingly to control and enforcement of compliance.

And see, here’s the thing that undergirds the courtship with political power: the words and teachings and ethics of Jesus do not guarantee that our side wins. In fact, remember that they got him crucified.

On the other hand, attempts to legislate Christian faith have been counterproductive, driving three generations away from organized religion. According to Thomas G. Bandy, the largest and fastest growing spiritual population in North America is “the spiritually yearning, institutionally alienated public.”[1]

Gandhi is reported to have said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians," and "If it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian." The largest and fastest growing spiritual population in North America concurs. It is by our fruits we are known.

That’s the way it looks through the “Flawed Glass” that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Thomas G. Bandy, Kicking Habits: Welcome Relief for Addicted Churches (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997) page 37. In other writings Bandy uses “disillusioned” or “disenchanted” in place of “alienated.”

Are Evangelicals Killing Christianity?

It’s admittedly a dangerous title, but I chose it, not for shock value or to gain attention (although I hope it does gain attention).

I hope to open productive conversation, not start a fight. In a fight there is a winner and a loser. Any time I do a conflict resolution consultation, whether between troubled marital partners, a parent/child conflict, or in an organizational setting, I always begin by asking, “Do you truly want to resolve the issues between you, or do you just want to win the fight?”

Nobody wins a fight. The only thing a fight accomplishes is the establishment of one’s power over another--and resentment on the part of the loser. Relationships—indeed, civilizations—cannot thrive indefinitely in a power relationship.

Thus, I attempt here to open a conversation. Agreement is neither necessary nor truthfully expected. Mutual understanding, I think, is a reasonable expectation. Respectful conversation teamed with earnest seeking might lead to some common ground upon which to build “a more excellent” way than the way that has produced four generations of decline in the Body of Christ.

These thoughts were stimulated by a paragraph from evangelical author, Philip Yancey. In Vanishing Grace. He writes:

“I decided to write this book after I saw the results of surveys by the George Barna group. A few telling statistics jumped off the page. In 1996, 85 percent of Americans who had no religious commitment still viewed Christianity favorably. Thirteen years later, in 2009, only 16 percent of young “outsiders” had a favorable impression of Christianity, and just 3 percent had a good impression of evangelicals. I wanted to explore what caused that dramatic plunge in such a relatively short time. Why do Christians stir up hostile feelings—and what, if anything, should we do about it?”[1]

I haven’t read beyond those words. My mind was stimulated to distraction, and I was compelled to put my thoughts on paper. I look forward to finishing Yancy’s book.

One of my greatest frustrations in ministry is what Thomas Bandy Calls the largest and fastest growing spiritual population in North America, viz. “the spiritually yearning, institutionally alienated public;[2] a population that calls itself, “spiritual but not religious.” Yancey notes in his book the phenomenon of the “nones:” those who, when polled about religious preference, respond by checking “none.” They now constitute one-third of all Americans under the age of thirty.

My frustration is that virtually two generations have abandoned, not just that part of “religion” (specifically Christianity) that offends them but essentially all organized religion, and in the process have thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water!

My read is (and has been for a couple of decades), that they really don’t disagree with the theological content or the essential purpose and ministry of the denomination in which I serve. My impression (again, biased and unsupported by data) is that they experienced, either personally or vicariously, something in a relatively narrow religious context that offended or hurt them and have generalized from that isolated experience to justify their judgment about all religion.

The truth is that I agree with the two most frequently identified offenders: hypocrisy and judgmentalism. And while no discipline or community has a lock on hypocrisy, it would be difficult to deny a distinct aura of judgment as a definitive characteristic of evangelicalism.

As a recovering evangelical, here is what I remember: the first premise is the basic Calvinist dogma of the total depravity of man. Already, we’ve lost the “nones,” but hang with me; I think I can get us out of this mess. I learned the “Roman Road to Salvation” as the basic “plan of salvation,” and it begins with Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The basic approach in this doctrine of salvation is to assume that that all are lost and bound for hell.

The trouble is, some people—probably a large majority of people—don’t “feel” lost. I’ve heard in more than one discussion group or conversation, “But, I’m not a sinner.” People generally associate “sin” with gross crimes and harmful behavior (especially sexual in nature), and most people don’t fall into either category; therefore, we have to create that sense of being lost for them. It is manipulative and dehumanizing and the origin of a lot of the impression of judgmentalism.

Here's the thing: one thing I’ve always loved and admired about evangelicals is that they’re sincere in their concern for the salvation of all humans. Who can fault that? But the Kennedy approach: “If you were to die today, where would your soul be tomorrow?” and the basic assumption that everyone is lost and bound for hell—right or wrong—is dehumanizing, and has become increasingly ineffective; indeed, it has become increasingly counterproductive since the middle of the last century! The results are available on basically any related survey or poll.

WHAT IF…

Instead of the Pauline “Roman Road” (which has been proof-texted and tailored to fit the Calvinist doctrine of the depravity of all humans), WHAT IF we began with Jesus? Most who identify as “spiritual but not religious,” and even many who are classified as “none” affirm an admiration and/or devotion to Jesus. But, like Gandhi, “I love your Jesus; but your Christians are so unlike him.”

Still, why not begin on common ground? Jesus said, “If I am lifted up…” WHAT IF we simply lift up Jesus, rather than create a need? WHAT IF we quit preaching hell and “lift up Jesus?” Does one absolutely need to recite the “good confession” or pray the “sinner’s prayer” to enter an eternal relationship with God through Jesus Christ? Is it the recitation of the words, or would the act of following Jesus by following his example accomplish that same relationship? Would not the action indicate the acceptance of Jesus as Lord?

Yes, I memorized this, too: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33 NRSV). Is the good confession and/or the sinner’s prayer the only way to acknowledge Jesus before others? Or do actions truly speak louder than words, especially when a “spiritual but not religious” public points vociferously at religious hypocrisy? Would not actions that are consistent with our words remove any impression (or reality) of hypocrisy?

The truth is, while the overall trend of American church is downward, there are those entrepreneurial churches that attract large flocks. And—right or wrong—those growing churches put out a message that is clear of judgment or condemnation, offering instead a prosperity gospel or the Prayer of Jabez. No, Jesus is not the core of that message. BUT NEITHER IS HELL OR CONDEMNATION! Misguided or not, the offering is hope!

WHAT IF there is yet another approach: an approach that lifts up Jesus only? Could that be a valid starting place—common ground upon which to begin?

Stay tuned. I’ll continue this conversation with some specific applications.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Phllip Yancy, Vanishing Grace, Page 15, as quoted in Artman, David. Grace Saves All: The Necessity of Christian Universalism (p. 103). Wipf and Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[2] Tom Bandy, Talisman: Global Positioning for the Soul (p. 6) Wipf and Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. [Bandy identifies this population in several other books, including Christian Chaos, Kicking Habits: Welcome Relief for Addicted Churches, et.al.]

 

My Ongoing Journey to Follow Jesus

April 3, 2016

My 2016 Ongoing Journey: Exploring Matthew to discover what following Jesus and becoming more like him would look like.

Matthew 12:43-45 ~ An exorcised demon will wander restlessly looking for a place to rest. Eventually it goes back to the person from which it was cast (which it calls, “my house”), and, finding it empty, goes and finds seven spirits more evil than itself, and they enter that person, who then is worse than before.

Jesus closes, “Thus it will be with this generation.”

I can count on one hand the times in my ministry when I’ve been confronted by people claiming to be possessed by a demon (although my mom frequently said I was demon possessed! Today I think they’d call me a hyperactive child).

I never approached those issues by trying to prove whether the “client” really had a demon or whether it was a psychological manifestation of fear or guilt or whatever. I’ve always believed in taking people seriously and starting where they are. Whether I believe in spirits and demons is irrelevant. I believe in God, and I believe God can heal the chaos of a troubled soul, whatever the cause. I also have to admit I’ve seen some things that defy my sense of logic and belief!

A friend of mine was an Orthodox priest, and one of his colleagues was an exorcist. I hadn’t realized there are official exorcists in some churches. With his help those who had approached me were able to find peace. But I remembered this text, and in every situation cautioned them not to leave empty the space that had been occupied by the spirit. Instead, I advised them to fill that space with prayer, meditation and the study of Scripture. My reasoning still is that a life filled with God-awareness has no room for demons.

But, what about Jesus’ caution regarding this generation?

Over the last 25 years virtually every religious survey indicates that 95%[1] of the North American population believes in God. But the largest and fastest growing spiritual population in North America is asking, “I believe. What’s next?” And church answers haven’t satisfied them; so they’re leaving and calling themselves, “Spiritual but not Religious”.

I do not know a more indicting issue facing the church today than this: people feel they have to go outside organized faith communities to fill the spiritual void in their lives.

The good news is that many of them are consciously and intentionally seeking relationships of mutual support in their quest; and a significant percentage of that population doesn’t want to jump through denominational hoops or recite canned prayers or confessions to “get saved”. They want to know how to follow Jesus (which is what “getting saved” is all about in the first place).

The bad news is that, while institutional traditions and practices can actually get in the way, without them the “spiritual but not religious” seeker has no standard by which to discern whether his or her chosen spiritual path is actually an experience of Christ’s presence or simply spiritual sounding froufrou that has no depth or substance—little more than taking one’s own pulse. “If it feels right” is simply not a dependable standard that produces lasting fulfillment--and the "Spiritual but not Religious" seeker is no better off than before.

In John's first epistle (verse 4 and following) he counsels, "Test the spirits to see whether they are from God..." because there are many false prophets. Where is the accountability in my spirituality? What test shall I apply? John continues, "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God."

Does my spirituality pass the test?

That's the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Plus or minus a few percentage points, depending upon the survey.