Category Archives: Politics

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

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.

The Pride Flag, From A Different Point Of View.

Have you ever felt that sense where God, your conscience, or your gut was pushing you to do something you did not want to do? Where nothing in your rational mind thought it to be a good idea, but everything in your subconscious was crushing against your soul with restless pressure? Well, that is what this story is all about. In fear, it’s one I would prefer not to write, yet I know fear is the opposite of what it means to walk in God’s perfect love. As Bonhoeffer reminds, the issue always at stake is not “How can I be good?” nor “How can I do good?” but rather “What is the will of God?” For me, this act is God’s will.

Yet I admit, my fears regarding the subject are anything but the product of paranoid speculation. The current climate of our divided society reminds me daily that what I’m about to embark upon risks the wrath of the culture war gods. Yes, the never slumbering metaverse is always willing to pour out indignation unto exile. Yet, it is my observation that contrary to how this pejorative is wielded, the “woke cancel culture” is as much a feature of the conservative religious right as it is of the liberal irreligious left. It might better be described as “anti-woke cancel culture,” but it’s merely the flip of the same coin. In fact, it was my own evangelical heritage that inaugurated what some progressives have gone on to perfect. Both are all too willing to leverage fear, shame, force, outrage, financial punishment, and social banishment as tools of compliance. Neither of which reminds me of the upside-down and backward ethos of Jesus. Of the latter group, I have no such expectations; thus, I take no offense. Of the former, it breaks my heart and often tests my own resolve for reasons that will become apparent.

Thus I write – a rather long story – as an evangelical.

To my fellow evangelicals (though everyone is free to come along).

About painful failures and lessons learned as the parent of an LGBT+ child.

And so… (deep breath)… let’s begin.

Last month was June.

In the Boswell home, June is the busiest month of the year. My wife’s birthday is on the 4th. Our anniversary immediately comes on the 9th. Followed by our oldest daughter’s birthday on the 11th. And then, finally, at the end of the month is the birthday of our youngest and only son Grayson. Gray is our baby (though he’s rolling in on 23 years old and stands taller than his old man now). He was always a happy kid. Right there in the moment. Never focusing too much on what was behind, nor worrying about what was up ahead. A kid who would take 30 minutes to fulfill a 5-minute task as he got sucked into a hundred tiny distractions along the way. In many ways, Gray was the life of the home.

At 12 years old Gray’s world changed. Our world changed. I’m uncertain exactly when Gray knew the earth was shifting under his feet. We’ve never really discussed that element, but at 12, his inner world spilled into our world as a family. One day I came upon Gray playing a video game where his avatar presented with some possibly gay markers. He quickly tried to turn off the game so I didn’t see, but he was just a bit too slow on the draw. Instantly he jumped onto his bed and buried his face in his pillow. He reacted as one caught, exposed, afraid. My wife and I sat with him on his bed, trying to coax him out like a wounded pup under a chair. Finally, I spoke the words I was as afraid to ask. Words he was terrified to answer, “Grayson, do you think you’re gay?” It’s a moment that I will never forget. He turned his face to us, looking as helpless as any human could, and immediately buried his face back into his pillow, crying. The answer spoken without a word. That day the world tilted for us all. A gay kid, from a pastor’s family, in an evangelical environment. How would that play? I wish I could say I handled it with grace and wisdom.

I did not.

Why did I not?

I recall my first exposure to anything about homosexuality was in elementary school. At recess, we would all rush from the classroom to our janky red dirt and gravel playground. It was there the recess game of the day would collectively choose us. While there was a rotating menagerie of favorites, two were the most prevalent. The first was Kickball, where the object was less a foot-based version of baseball and more about trying to kick the ball so hard your slip-on Vans flew off on impact with the ball and cleared 2nd base (moment of confession, we would all front load the kick by pulling our heel out of the shoe to ensure a solid flight time for those sweet checkered kicks). The second game was more straightforward, Smear the Queer (and yes, that feels uncomfortable to write). Here someone was branded “the queer,” and everyone else chased the queer until you caught them and then threw, flung, or forced them to the ground. Hence, you smeared the queer. But hey, it was the mid-1970s, and gays weren’t well-liked.

Around this time, our school had a new student. Being a small town, outsiders were always a curiosity to our ingrown ecosystem, and Adrian was as outsider as you can get. He talked differently, dressed oddly in short coveralls, and came from a place called Austria. When we would all go to the boy’s bathroom after recess, Adrian would unbuckle his coveralls, drop them to the floor, and pee at the urinal with his gleaming Austrian butt for all to see. “You know why he does that?” Sam asked me, “It’s because he’s a fa__ot.” By 4th grade, I was aware enough to know what Sam was saying. None of us had a clue if Adrian was gay or not. But the label stuck, and Adrian was mercilessly picked on as long as I knew him. In fact, the first time I ever saw a person punched in the face and knocked completely unconscious was Adrian. We were playing Smear the Queer, Adrian was just about to reach the “queer,” when the kid turned around and dropped Adrian cold. His reason, “I’m not letting some fa__ot touch me.” But hey, it was the late 1970s, and gays weren’t well-liked.

In high school, I knew of a couple of kids that might be gay, along with one of the girl’s P.E. teachers everyone assumed to be a lesbian. But everyone stayed firmly tucked away in closets. Base words such as d_ke, queer, fa_, fa__ot, and homo were spoken into the air with impunity. There was no sense of a future “wokeness” that would one day displace these as staples in public discourse. People would joke around about the limp-wristed types who spoke with a lisp and had a high fashion sense. Often there were creative innuendos that would make Eddie Murphy’s stand-up special “Raw” feel like a PG-13 TED Talk. Needless to say, to be gay was to be a social pariah. Queers were for smearing, mocking, and generally laughing at. But hey, it was the mid-1980’s and gays weren’t well-liked.

As high school was nearing a close, I enlisted in the Navy through the delayed entry program. One of the steps in this process is MEPS, the Military Entrance Processing Station. Here you are tested for aptitude, physical fitness, and other criteria. The two most common questions I encountered throughout the process were (a) “Have you done drugs?” and (b) “Are you gay?” Not, “Have you ever considered selling secrets to the Soviets?” or “Have you rooted for Army instead of Navy in the college matchup?” Nope, I was asked twice about drugs and perhaps five to six times if I was gay. In fact, at one point, I was with some other kid who was hoping to be Army bound. As we were going through a physical, the doctor sprung both questions on the two of us. I gave a snappy “No sir.” to both questions. My MEPS partner, on the other hand, was “No” to being gay but “Yes” to drugs, weed particularly. “How many times have you smoked weed?” the doctor asked. “Uh, probably between 700-800 times.” The previous night being the most recent occasion. The next time I saw this kid, he was swearing into the United States Army. Had he said “Yes” to the gay question, he would have been disqualified on the spot. But hey, it was the late 1980s, and gays weren’t well-liked.

A few years later, I was in a pastoral internship and taking classes at a local community college. For an elective course, I decided to take a class I figured would be an easy 5-credits, “Intercultural Communications.” I was a decent communicator and thought the class would be about giving speeches on various cultural assignments. Nope, not at all. It was about learning from and communicating with people from various sub-cultures. It was here I heard my first insider baseball talk from the gay community. Up to this point, I was only exposed to one side, the side of my childhood. From there, I graduated into the voices of “The Religious Right” and the “Moral Majority,” which were engaged in a culture war for the soul of America. I was an evangelical, and all evangelicals were well versed in the dangers of “The Gay Agenda” that was seeking to push “special rights” above everyone else’s good old fashion Constitutional rights. The question of gays in the military was on the table with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the rhetoric was at a fever pitch. But, in this class, on some average Tuesday, I was exposed to a side of the discussion I had never experienced before. Real people discussing their real challenges, traumas, and heartbreak. I can’t recall either of the men’s names, but I vividly remember the emotion of that room and the profound shift in my heart toward this community. Both had been beaten up for being gay. Their families had rejected both. One was just diagnosed with AIDS, and the other was worried for his non-partner friend. My evangelical spaces had all sorts of theories for why these men “chose to be gay,” as it was framed. Their moms were too controlling. Their dads were uninvolved. Both were most certainly molested, of course. They also had theories on why the one man was doomed to die of AIDS, God’s judgment on his immoral behavior. AIDS was God’s solution to the gay epidemic. Countless women and children were also inflicted with AIDS throughout Africa due to infidelity and rape. However, they were people of color and way over there, the unfortunate collateral damage of God’s war on queers. That was the standard evangelical attitude in those days. But hey, it was the early to mid-1990s, and gays weren’t well-liked.

Shortly after this small step into the gay world, I had my first true set of gay friends, but I didn’t know they were gay. They were deep in the back of the closet behind grandpas old raincoat. One was Jon, the pastoral intern whom I eventually replaced. Jon and I met together weekly for well over a year. He was an awesome guy. Thoughtful, funny, and intelligent. He had a long-time girlfriend whom he had never kissed. I thought that strange at the time. This was before the whole “I Kissed Dating Goodbye, So Don’t Kiss A Girl Till You’re Married, Or You’re Not Serious About Your God” craze, so having never kissed her after years of being together should have been some sign. Anyway, Jon and I had a lot of transparent conversations where, in retrospect, I think he was trying to come out, but the risk of loss was just too high. Eventually, Jon did come out, a few years after we lost contact, and with that, he lost both his church friends and his Catholic family. Another friend was Greg. Greg was a student in our youth program, where I interned and eventually pastored. Greg was the mega servant guy. He was always showing up early, always staying late. Greg was the person you could depend on. I assumed when he graduated from high school, he might pivot into our internship program to become a pastor one day. Instead, Greg enlisted into the Marine Corps, and man, talk about a transformation. Greg was a husky guy going in, but came out of boot camp 100% a Bulldog. He lived, breathed, loved, and was willing to die a Jarhead for country and kin. And it was as a Marine that Greg began to explore the deep secret of his homosexuality. The era of no gays in the military hit the infamous slippery slope in the 90s when it acknowledged there were, in fact, gays in the military. To combat the problem, a president loathsome to evangelicals named Bill Clinton pushed for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Evangelical leaders warned the move to be the end of the U.S. military and American greatness, but so far, everything is still standing. For a while, Greg sought to comply, but the pressure mounted. Unable to reconcile the Marine Corps values of Honor, Courage, Commitment, Integrity, his deeply held Christian faith, and his secret homosexuality, Greg sought to take his own life. The attempt landed him in a military hospital and under the eye of his command. For weeks they grilled him daily on why he attempted to kill himself. Greg would soon discover that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” cuts one direction, the higher-ups can put a lot of pressure on the asking, and your job as a lowly grunt is to hold up and not tell. Greg finally told and was instantly greeted with Uncle Sam’s boot. A few days later, I found Greg on my doorstep in a daze. Unceremoniously ejected from everything that had been his identity and on the heels of a suicide attempt. In this fragile state, recovering from the trauma and figuring out what’s next with his life, the church we both had formerly attended publicly excommunicated Greg during three Sunday services for his homosexuality. In some recent messaging back and forth, Greg shared how outside of myself, “Pretty much damn near everyone pushed me away at that point.” More than 13,500 service members were dismissed under the 1993 law. But hey, it was the mid to late 1990s, and gays weren’t well-liked.

In 2000 my son was born.

Gays still weren’t well-liked.

Twelve years down the road, we would discover our son is gay.

Would he be liked?

The span of the “aughts” (2000-2009) did see a shift in public tone. The culture wars sided up more evenly as stronger voices for gay rights and equity emerged to enter the arena against the moral majority. But the general tomes remained from the conservative religious community; gays clearly weren’t well-liked by evangelicals.

In 2001 Jerry Falwell suggested that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were God’s judgment on America for, among other things, the gays. On the Pat Roberson’s 700 Club program, Falwell emphatically proclaimed, “I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.'” “Well, I totally concur,” responded Robertson. But hey, it was 2001, eleven years from finding out my son was gay. Clearly, gays weren’t well-liked by evangelicals.

During this period, there was the recurrent parade of boycotts, protests, and petitions to fight off “The Gay Agenda.” McDonald’s and Disney decided to allow employees to add “partners” to the health insurance plans. So a trifecta of the Southern Baptists, the American Family Association, and Focus on the Family called for an 8-yearlong boycott. Micky and McNuggets were out. We needed to use the power of Caesar’s money to force Christian morality on culture at large (and yes, that should sound ridiculous based on what Jesus says about money). I never understood why we didn’t want people to have health care, but it was a thing. Phrases such as “Hollywood is just shoving all this gay stuff down our throats.” was in vogue in my circles. I remember joking with my wife once that shows may need to give a trigger warning for conservative religious people, “Yes, this show will have a ‘token’ gay person or couple; watch at your own risk.” Clearly, gays weren’t well-liked by evangelicals.

Toward the end of the “aughts” the liberal land of California introduced Proposition 8, which passed with a 52% yes vote. What was Proposition 8? It declared that marriage was only between a man and a woman. Yes, in the land of Hollywood, hippies, and the homeland of the Pride movement, as recently as 2008, it was decided that homosexual marriage was still off-limits, even in California. Evangelicals saw this as validation that even those godless Californians were willing to hold the moral line. But hey, it was 2008, four years from finding out my son was gay. Clearly, gays weren’t well-liked by evangelicals.

In 2010 the Clinton-era legislation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was on the repeal stack before the U.S. Senate. Initially, Republicans managed to block the legislation with a 57-40 vote. When revisited, a GOP-led filibuster was attempted, but a supermajority procedural vote moved the bill past the threat of a Republican filibuster. During this time, military chaplains were most opposed to the change in legislation. Their concern was that they would be required to treat LGBT+ soldiers, airmen, and sailors the same as their heterosexual counterparts openly. Evangelical leaders also raised several objections, not only about the possibility of restricted religious freedoms for military chaplains but warned how the very survival of the republic was at stake if homosexuals openly served. They predicted a gutted military that would face catastrophic consequences for our nation in a time of war. Much of this idea was based on the notion that military success as a nation is directly tied to our collective holiness as a nation before God – our “blessability.” Just as in the Old Testament, where obedience and disobedience was the decisive issue in military victory, so too evangelicals sought to impose this on the American fighting force as a type of biblically rooted superiority. In the end, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed. Most Americans favored it in the spirit of Barry Goldwater, who said, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” Most evangelicals, however, vilified it as yet another slouch toward Sodom and Gomorrah. But hey, it was 2010, two years from finding out my son was gay. Clearly, gays weren’t well-liked by evangelicals.

So, way back in 2002, shortly after “the gays were partly to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” the Southern Poverty Law Center began a program called “Mix It Up at Lunch Day.” The purpose was “to encourage students to cross social boundaries, disregard stereotypes, and shut down cliques by sitting with someone new at lunch.” The campaign operated in tandem with broader anti-bullying initiatives across the country and had grown from just a handful of schools in 2002 to over 2500 within ten years. However, in 2012 the program came under fire from the American Family Association as being “a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools.” Mind you that nowhere in any of the materials were gay or lesbian issues specifically addressed, but the AFA maintained that “Anti-bullying legislation is… just another thinly veiled attempt to promote the homosexual agenda.” Based on this conjecture, parents were encouraged to keep their kids home from “Mix It Up at Lunch Day.” But hey, it was 2012. And I had just found out my son was gay. And clearly, still, gays weren’t well-liked by evangelicals.

That year my role shifted. For 12 years, I had been my son’s father, provider, protector.

Now…

I would be his first bully.

I write that with a heart filled with shame and eyes flooded with tears.

I knew those words would need to come.

I wrote them 5 minutes ago, and I’m still weeping.

I hope no parent ever makes the same mistakes I made.

Had he been anyone else’s child, I would have met them with empathy, compassion, and conversation. My exposure to the two men in my Intercultural Communications course years ago gave me great sympathy for the LGBT+ community, as had my friend Greg. But this was my son. I knew what awaited him in my evangelical world. And for every wrong reason one can imagine, I became his first bully.

Why?

Because clearly, gays weren’t well-liked, especially by evangelicals.

In all honestly, fear motivated me. I feared my overall evangelical community in relationship to my son. I knew how they spoke of the LGBT+ community. I knew the jokes, jabs, assumptions, mischaracterizations, and unilateral disapproval. The endless stream of protests, boycotts, and petitions to stop all the agendas for people like my son. They were upset about cakes, flowers, and photography for people like Grayson. I knew he would be the oddity. You know, the kid for whom “Mix It Up at Lunch Day” was created when all the evangelical kids were encouraged to stay home so as not to inadvertently affirm people like my son. I knew people would whisper, “The Boswell kid has got to be gay.” I knew they would look at him with pity, piety, or worse. They would judge his speech, posture, apparel, gait, character, and very identity. He may very well be a complex person with all sorts of layers, but he would be reduced to the pejorative “homosexual,” with an emphasis on homo.

Also, I was an evangelical pastor. I could lose my job. I’m not just saying that. Pastors have lost their positions over having gay kids, so it’s real. Our family would need to move. We had just gotten settled after a rough four years. We had just started a new church in the last year. Having an openly gay son would risk everything.

And what of our future relationship? Evangelical churches excommunicate practicing LGBT+ people. It happened to my friend Greg. People were told to have nothing to do with Greg except call him to repentance, to not so much as even have a meal with him. Would Grayson be excommunicated? Would I need to honor the words of 1 Corinthians 5-6 and never have any relationship with him ever again if he were to go down this road? What about his sisters? Honor prayed for this little brother and has adored him from day one. Emma and Grayson are only 20 months apart and thick as thieves. Would they be forced to decide between a relationship with God or Grayson?

And Ellen…

My sweet wife. She cried with sheer joy when she found out she was having a son. The pregnancy was hard. The months that followed Grayson’s birth were even more challenging due to a health issue induced by the pregnancy. She fought like hell for the first year of his life. And invested passionately every year following. Staying home as a mom. Opting to homeschool all three of the kids as their teacher. Reading countless books on Christian parenting and education. Doing everything “right” to ensure her kids turned out to be godly adults. Making every day an intentional deposit for a tight-knit family.

Ellen and Grayson are particularly close. Two peas from the same pod. What would it mean for them? For us all?

The fears piled on quickly.

And so the attempt to course correct (i.e., bullying) began.

Don’t stand like that!

Don’t sit like that!

Don’t walk like that!

Don’t speak like that!

Why are you going to wear that?

Why do you like stuff like that?

I was counseled to “Dude him up.” So I bought him a motorcycle. Built R.C. cars with him. Drug him out on hikes with a machete. Taught him to shoot guns. Made him watch “Braveheart” to see how real Scottish men act. You know, I focused on a monochromatic vision of masculinity. One in which, quite honestly, I’m not even entirely comfortable with but felt I needed to embrace to fit within my evangelical world. We did have some fun in those times, but my goal wasn’t as much fun as fixing. In hindsight, I see what this was. I’ve always been a massive opponent of Reparative/Conversion Therapy. I think it’s pretty destructive stuff. I’m grateful many states and countries have made the practice illegal. But I was engaged in a twisted version without even realizing it.

Throughout this time, he tried to talk to me about what was happening in his inner world. And I would hear him, but I wasn’t listening to him. I would push back. Challenge his perspectives. Redefine his words, his feelings, his point of view. We would banter about the nomenclature of “same-sex attraction” versus “gay.” He would maintain he was the latter, and I would retort by saying he may be – at most – dealing with the former. It was a battle of identity. How stupid I was. At the very time in life when kids are at their most insecure and vulnerable, I visited upon my son the sins of my father.

Growing up, I didn’t have the best relationship with my father. I was made to feel like I was always some disappointment. I swore I would never do that to my kid.

Until I did.

At 15, everything came to a head. Through a series of events, I discovered our son had a friendship with another young man that was more than mere friendship. The conversation escalated quickly. Grayson wanted to help me understand. I refused. He tried to stand his ground. I had intimidation on my side. I brought every verbal threat an evangelical pastor parent could muster. I could lose my job, we would lose our home, the family would be wrecked, we may not be able to maintain a relationship with you, and you may face an eternity in hell; you get the gist. In effect, I said, “You are going to destroy our entire lives if you do this.” Pretty heavy and devastating stuff to throw down on a kid trying to figure himself out. And it worked. I shoved my son back into the closet he had been attempting to come out of since he was 12. In reality, I only established a new equilibrium, a homegrown version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He maintained all the right words while seeking to send every, “but hey, I’m still gay” signal he could. He planned to say the right stuff until he graduated. Then he could come out without that added burden of putting his family at risk. He assumed, understandably, that it would mean no further relationship with the family who meant so much to him, but to be true to who he was would require loss and rejection.

Grayson didn’t make it to graduation before coming out once and for all. A few months into his senior year, another series of events caused Grayson to pretty much fall right out of the closet. Sitting on our front porch, he sobbed as he told me, “I just don’t believe like you believe. I just don’t. I can’t do it anymore.” That day I just held my son and cried with him. Shortly after, my wife pulled up. She held him and wept. The 5-year quest to stop the inevitable was finally at its end. Now we would find out if all our fears would be realized.

That afternoon I called our church leadership and broke the news that my son was going to live an openly gay lifestyle.

That evening our leaders and some additional close friends came to our house. We talked, cried, and prayed together. We discussed that my job may need to come to a close with this revelation. That is one of the issues our leaders needed to work through. We also decided that I would share about our son being gay at church that Sunday. Kind of crazy right? How many families have to go through such stuff so publicly? But it’s a pastor’s life in a small town. News travels fast, and I knew where there is no story, one will be created. We also discussed the need to make Grayson feel loved and welcomed at church. Ideas were tossed around about having everyone in our church write him a card of encouragement. I also asked our then youth pastor to please take an added interest in Grayson, something I had been asking for regularly but never really materialized up to this point. As the night ended, everyone hugged my wife and me. But, as my son later noted, everyone came over to comfort you, but that night only one person stopped to check on me. He doesn’t blame or fault anyone for that, but he also took note of it.

That Friday, our leaders concluded that I was not disqualified from pastoral ministry even though I had an openly gay son. On Sunday, I shared our story with the church at large. A couple of families left the church, citing I sounded too affirming, but the majority responded with compassion. It was a relief. Perhaps all my fears, all those decades of conditioning, would be disproven. Which would only highlight how awful I had been with all the needless mistreatments my son endured.

When it came to Ellen and me, we felt incredibly loved by people. Most could identify with the perils of parenthood and thus extend to us nothing but grace. But, the story with Grayson was a bit different. The idea of having everyone send him a card of encouragement never materialized, except for a couple of families who took personal and heart-felt imitative. And my hopes of our youth pastor making a proactive investment played out in an opposite manner. Instead, an entire youth group night was dedicated to all the rumors people had heard about Grayson. Our youth pastor approached me the next day to let me know about all the other things I may not be aware of that kids were openly sharing the night before at youth group. That conversation was the only time I can ever recall fully “losing my shit” regarding a fellow staff person. I was fighting for the soul of my son, and the environment I needed to step up the most was sabotaging all efforts. At my son’s work, his interactions with people from church were a mixed bag. Some would come in and double down on friendliness. He loved that. Others would come in and display a subtle aloofness where there had once been warmth. Some kids in the youth group were particularly an issue since every gossipy speculation shared on that fateful Wednesday night was codified as fact since there was never follow-up to clear the air, confront hearsay, or correct statements made.

Overall, I think some people weren’t sure what to do with him, and he sensed it. We sensed it too. And that is true with most LGBT people and the evangelical landscape. At best, pity feels far more like the emotion in play than love. In fact, I still catch hints of the pity at times when people ask how my kids are doing. When asking about my daughters, the octave is usually higher and spirited, “How are Honor and Emma?” When asking the same question about Grayson, the tone drops into that slightly burdened “bless your heart” range. Now, please understand I don’t share any of this in hurt or blame or to shame, but as a tool to learn from and grow in applying the deeply needed feature of uncomfortable grace.

It’s funny; I commonly hear evangelical people say how coming out as LGBT+ is so popular today because you are instantly hailed as a courageous hero without really doing much of anything. I can’t speak for all LGBT+ people, but I can guarantee that my son has never been heralded as any hero. I agree it took grit for him to stay the course of his journey, but precisely because he knew he might suffer significant loss and villainization. And that villain persona persists. We live in the liberal land of Seattle, and still, my son faces insults and ridicule for being gay. The first time he was openly called a “fa__ot” was walking through, of all places, a Target in Redmond, WA. Also, on a walk around Green Lake once with his boyfriend, a group of guys decided to harass “the queer-y fa__ots” who needed to stop holding hands in public. Grayson has shared other stories about the judgment he and some of his friends have faced, especially in the trans community. Even today, I talked with a dad who needed to get our local police department involved with escalating physical harassment toward their transgender child. It’s a lot of pressure when you know a large portion of the country doesn’t like you simply for who you love or the gender you sense. For every group vocalizing support for the LGBT+ community, there is a sea of counter-voices to let them know they are oddities who threaten Western civilization. That’s a lot of psychological weight, especially for a young and anxious soul.

Which brings me back to June.

Where clearly, still, gays aren’t well-liked by evangelicals.

June is Pride Month for the LGBT+ community—that time of year when the gays and evangelicals go to social media war over the rainbow. Oddly, the coalition of anti-Pride is comprised of a hybrid of backgrounds, all unified under the tent of anti-Woke politics. I find this odd only in that most evangelicals see those other faith traditions as theologically hell bound. Yet, cultural foes sometimes require strange alliances in the face of societal slide. It should be the start of a joke, “Why did the Jewish political pundit, the White Nationalist, and the Evangelical set aside their beliefs and walk into a bar? To discuss how to shut down the drag bar across the street before they’re tempted to read ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ to kids at the library.” This year’s Rainbow Wars did not disappoint, which is what was so disappointing.

Before Pride month began, there was all sorts of clamor over Bud Lite doing a marketing campaign with a transgender social media influencer. Next, there was the perennially vilified Target and its Pride apparel line. Apparently, Jesus doesn’t want LGBT+ people drinking cheap pilsner or wearing colorful clothes from non-Christian companies. Next came attacks on Chick-fil-A for hiring a head of inclusion and equity. Immediately following this were calls to cancel the television show “The Chosen”(a show all about the life of Jesus) when a Pride flag was spotted behind the scenes on the gear of a cameraman. People were gleefully posting infographics about how much the worth of Target and Anheuser-Busch had fallen in the face of boycotts. Kid Rock took to his submachine gun to wipe out a stack of Bud-Lites in protest, as though that doesn’t send a violent signal toward trans people. Others vented about how sick and tired they were of all the Pride flag stuff being jammed down their throats at every turn. Evangelicals reminded everyone of the real meaning of the rainbow and to take the colors back for Christ. Even “The Ark Encounter” in Kentucky went to social media with the Noahic replica awash in the hues of the rainbow to reclaim the colors. And as the month closed, the LGBT+ community was handed another setback as the Supreme Court sided with a Christian web developer in Colorado who did not want to provide wedding services to same-sex couples. It’s odd, but as best as I can tell, the LGBT+ community is the only group businesses can legally discriminate against regarding certain goods and services in the marketplace. I can easily see the day when a White Christian Nationalist refuses goods or services to a mixed-race couple because it violates their religious convictions regarding the mark of Cain in Genesis 4. Even atheists business may join the religious conviction model by refusing goods and services to those who disagree with the moral code of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Based on the court’s reasoning, I’m not sure this wouldn’t be a protected position for anyone presenting a religious conviction. Then add to this all the hyperbolic speak around transgender athletes, state laws, school board meetings, and book bans, and the inevitable walk away for a person in the LGBT+ community is pretty apparent – forget whether evangelicals love you or not, they certainly don’t like you at all.

And thus… why would they ever want to listen to us?

We can’t keep dropping anti-LGBT+ cluster bombs in the culture war and then say, “But let me tell you about Jesus who loved you so much he came and died for you.” Which of us would want to lean into, learn from, and do life with a group that collectively sounds like they have little to no regard for you? I learned this lesson the hard way. I have spent years making up for it. And still, regularly, I hear the tone-deafness of my overall evangelical world on the subject. It’s all very religious but looks so little like Christ. Now, I know some will reply, “Matt, don’t forget, love the sinner hate the sin!” Great! Let’s work with that. Let’s make sure the LGBT+ community feels unmistakably loved because many think we only see them as sin.

Which brings me back to June for the last time, Pride Month, and that 6-striped rainbow flag. Many may not realize it, but the colors of the Pride flag have meaning.

Red: Life
Orange: Healing
Yellow: Sunlight
Green: Nature
Blue: Harmony/Serenity
Purple: Spirit

Neither I nor my faith convictions are at odds with those six themes. Thus, as the parent of a gay child, I confess I am grateful for the work of the Pride movement. I know that is not the evangelical thing to say, but if Christians had historically faced this issue more like Christ, I might not feel the need to admit it. My faith tradition does not have a great track record of understanding, compassion, or civic tolerance toward the LGBT+ community. We love the founding fathers and their assertion that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But regarding the equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it’s more like Huxley, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” If it wasn’t for this movement, I’m not sure who would have sought to ensure the LGBT+ community would have civil rights, equal protection under the law, the right to serve their country openly, and general acceptance in everyday society. The Pride flag, to me, is not synonymous with sexual activity but symbolizes a marginalized community’s hard-fought efforts to be treated with equality, dignity, and civility. And thus, the Pride flag has a meaning far different for me; it represents a community that cared about equality for people like my son when the culture at large and the evangelicalism, in particular, would never have done so. In fact, I have found that the evangelical groups and ministries who are courageously seeking to build a bridge, bring healing, and repent for the sins of callousness and unkindness toward the LGBT+ population are doing so mainly because the Pride movement exposed our offenses of indifference and injustice. Consequently, I’m grateful for those in the LGBT+ community who went before so that people like my son would feel cared about while simultaneously confronting our tendency toward a Christ-absent Christianity regarding LGBT+ people.

So why do I write all this?

I have three asks.

And one confession.

First, I write this for every parent who comes across that moment when they discover their child may be asking LGBT+ questions. Our story stands as a cautionary tale. Whatever you do and whichever resources you seek, don’t become your child’s bully. Walk with them. Pray for them. Show the absolute best of Jesus to them. Be compelling through kindness. And ready… be prepared to learn a lot along the way. Also, feel free to reach out to me. I often find that only those who live it fully understand it.

Second, I hope we evangelicals work harder at what it means to obey Jesus’s golden rule of Matthew 7:12, “Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Ask almost any LGBT+ person, and they will surely tell you how unloved they feel by those who claim the love of God… especially in June. Now, I’m not asking evangelicals to become Pride-affirming, flag-waving allies, but simply Christlike neighbors who do good to and speak kindly of their LGBT+ family and acquaintances; in person, in private, in public, and online. As a pastor friend recently said, “Wouldn’t it be great if evangelicals stopped playing the public square equivalent of ‘smear the queer’ and instead just stopped to listen to and befriend the queer?” His words rang with the echoes of Jesus when a woman was drug into the town center to be condemned by religion and instead was met by the fierce love of God. And that reminds me of what Melinda Selmys wrote in her work Sexual Authenticity, “[Sexual minorities] are not a problem for experts and theologians to solve… They are, first and foremost, the face of Christ, marginalized, bullied, misunderstood, spit upon and rejected, and absolutely beloved of God.”

Third, I invite my evangelical friends to graciously stand up for people in the LGBT+ community when they see them being bullied, mocked, mischaracterized, or treated as the butt of a joke or meme. Too often, I see online jabs and jokes directly or indirectly targeting this population. And in talking with people in the LGBT+ community, many have religious traumas related to mistreatment. We are called to be a population of peacemaking. Incarnating a counter-cultural Christ who used selflessness and grace to draw and heal wounded souls. In this, I’m not advocating we start “calling out” the bullies as bullies ourselves, but instead, we exercise a touch of humanity and privately “call in” to offer encouraging options for dealing with cultural differences in a more kindness-based way.

Finally, I write this as penance. Jesus said, “Woe to those who make these little ones stumble.” I believe that to have been my offense with my son, and for that, I must accept my fate. Like the Pharisees before me, I placed upon Grayson “burdens too heavy to bear.” I should have approached those early years like these last few. Fear drove the former; now, love and faith drive the latter. My 23-year-old son no longer claims a Christian faith, but he has shown me a Jesus-like compassion I wish I would have shown 12-year-old him.

Yesterday I sent this article to Grayson. Shortly after, he called me. He was crying and wanted me to know it was ok. That he understood why we did what we did. And that he hurt with us as his parents. He told me how much he loves me and is proud that I’m his dad. Go figure; he was looking out for me. I broke down. I’m weeping again just recounting the moment, as one slain by the power of undeserved grace.

And Grayson… we are proud of you.

I love you, “wingman.”

the evangelical blindspot

I think I’m like the Banksy of blogging. I sporadically spring up at times rarely expected. The difference being, Banksy makes bank while my office is in a former one. But today, I was moved to write for the first time since sometime late in the Obama Administration, for today marks 1-year since our church went digital due to Covid. What is the 1st-anniversary gift for a pandemic anyway? N95’s? Toilet Paper? A Flowbee? (ask your parents). Regardless, such a benchmark gives you an opportunity for reflection. So today, I was reflecting. In tandem with this, I read an article this morning and found personal reflection mingled with pastoral grief.

Before we get underway, I want to acknowledge that evangelicalism in the United States is a complex ecosystem with nuanced views on politics, social justice, equity, cancel culture, science, Covid, and the policies around such things (you know, the stuff that made 2020/21 the great social Tilt-A-Whirl). Evangelicalism is not quite as monolithic as cable news implies, but close. That’s why I say an ecosystem. It’s much like rainforests; they look slightly different from place to place, but everyone knows when they are looking at one. Also, like an ecosystem, it affects the larger environment around it. As a pastor, my focus is on how the world experiences the effects of our collective faith ecosystem.

In real-world speak…

would our communities say that what we’re doing, stating, posting, etc., has communicated unmistakably that above all else, we’re here to love and serve them as neighbors because, in doing so, have we truly loved and served God?

would our disbelieving or de-churched communities be even the slightest bit tempted to think, “Yeah, I don’t like their religion, but I’m sure glad they were around for this last year.”?

would they come even close to describing evangelicals as a people of selfless love in a season of cultural suffering?

would “loving” be in the Top 5 descriptors used of evangelicalism in 2020/2021? 

Hum.

But, deeper questions are gnawing at my heart, questions of deep spiritual consequence.

Did we as evangelicals sense…

a burden to ensure that above all else, putting others before ourselves was our priority, both in the optics of how it looked to them (since we are to be light) and in the application of how it was experienced by them (since we are to be salt)?

the weight of the First Commandment more heavily on our soul than the want of the First Amendment? Which did we quote more? Which gave us hope more? Which bothered us more when we didn’t see it applied? Which of the “Firsts” was truly first and drove our actions, reactions, dispositions, and perspectives this year?

resolve to love others well with an unmistakable calling to care, even if we looked foolish (per Paul), weak (per Peter), or perhaps worst of all, like sheep (per Jesus)?

Ouch!

In the article I was reading today, written by a conservative Christian publication, this was the line that struck me, 

“The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus 1.6 percentage points, also found that white evangelicals are also the least likely faith demographic to consider their overall community’s health effect when it comes to deciding whether to get vaccinated. Just 48% of white evangelicals said they would consider community health effects “a lot” compared to 70% of black Protestants, 65% of Catholics and 68% of unaffiliated Americans.”

Now, I know some will find themselves pinned down on the beachhead of the word vaccinated. Others, wary of the woke culture, have already cued an eye-roll with the phrase white evangelical. While important discussions in their own right, they are not my focus here. The devil’s in the details, and he would most certainly love to sidetrack us on those topics so we overlook the real issue that may be of concern. So what’s the “buried lead” of the story? “evangelicals are also the least likely faith demographic to consider their overall community’s health effect when it comes to deciding… Just 48% of white evangelicals said they would consider community health effects ‘a lot’” 

That little bit of data may have unearthed a lot about our collective ecosystem’s heart.

Think about it. A faith demographic…

whose founder modeled selfless love toward a planet of sinful neighbors and told us to follow his example (1 Peter 2:18-25).

whose number one most crucial commandment calls it to love God and neighbor (Mark 12:29-31) since to love our neighbor is evidence that we actually love God and it’s not just lip-service (1 John 4:20).

whose entire moral code is summed up in the one great umbrella virtue, “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law… Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10)

whose final exam is explicitly rooted in what we did to the least of those around us (Matthew 25:31-46).

That faith demographic is the least likely demographic to consider their overall community… Community, a synonym for what the Bible calls our neighbors.

Now, I can imagine right now some will be quick… 

to respond. 

to take offense. 

to reject the conclusion.

to add disclaimers. 

to write a retort.

to stop reading and punch an angry emoji into the comments section.

to point out that this is only about “community health effects” (while adding something to the effect of “alleged” or “over-hyped” or “politicized” to the front of the phrase), and that such a topic is not a tangible way to measure if we genuinely love our neighbors. 

But God seems to disagree! 

Don’t miss me here; I’m not seeking to squeeze public health policy into a command to love our neighbors. God did that for us; I’m merely attempting to take the Bible at its word. The law to love your neighbor comes from a book of the Bible that is explicitly about “community health effects” on our neighbors. How coincidental is that? Leviticus may read like a kid playing with a sensory box in a petting zoo with its 247 laws about disease, diet, discharges, and polycotton blends, but it’s also the birthplace of the “love your neighbor” command (Lev. 19:18). And its 3300-year-old decree to make love tangible toward our neighbors in real world ways still stands. It’s on the lips of Jesus. It’s in the letters of Paul. And it’s seeking to find a home in a 21st-century Christian internet article from a Pew Research poll. God was clear in Leviticus that not considering your neighbor’s well-being (due to leprosy, mold, scaly skin, bodily fluid, disease from sickly animals, [insert your favorite communicable disease here]) was a failure to love them. The failure to consider another is the failure to love

If I consider myself more than you, regardless of the inventory of reasons, excuses, justifications, rights, laws, problems, or rationalizations, I’m deciding – by intentional will or partisan blindness – not to love you as God instructs me. And thus in the process failing to love God since he tells me to love you. I’m sunk instantly on God’s top-tier expectation.

Paul said a proper display of authentic love is when people “in humility consider others more significant than themselves.” (Phil. 2:2-3). Therefore my friends, a failure to love our neighbors may be the gravest of our collective sins since love stands at the pinnacle of our Lord’s priorities.

That last line is not for dramatic effect, but sober reflection. When the church in Ephesus was about to lose its love, Jesus started packing his bags. They were doing all sorts of good conservative religious stuff, but without love Jesus said there was nothing worth sticking around for (Rev. 2:1-7). Regarding a lack of love, Paul said worse.

We, as evangelicals, are very good at identifying the sins of our society, but perhaps our efforts would be better rewarded by addressing our sins against society. That’s why I’m not all that invested in the pro/con debates between pro vs. anti-mask. Pro vs. anti-vaccination. Pro vs. anti-lock-down. Pro vs. anti-[fill in your blank]. What I am interested in is that each of us, as evangelicals, looks deep and prays hard so as to be confident that whatever positions we take, we take them because we find those to be the most biblical and unmistakable way we can let the world know, “we’re considering you as more significant than ourselves” for that’s what “loving a neighbor” is all about. If our positions clearly communicate to others, “I care about your …” I think that’s what God cares about. If our positions clearly communicate to others, “I care about my …” I think that’s what God is concerned about.

Jesus was emphatic that “the world will know we are his followers by our love.” Wouldn’t it be amazing if the world agreed? 

***

Since this has swollen to the length of a book, I might as well offer a reflective epilogue for the one poor completionist who stuck it out. As the article came to an end, I felt a deep-seated pause in my soul. One of those “I don’t want to take another step” pauses that occurs because you don’t want to face what may be the most challenging possibility of all.  

Not simply that, perhaps…

we haven’t loved a disbelieving world as well as we would like.

we became diverted by self-interest even though we desire self-sacrifice.

we let our fears or frustrations disrupted our intentions.

we inadvertently became more caught up in the passions of amendments over commandments.

we became too focused on our personal rights vs. God’s gospel objectives.

we are all too human and failed to live up to the ideals of love and want to do better.

But, when confronted with the idea that perhaps we don’t consider or love our neighbors as we should… we’re more bothered at the accusation than the possibility.

Or worse still, we hear it and frankly don’t care.

Indifference.

The state which lets you know Jesus has long since left the building.

The Problem Of Voting “Biblically” In Babylon

MB PostsMy cultural tribe is of the evangelical persuasion. And within my tribe there is an interesting and sometimes entertaining nomenclature related to the social life of the tribe. We say things that others who are not from within the tribe may fail to translate properly. For example when an evangelical says, “I echo that” it has nothing to do with shouting into valleys or performing a medical test. When we say, “She found Jesus!” we don’t imply that Jesus is the Waldo of the world and people try to find where He is, but rather we mean just the opposite in that the “she” was lost and Jesus found her. Yeah, it can be a bit confusing at times, especially in an election cycle.

It seems every four years (because let’s be honest, who gets excited about off-year elections) evangelicals begin ramping up with phrases such as “vote your conscience” or “vote biblically” or my favorite “it’s your obligation to vote.” Now everyone one of these in and of itself isn’t a wrong idea. I actually find myself sympathetic to all of them in some form. But the challenge Clan Evangelical faces is that most of these phrases are pre-loaded with a particular implied meaning. Thus when the expressions are used the implied translation is, “and by that we mean vote for the conservative Republican that espouses our social priorities since all other options are neither biblical nor conscionable.” In other words we all know what constitutes a truly “Christian” vote (insert wink and nod here), but let’s use ubiquitous words such as “conscience” and “biblical” as code for politically conservative voting.

Now believe it or not this is not where I find the problem. I do believe there are times where particular politicized issues reflect transcendent Christian virtues. But voting biblically (which should be concerned with matters far deeper than ideology alone) is not as simple as a matter of assessing platform or party. In fact I would venture to say that what might even be more critical than the platform of a candidate is the character they display. And when that is factored in you may find yourself in a biblical conundrum when a person with questionable character who advocates a more “biblical” platform is running against a person with stronger character and yet a weaker “biblical” platform. So then which is the more biblical vote, the vote for character or policy? Or to complicate it more, what happens if we find that both sides are a mix of biblical and unbiblical policy and character (also known as the Republicans and Democrats)? Should we want to claim that we are voting biblically when we know that our vote also empowers unbiblical priorities at times?

Perhaps toughest of all what happens when both candidates are unbiblical, but for different reasons? This is where we employ a new phrasing, “voting for the lessor of two evils.” Now for the record I don’t think it’s an easy case to make that voting for evil is biblical, even if it’s a lessor one. Yet I think this phrase occurs because we are told, “it’s your obligation to vote” implying that to refrain from voting is in and of itself more unbiblical than casting a ballot for Mr. Sinister to stop Mrs. Wicked.

Now there are some, in order to fulfill their binding obligation to vote but not wanting to vote for evil, stay with their model of voting based on their conscience and they write in a “really-quality-biblically-minded-totally-obscure-never-will-win-but-has-great-values” candidate only to be told by others how they threw away their vote and thus bare a repentant-worthy culpability in handing the country to Mrs. Wicked. I experienced this first hand when confronted by my fellow evangelicals for “throwing away my vote” in 2012 when I voted for JESUS in the Presidential election. It’s a weird experience when you vote JESUS and you’re told by fellow Christians that you sinned against the country and squandered your vote. It was there I found that within our evangelical jargon voting “biblically” according to “conscience” only counts if it’s also realistic and practical.

I could go on, but all of this illustrates the problem of exiles seeking to vote with a biblical conscience in Babylon – it’s not as clear-cut as it first seems.

  • For some, voting biblically will mean looking at the personal character of a candidate more than their platform.
  • For some, voting biblically will mean backing the platform of a particular party even if the person who represents it is lacking.
  • For some, voting biblically will mean centering on just one single topic because they feel it’s a topic God is profoundly clear on such as life, poverty, peace or family.
  • For some, voting biblically will mean casting a vote against a greater evil by invoking a lessor evil.
  • For some, voting biblically will mean voting for someone who cannot win but who is honorable and thus they are honored to support them.
  • For some, voting biblically will mean writing in JESUS as an act of prayer and offering to God asking that He might heal our culture.
  • For some, voting biblically will mean not voting at all because they feel to vote is to endorse and to endorse is to give approval to that which they do not approve of.
  • For most, more than one of these methods will be employed in an election cycle as their options thin out and thus their biblical vote adapts.

And I would say that all of these are legitimate ways in which Christians can properly vote with a biblical conscience since the Christian conscience is not a one size fits all. In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul faces this very problem and asks, Why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?” Indeed! How Scripture, Spirit, context and conscience collide in regard to culture can have different outcomes for different Christians and yet each still remains biblical in their orientation.

However what is not biblical is when our vote is motivated by fear, greed, anger, bigotry, idolatry, guilt or power. Thus it’s equally possible to vote for the most biblical platform in the most unbiblical way. For to be truly biblical in our earthly citizenship is to remember that we must be loyal to a greater eternal citizenship. This world should receive from us primarily gospel, grace, service and love of neighbor and enemy alike because we know the systems of this world are frail, broken, unreliable and ultimately doomed to judgment. Therefore where we have the opportunity to be most biblical in our personal vote is in our awareness of and confidence in the truth that God is sovereign over the affairs of humanity in the collective electorate. The consistent narrative of the Bible is that God alone “removes kings and sets up kings”[1] for a larger sovereign purpose. In this way, to vote most biblically is to cast a ballot with confident joy in His provision and then respond with courageous contentment regardless of the outcome. Or as Paul put it in Philippians 4,

10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. 11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

To vote biblically is ultimately to vote unto the glory of God without relegating our hopes, fears or faith to the politics of man.

[1] Here is a list of passages that shows God Himself is ultimately the one who sets up the kings of the world. Daniel 2:20-22; 37, 4:13-17; 25-26; 31-32, 5:21, John 19:10-11, Luke 4:5-8, Romans 9:17; 13:1-6, 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Revelation 17:17.

An Open Letter To My Pro-Choice Friends As To Why I Have No Choice But To Be Pro-Life.

MB PostsOver the last few months there has been no lack of social commentary regarding life, choice and reproductive rights. A good portion of that commentary, escalated by the release of several Planned Parenthood videos, has billowed from political hopefuls, seeking to secure the praise of their party’s base. Because of this, I find their words are not as concerned with a clear explanation of position, but rather are intended to besmirch their opponents. It’s the “red meat to the lions” endeavor that seeks to spread the impression that those who hold an opposing view are nothing more than pro-misogynist Terrorists, if on the right or pro-infanticide Feminazis, if on the left.

My intention here is not to supplement to that kind of bombast. Nor is it to orbit around all the political leveraging on this topic. Rather, what I am seeking to accomplish is why I am pro-life and how being so does not stem from some twisted desire to be anti-rights, anti-choice or anti-women. Now in writing this, I have no illusion that your mind will be changed if you are pro-choice. I do hope that with the absence of prickly sound bites and over-the-top name calling, people who do not hold my view can at least understand why people who are pro-life hold the view they do.

1st The Science Points To Human Life

I’m an evangelical pastor that has a serious appreciation of modern science. I see it as an ally to what I believe, not an adversary. With this, I believe the scientific evidence proves that biologically we are dealing with human life at the event of conception. Now we can debate if this equals personhood (I’ll get to that later), however there is no debate that the genetic materials involved at conception are by all quantifiable accounts human. For when two human gametes couple to form a human zygote, it is human life that is underway.

Perhaps some of the strongest evidence that a fetus is more than just a ubiquitous housing of tissue comes from the Planned Parenthood videos themselves. What is clear, is that the harvesting of organs and other parts are specifically human organs and human tissues. In other words, the monetary value of the harvested portions derive their value from being human, not merely being tissue and organs. To my knowledge there is not a high demand for fetal otter tissue or fetal hippo organs. It is the humanness of these fetal components that fetch their dollar value. Thus pro-choice science inadvertently agrees with pro-life science that what we are dealing with is a scale of humans. They may be tiny, undeveloped, dependent humans called fetuses (unless they were intentionally planned and then we use the familial term baby), but they are still human and they are still living by every technical measurement. The difference we seem to have is rooted in my second point.

2nd The Economy Of Human Fetuses and Eagle Eggs

I support sensible conservation. I also support making endangered species a protected class. On the flip side I have no compulsion to rescue every spider that creeps into my house. My reasoning is based on the environmental economy of supply and demand. There is an ample supply of spiders and so I think nothing of pushing one under foot, where as the Bald Eagle is rare and so I fully endorse criminalizing any activity when eagles or their eggs are harmed.

Now seeing that the human race has hit the 7 billion mark it seems we see ourselves as spiders more than eagles on the fetus front. We think we can afford to have a different view of our unborn race because our race is in ample supply. If however, our species were down to 100,000, our fetal value and hence protection would sky rocket in the economy of life. Debates about rights and choice would evaporate in light of pro-pregnancy rallies. As a species we would take dramatic steps to protect every fetus like it was an eagle egg. In the face of extinction all sides would agree that fetuses are worthy of protection. But at 7 billion we feel we can comfortably afford the position of pro-choice (some even advocating for it in light of concerns regarding overpopulation).

From this it seems that the pro-choice side views human fetal value as partly connected to population size, as displayed toward policies regarding endangered animals. When supply is low the value increases, but when supply is high the value drops. Conversely the pro-life side sees human fetal value as intrinsic and not conditioned by population density or other environmental considerations. Thus the total number of humans never dictates how valuable a single human is. It is similar as to why we have protective rights for minorities; we seek to protect the intrinsic value of an individual irrespective of an overall population or its biases.

Building on this I would take things a step further and say that all human value is intrinsic, not only irrespective of population size, but also regardless of one’s participatory status in a given population. Thus I move to my third point.

3rd How Human Is Human Enough To Have Rights?

Science proves a fetus is a human fetus. And I believe all humans would be prepared to grant protected status to a fetus if we were endangered (just as we do with endangered species and their unborn), but we don’t because humans are not endangered. Supply and demand is not the only way we measure value. Perhaps another way to look at it is to use the familiar phrase Human Rights. The question I have here is, “Who should be considered protected under Human Rights ideals?” The follow-up question is, “When do Human Rights trump governmental policy?” Is size the issue? Is dependency the cutoff? Is capability the measuring rod? Is gender or race a consideration? If someone is severely handicapped do they have less human value and consequently diminished human rights? When a country adopts a policy that takes dehumanizing action against a segment of their population, do we see that as a Human Rights epidemic? When cultures see women as less then men do we believe it is a moral responsibility to provoke social change and see things right sided toward equality? I think you get my point. When it comes to the handicapped, the incapable, the incoherent, the disenfranchised and those who are on the receiving end of whatever social bias exists, we believe those are Human Rights issues because they assault human personhood.

When I look at this in light of abortion I bring it back to the things mentioned above. Someone is not less human merely due to size, level of dependency or his or her inability to contribute. If a country shows bias against such people we see that as a Human Rights problem regardless of the laws a country establishes over the body of it’s own people. And most certainly someone is not less human, less a person, simply based on whether they were desired or perceived of as equal. Overall both pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe that human status is not based in the perceptions of others, but in the uniqueness of humanity itself. This takes me to my forth point.

4th Every Time Some Humans Concluded Other Humans Were Less Human They Were Wrong.

The ancient cultures perceived women and children as being less human. They were wrong. The slave traders and owners of historic America viewed African salves as 3/5 human. They were wrong. The Nazi’s viewed homosexuals, the handicap, Gypsies and Jews as less human. They were wrong. It seems that as a race we are good at dividing up our species into valued segments by which the less valued are expendable or exploitable. And yet every time this happens we can see in hindsight how wrong we were. Thus, since I believe science proves a fetus is a human, that humans have inherent value (a value we would all agree on if the population was at risk) and that such value is not derived from size, dependency, status, gender and desirability; as a result I believe the philosophy behind abortion is on the wrong side of history. Every time populations have rendered a value judgment of “less than human humans” future generations condemn it. This leads me to my fifth point.

5th I Don’t Choose To Be Pro-Life, Rather I Have No Ethical Choice.

Now before you misinterpret the title of this point let me clear the air. I’m not saying that people who are pro-choice are not moral. If you will entertain me for a second let me consolidate my case and from that show what I mean. If I believe science shows a human fetus is in fact human, that all humans have intrinsic value, that such value isn’t derivative from population, size, dependency or desirability but merely from being human, that to diminish such value in any corner of our species is a human rights violation and by extension a breech of individuality and personhood, and that every time this has happened before we were wrong; then I really have no choice to make here. I am bound by a pro-life position in the same way I am bound by human rights at large. To see things the way I do and then turn a blind eye would be no different than any other blind eye I might turn in the face of human bias.

Now if my premises regarding human status were different perhaps I could see my way out of a moral pro-life requirement. But the above points leave me with no option. These various facts constitute the essence of humanity. And just as I believe all classes of humans must be protected under an umbrella of human rights (minority humans, female humans, little humans, handicap humans, incarcerated humans, etc.), so too fetal humans. The location of a fetus no more changes the status of its humanity than Nazi laws and the Dachau camp could alter the intrinsic humanity of a Jewish girl. In my estimation Human Rights always trump the laws of location. This takes me to my sixth and final point.

6th Ladies, I Don’t Want To Control Your Reproductive Rights

I have a wife and two daughters. They are independent, competent and driven. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to hold them back or make them less. With that said I also have no intention to mandate for them how they choose to handle their reproductive issues in life. However there is a big difference between having the right to “when” and “how” you reproduce and the event in which reproduction has occurred. Reproduction is just that, the genetic contribution of two humans who make a third human. How two humans want to keep their genetic material from coupling is up to them, but once they have produced a scientifically defined human (intentionally or unintentionally) the rights of that human are also conceived in that moment. Rights where population, location, size, dependency and desirability should not be factors employed to discriminate against the intrinsic value of what it means to be acknowledged as human.

Conclusion

As I shared from the beginning my intention is not so much to change minds (though I won’t complain if that happens), but to help my pro-choice friends better understand why this issue is passionate for us on the pro-life side of the fence. I don’t think most people who are pro-life should be likened to misogynistic terrorist who use “Family Values” as a code phrase for suppressing reproductive rights. Rather I see pro-life ideals far more like Amnesty International or other Human Rights advocates. Now in the end you may believe that our definition of what makes one a human is too constrained, but in the spirit of consistency regarding human rights and worth I would advocate we error on the side of caution when it comes to all things human.

P.S. You’ll also notice that while I am a Christian, I didn’t quote the Bible in this article. I have biblical reason as well that reinforce my pro-life beliefs, but I wanted to share my thoughts from a neutral framework where mutual understanding and tolerance is a bit more likely. Aside from this I am also convinced that the pro-life position should not be seen as a viewpoint only for those of a religious orientation, but rather can– and I believe should– a position for all who defend Human Rights around the world.

The Supreme Court, Idols and The Ruining Grace of the Friday God.

MB PostsThe original Good Friday was not so good. In fact it was downright a punch in the gut followed by a brisk boot to the head. By the end of the day a pagan government flanked by a corrupt religion had managed to kill God’s Son, instill fear in God’s followers and give the illusion that God’s plans were buried in the dirt. As night fell on the angst-ridden apostles they found themselves lamenting the end of their movement along with the inevitability of their demise. Yep, it wasn’t exactly a Good Friday from anyone’s perspective: except God’s. For on that Friday many things yet to be seen were transpiring and one easily overlooked reality is that more than one “god” was slain that day.

Part of the angst of the Apostles on that Friday evening was rooted in a problem they were unwittingly blind to at the time. The problem? They had the right God, but they saw Him in selectively wrong ways. They thought Jesus was to be their partisan judge in an earthly court, their commanding general in a Roman invasion and their kingly monarch in a not-really-so-new-but-at-least-Jewish global empire. In short, they believed in a politically empowered messianic idol more than understood Jesus the Messiah who stands outside yet over all human rulers. Therefore when things fell apart, their idol – by way of God’s ruining grace – was slain. So while every part of it looked like a really bad Friday, it was the beginnings of the first truly Good Friday.

In thinking about this, as it pertained to the SCOTUS decision this last Friday, I couldn’t help but run through some parallels of how we too as Christians may have idolized certain things within our country. For a while I have noticed how we have slipped into a form of idolatrous doublethink regarding political powers. In one sense we have generally affirmed that government is not the solution to our problems, but then every election cycle we roll into sounding like politicians or parties are the key to curtailing the very problems we are certain government can’t fix. Now in saying this please don’t take my words further than I intend. I believe that every American Christian has an important public responsibility to be involved in the political process and some even running for office, but my suspicion is that we have gone further than mere civic duty; we may have set our faith and fear in it. We appear to have gone beyond casting our vote to placing our hope and trust and anxiety and distress in the outcomes of the civic arena; making idols out of platforms, methods, legislation and their aftereffects. Some idols we feared so greatly we made a point to desecrate them as often as possible, alarmed that they will rise up and overpower our rights. Other idols we opted to venerate in the hopes they would stem the tide of the idols we feared. Hence we played a game of “my idol can beat your idol,” and now we sit dismayed at the fact that “their” idols are shoving “our” idols butts in the cultural dirt. Yes, the political arm of Christianity is getting a beat down, but oh what a glorious beat down it will be if we are willing to endure it.

In relationship to times of opposition the Apostle said, It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God.” While some may speak of the need for God to judge America, we must remember that Peter here says judgment comes first to us. The difference however is that for the Christian God’s judgment is not to dole out sinful penalty, but to forge spiritual maturity. In light of this…

Perhaps the events of Friday, and the feared future consequences of those events, are actually the beginnings of a spectacular grace designed to filter out the worldly contaminates that have inadvertently mixed with what is to be an other-worldly faith.

Perhaps God is stripping us of our power, our privilege and our position specifically so all that remains is living by His Power, His Privilege and His Position.

Perhaps the best way we were ever going to love others selflessly was to be stripped of our ability to resist others socially.

Perhaps what our prayers most required, what our faith most desired and what our thankfulness most needed was being socially humbled so as to display Spirit-filled humility.

Perhaps because our idols have fallen, all other idols will eventually follow in suit so that Jesus reigns in the lives of an eternal multitude secured specifically because of the witness of our temporary discomfort.

Perhaps we will find a new found anguish for people who are estranged from God’s grace more than be agitated that they break God’s rules.

Perhaps by not being as focused on winning the culture wars for Jesus we will now be more focused on winning a war worn culture to Jesus.

Perhaps because we gladly pass through the fires of reviling with only blessing on our lips the embers of revival will settle around our country.

Perhaps we will be freed from the fear of all earthly calamity and rejoice in certitude of our eternal certainty.

Perhaps we will now know with steely assurance that “for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”

Perhaps what we least wanted we most required to be holy as God is holy.

Perhaps with less and less we will realize more and more Jesus meets every need.

Perhaps with all our idols broken down that is when His Cross, His Gospel, His Church and His Glory will be most lifted up.

Perhaps what feels like a very bad situation will be the beginning of a very good opportunity. It wouldn’t be the first time world changing things sprang from the ruining grace of the Friday God.