Uncategorized

My Burden And Motivation As An Evangelical Pastor: Tending To Our Logs Before “Their” Specks Regarding Culture, Politics, and Partisanship.

2 Comments

I’ve been thinking about this for some time, and in light of some recent commentary, I thought it might be helpful to lay out my thoughts and motivations for why I address the issues I do and the topics I tend to engage, be it on social media, my blog, or my podcast, The Everyday Missionary. I refrain from most of this on Sundays, on purpose, because my objectives and audience there are more nuanced than on other platforms of communication. Quite honestly, the people who make up Redemption Church already tend to get what I am getting at, which is why I use other forums as supplementation. They are a truly remarkable community, and I am deeply grateful to be a part of it.

Now, this is by no means exhaustive and, in the interest of brevity, will inevitably rely on some caricature, but I hope it offers a basic sense of what I’m trying to communicate—or perhaps more accurately, why I choose to communicate about the things I do.

In my casual observation, there are three general postures I see among my fellow evangelical pastors when it comes to how they use their position and platform.

First, there are those who generally choose to stay out of the fray when it comes to policy, politics, and culturally sensitive matters. The benefit of this posture is that it often avoids criticism from either side since the focus is simply on spiritual stuff. The downside, however, is that it can miss meaningful opportunities to connect Jesus and Scripture to real-life situations, areas where both are well equipped to speak with wisdom and conviction. I sincerely don’t fault this position, and quite honestly which I felt I could take that track. It would make my life a whole lot more peaceful.

Second, there are those who engage very directly by calling out what they perceive as the sins of groups they view as unsaved, morally compromised, or not as doctrinally aligned as their tradition asserts. This often includes sharp critiques of cultural movements and political positions associated with the Left or progressive causes. The strength of this approach is that it resonates deeply with a significant portion of the evangelical base and is frequently affirmed as courageous truth-telling. It’s also the fastest way to build an audience. The cost, however, is that it can leave those being addressed feeling judged or even disliked by people who claim to follow Jesus—the same Jesus who, in the Gospels, seemed to genuinely enjoy, love, and befriend those on the margins or those with complicated, messed-up, scandalous lives.

Within this posture, I also observe a considerable investment of energy in defending evangelicalism, its partisan alignments, and particularly its close relationship with the current administration’s evangelical political ecosystem. What often proves more difficult is a willingness to acknowledge or repent of our own inconsistencies, blind spots, and failures. As a pastor, I regularly encounter people who are genuinely curious about Jesus, yet hesitant or resistant because of the way His name has been publicly represented among some of these groups. I wish I could take this road; I imagine my podcast would be larger. But for reasons that will soon be apparent, my conscience will not permit it.

Third, there are those like myself, an evangelical speaking to evangelicals, about cultural evangelicalism. Those who are more concerned with addressing the log within evangelicalism than the speck they see in the broader culture. This posture echoes the prophets, who consistently called Israel to account for failures of mercy, justice, and faithfulness to God’s heart for the nations. It also reflects the ministry of Jesus, who spoke far more often about the hypocrisy of God’s people than about the moral failures of Rome. The downside here is that this approach rarely earns affirmation from one’s own evangelical tribe, and as Scripture itself asserts, it does not often find a warm welcome. It also doesn’t tend to draw an audience as much as ire. And yet, as the apostle reminds us, “judgment begins with the house of God.” Unfortunately for me, this is what the Spirit has placed on me as my burden.

In my own context of the Pacific Northwest, I feel a burden to reach people whom I often see the broader evangelical world either belittling or fighting—frequently over specks—while overlooking our own planks. Yet, the apostle warns more sharply against the religious self-righteousness of Romans 2 than the pagan excesses of Romans 1, concluding with the haunting indictment, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (disbelievers/deconstructors/nones/I love Jesus but not the Church-ers/I just can’t do it any more-ers) because of you.” Therefore, for me, this is not about equal time or political balance between left and right. It is about addressing what I believe is a harmful “lampstand stripping” trend within evangelicalism, where our potential hypocrisy is, quite literally as Jesus warned, “shutting up the kingdom” to those we are called to reach and causing “little ones” to stumble away from the faith. Too often, this happens because our collective reputation is more about advocating against than advocating for. Demonizing their offenses and downplaying ours. It’s about strength, control, and personal security over the way of sacrifice, humility, and becoming the least to reach the more. In fact, those last two references above from Jesus are directed, not at the permissive Romans or syncretistic Herodians, the former was Yahweh professing, Scripture reading, doctrinally conservative Pharisees (Matthew 23) and to the latter the Apostles themselves who were arguing about greatness as opposed to service (Matthew 18). Jesus warns both of those groups, in those texts, of the dangers of hell for such sinful conduct. So yes, I think it’s important.

However, the good news is, once we address our planks, we can then see well enough to care for others and their specks. And that is the key. Helping a person with their speck is about care, caution, and compassion. Specks are not removed through culture wars, name-calling, or parroting pundits, but through genuine love and investment. If we want anyone to seriously consider the Good News of Jesus, they must be able to see both why it is truly good and how it actually forms good people. The gospel is not only something we proclaim with our words, but something we must make visible with our lives toward all image-bearers. When the good news is truly good, it leaves behind a trail of healing, humility, and love that invites others to take a second look.

Why is the Good News Good?

It’s Good because Our All Powerful God became A Humble Man to Serve and Save a Broken and Burdened Race.

It’s Good because He came with Mercy.

It’s Good because He came with Grace.

It’s Good because He came with Compassion.

It’s Good because He came with Forgiveness.

It’s Good because He came with Restoration.

It’s Good because He came with Servanthood.

It’s Good because He came with Love .

And we should be known for this same Good as well.

The apostle says that God first preached the Good News to Abram when He said, “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Thus, our calling is to be the blessing than brings the blessing. And Jesus made that posture profoundly, and uncomfortably, clear for all who claim to follow Him. Allow me an amplified version.

Those who are blessings and thus blessed are those who know they need God’s help in this world; God meets them first.

Those who are blessings and thus blessed are those who grieve the brokenness of this world; they will find the comfort of a God who aches with them.

Those who are blessings and thus blessed are the gentle in this world; they outlast the powerful.

Those who are blessings and thus blessed are those who long to do right by God and others in this world; God shares that hunger and will satisfy it.

Those who are blessings and thus blessed are the merciful in this world; they receive mercy for mercy.

Those who are blessings and thus blessed are the wholehearted in this world; they will see God clearly in the world to come.

Those who are blessings and thus blessed are those who seek to create peace rather than merely keep it in this world; they resemble God’s children.

Those who are blessings and thus blessed are those who joyfully suffer for doing right by God and others – be it fellow follower, neighbor, citizen, foreigner, or enemy – for God’s kingdom already belongs to them.

That is flavor for the world.

That is light in the darkness.

That is a city which beckons…

“Come, see these good (news) works, and celebrate the God who inspires them in Heaven.”

Grace

bible, Church, Missional, Theology

Christians, Sin, Certainty, And The Wisdom Of Humility

Leave a comment

I’m currently preparing for a series in The Book of the Twelve (the Minor Prophets, for us Western church folks). In the process, I’ve taken a deep dive into the problem of sin within the community of faith. Sin is traditionally understood as “missing the mark” or as “the willful transgression of a defined boundary.” In the Hebrew tradition, there are nine concepts that capture this idea, but these two will suffice here.

While conversations about sin are often directed toward the surrounding, disbelieving culture, my initial application was more personal: to quantify how often an average Christian sins per day. One might assume this would be a straightforward task, but it’s not.

The perception and definition of sin vary dramatically across Christian denominations. Each group also tends to establish its own hierarchy of sins, hierarchies that can be almost entirely inverted from one tradition to another. As a cultural example, in some U.S. Christian contexts, “wokeness” is viewed as a paramount cultural abomination, while in others, indifference to poverty and injustice, often labeled as “wokeness,” is considered a profound social evil. Consequently, what constitutes a grave sin for some Christians is its direct opposite for others. This divergence is perhaps most evident in contemporary debates about what it truly means to love one’s political or social neighbor, or enemy, in our deeply divided climate. Some interpretations of love increasingly resemble hate, advocating avoidance, taunting, mockery, and disparagement rather than blessing, prayer, and doing good (Luke 6:27–36). That currently Evangelical Christians are debating whether empathy is a virtue or a vice only highlights this divide.  

Adding further complexity is the distinct nature of Christian sin itself. Ontologically speaking, when a Christian sins, they implicitly affirm, “I agree with you, God, that this is wrong, yet I am doing it anyway.” This arguably renders Christian sin, in any given instance, more significant than that of a non-believer. While Christians across the spectrum, from progressive to fundamentalist, often employ interpretive “hacks” to explain away certain scriptural expectations, a disbelieving person, by virtue of their disbelief, is not actively disregarding God in their actions. Their motivations are no more aimed at offending God than Odin or Zeus. Christian sin, then, is arguably more severe because it arises from belief in sin while still resulting in either committing or excusing it.

Doctrinal differences further compound the problem. All Christian traditions hold certain doctrines as truth, yet they frequently disagree on many of them. In every area of disagreement where these truths are misaligned, at least one side is teaching error as truth, or equally possible, both sides are wrong. Statistically speaking, every Christian tradition is guilty of this at some point, often unknowingly. The posture with which these doctrines are held, humility versus certainty, can either mitigate or amplify the gravity of this error. Humility in the face of unrecognized error may lessen culpability, whereas conviction in error, as exemplified by the Pharisees, compounds it by being sincerely, yet sincerely, wrong.

As one example, I recently read a Jewish-Christian scholar who argues that Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the dominant Calvinistic and Reformed view within my own theological tradition, departs so thoroughly from the Mosaic framework of atonement that it is better described as a pagan theory. In his view, it is rooted less in Israel’s God and more in the logic of the surrounding ancient world, particularly its images of capricious deities who demand violence to appease their wrath. A key component of his argument is that none of the sacrificial texts depict God pouring out wrath on the animal. Instead, he contends that later Greek philosophical categories were used to overwrite the original scriptural imagery. If anything, when the community’s sin is symbolically transferred to an animal, it does not culminate in the animal’s death as a vessel of divine wrath, but in its release as the scapegoat into the wilderness. While the Calvin-ish theologian in me wants to take a stand, the biblical scholar in me says I should sit down and listen, since he makes a solid exegetical point. Yep, maybe you “scapegoat atonement theory” people are on to something here.

I am not asserting one position over another, but the point stands: across denominations, one group’s dogma of God is another group’s doctrine of demons. In this case, Penal Substitutionary Atonement could be understood either as a pagan appropriation of troubling proportions or as an accurate depiction of atonement itself. Only in death will we know for sure.

The implication, then, is that the odds of doctrinal sin are relatively high for every group at some point. And, somewhat ironically, the more confidently a group insists it is immune from such error, the more caution its claims likely deserve.

Some will accuse me at this point of denying capital “T” Truth. That is not my claim at all. I have no quarrel with the idea of concrete truth. Rather, I acknowledge that none of us possesses the decoder to know it perfectly or to wield it without distortion. We can grasp what is sufficiently important, but on this side of the resurrection, the apostle reminds us that we never see as clearly as we imagine.

That reality should not surprise us. With 30 to 40 technically distinct interpretive approaches to Scripture and an estimated 45,000 Christian denominations spread across three major traditions, spanning two thousand years, countless languages, and vastly different cultural worldviews, it is safe to say we are not all getting everything right. At some point, every community teaches something in error while sincerely calling it truth, which itself may qualify as a sin against the truth we claim to defend.

In light of all this, humility feels like the most honest takeaway. We are all wildly dependent on grace, which means Christians ought to be the most enthusiastic distributors of it, handing out kindness, forgiveness, patience, peace, and love as if it were always in season.

After all, we know ourselves well enough to recognize our remarkable ability, both intentional and accidental, to participate in the full range of acts, attitudes, and affections we so neatly label sin. Our plank, it turns out, is already quite substantial. Perhaps a little extra humility might help loosen its grip, giving us clearer sight and softer hearts to notice the specks in our neighbors’ eyes, not with judgment, but with compassion, tenderness, and love.

Addendum

Below are some basic ways various Christian traditions articulate their emphasis on different aspects of what is generally referred to as sin. This is not exhaustive, but illustrative. I only included it because I find the various large branches of Christianity can all contribute to seeing this topic from different points of view.

1. Roman Catholicism

Types of Sin

Mortal Sin: A grave offense committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent; it severs one’s relationship with God.

Venial Sin: Lesser sins that damage, but do not break, one’s relationship with God.

Remedy

Mortal sins require sacramental confession to a priest and the completion of penance.

Venial sins may be forgiven through prayer, participation in the Eucharist, and acts of charity.

2. Eastern Orthodoxy

View of Sin

Sin is understood primarily as a spiritual illness rather than a legal violation.

The emphasis is on healing and restoration rather than guilt and punishment.

Remedy

Confession is essential, but the primary focus is on transformation through the sacraments, spiritual disciplines, and growth in holiness.

3. Protestant Traditions

Lutheranism

View of Sin

Humanity is inherently sinful due to original sin.

Even good works are considered tainted by sin apart from God’s grace.

Remedy

Justification by faith alone (sola fide).

Confession is encouraged but not required for forgiveness.

4. Calvinism (Reformed)

View of Sin

Total depravity: every aspect of human nature is affected by sin.

Strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty in salvation.

Remedy

Salvation is by grace alone, with redemption applied to the elect.

5. Methodism

View of Sin

Affirms original sin while emphasizing human free will to respond to God’s grace.

Strong focus on personal holiness and sanctification.

Remedy

Ongoing repentance, spiritual discipline, and growth in grace.

6. Popular Evangelicalism

View of Sin

Emphasis on personal and individual sin.

Central focus on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Remedy

Salvation through faith in Christ, often marked by a conscious conversion experience.

7. Anglicanism / Episcopalianism

View of Sin

Holds a broad range of views, incorporating both Catholic and Protestant emphases.

Recognizes both personal and systemic sin.

Remedy

Confession (private or corporate), participation in the Eucharist, and ongoing spiritual formation.

bible, Church, Politics, Theology

When The Cross Bows To “National Here And Now:” Why Does Christianity Get Easily Co-Opted?

Leave a comment

I’ve been reflecting on the intersection of the Christian faith and leadership, as well as political or nationalistic ideologies. While this dynamic certainly applies to other religions as well (and none at all), my focus has been on the particular tension within Christianity.

What strikes me as odd — and troubling — is how a faith centered on a sacrificial and suffering servant, who called his followers to love their neighbors and enemies alike, care for the poor and marginalized, and treat others as they would want to be treated, can be so easily co-opted into something dismissive, divisive, or even aggressive. Instead of being a force for unity and service, it can become a tool used to attack or exclude at the cultural level. Now, this isn’t to say that Jesus is never divisive, but oddly, his division was related to his upside-down and backward Kingdom vs. nationalistic fervor and religious dogma. The repeated accusation of his friendship with sinners, his departure from tradition, and his care for the outsider highlight the nature of the divide between Jesus and his religious nation-state. Even when he spoke of the divide between daughter and mother or son and father, the divide was between the older and younger: the old, stifling, monolithic tradition versus the new, inviting Kingdom living. He clearly knew the new wine was just too much for those old skins.

Historically, tragically, religious people have all too often followed the path of Jesus’ opponents in the name of Christianity, but sincerely believing they were doing the godly and righteous thing. That paradox is what I’ve been wrestling with. Therefore, I wanted to conduct a thought experiment in which I took a series of quotes, leaving blanks in place of the original labels used. I did this to overlay whether this rhetoric has thematic links to modern sentiments.

“Hence, today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the ____, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (p. 65)

“Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties.” (p. 116)

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.” (p. 152)

“Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. A fight for freedom had begun mightier than the earth had ever seen; for once Destiny had begun its course, the conviction dawned on even the broad masses…” (p. 161)

“The founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the ____ people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.” (p. 174)

“His [the ____ person’s] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the ____ people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for ____ votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic ____ parties — and this against their own nation.” (p. 307)

“Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.” (p. 383)

“It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying foreigners with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our National humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother…” (p. 403)

“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.” (p. 562)

“As far as this variety of ‘folkish’ [social justice/culture] warriors, are concerned, I can only wish the National movement and the nations people with all my heart: “Lord, preserve us from such ‘friends,’ and then we can easily deal with our enemies.” (p. 565)

“For this, to be sure, from the child’s primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’” (pp. 632-633)

Adolf Hitler ~ Mein Kampf

No, I’m not calling anyone Hitler, except Hitler, of course. And frankly, I’m not all that focused on any particular current or future leaders, pundits, and media types who leverage politics and religion to create a rift of division between the majority and minority. All parties seeking to influence will utilize whatever tools they can exploit. Instead, I’m thinking about how Christians support such individuals in politics, churches, the media, online, and so on. How other names, races, genders, sexualities, labels could be, or are being, dropped into the _______ with just a tinge of piss and vinegar in the tone. Because here’s the hard-to-swallow truth: the majority of Evangelical Christians backed the Nazi Party (70-80% with anti-Communism, nationalism, and the desire for order being the top three reasons). But it’s nothing new. Over the centuries, Christians have more often than not lined up behind nefarious players, inhumane policies, adopted or stood silent to the most overtly un-Christian ethics, and excused it all in the name of an amalgamation of religion, patriotism, economic necessity/opportunity, and nationalism. Of course, there has always been an inspiring, though at the time despised, remnant who press against the flow, but it’s usually a remnant. The majority are often too quick to pick the wrong side of history and excuse away the words of Jesus every time. Luckily, it seems, the rest of the world eventually hears the remnants, catches up, and rights the ship (which is why I land in the revivalistic postmillennial camp, but that’s a topic for a different blog on a different day). Still, it usually leaves another stain in the history of the Christian faith where the moment was exploited, people suffered, and Jesus’ reputation was tarnished, all in the quest to enthrone a mute idol of Christ in the shadowlands of Babylon – yet again.

What started this was reading Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies.” Honestly, I’m shocked that we Protestants still hold him in such high regard after reading it. The common defense—”That’s just how things were back then”—falls short as a moral argument. Jesus’s teachings on loving our neighbors and enemies alike were just as clear then as they are now. But I guess that’s my point. Every generation is at risk of, and even all too eager to, cut out the tongue of Christ to uphold the Zeitgeist of the age, especially when the nation is at stake. Sure, the idol of Christ as a rallying figure is elevated in the enterprise, but Jesus, the counter-cultural incarnate God who calls his followers to radical love, is quickly dispatched. In place of all this comes the practical urgency of the “hear and now,” the “more important,” the “don’t you see the existential threat,” etc. That’s precisely why I wanted to run the “whose label goes in the _________” thought experiment.

Below is an excerpt from Luther’s work that illustrates the extreme nature of political and nationalistic rhetoric when cloaked in the language of Christianity, and how, even still, modern Christians elevate a man like Luther and overlook his inhuman and un-Jesus-like dispositions. However, we continue to do that as well in other ranks. Additionally,  I think it would be equally confronting if we took out all of Luther’s uses of “Jews” and substituted blanks in there as well to see which names would find more or less offensive. I say that since we Evangelicals are a bit more defensive of the Jewish state than perhaps some other people groups, even though every person bears the image of God (Genesis 1) and houses the indwelling service-worthy Christ (Matthew 25).   

“What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.

First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.

Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.

Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.

Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more…

Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home…

If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination…

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden – the Jews…

Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods…

Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune.

 I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnapped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories.”

I include this quote to press another wrinkle in the fabric. Here, the issue is that Hitler didn’t convince the Protestants into their nationalistic sins, but it was the First Protestant who convinced Hitler, who in turn convinced the Protestants into their sins.

“Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. With one blow, he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed, and we’re only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on…. I believe that today I am acting in accordance with the will of Almighty God as I announce the most important work that Christians could undertake – and that is to be against the Jews and get rid of them once and for all.”

Adolf Hitler ~ Reported from a speech given in Berlin, Dec. 1924

That could be the telling issue: that the head is often eating the tail, and until the followers of Jesus relentlessly apply his upside-down and backwards ways in this messy world, we will be a part of perpetuating the problems and believing the lies are the solutions.

I’m not asking you to agree with my critique, but I am asking you to always measure your points of view against those pesky red letters of Jesus, especially the preschool-sounding ones. I believe he made them simple because we are so good at complicating things.