| Toward the Truth |
|
|
The message of Jesus Christ, and almost every angelic messenger in the Scriptures, starts with this: "Fear not."
The message of Donald Trump, and many of his ilk, starts with this: "Fear." "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:4).
0 Comments
Some fights are needless, some are necessary. When the fight is a good one, how one fights matters.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
"The first to plead his case seems just, until another comes and examines him," according to Proverbs 18:17.
Listening to just one side puts us in grave danger of being very wrong. After examining both sides, though, so many Christians today want to claim virtue in straddling the fence of "both sides." See Charlottesville: "good people on both sides." This week as Kavanaugh awaits his Supreme Court fate, pastors and politicians alike declare there is hurt on both sides, anger on both sides, struggle on both sides, injustice on both sides. On one level, of course this is true, because everyone on all sides of everything ever is affected by the fallenness of the world in which we live. But on one side there is the under-represented. On one side is the historically victimized. On one side is the less powerful. On one side is the person who has suffered for decades. On the other side is the over-represented. On that side is the historically powerful. On that side is the person who has ascended for decades. And on that side is a person who very much appears to be stretching truth to its breaking point. Yes, pray for both sides. Yes, love both sides. But like Jesus, speak up for and serve the least of these, even (especially) when that means calling power to account, even when that power is on "your" side. We understand what is at stake for Christians who long for victory in a culture war. But a pyrrhic victory is no victory at all. A victory won with carnal weapons has no claim to being the blessing of God. We will soon learn whether Judge Kavanaugh will ascend to the Supreme Court. It seems we have already learned just how much many American Christians are willing to give up to gain worldly power. Paula White, evangelical adviser to President Trump, visited the border this week. Considering comparisons between Jesus and unaccompanied immigrant children, she had this to say, according to the Christian Post: I think so many people have taken biblical scriptures out of context on this, to say stuff like, 'Well, Jesus was a refugee.' Yes, He did live in Egypt for three-and-a-half years. But it was not illegal. If He had broken the law then He would have been sinful and He would not have been our Messiah. Ms White believes that if Jesus had broken the law, he would have been sinful. So why, pray tell, does Ms White believe Jesus was crucified? How would she explain why the Romans incarcerated him? How would she explain the religious leaders who detained and handed him over to the civil authorities? Indeed the Gospel records are replete with Jesus being accused of all sorts of things by the authorities of this world. Our Savior was a law breaker. He was condemned to death for it. And yet before God he was without fault. He did not sin. Unless we're prepared to declare every law of this world just, we must beware of conflating legality and sinfulness. And perhaps when Christians encounter the stranger and the prisoner, rather than rushing to join the authorities of this world in decreeing punishment, we should join our Savior in meeting them, welcoming them, as bearers of his own image. Jesus himself decreed the punishment for those who will not: Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. A recent FiveThirtyEight piece explains why, in light of some fierce criticism by faith leaders of the government’s policy to separate families at the US border, it is doubtful that the support of Donald Trump by white evangelicals will waver at all.
White evangelicals support Trump, in part, because his view of “law and order” aligns with theirs and, since Trump’s immigration policy resonates with this view of law and order, white evangelicals will continue their support even if they don’t like the idea of separating children from their parents, because those parents are breaking the law and therefore bring these consequences on themselves. Essentially, in light of Christian teachings about showing hospitality to the stranger, welcoming the foreigner into your land, caring for those in need, showing compassion to the downtrodden, and loving one’s neighbor, a high percentage of white evangelicals in the US opt for “law and order” – a Trump version of law and order, that is – over the teachings of Jesus and the Christian tradition. This is notable, especially because the Scriptures have much to say about the nature of our Christian identity in light of how we treat the poor. James 2 is a classic Christian text in this regard. There we learn that we dishonor the poor when we mistreat them. Thus we know they are to be honored, and in fact God chooses them to be “rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom.” James has some stern words for the rich who oppose the poor by hauling them into court: “Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?” (James 2:7). That excellent name is Jesus, who always identifies with the poor. The oppressors themselves “are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9). James’s point couldn’t be more clear. Christians who support the oppression of the poor, who drag the poor into court, are called lawbreakers by the apostle James. The rich who oppress the poor with their man-made laws blaspheme Jesus, and God convicts the oppressors in light of His law. The solution for this, a “biblical” solution, James calls the “royal law.” It is the law of the King – not an earthly king, but the One who is King over all. That royal law is the law of love, given in the Torah and taught by Jesus, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” We in the US are rich. Of course there are poor among us, too many, to be sure. But at a national scale we are undoubtably rich. Many of the immigrants at our southern border are poor. We in the US have laws, but these laws do not supersede the commands of God. We understand that nations must have laws and that they must be enforced. And we also understand that it is ours to obey laws. Likewise, when laws are unjust or are unjustly enforced, it is our duty as Christians to speak up and to resist when necessary – because we won’t be judged only by the laws of our land but by God’s royal law of love. We are resisting by reminding Christians to be more Christian than “American.” We are urging our evangelical siblings to practice the royal law of love, the biblical law that is the true mark of liberty: “So speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:12-13). Coming weeks and months will tell the tale of what white evangelicals in the US actually believe. Perhaps family separations at the border will spur a movement among evangelicals that will wake them from their slumber and enliven their love of liberty and mercy. Or perhaps they will carry on in their support of Trump and his allies because Trump’s vision for the world more closely aligns with theirs than does the teaching of Scripture itself. The one thing that is evident is that the two visions are not mutually compatible. Stephen Smith is ESPN co-host of the popular “First Take” and host of an eponymous show where he provides commentary on sports. He is widely known for his willingness to engage in debate and offer sometimes unpopular perspectives. In a recent New Yorker article on Smith, he describes his thoughts about the news in our political moment: Back in the day, you watched to learn the news. Now you can get the news in five minutes. Between your smartphones and everything else—you’ve always got the news. So you’re interested in watching different perspectives, hearing what people have to say, what their opinions are, and why. And sort of gauging whether or not they’re right or wrong. People think they know. They’re not interested in learning. They’re interested in hearing whether or not your perspective is aligned with theirs. If so, why, and if not, why not? That used to be just sports. Now it’s everywhere. Sports tends toward the tribal. Whether the team is identified with our geographical location (Dallas Cowboys) or our college allegiance (The Ohio State University – we adore the pretentious use of the article) or our national identity (Go Iceland!), we tend to root for sports teams either because of place of origin, college affinity, our admiration of a certain player (Tom Brady anyone?), or some such factor or factors.
Passionately following the Cleveland Cavaliers because you’re from Cleveland or being a fan of the Golden State Warriors because you like Stephan Curry is just fine. You enjoy following your team and you likely have meaningful friendships among fans of your tribe and even some friendships gained around the repartee with fans of rival teams. But Smith’s point is that what we all know and accept about the tribalism associated with sports has now crossed into the realm of politics. And he is correct. For some time such tribal attitudes have accrued in the US political system in the name of political party (with team colors to boot). Campaigns are less about ideals and ideas and real proposals for improving the common good than they are about slogans and invectives and, well, our team winning. Some may say it’s always been like this, that partisanship is part and parcel of a democracy that involves a party system, particularly one where there are only two teams who ever win the big games. Whether or not it has always been this way, the tribalism of US politics has reached a breaking point. Perhaps the system will break, and Republicans and Democrats will go the way of Federalists and Whigs and Know-Nothings and transform into something else. We have no allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. We would like to see Trump and McConnell and Ryan return to their private lives, where they can do less harm and perhaps more good. We likewise have little use for Pelosi and Schumer and whichever of the uninspiring prospects whose names we hear may seek the Democratic nomination in 2020. We have no allegiance to a two-party system. (It’s not like it’s written into the Constitution.) What we do care about are ideals and ideas and real proposals for improving the lives of people in our country. Political tribalism will never promote such an agenda, because it reduces “We the People” to rivals cheering on our respective “teams,” reveling when “we” win and when “they” lose. This is why Kelly Anne Conway continually defends the star of her team, Donald Trump, with an unquestioning fealty devoid of intellectual and moral integrity. We could cite numerous examples of this malady, but we need not. On air and online the point is perpetually evident. Tribalism in sports is low-stakes because little really hinges on the outcome of a game. (Perhaps gamblers would quarrel, but you get the point.) Tribalism in politics in high-stakes because so much hinges on the outcome of elections and the conduct of politicians. We vacillate between optimism and pessimism (mixed with cynicism) at the prospects of meaningful change in a system so poisoned by partisanship. We think the two-party system has become every bit as dangerous as some of our founders believed it would be. We would, at least, like to see a strong third party emerge on the national scene. Perhaps that will happen; likely it will not. Nevertheless, the current tribalism on the US scene is dangerous. When politics are mainly partisan they cease to fulfill their good end, which is the good of the polis, the “city,” that is the people of our country. We are in that moment: our politics are not fulfilling their good end. We can quibble about when that moment began, but we do not think we are being too alarmist to say that the future of our nation is at stake. Right now, we’re all in danger of losing. Reports abound about the enforcement of US immigration policy, directed by the Trump White House and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that is separating children from their parents at the southern US border.
Despite statements to the contrary by the President himself and others in the administration, this is not a problem that was created by or continued by Democrats in Congress or anyone in Congress for that matter. (Has anyone forgotten that Republicans control both houses of Congress?) The assertions by Trump, Sessions, Sanders, and Neilson that they have anything less than complete control of this policy, including the power to immediately cease the practice of separating children from families, is a falsehood. These assertions are misleading. They are untrue. Another way of putting it is that Trump and his surrogates are lying. Repeatedly. As are news outlets, like Fox News, that repeat these falsehoods. Now the actions of Border Patrol agents themselves have come into view. We are sure there are good people who work at the Border Patrol to protect our country. These revelations, however, are not flattering, to say the least. Trump and those who defend him in this matter, and who carry out Trump’s policies, should be ashamed. And so should we. A typical line at this point of an article on this subject is that “We are better than this.” Are we sure about that? There are plenty of instances in our past that reveal that this is, too often, the kind of people we are. Inhumane, unjust, cruel. That isn’t the sum of US history, but it is enough of our history that we should be careful about rejecting any criticism, as some do, of these United States. Donald Trump ran on the slogan Make American Great Again. The current border policy is not great, and it certainly isn’t good. The question before the citizenry of our nation isn’t whether we will make the United States “great again” but whether we will be better now. In this moment, will we forsake cruelty and inhumane practices for something better, for something good? We’ll see what Trump and his administration do with this situation. For now they have decided to continue on their path, attempting to leverage children to get legislation and funding to build a border wall that Trump promised would be paid for by Mexico. The great dealmaker couldn’t get that deal done, so now he’s dealing in children to try to keep his silly promise. Trump likes strength and power. That is more than apparent. But he doesn’t like morality, and he doesn’t seem to care much for people. So, while we wonder what Trump will do, and we also wonder what a flaccid Congress will do in all this, what will we as Christians do? In particular, what will those large numbers of evangelicals who voted for Trump to make the country great again do? This policy doesn’t make us great. It degrades us. And supporting the President in this action makes a mockery of the claim that Christians follow Jesus. It really has come to that. The world wonders just what it is that Christians believe these days, because they are quite sure it has little to do with Jesus Christ. The world is watching Trump, yes. The world is watching the United States, yes. But the world is also watching Christians, and we fear that what they see is nothing more than a weak shell of what the church should be. We at Toward the Truth respect the work of Jonathan Merritt. His observations about religion in the US, especially about evangelicals and certainly about Southern Baptists, are among the best in the business.
We read with interest his Atlantic article Southern Baptists Call Off the Culture War. We ourselves are observers of evangelicalism in the US and among us we have decades of experience with Southern Baptists. We hope Mr Merritt is correct in his optimism about the Southern Baptist Convention; we fear he is more hopeful than one should be. The 2018 Annual Meeting of the SBC, held in Dallas June 12-13, attracted more than 9,500 messengers (think “delegates”) from among the some 47,000 cooperating congregations that ostensibly include over 15 million members. (The 15 million figure has long been in question. Some 5 million people attend SBC churches in a given week. The larger membership number is calculated in ways that some consider dubious.) To be sure, there were actions at the meeting that spur optimism. The convention dealt with the messy affair of the recent termination of Paige Patterson as president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and turned back any attempt to unseat the board of trustees executive committee who took that action. This was significant, among other reasons, because a critical impetus to remove Patterson had to do with his statements about and treatment of women, especially women who are abused by men. The convention elected J.D. Greear as their new president, which is largely a figurehead position, but it does signal the sentiments of the messengers at an annual convention, and in this case they overwhelmingly elected a president who offers at least a different style, if not a different doctrinal commitment, than many of his predecessors. Also, some messengers objected to the presence of Vice President Mike Pence at the Wednesday morning session of the meeting. We acknowledge that the resistance to Pence was slight, but it was vocal and it was articulate. Further tying the SBC to the GOP and the administration of Donald J. Trump is bad news for Southern Baptists, whether people like Robert Jeffress (pastor of FBC Dallas and an apologist for Trump) understand it or not. We applaud those who spoke up about Pence and, in particular, we were surprised that J.D. Greear, just elected SBC president at the time, tweeted after Pence’s appearance, “That sent a terribly mixed signal. We are grateful for civic leaders who want to speak to our Convention — but make no mistake about it, our identity is in the gospel and our unity is in the Great Commission. Commissioned missionaries, not political platforms, are what we do.” We’re sure Mr. Greear took plenty of criticism about this and, while it’s not a monumental statement, its at least something. Finally, in our SBC optimism roundup, we note that the SBC passed a resolution (these resolutions are non-binding, yet they are statements about the sentiments of the annual convention that passes them) supporting immigration reform and criticizing the Trump administration’s policy of separating families at the border. Again, we’re glad for these hopeful signs at the SBC. Yet any signs of optimism are clouded by the history of the SBC itself. While the SWBTS trustees removed Paige Patterson as president of their seminary, it is notable that they did so not by their own impetus, but because they were pressured by a cultural movement – #MeToo – and some brave women, rather than standing up to Patterson sooner. They had cause to do so, but did nothing until forced. For a denomination (sure, we know it’s not technically a “denomination,” but you know what we mean) that prides itself on being influential in the culture, the SBC was trailing far behind on this one, just as it did on slavery and civil rights and, well, many matters of import. Regarding immigration policy and the attachment to the GOP, we are doubtful that Southern Baptists as a whole will do anything more than they have in past decades. They will stay attached to the GOP and will, in large part, help elect more Republicans to support the agenda of Donald Trump. And, given the opportunity, they will line up to pull the lever for Trump to serve four more years. We are glad to be proven wrong about any and all of this prognostication, but we will believe it when we see it. Finally, it is true that J.D. Greear appears to be a different leader. He certainly dresses differently than many of his predecessors and, more substantively, he attempts to be a serious theologian and exegete, something that can be said of few SBC presidents in recent memory. That is, he takes doctrine and its implications seriously. And this is where our real concern lies and why any optimism we might have about the future of the SBC is muted, at best. Paige Patterson and his wife Dorothy made “complementarianism” a cardinal doctrine in the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. They, and others, used the doctrine to wield power over women – and men – for decades. We believe the view as espoused by the Pattersons et al is actually hierachichalism (a doctrinal nuance we may explain in a later post), and their oppression of women was extended to every facet of life. Ask someone who worked for them and they’ll tell you what we mean. This isn’t a biblical doctrine; it is a human construction meant to accumulate and wield power. Mr Greear, amidst this scandal (we mean this literally in the sense of “skandalon” in New Testament Greek, something over which people trip and fall that keeps them from the gospel) wants to maintain this doctrine. He may dress it up more nicely than do the Pattersons et al, but the doctrine remains. And the doctrine has implications, as Mr Greear knows. It is our view that such a doctrine inevitably leads to chauvinism, at best, and misogyny, at worst. We need not defend an assertion to which history well attests. So for optimism to break the clouds of our view about the SBC, we’ll be looking for other signs, chief among them a serious reflection on doctrine in the SBC, a serious reflection about the conventions ties to the GOP, and, finally, a sober reflection on how the SBC relates to culture. This last point gets back to the question of how the SBC is seen in the world and its commitment, to whatever extent, to the culture war. We work outside any ecclesiastical structures (i.e., none of us work for a church or denominational agency) and spend almost the entirely of our working and personal life among people of different faiths and many who espouse no faith. Among our circles there are two prevailing views about Southern Baptists. Most people have no idea who Southern Baptists are. SBC churches simply are invisible to very many of the public. We understand this assertion is a surprise to many Southern Baptists, one to which many in the SBC will surely object. Yet, it is a testable hypothesis. We encourage people to do so, to get outside their circles and see what people think. In our circles it is largely the case that the SBC is invisible, a non-factor in culture, including our experience in cities in the southern US. The other view people have of the SBC, those who know of it, is that it is a collection of strange people who are mad about something (mainly gays and abortion), who are condemnatory, and who are something like an ecclesiastical arm of the GOP and Donald Trump. Of course there are exceptions since some know Southern Baptists who are lovely people, but this is the prevailing view in our experience. Few in our circles think that Southern Baptists are followers of Jesus, so known by their love for one another, their neighbors, and their enemies. This is the truth as we see it from our vantage point. Whatever we’ve gotten wrong, we doubt we’re too far from the truth. Again, we’ll be glad for history to prove us wrong. We have written previously of the danger of claiming to be “biblical.” Now the claim has made international news, this time on the lips of two US government officials.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions claims (dubiously) that the enforcement of US immigration law demands that children be separated from their parents at the US border. He justifies the practice, and insists we give approval to those who practice it, on the basis of Romans 13. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, questioned about Sessions’ statement, averred, “it is very biblical to enforce the law.” We’ll ignore, for the moment, the constitutional and Christian issues with a US Attorney General and a White House Press Secretary making arguments for government policy on the basis of being “biblical.” We’ll set aside, for the moment, the theocratic tendencies of members of the Trump administration and some religious leaders who support them. These are serious issues, to be sure, but at this moment, let us make a more fundamental point: The use of Romans 13 as justification for sub-human (not to mention ungodly) practices is complete bullshit. Sessions and Sanders couldn’t have this more wrong. Aside from numerous texts throughout the Bible that call us to show benevolence to children and deference to keeping families together (even in less than ideal situations), as well as numerous calls for hospitality to the foreigner, Romans 13 itself doesn’t mean what Sessions wants it to means. The apostle Paul is instructing Christians about how they should relate to a government that rules over them, not instructing a government to do whatever it pleases. Quoting Scripture in the manner of Sessions is akin to the abusive husband telling his wife that she must submit to him. It is akin to the plantation owner purchasing a human being for forced labor because the Bible says slaves should submit to their masters. (And we know all too well the history of so many Bible-loving folks perpetuating such atrocity.) The Scripture isn’t good news to the principalities who lord their power over people. It is good news to the poor, the captive, the sick, the oppressed (as Jesus said in Luke 4:18, alluding to the words of the prophet in Isaiah 61:1). Jesus didn’t bring good news to the dark lords of this world but to those in this world being lorded over by darkness. Sessions has taken a teaching of Jesus—who subverts the powers of this world with otherworldly meekness, who decries the foolishness of this world for otherworldly wisdom, who empowers his followers with mercy that triumphs over justice and humility that triumphs over arrogance and good that overcomes evil and love that triumphs over all—and twisted it into a tool of the government, wielding it as a weapon against people created in God’s very image. The most powerful government in the world is co-opting Christian Scripture to enforce its worldly rule. Sanders stands by and holds Sessions’ cloak. She testifies the White House’s approval of the practice and the people who practice it. To claim to be “biblical” while doing that is as preposterous as it is dangerous. Romans itself heralds the law of love as ultimate. After an extended dissertation on the sovereignty of God and his mercy in Christ upon all people (Romans 1-11), Paul, in Romans 12, states that it is the most reasonable response, in view of God’s rich mercies in Christ, to worship God and love every person, including one’s enemies. Note this carefully. In view of the justifying work of God in Christ, in whom condemnation of sinners is overturned so that those created in the image of God may be returned to God, we are to worship the God who shows to every person mercy and love. To take one or two verses from Romans 13 to call for justice to triumph over love is a perversion of not only the book of Romans but of the teachings of Scripture in its totality. For all those Christians who are enamored of being “biblical” and whose allegiance at this moment seems turned more toward a political party and particular authority figure than Jesus, we call not only theology but history and humanity as witness that the Bible-abuse being practiced by Sessions and Sanders must be rejected. The type of religious folks Jesus warned about includes those who are most fond of quoting the Bible. In his day, they called themselves Pharisees. In our day, they call themselves Republicans. Wielding the word of God as an instrument of government might is offensive. It is bullshit. Worse, we fear this is not simply a “mistake,” but it is the work of anti-christ. Beware, Christians, lest you be deceived. Commentary abounds these days about evangelicals and their support of Donald Trump. We know that our evangelical friends are growing weary of all this. But the issue is a legitimate one, and evangelicals themselves should be, more than anyone else, curious about what is happening with them and to them.
We at Toward the Truth are regularly in conversation with people of varied belief systems – some Christian, many not – and many ask us, some with incredulity, What is going on with evangelicals these days? Most understand the desire of evangelicals to elect a president who will make the “right” Supreme Court nominees, and likewise understand the commitment of evangelicals to certain moral issues, like opposition to abortion and gay marriage and concerns about gender identity issues. What they don’t understand is the allegiance to the ignorance and immorality of Donald Trump and the rejection of central Christian doctrines of care for the poor, justice for all, and the notion that loving money is a root of all evil. Evangelicals will do well to realize that their current critics have valid questions. Much is at stake for evangelicals who are serious about their witness as followers of Jesus. We share our friends’ questions, and we are deeply concerned for our evangelical sisters and brothers. We are deeply concerned that the typical response of evangelicals to legitimate questions is to claim “persecution,” reverting to the narrative that the opponents of evangelicals are servants of the devil and assuming that evangelicals are the sole proprietors of truth and the Christian way. The support, and in many instances embrace, of Donald Trump puts an end to the fiction that evangelicals occupy such lofty ground. To the contrary, evangelicals in vast numbers have shown themselves to be the very thing they have so long said they oppose – those who embrace lies and deceit, lack compassion, and forsake love of neighbor. These are stern words, but their truth seems evident. As one (non-Christian) friend exclaimed when mulling this present reality, “poor Jesus!” At first we had concerns about how all of this would affect people’s views of Jesus and the gospel. Now, more than 1,000 days into the Trump era, we realize that Jesus will be just fine. Among the numerous people we have talked with, including people of different faiths and those of no faith, virtually all have no trouble distinguishing clearly between Jesus and his teachings and the public stance of people they know as “evangelicals.” This is notable because in effect they are concluding that evangelicals aren’t really Christian at all. That is good for Jesus. It should be sobering for evangelicals. Good that so many continue to inquire about the truth of Christ. Sobering that the questions are raised not in response to seeing evangelicals’ good works (a la Matthew 5:16) but rather in response to their glaring inconsistency (a la Luke 18:11). Good that people can easily distinguish between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Tony Perkins et al. Sobering that a significant body of people who identify as Christian stray so far from the One they claim to follow. As we go about our everyday lives, we find people as eager as ever, if not more so, to inquire about Jesus. But we find people more repulsed than ever by American evangelicals. For this evangelicals have no one to blame but themselves. It is not persecution they are facing, but the truth. Our fear is that too many evangelicals’ minds have been darkened to it. There is, of course, good news for evangelicals. One aspect of Jesus' teaching they preach so freely to others is the very remedy for their own souls: repent. Repentance is the one act that may - may - restore some credibility to their witness. The watching world would sit up and listen to someone who would repent of their self-assuredness, their superiority, their unkindness, their lack of love, and, yes, their allegiance to Donald Trump. If the evangelical gospel is true, Jesus himself offers grace only to those who repent their self-righteousness in exchange for love of God and love of (even the most sinful and unlovely) neighbor. Only those who repent in this way are truly worthy of the name “evangelical.” |
RSS Feed
