Conservative Christians: Confident in Crisis?

 

It is no secret that Americans are experiencing a time of extreme politic division. And those who identify as Christians are not exempt from the disagreements, disputes and divisiveness generated in the current political and social climate.

I frequently hear conservative American Christians bemoan allegedly immoral or ungodly government policies and complain at length about the downward direction of the society in which they live. Often, the tone of these diatribes becomes one of disgust and despair.

The complaints of conservative Christians about what is happening in the world around them are not without grounds. One can make the argument that this is a nation in crisis; that it has reached a ‘tipping point’ of critical importance. It is possible that America will at some point no longer be the most free and wealthiest nation on the globe.

However, none of this means Christians must spend their time and energy reciting a litany of the nation’s woes. Before falling into a pattern of negativity in thought and conversation, I suggest they consider the following seven points:

1. This world is broken and has been since the fall of man. Terrible things have happened in the past, and terrible things will happen in the future.

We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. – I John 5:19

People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world. – Luke 21:26a

2. There is a spiritual dimension behind many events reported in the news, and Christians should not respond like non-Christians.  

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. – I Peter 5:8

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. – Eph 6:12

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. – Romans 12:2a

3. We don’t always understand what God allows or causes, or his reasons for doing so.

 As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. – Isaiah 55:9

For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. – I Cor. 1:25

4. It is possible that North American Christians will be persecuted and suffer for their faith. If so, they are called not to despair but to inner peace and unshakeable hope.

I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world – John 16:33

I keep my eyes always on the Lord. With him at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, - Psalm 16:8-9

Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. – Romans 5:3-5

 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39

5. Christians ought to pray for their society, country, and the world around them.

The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. – James 5:16b

Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. – Romans 12:12

6. Christians should interact with the world with confidence. They should stand for what is right and speak the truth boldly.  

For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline. – II Tim 1:7

Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. – II Cor 3:12

7. Christians should be a source of light and enlightenment, always treating others, including those with whom they disagree politically, with love and respect.

You are the light of the world. – Matt 5:14a

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, - I Peter 3:15

If you are a Christian who disagrees with, or perhaps even despairs over, current trends in politics, culture, or morality, I suggest you challenge yourself by asking the following two questions:

1. Do I really trust that God is allowing what I don’t like to happen for his own very good reasons?

2. Do I want others to see in me a complaining and discouraged person, or a hopeful and encouraging person committed to light and truth?

 

Christians versus ...

 

It is no secret that Christians have gained a reputation, at least in America, as a group of judgmental, intolerant, hypocritical people who believe themselves to be better than others, and whose morality consists primarily of opposing what they see as evil rather than fostering what is good (if this seems overly harsh, examine the applicable studies by Pew Research or the Barna Group; you might conclude it is not harsh enough).

The role of the ‘Evangelical Right’ in the nation’s politics, particularly as reported by mainstream media, has imprinted on the public mind an image of Christians as anti-abortion, pro-war, narrow-minded homophobes who want to enforce their views at the expense of others’ personal freedom. This is not true for all Christians, and perhaps not for the majority, but the picture painted for the public eye does not allow exceptions.

The response of many Christians to such a negative image is to reject it as inaccurate and undeserved, prejudiced, and purposely misleading. They place the blame for this counterfeit image on the left-leaning media, liberal campuses, liberal churches, the entertainment industry, and other purveyors of anti-Christian propaganda. The theme seems to be “Here we are, trying to live rightly and fight against what’s wrong in our society, and we get lambasted as though we were the ones ruining this country.”

Without arguing whether any of these criticisms or defenses are justified, I want to suggest that Christians offended by these characterizations ask themselves some questions, including:

1. Is the root cause of Christianity’s negative image external or internal? Is improving the church’s undesirable reputation wholly the responsibility of those outside the church? (Yes, Satan is alive and well and wants to destroy Christ’s church, but naming him as the leader of a conspiracy theory won’t change anything, and surely won’t change the minds of those outside the church)

2. Could it be that we Christians have earned our reputation as judgmental? When we perceive faults in others and flaws in our society, do we voice our disapproval in ways that can easily, or perhaps only, be interpreted as “holier than thou” and anything but loving? The core question regarding this is: “Is it really the church’s primary mission to identify and call out everything that is wrong in this broken world?”

Remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:3 -- Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

3. How do we respond when those in authority (in the church, in the community, in state or federal government, etc.) take actions we believe are counter to the teachings of Christ? Are we easily upset and irritated? Do we agonize over such wrongs to the point we lose the inner peace of God? Do we even express hatred for the persons involved?

Recall the advice of Psalm 37 -- ⁷Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for him; do not fret when people succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. ⁸ Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil.

4. How do we handle disagreements? Do we get involved in arguments with others that we know will not result in either of us changing our minds? Do we treat those whose beliefs or opinions differ from ours with love and respect? Or have we in effect created in our own minds a kind of caste system where those who share our views are superior to those who do not?

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.  And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. (II Timothy 2:23-24)

5. Regarding disagreements with other Christians, have we learned to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials of our faith, and to resist controversy over non-essentials? Also, is our list of ‘essentials’ pared down to the real fundamentals of the faith, or does our list include what are actually non-essentials?

Two reminders:

(a) There are not as many essentials as we like to think there are.

(b) It is not necessary to give up Biblical positions on issues like human sexuality, marriage and family, etc. to treat others well. Showing respect to a person is not the same as agreeing with their views.

6.To what extent do we (not “the church”, but each of us as individuals) contribute to a positive image of Christians in America? Do we consistently interact with all non-Christians in ways that will cause them to reject the negative image of Christianity and, instead, lead them to want to know about the Christian faith?

… good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not obvious cannot remain hidden forever. (I Timothy 5:25)

… let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)

 

Moral Discourse

 The Inverted Stream of Moral Discourse

By Mark Huenemann (Revised 17 Aug 2021)

Two people of the same religious faith hold diametrically opposing views on an important social issue. Neighbors vehemently disagree about key political issues. An employee is offended by a coworker’s bumper sticker. Individuals simply cannot understand how their friends can hold such wrong beliefs. Attempts at rational conversation make little progress because neither person seems willing to seriously consider the other’s viewpoint. In order to maintain harmony in families, work groups, schools, and neighborhoods people avoid sensitive topics and “agree to disagree.” Does this sound familiar?

Conflicting views on moral issues are as old as mankind. Individuals and groups throughout history have disagreed, debated, protested, legislated, and even gone to war over things like slavery, bigamy, child sacrifice, capital punishment, military conscription, abortion, alcohol and drug use, status of indigenous peoples, just war theory, nuclear power, animal rights, and a host of other issues. Today, the news media is largely divided into socially or politically liberal or conservative camps, and readers/listeners tend to consume news which reinforces their already-held beliefs.

Social media contain myriad discussion threads on moral issues, few of which ever give evidence of participants changing their positions. Often, posts simply repeat the same arguments over and over, adding virtually nothing to the debate. In our haste to state our own moral position or offer a rebuttal of a differing opinion we often fail to recognize that the things we argue about are “downstream issues.” That is, our positions on moral issues can be traced “upstream” to presuppositions and foundational beliefs which lead to certain moral conclusions.

Imagine a large river with many, many tributaries. Tiny creeks combine to form small rivulets, which together form streams, which feed into small rivers, which in turn combine to form the large river. Dozens or more or tributaries, coming from many different directions, all combine to make up a large, wide river which contains the water from all its sources. As an example, here are the tributaries flowing into just one section of the River Thames in England:

A person traveling on any of the navigable tributaries of the River Thames need only go with the current, which will take them to a larger tributary and eventually to the Thames itself. This is true irrespective of the tributary on which the journey is begun. If many people begin their journeys on multiple, distinct tributaries, all will eventually find themselves together on the mighty Thames.

Imagine an inverse image of a river and its tributaries. Rather than multiple tributaries merging to eventually form the final river, the river begins as a broad body of flowing water. As the river progresses, it divides into several smaller rivers, each of which splits into multiple streams, rivulets, and eventual tiny, isolated creeks. Now imagine the river is composed not water, but of people and their moral philosophies, beliefs and opinions (we’ll call it a “belief river”). As the river progresses, people diverge according to their moral beliefs and opinions. And at each juncture of the “belief river”, the people’s direction is determined by a key religious or philosophical question, and they follow the tributary that reflects their response to each question (examples of this follow).

Three points about the “belief river” and its [reversed] tributaries: (1) as the tributaries subdivide again and again, they become less recognizable as part of the original river and more separated from the other branches (2) for persons following any tributary to rejoin the larger river and/or move toa different one, they must first travel backward against the current to the point where it left the larger body of the rive (3) from this point on, we will refer to the river’s subdivisions as “branches.”

What might happen as people and their thoughts travel down this “belief river”? First, everyone begins at the broadest part of the river, which is the most inclusive. This is akin to beginning life as non-opinionated children. Soon, however, the travelers face questions which will lead them into one tributary/branch or another. Because religion is a fundamental part of human culture, many (but not all) questions will have a religious component.

Imagine joining a group of people as they begin their travel on the “belief river.” Shortly, you face the first question: Is there such a thing as reality? The vast majority your group will likely answer, “Yes, of course there is” and continue along the main river channel. A small number may say, “No, reality does not exist” or “I’m not certain.” These responses will divert them into a branch off the main river. Because their response is relatively rare, they would find themselves on a very small branch of the river.

The second question is related to the first: Is there such a thing as objective truth? Here the river will divide into two sizeable branches. From this point on, relativists will travel on one branch of the belief river, while those who accept the idea of absolute truth will follow another.

A bit farther down the river, we might encounter the next question: If the universe does exist, where did it come from? Some will attribute the existence of the universe to some intelligent entity, while others will say it occurred spontaneously. This will divide the group along two branches of the river, the sizes of which are proportional to the number of persons who expressed each of these differing beliefs.

Notes: (A) We have not yet arrived at any moral questions but are facing foundational questions which precede the formation of moral beliefs (B) The relative numbers of persons giving any particular answer to any question does not determine which answer is correct (the size of the branches reflects only the number of persons who join them). (C) For this discussion, we will frequently follow the branches that reflect the author’s beliefs but also attempt to offer examples of other branches.

At the juncture where beliefs divide regarding the origin of the universe, we might find ourselves on the branch aligned with the idea that the universe came into existence spontaneously, the result of non-designed random events. Those traveling this branch might agree that the galaxies, planets, and life itself develop without outside guidance from an initial incredibly dense mass. On that branch, a question that might lead to a further division into multiple streams could be “what was the origin of the original dense mass?”

In contrast, for those traveling the large branch of the “belief river” that contains those who believe the universe exists at the behest of an intelligent entity, the next logical question might be: What do you mean by an intelligent entity? Here the river might divide into several channels, including beliefs in a non-divine designer, a non-creator designer, a non-divine creator, a divine designer, a divine creator, etc. If you are traveling with me, you will find yourself in the river channel designated for those who believe in the existence of a divine creator (broadly speaking, a god or gods). The people in this channel might be described as religious, though that is an assumption at this point.

Farther down the river (along the branch of those who purport the existence of a ‘divine creator’), we face the next question: Does or has the divine creator interacted/communicated with humans? At this point, some will follow a branch will follows the belief that although there was some type of divine creator, he/she/it ceased interaction with the universe; the universe simply continues according to certain physical principles instilled in it at the time of its origin. At this point, we would discover an alternative branch (the branch that reflects the author’s beliefs) labeled “the divine creator has interacted/communicated with humans.” Those who choose this branch will their own set of subsequent questions and diverging river branches.

Note: A variety of factors affect the choices made regarding which branches are followed, including parents, teachers, peers, life experience, and more. We ought not assume that the branches followed are chosen in a purely rational or logical manner.

The ensuing questions encountered by those traveling the river with this author might include things like: Did the divine creator share some type of revelations with the humans it created? [yes] Are these revelations recorded in a ‘holy book’? [yes] If so, which of the known holy books do you accept as the creator’s revelation? [the Bible]. Bear in mind many individuals will have different answers to these questions, e.g., the identity of the ‘holy book’ might be the Veda or Shreemand Bhagavad Gita, the Tripitakas, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Torah, the Qu’ran, etc., leading those who choose them into the river’s branches of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam, et al.

Those who follow the river’s branches traveled by those who believe in various ‘holy books’ face additional questions. One might be: Does the holy book contain errors or is it completely accurate? Many respondents will affirm the accuracy of their chosen holy book, but there will likely be a significant number who do not. Again, answers to this question divide the group and guide them down differing branches of the river.

Other questions related to the holy book of choice might include: Can humans understand the content of the holy book(s) and, if so, how can they do so? Are the ‘truths’ contained in the holy book(s) universal, or applicable only to the culture and timeframe in which the book(s) was written? Can the truths of the holy book(s) be discovered by common people or are they open only to an exclusive set of religious leaders/scholars?

If you have followed along the river’s branches traveled by this author you are now on the branch of the belief river populated by those who profess that the Bible is the revealed word of the creator (God), containing universal truths discoverable by ordinary people. At least two questions remain, which will again divide the river’s travelers into separate branches: If the content of the holy book (the Bible) appears to conflict with your beliefs/positions on moral issues (a) will you invest the time and effort to comprehend the Bible’s truths within the context of their writing, or will you base your beliefs on a cursory familiarity with the book’s contents? (b) if after due diligence you conclude the Bible does conflict with your beliefs/positions on moral issues, which will take precedence – your logic, feelings, and opinions or the literal content and message of the Bible?

Ponder, if you will, the broad variety of questions that travelers on the “belief river” encounter, the differing sets of subsequent questions faced after each diversion into separate branches, the importance of the answers to these questions, and those answers’ implications for conversation with others about moral issues. It is not difficult to see why persons on one branch of the river not only disagree with those on another branch but find it hard to understand why or how the ‘others’ hold such beliefs. It is also understandable that someone who has traveled far down a branch of the river may be reluctant to reverse course and travel against the current in order to choose a different branch.

If the analogy of the “belief river” is valid, then it is not difficult to see why discussions regarding moral issues often include an attempt to convince others of the correctness of one’s own position without understanding the basis on which others’ beliefs rest. Persons with opposing points of view may simply be approaching an issue from differing viewpoints (they are, as it were, standing in different places and see things from differing directions).

Perhaps most importantly, consider how those on any branch, subbranch, stream or rivulet of the belief river, when interacting with persons whose positions on moral issues differ from their own, might benefit from a mutual examination of the ‘upstream’ assumptions and choices and the processes by which they were selected. This will not necessarily result in agreement on moral issues but may enhance understanding of the foundation on which our own positions and others’ positions rest. It may also shed light on what may be required for honest questioning and possible reconsideration of our beliefs regarding important moral questions.

For each of us, questions we ought to attempt to answer with care and honesty regarding moral beliefs and positions include at least the following: “What is the basis/root of my belief on this issue?” (from what ‘upstream branch’ does this belief emanate?), “To what extent have I examined the credibility of the basis/root from which my belief on this issue comes?”, “Am I confident each of branches my belief system has followed (and if so, why)?”, and “When discussing moral issues, how can I move conversations ‘upstream’ to better understand the basis for my beliefs and those of others?”

Interpreting Scripture

As readers of English versions of the Bible, our understanding is heavily influenced by at least two significant factors: (1) The misunderstanding that naturally occurs when writing is translated from one language to another, particularly in languages lacking equivalent usage and word meanings, and (2) The fact that we view writing of other times and cultures through the ‘lens’ of our own time and culture. These issues profoundly affect our reading both in ways easily identified and in more subtle ways that hinder an accurate understanding. This problem applies to all the Bible’s contents, whose authors lived long ago in cultures vastly different from our own. 

For those who accept the Bible as Holy Scripture, this is an issue of more than academic interest. Precise interpretation of the text from its original languages and subsequent analysis spanning gaps between cultures and time periods is essential to accurate understanding and application of Scripture. Errors in interpretation impact readers who absorb them and, potentially, others with whom they interact. At their worst, interpretive errors can cause people to believe things that are actually anti-Biblical. 

We can improve our understanding of Scripture by applying some basic principles of Biblical interpretation. These include at least the following: 

1. The meaning of Scripture is not always vague, obscure, or hidden within some deeply symbolic expression. Much of the Biblical text simply means what it says. 

2. Scripture helps interpret Scripture. A fuller understanding of the meaning of many (maybe even all) Bible passages can be gained by viewing a passage from the perspective of other passages that address the topic involved. 

3. Cultural misinterpretation of the Bible is pervasive to the extent it may be considered the ‘default’ position for many readers, for three reasons: 

(1) Cultural complexity -- there is not a single category of time and cultural values that represent “Bible times.” The multiple cultures and times present in Scripture vary widely from each other. 

(2) Cultural distortion -- because culture is powerful, pervasive, and often subtle, readers who live within a culture [few have lived in multiple cultures] often remain unaware of the degree to which their own cultural background and bias influence their understanding of Scripture. 

(3) Cultural conformity – we will face fewer conflicts with non-believers (and perhaps other believers) and can avoid the stigma of being considered odd, out of touch, reactionary, politically incorrect, etc. if we interpret Scripture in ways that conform to the dominant values of our culture. 

4. When we detect cultural conformity (#3, above) in interpretation, we may benefit from recognizing that the messages contained in Scripture were often distinctly opposed to the values of the dominant cultures surrounding the writers (nota bene – Jesus was consistently and shockingly counter-cultural). 

5. The Bible describes three different covenant relationships between God and man (first with Abraham, then with Moses, then with Christ’s church) and not all the ‘rules and regulations’ under one covenant continued under the next. One example is the law given to Moses in Exodus 31 that calls for execution of anyone who desecrates the Sabbath. Careful study is required to delineate which teachings and requirements carried over through all three covenants. 

6. For numerous Scriptural passages, an understanding of the culture of the time makes it clear that what is written is not intended as a universal mandate. One example of this is chapter 11 of I Corinthians, in which Paul asserts that a woman should not pray with her head uncovered. This is understandable within the context of that culture, when women of bad reputation left their heads uncovered. 

7. An instruction, prohibition, or moral standard repeatedly addressed to multiple cultural audiences (e.g., to both Jews and Gentiles, over hundreds of years, by multiple authors) is not culturally dependent and therefore not subject to reinterpretation based on the reader’s culture. An example of this is limiting sex to the marriage of a man and a woman, a position from which Scripture does not deviate. 

8. Our understanding of many passages can be enhanced by bearing in mind that the Scripture originated in the area we call the Middle East, a portion of the world where the predominant values were (and are) those of an ‘honor/shame’ culture. An example of this is one of the key factors in the Jewish leaders’ decision to kill Jesus, the fact that he had shamed them in public debates. 

Avoiding the pitfalls of Scriptural misinterpretation is challenging. Even extensive study of Biblical cultures will not guarantee totally accurate understanding of the Bible, but a basic knowledge can greatly reduce the tendency toward interpretive errors. A multitude of books and articles are available to help build a foundation in this area. Experiencing the ‘aha’ moments produced by studying Biblical cultures is often the encouragement needed to continue. 

 

Recommended reading/study: 

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, by E. Randolph Richards & Brandon J. O’Brien 

The Complete Jewish Study Bible, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass. 

NIV Cultural Background Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mich. 

Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, by Marvin R. Wilson