No, this has nothing to do with a singing competition with only CCM or hymns being sung. This has to do with a very real practice of idolatry that is being practiced in the American Church today. I have been chewing on a hunk of philosophical and theological gristle for a while now. Today was the day I finally got it worked on enough to get it out.
By the way, for disclaimer sake:
Due to the nature of the inflammatory, political, and potentially destructive nature of this post, it will not be shared on my social media platforms. If you are someone who desires to avoid issues that may be troubling to sensibilities, I suggest stopping here and returning to the platforms of communication you feel more at home with. If you wish to share this message, just ask my permission first.
There, that's the formal stuff out of the way.
I have been watching the landscape of the churches I have served very carefully for the entire run of my ministry. Almost 22 years of serving United Methodist congregations in Oklahoma has given me a perspective and context to speak from. I have served in southeastern, northeastern, western, northwestern, and panhandle churches. I come from a background of observing from an historical and sociological training with an analytical personality. And here is what all of that has led me to.
There is an atmosphere of idolatry within the American Church today that is being completely ignored and sanctified by the people who call themselves Christian. It doesn't apply to all people. It applies to a very clear majority, though. This can be clearly discerned from looking at the ongoing public evidence.
The idolatry that is being performed has a very invasive and divisive nature. It strikes at the level of home, work, church, media, and relationships. It destroys community. It wreaks havoc in relationships that are years, if not decades, old. It undermines the very fabric of who we are as a people of companionship. Yet it is an idol of even less substance than the idols that Isaiah attacks in 40:19-20
The idol that the American Church worships at the feet of is political idolatry. With an idol, an object is raised up to the place of central importance. Serving it becomes the lens through which all things must be seen. Anything that seems to impugn the character or veracity of that focus is demeaned and defended against. Anything that challenges the power of that becomes the object of rejection and aggressive retaliation. It is worth any cost to protect the idol, and its worship, its priests, its offerings.
That may seem like an overreaction. Maybe it is. Perhaps I am being emotional, overly dramatic. Perhaps I am naive to the ways of churches and their personalities and I have a very narrow view. But I defend my position on clear evidence.
Evidence #1: "It is not right to talk about politics from the pulpit." "People hear enough of that every other day of the week. We don't want to hear it on Sunday." "People come to church to get away from that kind of news."
Politics is pulpit material. You can't say Jesus Christ is Lord without bringing politics into the pulpit. You can't mention the kingdom of God without bringing politics into the pulpit. To not talk about politics from the pulpit means the law of Moses is out. It means you can't open the prophetic books. The birth narrative of Matthew is no longer appropriate. The use of Luke becomes questionable because of his use of political markers. Paul is no longer the apostle of the Gentiles because he dabbles with political musings. And do NOT read the book of Revelation.
Politics are written into the fiber of the Bible. It is written into the very nature of the Bible because we are political people. Politics are not just the party affiliations and rights to vote. Politics are the organizational cells we develop. Politics grows from the ancient Greek polis. A polis was the city-state, or citizenship thereof, at the heart of the meaning. The word was not just associated with geography. It also represented the governmental and religious association of the people.
Anywhere the believers of the Bible set their feet down in their own time, they would have encountered politics. They would interact with people who were associated with a way of governing themselves and believing. And when the believers of the Bible began to take on the same worldviews and behaviors of the surrounding polis, the source of the material in the Bible was speaking directly about politics.This means that the entire Bible is a political treatise. It speaks directly to the worldviews and behaviors of anyone who is conceding to the surrounding culture. It speaks directly to anyone who is standing in opposition to the surrounding culture.
If the Bible has relevance in anything today, there is nothing more relevant than addressing the polis we find ourselves living within. The American Church is a polis that is struggling to quiet anyone who holds the word and light of the Bible up to their attitudes and behaviors. If a preacher claims something from the Bible, or bases a position from the Bible, that contradicts the polis, then that preacher has overstepped the permission granted. That preacher is being impolite by speaking about something that isn't appropriate to address.
Evidence #2: The line between conservative and liberal, progressive and traditional, is a wall that will not be crossed. If we are going to cross that wall, it is to either overwhelm the opposing side with "facts" and opinions to sway them or to prove how wrong they are.
If anyone has made me liberal, it is conservatives. If anyone has made me conservative, it is liberals. We live in a world where differences cannot exist, even among fellow church participants. If I disagree with someone, they go out of their way to prove how wrong I am. They level as much passion and knowledge as they have to bury my ill-conceived ideas. If I don't agree, then there is something wrong with me. Therefore, it is now the task of those who are right to evangelize me to their point of view.
You can't get good church folk to go out and share the gospel because that is just too uncomfortable. But share with someone an idea that runs counter to their viewpoint, and they will pull out all of the information they have accumulated through every news source they absorb to show you the error of your ways and how lost you are. If you feign acquiescence, they will sit back with a slight smile knowing they have accomplished the will of their god - another unbeliever now on the path to truth. If you push back, then it is time for a crusade. All the gloves are off and the infidel must be put down.
If you think this sounds a bit melodramatic, it is. That is, until you get around a conversation of people who are on opposing sides of their particular issue of choice. Abortion. Immigration. Capital Punishment. Assisted Death. Gun ownership and limits. Political party testaments and saints.
Oops, I meant platforms and players.
And when the Bible is brought into the mix, then there will be a retreading of the same verses that have been handled over and over. Those incantations are used to ensure that there will be no counter-argument. It's the Bible. It is the inerrant and infallible word of God. It says so in the book and you can't defend against it. Never mind that the other side has just as many of those incantations.
The loser in the battle at that stage is the Bible. When we start whipping out the sword of the Spirit, then it is a battle worthy of cinematic portrayal. The clanging of sword on sword. The sparks that fly when a strikes lands solidly or reverberation as a defending posture deflects a well meaning blow. The only thing that is produced is a dulling of the verses that are drawn. They lose their power and meaning when they are only used to attack and defend in a political ideology battle.
And I am certain that some people will read this and think that I am talking about the "other" side. That will bring to mind someone that you think will learn a lot by reading this. It may open their eyes and hopefully bring them some enlightenment.
And my point is proven.
This is my rant and no one else's.
Evidence #3: We will accept anyone as long as they say the right words. And if someone else offers a more correct point of view but uses the wrong words, then we choose the former.
When did political pundits, radio commentators, and media whores become prophets and apostles? About the time that the American Church began to faithfully listen to them. Preachers who bring a full understanding of scripture have a harder time gaining an audience. If we preach a message of social justice for the poor, the disenfranchised, the immigrant and alien, then those who believe against welfare, racial inequality, and public safety will cry "LIBERALISM". If we preach a message of heart transformation, faithful tradition, or adherence to boundaries long established, then the outcry will be "FUNDAMENTALISM".
Those poles have become totems. Totems are spiritual objects. They serve as symbols of something that has no significant form. It can be a totem to gather around for strength and security. It can be a totem to defend against something. Either way, it is a way to defend the faithful in whatever circumstance. When a preacher starts dipping into waters that go against the political stream of a church, that preacher encounters a totem against them. That totem has been built outside of that preachers authority and teaching. I can't think of a preacher worth their weight in gold who teaches contrarily to themselves. So a totem being built against their message is gaining spiritual resources from another source.
I have dealt with television and radio preachers for longer than my ministry has existed. A couple of the preachers that my style is influenced by were television preachers. I don't model my theology after theirs, but how I preach is influenced by them. And I encountered them in my teens. Now, as a pastor, I don't have to contend with style of preaching. I have to contend with the differences of theology. And I have to deal with the contradictions on understanding. And I have to deal with the totems that are raised when I deal with something that the other preacher does not have the integrity to deal with honestly.
I have come to a place in my ministry when I have written my last sermon. My last sermon will be called - The Feather. Every bulletin will have a nice feather included. Everyone will have one. And I will preach on the text regarding people having their ears tickled (2 Timothy 4:3, if you want to do some finger work). The sermon will be just a few words. "This is my last sermon. Here is a feather to put into your Bibles, if you care enough to bring one to church. When you hear a sermon you don't like, tickle your ear before you leave the building so you can say you got something out of church that day. Amen! I'm out!"
Paul considered the roles of the officers of the church to be prophets, apostles, evangelists, and shepherd teachers. The reality is that today's church has its prophets. They usually have a radio show. The apostles hold a seat in a political party or office or lobbying group. The evangelists are other preachers who have sold out their integrity to some agenda or platform. The shepherd teachers are the ones who offer the most rhetoric with the least amount of effort.
Evidence #4: "We shouldn't have denominations", but by God we better have political parties.
I hear more and more people who say, "There's really no difference between us and the church down the street. We should get rid of the names and signs and just work together." I can't type that without laughing hysterically to myself.
Denominations represent significant shifts in understanding regarding God and how God relates to humanity. Denominations existed in the New Testament period. Denominations have formed in every location the church has gone. The desire to rid the world of denominationalism shows a clear ignorance on the part of people in understanding what a church believes, what they themselves believe, and what the preacher is saying. People don't care enough to know what their denomination represents in terms of how people relate to God.
But they know every plank in the religious party's platform. They know every nuance of it. They can tell you where it comes from. They can provide scripture verses to support each plank (whether it is a Bible verse or some writing from a Founding Father is irrelevant to the issue). They can point out the weaknesses of the opposing party's counter plank. And they will defend their party's platform with their dying breath.
Evidence #5: The flag and the cross share equal representation, but we can't worship the cross without the flag giving us that freedom.
Patriotism is fine. Honoring the history and sacrifice of individuals is an important part of our heritage. But when the nationalistic urge overrides the message of the kingdom of God, then there has been a betrayal. Any Christian who would wave a nation's flag before standing for the kingdom of God is a traitor. Any Christian who would restrict the practice of authentic faith in the face of nationalistic zeal is rebellious.
The American Church wants to produce a Christian nation. That is absurd. They vainly pray that God will make the kingdom of God into the American Church. That is what they want produced. They aren't interested in subjecting themselves to the kingdom of God because that would require relearning the Bible. It would mean giving up some sacred ideas and practices. It would mean accepting people that were deemed "unacceptable" before. It would mean repenting for things that were "the way we always have done them". It would mean seeking reconciliation with people who have been written off as irreconcilable.
The kingdom of God should be our first loyalty. No qualification. No shared claim. If the flag were taken away tomorrow, we should still be working for the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ is the same Lord for Americans as he is for the Jews and Gentiles of the New Testament, the Europeans and Africans and Eurasians and Middle Easterners of the early church. He is the same Lord in black communities, Hispanic communities, Asian communities, or any other group. The flag does not define Jesus Christ, nor the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ embodies the kingdom just as the kingdom defines Jesus Christ.
In other words:
If you cannot separate your faith from your politics enough to see where your politics falls short of the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ, then you are worshiping the wrong god.
By the way, for disclaimer sake:
Due to the nature of the inflammatory, political, and potentially destructive nature of this post, it will not be shared on my social media platforms. If you are someone who desires to avoid issues that may be troubling to sensibilities, I suggest stopping here and returning to the platforms of communication you feel more at home with. If you wish to share this message, just ask my permission first.
There, that's the formal stuff out of the way.
I have been watching the landscape of the churches I have served very carefully for the entire run of my ministry. Almost 22 years of serving United Methodist congregations in Oklahoma has given me a perspective and context to speak from. I have served in southeastern, northeastern, western, northwestern, and panhandle churches. I come from a background of observing from an historical and sociological training with an analytical personality. And here is what all of that has led me to.
There is an atmosphere of idolatry within the American Church today that is being completely ignored and sanctified by the people who call themselves Christian. It doesn't apply to all people. It applies to a very clear majority, though. This can be clearly discerned from looking at the ongoing public evidence.
The idolatry that is being performed has a very invasive and divisive nature. It strikes at the level of home, work, church, media, and relationships. It destroys community. It wreaks havoc in relationships that are years, if not decades, old. It undermines the very fabric of who we are as a people of companionship. Yet it is an idol of even less substance than the idols that Isaiah attacks in 40:19-20
The idol that the American Church worships at the feet of is political idolatry. With an idol, an object is raised up to the place of central importance. Serving it becomes the lens through which all things must be seen. Anything that seems to impugn the character or veracity of that focus is demeaned and defended against. Anything that challenges the power of that becomes the object of rejection and aggressive retaliation. It is worth any cost to protect the idol, and its worship, its priests, its offerings.
That may seem like an overreaction. Maybe it is. Perhaps I am being emotional, overly dramatic. Perhaps I am naive to the ways of churches and their personalities and I have a very narrow view. But I defend my position on clear evidence.
Evidence #1: "It is not right to talk about politics from the pulpit." "People hear enough of that every other day of the week. We don't want to hear it on Sunday." "People come to church to get away from that kind of news."
Politics is pulpit material. You can't say Jesus Christ is Lord without bringing politics into the pulpit. You can't mention the kingdom of God without bringing politics into the pulpit. To not talk about politics from the pulpit means the law of Moses is out. It means you can't open the prophetic books. The birth narrative of Matthew is no longer appropriate. The use of Luke becomes questionable because of his use of political markers. Paul is no longer the apostle of the Gentiles because he dabbles with political musings. And do NOT read the book of Revelation.
Politics are written into the fiber of the Bible. It is written into the very nature of the Bible because we are political people. Politics are not just the party affiliations and rights to vote. Politics are the organizational cells we develop. Politics grows from the ancient Greek polis. A polis was the city-state, or citizenship thereof, at the heart of the meaning. The word was not just associated with geography. It also represented the governmental and religious association of the people.
Anywhere the believers of the Bible set their feet down in their own time, they would have encountered politics. They would interact with people who were associated with a way of governing themselves and believing. And when the believers of the Bible began to take on the same worldviews and behaviors of the surrounding polis, the source of the material in the Bible was speaking directly about politics.This means that the entire Bible is a political treatise. It speaks directly to the worldviews and behaviors of anyone who is conceding to the surrounding culture. It speaks directly to anyone who is standing in opposition to the surrounding culture.
If the Bible has relevance in anything today, there is nothing more relevant than addressing the polis we find ourselves living within. The American Church is a polis that is struggling to quiet anyone who holds the word and light of the Bible up to their attitudes and behaviors. If a preacher claims something from the Bible, or bases a position from the Bible, that contradicts the polis, then that preacher has overstepped the permission granted. That preacher is being impolite by speaking about something that isn't appropriate to address.
Evidence #2: The line between conservative and liberal, progressive and traditional, is a wall that will not be crossed. If we are going to cross that wall, it is to either overwhelm the opposing side with "facts" and opinions to sway them or to prove how wrong they are.
If anyone has made me liberal, it is conservatives. If anyone has made me conservative, it is liberals. We live in a world where differences cannot exist, even among fellow church participants. If I disagree with someone, they go out of their way to prove how wrong I am. They level as much passion and knowledge as they have to bury my ill-conceived ideas. If I don't agree, then there is something wrong with me. Therefore, it is now the task of those who are right to evangelize me to their point of view.
You can't get good church folk to go out and share the gospel because that is just too uncomfortable. But share with someone an idea that runs counter to their viewpoint, and they will pull out all of the information they have accumulated through every news source they absorb to show you the error of your ways and how lost you are. If you feign acquiescence, they will sit back with a slight smile knowing they have accomplished the will of their god - another unbeliever now on the path to truth. If you push back, then it is time for a crusade. All the gloves are off and the infidel must be put down.
If you think this sounds a bit melodramatic, it is. That is, until you get around a conversation of people who are on opposing sides of their particular issue of choice. Abortion. Immigration. Capital Punishment. Assisted Death. Gun ownership and limits. Political party testaments and saints.
Oops, I meant platforms and players.
And when the Bible is brought into the mix, then there will be a retreading of the same verses that have been handled over and over. Those incantations are used to ensure that there will be no counter-argument. It's the Bible. It is the inerrant and infallible word of God. It says so in the book and you can't defend against it. Never mind that the other side has just as many of those incantations.
The loser in the battle at that stage is the Bible. When we start whipping out the sword of the Spirit, then it is a battle worthy of cinematic portrayal. The clanging of sword on sword. The sparks that fly when a strikes lands solidly or reverberation as a defending posture deflects a well meaning blow. The only thing that is produced is a dulling of the verses that are drawn. They lose their power and meaning when they are only used to attack and defend in a political ideology battle.
And I am certain that some people will read this and think that I am talking about the "other" side. That will bring to mind someone that you think will learn a lot by reading this. It may open their eyes and hopefully bring them some enlightenment.
And my point is proven.
This is my rant and no one else's.
Evidence #3: We will accept anyone as long as they say the right words. And if someone else offers a more correct point of view but uses the wrong words, then we choose the former.
When did political pundits, radio commentators, and media whores become prophets and apostles? About the time that the American Church began to faithfully listen to them. Preachers who bring a full understanding of scripture have a harder time gaining an audience. If we preach a message of social justice for the poor, the disenfranchised, the immigrant and alien, then those who believe against welfare, racial inequality, and public safety will cry "LIBERALISM". If we preach a message of heart transformation, faithful tradition, or adherence to boundaries long established, then the outcry will be "FUNDAMENTALISM".
Those poles have become totems. Totems are spiritual objects. They serve as symbols of something that has no significant form. It can be a totem to gather around for strength and security. It can be a totem to defend against something. Either way, it is a way to defend the faithful in whatever circumstance. When a preacher starts dipping into waters that go against the political stream of a church, that preacher encounters a totem against them. That totem has been built outside of that preachers authority and teaching. I can't think of a preacher worth their weight in gold who teaches contrarily to themselves. So a totem being built against their message is gaining spiritual resources from another source.
I have dealt with television and radio preachers for longer than my ministry has existed. A couple of the preachers that my style is influenced by were television preachers. I don't model my theology after theirs, but how I preach is influenced by them. And I encountered them in my teens. Now, as a pastor, I don't have to contend with style of preaching. I have to contend with the differences of theology. And I have to deal with the contradictions on understanding. And I have to deal with the totems that are raised when I deal with something that the other preacher does not have the integrity to deal with honestly.
I have come to a place in my ministry when I have written my last sermon. My last sermon will be called - The Feather. Every bulletin will have a nice feather included. Everyone will have one. And I will preach on the text regarding people having their ears tickled (2 Timothy 4:3, if you want to do some finger work). The sermon will be just a few words. "This is my last sermon. Here is a feather to put into your Bibles, if you care enough to bring one to church. When you hear a sermon you don't like, tickle your ear before you leave the building so you can say you got something out of church that day. Amen! I'm out!"
Paul considered the roles of the officers of the church to be prophets, apostles, evangelists, and shepherd teachers. The reality is that today's church has its prophets. They usually have a radio show. The apostles hold a seat in a political party or office or lobbying group. The evangelists are other preachers who have sold out their integrity to some agenda or platform. The shepherd teachers are the ones who offer the most rhetoric with the least amount of effort.
Evidence #4: "We shouldn't have denominations", but by God we better have political parties.
I hear more and more people who say, "There's really no difference between us and the church down the street. We should get rid of the names and signs and just work together." I can't type that without laughing hysterically to myself.
Denominations represent significant shifts in understanding regarding God and how God relates to humanity. Denominations existed in the New Testament period. Denominations have formed in every location the church has gone. The desire to rid the world of denominationalism shows a clear ignorance on the part of people in understanding what a church believes, what they themselves believe, and what the preacher is saying. People don't care enough to know what their denomination represents in terms of how people relate to God.
But they know every plank in the religious party's platform. They know every nuance of it. They can tell you where it comes from. They can provide scripture verses to support each plank (whether it is a Bible verse or some writing from a Founding Father is irrelevant to the issue). They can point out the weaknesses of the opposing party's counter plank. And they will defend their party's platform with their dying breath.
Evidence #5: The flag and the cross share equal representation, but we can't worship the cross without the flag giving us that freedom.
Patriotism is fine. Honoring the history and sacrifice of individuals is an important part of our heritage. But when the nationalistic urge overrides the message of the kingdom of God, then there has been a betrayal. Any Christian who would wave a nation's flag before standing for the kingdom of God is a traitor. Any Christian who would restrict the practice of authentic faith in the face of nationalistic zeal is rebellious.
The American Church wants to produce a Christian nation. That is absurd. They vainly pray that God will make the kingdom of God into the American Church. That is what they want produced. They aren't interested in subjecting themselves to the kingdom of God because that would require relearning the Bible. It would mean giving up some sacred ideas and practices. It would mean accepting people that were deemed "unacceptable" before. It would mean repenting for things that were "the way we always have done them". It would mean seeking reconciliation with people who have been written off as irreconcilable.
The kingdom of God should be our first loyalty. No qualification. No shared claim. If the flag were taken away tomorrow, we should still be working for the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ is the same Lord for Americans as he is for the Jews and Gentiles of the New Testament, the Europeans and Africans and Eurasians and Middle Easterners of the early church. He is the same Lord in black communities, Hispanic communities, Asian communities, or any other group. The flag does not define Jesus Christ, nor the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ embodies the kingdom just as the kingdom defines Jesus Christ.
In other words:
If you cannot separate your faith from your politics enough to see where your politics falls short of the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ, then you are worshiping the wrong god.
Comments