Jesus Never Said, “Worship me.” A Response to James Talarico's Comments

 There is a part of me which is hesitant to post this because in some ways it blurs the line between politics and faith.  This post is not intended to be political.  It is intended to be theological.  However, it is addressed towards a politician’s remarks, so I expect that there will be some who might take umbrage simply because of that.  I do feel that something must be said because there are pastors and politicians within both parties who seem to be more and more comfortable bringing their Christian faith to bear upon their politics.

I don’t necessarily object to this because for people of faith, their ethics and values flow from their faith: there is not some sort of objective, secular standard that every person on this planet upholds.  The beauty of the American Experiment is that within it, we are allowed to bring our arguments and thoughts into the public square and argue them, and decisions are made based upon the merits of the argument. 

Now, there is something to be said about those in power placing their fingers on the scale and ensuring that only certain arguments are heard.  Algorithmic forces do not guarantee in the least that all voices have a space.  But that is a totally different thread and train of thought.

This piece and thread is intended to address something that has entered my social media feeds spoken by James Talarico, “Not once in the entire Bible does Jesus ask us to worship Him. All He asks is that we follow him. Love like He loved. Love the outcast. Welcome the stranger.” 

I have seen multiple responses to this statement both by those defending and by those attacking.  While this piece will be leaning more towards the latter category, I hope it will be done in the spirit of grace and speaking the truth in love.  I will try to show the intent behind Talarico’s comment, but I will also try to show why I ultimately think it is wrong and does not represent the orthodox, Christian faith.

I was trained in the type of Christianity that Talarico is espousing and publicly articulating.  We would label it “progressive Christianity.”  Some might still call it “liberal Christianity.”  Within its sphere, there is a train of thought reacting to a type of “evangelical Christianity” that tends to focus on heaven at the expense of earthly things.  In different words: there is a reaction to churches who try to get people to come and worship and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, but do very little to help the poor and the oppressed or work for justice and peace in the world.  The perception is these churches work to save souls without taking care of human bodies.

One way that progressive Christianity uses to address this perception is to emphasize the humanity of Jesus.  I think it’s important to see here that Talarico’s intentions—and the intentions of progressive Christianity are good.  These things are not said in malice, but out of a deep concern about the wellbeing of others. 

However, it must also be said at this point that there are also issues of biblical authority and interpretation that enter the picture here.  I cannot travel down that rabbit hole too far because this post will truly become entirely too long, but it must be mentioned because Talarico invoked Scripture in his comments. 

And now, as we turn directly to those comments, I would like to say that I will address them by offering three points:

1)    Talarico’s comments are literally true.
2)    Talarico’s comments ignore other parts of scripture which clearly show that Jesus is divine and deserves worship.
3)    Talarico’s comments ultimately are impossible to follow without worshiping Jesus.

First, Talarico’s comments are literally true.  Jesus never tells his followers to worship him.  There is no explicit command found anywhere in the Bible demanding this.  It’s easy to search this and see this.  So why emphasize this? 

As I think it through, there seems to be an implied logic that says:

Jesus didn’t demand worship, therefore, worshiping Jesus isn’t important.

Jesus did say to follow him and do what he did; therefore, it is more important to do those things.

Therefore, those who love others and are more inclusive are actually better followers of Jesus than those who worship him.

As a good Lutheran, I quickly retort, “This isn’t an either/or proposition.  We are to both worship and follow.”  But, as I said earlier, there is also an issue of biblical authority and interpretation.  Therefore, let’s reframe the statement just a little and see if Jesus is worthy of worship.  Let’s see if Jesus is divine.  For if Jesus is divine, then following Jesus and doing what Jesus said is not enough.  Worship is then actually a requirement.  Again, it’s a both/and, not an either/or.

Scripture is actually rather clear on the divinity of Jesus and whether or not He is worthy of worship. (Point 2)

Here is the logic of Scripture point by point:

When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, he responds to one of the temptations by clearly quoting Old Testament Scripture, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve only Him.”  (Matthew 4:10)

Secondly, we know that Jesus was seeped in the Jewish faith.  When asked what the greatest commandment is in the book of Mark, Jesus began by quoting the Shema, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord alone.”  (Mark 12:29)  Jews during the second temple period adamantly opposed idolatry.  One did not worship anything other than Yahweh.  Worship was only appropriate in the temple and synagogue.  Anything less deserved sharp rebuke.  This is a very, very important point.  Why?

Because the gospels report on several occasions that Jesus received worship, and he did not rebuke.

After walking on water in Matthew 14, the disciples worshiped Jesus.  In Matthew 28 both the women returning from the tomb and the disciples before the ascension worshiped Jesus.  Lest one think only Matthew includes worship of Jesus, we see Luke corroborate Matthew’s worship of Jesus before the ascension—chapter 24.  In John chapter 9, the man born blind healed by Jesus, bowed before Jesus in worship.  Also, in John 21,  “Doubting” Thomas, when Jesus had him place his hands on Jesus’ scars, proclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” 

In every case, Jesus offered no rebuke.  In every case, Jesus accepted worship.  If worshiping Jesus would have violated Jewish law, Jesus would have sharply rebuked them and stopped them from doing what they were doing.  He did not. 

Scripturally, we have Jesus instructing that only God should be worshiped while living in a time where worshiping anyone or anything other than God was sharply rebuked, yet Jesus accepts worship without rebuke.  The logical conclusion is that Jesus is divine (Jesus is God) and is worthy of worship.

The early church figured this out very quickly.  Paul recites what many scholars call the “Christ Hymn” in Philippians chapter two.  Many scholars believe this is one of the earliest hymns of the church, and it unequivocally affirms Jesus’ divinity:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Again, it is important to point out that Paul is quoting this hymn.  Paul is not making up this hymn.  (I am emphasizing this because in progressive Christianity, there is a strong movement to lessen Paul’s authority.)  The early Christians agreed that Jesus was equal with God and deserved worship.  This belief and practice was not a late addition to the Christian faith.  It is there at the very beginning.  The early Christians are practicing something that was condoned by Jesus himself. 

Jesus never said, “Worship me,” but it is patently obvious that this is something that Jesus’ followers figured they should do right away.  It is safe to say that anyone who truly encounters Jesus, longs to worship Him.

But let’s take it one step further.  Let’s deal with Talarico’s claim: all Jesus asks is that we follow him. Love like He loved. Love the outcast. Welcome the stranger.  It’s a nice sentiment.  Let’s see how well we can actually accomplish what Talarico’s interpretation of Jesus’ commands. (Point 3)

Let’s just focus on one: love like Jesus loved.  Okay.  Let’s look at how Jesus’ loved:

Let’s first be very clear with definitions.  Let’s put it on the table that in Christianity love is not love is not love is not love, contrary to the love is love is love crew.  The love that Jesus urges His followers towards is the Greek word agape.  Agape is unconditional, self-sacrificial love.  Agape is a willingness to sacrifice what I want and desire for the sake of someone else.  This is the love Jesus calls his followers to, and Jesus is very specific in how that love is to be shown.

·         Jesus loved his enemies—the very people who were trying and who eventually did destroy Him, Jesus loved.  Jesus gave himself for.

·         Jesus loved his neighbors—and when asked who his neighbors were, Jesus responded with a parable that did not define who a neighbor is.  Jesus talked about being neighborly.  Jesus talked about being compassionate.

·         Jesus loved the tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners—he ate with them and fellowshipped with them.  He did not condone their actions, and he said they were closer to God’s Kingdom than the religious leaders.  Why?  Because they knew they were sinning.

·         Jesus loved the Pharisees and religious leaders—he ate with them and fellowshipped with them.  He did not condone their actions, and he held their feet to the fire for their self-righteousness.  But he still loved them.

·         Jesus loved his disciples—Even though he was betrayed, denied, and abandoned by them, he loved them to the end.

·         Jesus loved his family—Even though they thought he was crazy and tried to stop him from preaching, he still loved them.

·         Jesus loved the world—And died for it to save it.

How well are you and I doing all of those things?  How well are we actually putting all of those things into practice?  How well do we truly love like Jesus loved?

A humble person at this point would say, “Oops.”  A humble person would say, “No.  I am not loving like Jesus loved.  I don’t even come close.”

And that’s the point.  Christianity’s message to the world is you can’t live the life that God calls you to live.  You can’t live up to the example of Jesus.  You need a Savior, and the Savior has come.  You have been saved by grace through faith, not by your own works.  You’ve been saved by the God who took on human flesh to die for you, and the appropriate response to this grace is to worship. 

In addition to this, to the extent you trust the message of grace and have Jesus as the object of your worship—as the focus of your life, the better able you are to follow Him.

Talarico has things backwards, unfortunately. 

I hope this post comes across as less an attack and as more of an explanation.  God knows that too often we engage with little charity.  I bear no ill will to James Talarico.  He very well may agree with what I have said in this post, and I know all too well how one’s words get taken out of context and twisted by those only seeking to demean and destroy.  When you are preaching a sermon or addressing a crowd, you never have enough time or words to thoroughly explain your position.  Even within this piece, there are places I am sure I have missed something. 

That’s why we need to converse.  That’s why we need to respond to each other.  Hopefully charitably.  Hopefully in the spirit of speaking truth in love.  That’s following Jesus from a Christian standpoint—and worshiping Him as Savior, God, and Lord.

Is It the Straw that Breaks It?

I don't know for sure.  But what I do know is that it did not sit well with me at all.  It might not have broken the camel's back, but I think it may have cracked it.

For many years, I have held fast as a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.  I have done this despite my many misgivings and severe disagreements with decisions and the overall direction the national church has taken.  I am not a fan of leaving or leading a congregation out just because of disagreements.  Hey, I am astute enough to know that there is no perfect church, and there will never be a denomination with which I completely agree.  In a very real way, leaving a denomination trades one set of issues for another, and while the grass certainly looks greener in some close relatives, sometimes that just means the grass is over a septic system.  

But...sometimes there are things which make you think, maybe not.  Maybe the grass truly is greener.  Why is my perspective changing?

First, I must acknowledge a bit of personal bias which has influenced this.  For what seems like an eternity, but really has been almost a year or two, my family has been walking through a dark valley.  It's not the valley of the shadow of death, but it's been pretty dark. Since my dad died, there have been multiple road bumps which have hurt.  I will not list them because they are a bit personal and involve those dearest to me.  In particular, the last five months have really been hard.  Draining.  Both physically and mentally.  And that, of course, affects you physically.

Over the past month, things seemed to be turning in a different direction.  There was the faintest glimmer of light peeking through the darkness, and then, this past Monday, there was a burst of light!  For the first time in a long time, we had tremendous reason to rejoice and celebrate!  When we got the good news on Monday, my wife and I looked at each other and said, "This Thanksgiving, we have much to be thankful for!"

Gratitude had infused our week.  Of course, the next day, we both were dragging somewhat as a huge emotional burden had been lifted.  When you are able to let go of major stress, you are weary and need rest.  We took that rest with joy and prepared for a day which was set apart to especially give thanks.

The vast majority of our country does the same thing with Thanksgiving.  There's always the busy-ness that surrounds the holiday.  There's always the cussing and discussing the preparations for the meal and the work that goes into it.  There's always a sense of, "Do we really have to do this?"  But, when family has gathered and those connections are made; when arguments are set aside and you simply come together to remember how truly blessed we are...then, it's all worth it.  We wouldn't keep doing it if it weren't.

And this year...well, this year was different because there was an acute sense of gratefulness in my heart.

Then, I checked Facebook.  That was probably a mistake, and I saw this post from my church's official FB feed:

Leave it to my denomination to take a day meant for gratitude and turn it into a day for guilt and grief.

It's par for the course.  

For some time, the ELCA has drifted far from the Gospel.  And when I say the Gospel, I define it in the terms of the Reformation of the 1500s.  That we are sinful, self-serving creatures who have rebelled against God and who deserve nothing but divine punishment.  Yet, despite our unworthiness, God took on human flesh to live the life we were supposed to live and then died the death that we deserved to pay the cost for our sin.  We were redeemed not with gold or silver, but with Jesus holy and precious blood.  When we trust in Jesus' work and not our own, we experience forgiveness, life, and salvation.  This is the Gospel.  This is grace.  This Gospel produces immeasurable joy, humility, and gratitude because it recognizes God's love to save every single sinner--every single person who has fallen short of the glory of God.

But this is not the gospel preached by many in the ELCA.  Jesus dying for our sins is considered divine child abuse.  Grace means that God simply loves you as you are and that you are worthy of God's love.  The good news is that God is on the side of the oppressed and marginalized and against those who oppress.  There is an incentive to show that one is oppressed and marginalized.  Victimhood is celebrated.  Being on the margins is virtuous, and if you are not in these categories, then you are privileged.  Your voice doesn't count nearly as much.  You must listen to those with whom God has sided with.  This gospel produces guilt, grief, and self-righteousness.

This false gospel is behind the ELCA's post because it lifts up the margins.  It lifts up the victims.  It lifts up the voice of the oppressed.  And it emphasizes grief and guilt--two things the true Gospel overcomes and transforms.  While the true Gospel acknowledges sin, it emphasizes forgiveness and reconciliation--not a wallowing in victimhood.  The true Gospel proclaims that even though we fall victim, God raises to new life and empowers us to love even our enemies.  "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us," writes St. Paul in Romans chapter 8.  Not victims.  Conquerors.

I thought really hard about voicing my concerns with this post by making a comment, but I didn't.  Too often those in charge of the FB account of the ELCA delete comments they perceive as negative or hateful--I am somewhat surprised that they actually left up many of the responses as of the writing of this post.  I have had several comments of mine deleted even though they were theologically sound and written carefully to come across as critical but without hatred.  No use to ruin my Thanksgiving by constantly checking my phone to see who may or may not have responded.  It just isn't  worth it.

It was and is worth focusing on gratitude: Thanksgiving.  I find it becoming increasingly difficult to do so in a denomination which seems to continue to try and drag people into guilt and grief.  The camel's back is not broken yet, and I am wondering how many straws it may still hold.

When the School Band is Kicked Out of the Fair Parade

 “I’m so mad that we got kicked out of the parade!”

Those words coming out of my daughter, who is a high school senior this year, caught me off guard this Friday after the Gillespie County Fair Parade.

“What?” I stammered. “Why?”

“They said we were going too slow.”

For the first time in the history of the Gillespie County Fair Parade, the Fredericksburg High School Marching Band was asked to leave the parade because they were unable to keep up with the floats in front of them, and a one block gap had developed.

Police officers had communicated with the band director multiple times to close the gap, but it was an impossibility for them to do so.  Instead of finishing the parade, the band was told to exit five blocks before the finish.

I was none too happy with what happened, so I began doing some investigating.  I found out shortly that I was not the only one who had extreme displeasure with what had happened.  The anger that part of the Fredericksburg community felt was palpable, and it gushed forth on several local Facebook pages.

Here is what I have been able to piece together so far.  Every year, one of the two Gillespie County High School bands leads the parade.  This year, it was the Harper Band’s turn.  They started off and set the pace.  The Fredericksburg Band was entry number 50, well back in the line.

The Parade Route starts off at the intersection of Adams and Main Streets in Fredericksburg and then heads east to the intersection of Washington and Main.  At this intersection, the parade makes a u-turn and then processes west through downtown Fredericksburg and finishes at the intersection of Bowie and Main.  

When the parade makes the u-turn, floats and vehicles slow down, and gaps are created.  The patrol officers, from many eyewitnesses, were urging floats and vehicles to speed up and close those gaps.  Perhaps this would not have been an issue if the band were earlier in the parade, but by the time the band began its march, the Harper band was almost or entirely finished and was no longer setting the pace.  The patrol officers hurrying the floats and vehicles along were setting that pace.  Simple laws of physics, motion, acceleration, and horse power will tell you that vehicles close gaps much quicker than 130 high school students can while marching and carrying heavy instruments in the heat, and the urging of vehicles forward only created a bigger gap for the band to have to close.

Each entry in the parade does agree to a set of rules when they enter.  There is no dispute about that; however, I have been unable to acquire a copy of those rules at this time.  I do know there is something in there about keeping a reasonable distance between one entry to the next. What I do not know is how specific that rule is.  And if the terminology is simply stating that a “reasonable distance” must be kept, then that is a matter of judgment.  The question becomes: is one block an unreasonable distance?

Especially when one considers:

• The hard work that the band kids and directors put in.

• The fact that school is out on fair parade day, and the kids are giving up their free time to march (with a little bit of arm twisting, of course).

• The long standing tradition and place of honor the band holds in this and the Christmas parade.

• The many parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members and friends who came to the parade to watch their kids march and cheer them on.

These are all important things to consider.  Very important.  

But we also must balance these things with the fact that we don’t want to go around bashing our local law enforcement officials.  From everything I have seen, they thought they were doing their jobs.  They knew the rules.  They know that if too large of gaps appear, some will think the parade is over and begin entering the parade route and messing things up royally.  They have to keep things as safe as possible.

But again, there are questions.  Are they trained to speed things up?  Are they trained to balance the power of vehicles alongside the fact that bands can only move between 2 and 3 miles per hour?  These questions are important and are ones of consideration for the future.  The Fredericksburg Police Department and County Fair Association will be having some intense conversations about this, and I am very happy to report that the Police Department has promised to take all community feedback into consideration at the event debriefing meeting.

But, in my mind, there is something deeper going on than these logistical issues.  As I look at what is happening, not only in Fredericksburg, TX, but around the nation, there is a definite clash of values going on.  I mean, can anyone say that 10 or even 15 years ago, that a small town’s high school band would ever be kicked out of the fair parade?  Never.  No one would ever consider it.  Why?

Because the values that the community held, and the importance of the town’s history, tradition, and treatment of its kids–especially those giving of their time to march and be seen in the parade–would have trumped any sort of distance or gap issues.  But that didn't happen here.  So, why didn't it?  What is happening?

Nothing that hasn’t happened before in other communities and small towns, and I grieve it.  In 1984, my grandparents moved to Bella Vista, Arkansas.  It was, at the time, a retirement community in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains.  My immediate family traveled to see grandpa and grandma at least once a year, and I came to love the area.  And I remember very well what the community was like when my grandparents first moved there.  It may be politically incorrect to say it, but it was Hillbilly!!!   And it was actually something the local folks played into.

Restaurants prided themselves in serving Hillbilly fare.  The local hole in the wall places prided themselves in having the best biscuits and gravy and collard greens around.  I still remember going to the “Ozark Mountain Jamboree,” a music venue which featured blue grass, country, and old fashioned Gospel music.  Antique shops dotted the landscape oftentimes sitting right next to venues where local artists and craftsmen sold their home made works.  The pace was slow.  So was the southern drawl of the local conversations, and there was great suspicion towards outsiders.  And I was okay with that.  It was their culture.  It was their tradition, and I loved being a part of it for those visits.

Then, Wal-Mart moved its headquarters to Rodgers, Arkansas, just a hop, skip, and a jump from Bella Vista.  The transformation of the area had begun.  Now, when you go to Bella Vista, the culture is completely different.  There is no longer any hillbilly “feel” at all.  The pace has drastically increased.  Fast food chains have replaced all the mom and pop restaurants.  There is now a completely new value system in place which has totally replaced the old.  I don’t like it.

I grew up in a small town, and I have lived in small town/rural communities all my life.  I can tell you unequivocally, there are both good and bad things about such places.  In my estimation, the good far outweighs the bad.  I mean, hey, it is highly likely I will forever be considered an Auslander in certain circles here in Fredericksburg because I didn’t grow up here.  I moved here five years ago to serve as a pastor in one of the community’s churches.  While I will have some respect because of my position, it will not carry the same respect that I would have had if I were born here.  And I’m okay with that.  I am.  I get it.

I’m willing to accept that because I know that each and every place has its own traditions and culture.  It has its own set of values and understandings.  When you grow up in a place, you just absorb these things and live them like a fish in water.  You don’t know any better.  When you move in, you don't know these things.  You have to learn them--and have a willingness to learn them.

These days, there are more than a few who don’t understand this, and what’s more, there is a sense among some that “I don’t have to conform to others.  Others have to conform to me.”  Small town values are not their values, and rather than be changed by the culture to which they enter, they want the culture to adapt to them.

I have learned to do the exact opposite.  For the past five years, I have been learning about Fredericksburg’s history, cultures, and values.  Believe me, I have A LOT more to learn.  I am far from being an expert.  I am far from knowing all the customs and traditions and values.  But I want to learn them, and not only that, I want to honor them and uphold them.  Why?

Because if I, and others don’t, they will disappear, just like they did up in Bella Vista.  Other interests will root them out and replace them with a different set of values.  Then, the community will lose its uniqueness.  It will lose its connection to the past.  It will become something altogether different.

I worry that this might be happening here.  That’s why, I think the unthinkable happened and the band was asked to exit the parade.  The values that once held sway are being replaced with others, and I’m not sure that is a good thing.  At all.  

Oh, I know: PROGRESS!!  The revenue that the wine and tourist industry brings to our community is a boon, that is for certain.  New businesses have replaced old and storied ones.  That has happened in the past, but the values didn’t change.  Those still held sway.  There were traditions that remained untouched because they were honored.  The Fredericksburg culture still held sway.  Can that still be the case?  I think so.  In theory.  In theory, we can still be a tourist destination. In theory, we can still embrace the wineries–as long as we ensure that our values, culture, and traditions are upheld and valued.  I hope that is the case–again, I am still learning, and I hope I’m not overstepping my bounds by suggesting so.  There are people who have been here longer who may and likely do have very different thoughts about this.  But I am ever the eternal optimist who believes that timeless values, traditions and cultures can hold on even when other things change.

I hope such things are taken into account as everyone processes and reviews what happened in the parade, and I would like to invite everyone in this community to take a moment and think about what makes our community unique.  How do we honor and uphold these very important things?  What are those values, those traditions, and those cultural nuances that are non-negotiable which help us decide how things should be handled?  Are they even still there?

Friday evening, I had the privilege of announcing the band as they marched at the football game.  I let the band director know that I was going off script, and that I was going to try and bring some encouragement to the band and the band parents after the hurt and frustration they experienced that morning.  As I announced from the press box, I could not see the crowd or the effect my words had, but later I saw the video.  I saw the vast majority of people standing up, cheering, clapping, and raising their voices in support.  I could see the kids stand up a bit straighter as they saw those in the bleachers rallying around them, supporting them, encouraging them, and acknowledging the long-standing tradition they are now a part of.  The values of Fredericksburg, Texas were on full display at that moment. The question was resoundingly answered.  Those small town values are still very much alive and well.  Let’s not lose them.

On Christian Nationalism

Santino Burrola recorded a video and posted it to TikTok.  He was fired from his job at a grocery store for the offense.  What did he do wrong?  Inappropriately filming someone in the restroom?  Dancing in the aisles while on the clock?  No.  He recorded thieves stealing from the store.  He peeled aluminum foil off the license plate of the get-away vehicle so that it would become visible.  Hoping that the culprits would be caught, he posted the video, and at least one of the thieves was caught.  For his actions in trying to stop people from stealing, he was fired.

The store cited its policy that employees should not interfere with people shoplifting to “minimize the risk to our associates.”[i]

If you read the title to this piece, you may be wondering how this story relates to Christian Nationalism.  It doesn’t seem to tie in at all.  Please bear with me, and I will try to show you how.  There is a Christian Nationalism which should be rejected and condemned vociferously, but there are also some thoughts and ideas which are labeled “Christian Nationalism” in an attempt to smear those who offer them as well as to dismiss those ideas without having to engage them and understand why they are held; and those thoughts and ideas directly relate to the Santio Burrola situation. 

First, we must define Christian Nationalism.  There is no firm definition, at least that I have found.  In our postmodern society, this is par for the course.  The muddier we can make definitions, the more we can apply or deny them to a given situation, group, or movement. 

But I don’t play those games.  Muddying the waters only sows confusion and chaos.  Therefore, you do not need to guess my operating definition of Christian Nationalism.  It is this: The belief that God has given the U.S. a special blessing and destiny, and that to be American means to be explicitly Christian.  Therefore United States should impose the Christian faith upon its population in public life including in its understanding and application of the law.  Many would call my definition too limited, and they would like to add several caveats to it including the following:

•      The U.S. was established to be an explicitly Christian nation.[ii]

•    That Christianity should have a privileged position in society.[iii]

•    That it provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation.[iv][v]

I reject these caveats and additions, and I will give reason for below for some, but I believe it is important to say unequivocally that the definition which I have set forth must indeed be rejected and condemned vociferously by Christians.  Why?

For two substantial reasons: First, Christianity is invitational, not impositional.  Plain and simple.  Nowhere does Jesus ever suggest that anyone be forced to become a Christian or follow Him.  In fact, when people reject Jesus, He lets them go.  He doesn’t zap them.  He doesn’t punish them.  He allows them to walk away to follow their own whims.  He focuses His attention on those who do accept the invitation to follow Him. 

Faith in Christ does not come by forcing people to follow Jesus.  Faith comes by hearing the Word of God and having one’s heart transformed by the power of the Good News of Jesus Christ.  This is our only and sole weapon of transformation and bringing of the Kingdom of God to earth.  Imposing the Christian faith by fiat does not change a heart, and the times when it has been tried have led to disaster.

Secondly, the Kingdom of God is in the world, but it is not of the world.  Martin Luther writes about this eloquently in his short piece Temporal Authority: To what Extent it Should be Obeyed, “What would be the result of an attempt to rule the world by the Gospel and the abolition of earthly law and force? It would be loosing savage beasts from their chains. The wicked, under cover of the Christian name would make unjust use of their Gospel freedom.”[vi]

The Kingdom of God operates by grace, and those who enter into it have no need of temporal law.  The Law of God is written upon their hearts, and so they actually go above and beyond what temporal authority calls for.  However, as Luther states, there are very few true Christians, so temporal law is necessary to curb sin. 

Those who seek to impose the Kingdom of God by following the belief of Christian Nationalism do not fundamentally understand Christianity, and, perhaps this is why, as the authors of Taking American Back for God found, the religiously devout do not adhere to those beliefs.[vii]

It would appear that a rejection of Christian Nationalism on these terms would be satisfactory, and we could simply bury the subject altogether; however, we cannot.  The topic actually becomes a bit muddier when one considers there are people within society, and within the church, who use Christian Nationalism as a pejorative towards those who believe that a) the United States was founded upon Christian principles and b) that Christianity should have a privileged place in society. 

Let me state unequivocally before I continue, I do not believe that Christianity should have a legally privileged place in society.  That is both unconstitutional in the U.S. and would actually fall under Christian Nationalism; however, when I speak of a privileged position in society, I speak from understanding two things: 1) That, as a Christian and particularly a Lutheran, I believe that all temporal authority comes from God, and 2) without grounding the fundamental rights of humanity as well as both values and morals, in a transcendent reality/worldview—specifically a reality/worldview that also allows respectful disagreement alongside those rights, values and morals--then a society will descend into chaos and eventually fall.  Explanation is in order.

In the United States, it is understood that every individual human being is endowed with certain rights, and the founders of our nation stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence, those rights are self-evidently endowed by the Creator.  One must ask oneself two questions: 1) Where did this idea of fundamental human rights come from? and 2) Why say that they are endowed by the Creator?

The answer to the first of these questions is: fundamental human rights including that each human had inherent value and worth came from the Judeo-Christian tradition.  This is not a made up claim.  You can read the histories and practices of ancient civilizations and find that only within the Judeo-Christian tradition does one find that each and every person has worth and value; each and every person is created in the image of God; each and every person is allotted certain protections no matter if they are an insider or an outsider.  Here is the pertinent question: can a society hold onto fundamental beliefs when throwing out the very belief system that brought those beliefs into the world?

The answer to the second of these questions is: they are endowed by the Creator because if they were endowed by society or the government, then they can be taken away at the whim of society or the government.  Rights that are endowed by the transcendent can only be removed by the transcendent.  Rights that are endowed by the immanent can easily be removed by the immanent.  The reason the Civil Rights’ Movement in the U.S. was successful is that an appeal was made to transcendent rights which superseded laws that society had implemented.  Without such transcendence, one could have simply said, “The majority has spoken.  Your rights are granted by the state, nothing more.”  There would have been no counter argument.  Another pertinent question: Can a society which removes the underpinning of human rights from a transcendent Creator maintain human rights for everyone? 

The answers to these two questions begin pointing us towards the reason Christianity should have a privileged place in society, however, there is one more addition that must be made.  Christianity not only ensures fundamental human rights and grounds those rights in a transcendent reality, it also provides a moral framework which allows for disagreement and respect towards those who hold different positions.  Christians understand that we treat fellow Christians as family–this language permeates the New Testament, but what about those who are not in our Christian family?  They are our neighbors, and we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves–love being agape, the Greek word for a self-sacrificial love which calls for sacrificing ourselves for the sake of our neighbor.  There is a further call to love one’s enemies--again using the same Greek word.  Hatred and demonization of enemies; of the other; of someone outside one’s preferred group, is forbidden within Christian thought.  Is there another philosophy or religion which goes so far? 

Certainly not the godless, postmodern society which is rapidly gaining ground within our culture.  Postmodern thought has removed the idea of transcendence and has made everything immanent, and, unfortunately, even some within the church buy into this particular philosophical framework.  It is much to society’s detriment.

Let us return to the opening story of this article: Santino Burrola and his subsequent firing for wanting to stop thieves.  What philosophy/worldview undergirds the idea that thieves should be allowed to take goods unchecked?  What philosophy/ worldview undergirds the idea that those who seek to stop stealing should be punished?  It’s not the Christian worldview.  It’s not the worldview which undergirded the United States from its inception.  There is something else at play.  There is another stream of thought which is being privileged. In this case, it is the postmodern worldview/philosophy which somehow has accepted theft and demeaned those who try to stop it.  It would seem self-evident that privileging this philosophy/worldview is not good for society in the long run.  In fact, it will lead to chaos. 

As the great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterson once said, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”[viii]  A culture or society which does not believe in God, or at least have human rights rooted in a transcendent Creator, will then become capable of believing anything including that theft should be allowed and those who seek to protect another’s property should be punished.

It would behoove those who try to lump those who strongly adhere to the beliefs that the United States was founded upon Christian principles and that Christianity should have a privileged place in society to understand why we say such things and not simply dismiss us by pejoratively calling us Christian Nationalists.  We’re not.  We’re Christians, Lutherans, and citizens who love our country and what it stands for.  We want our country to be a place where justice, fairness, and freedom thrive.  We are convinced that in order for this to happen, we must have a shared understanding of human rights, values, and morals; and we are convinced by history, philosophy, and faith that this will be impossible without this being grounded in a transcendent reality which allows for disagreement.

Is there a better grounding than Christianity?  I don’t think so.

---

[i] https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/king-soopers-employee-fired-video-theft/

[ii] https://sas.rutgers.edu/news-a-events/news/newsroom/faculty/3406-religious-nationalism

 [iii] Ibid.

 [iv] https://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/7996

 [v]  I do not deal with this caveat in the article as it is not a theological point; however, this Pew article (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/views-of-the-u-s-as-a-christian-nation-and-opinions-about-christian-nationalism/) shows that even within the African-American and Hispanic communities a majority of members of those communities support the statement that the founders of the U.S. meant for this to be a Christian Nation.  Not only that, the majority of African-American Protestants believe that the U.S. should be a Christian nation.  This caveat is actually not based in reality, but is based in an attempt to simply discredit Christian Nationalism by tying it to white supremacy without actually dealing with any arguments.

 [vi] Luther, Martin. Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed.  Luther’s Works Volume 45. P.91.

[vii] https://learn.elca.org/jle/taking-america-back-for-god-christian-nationalism-in-the-united-states-and-andrew-l-whitehead-and-samuel-l-perry/

 [viii] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/44015-when-men-choose-not-to-believe-in-god-they-do

The Creeds Don't "Sparkle"

“Pastor, what are we going to do about this?”

Those words were spoken by one of my octogenarians after she heard two news stories about the “Sparkle creed”, a statement that received national attention because of its use at an ELCA Lutheran Church in Minnesota.  The congregation recited it at worship, posted the video online, and it went viral.

The "Sparkle creed” has actually been around for a year or two, but it was not until conservative news sites and blogs discovered it that it caused a bit of an uproar, and that uprorar is not without merit.  However, care needs to be taken when addressing this issue.  I will attempt to show why.

First, let me define creed as a statement of belief.

In a very real way, everyone has a creed of some sort.  Individuals have creeds.  Organizations have creeds.  Individual congregations have creeds.  In fact, many biblical scholars say that the first creed was quite simple: Jesus is Lord.  Those three words actually led to the death of Christians who would not say the Roman creed: Caesar is Lord.  

Because everyone has a creed, one could argue that having a creed is actually a neutral concept.  People believe all sorts of things.  That they believe them is undisputed and neutral, but what they believe can be problematic and either good or bad.  For instance, if I believe that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with fundamental rights, then that is a creedal statement.  And, I would happily argue that it is a good creedal statement for various reasons.  Someone could hold a different position: that human beings are not endowed with rights from a Creator, but that governments decide what rights a person should or should not have.  I would argue that this isn't a very good position to take, but that doesn't prevent some nations and people from holding it.  

To change positions literally requires a conversion process as many, if not most, creedal beliefs are actually statements of faith not statements of science.  For instance, science is practiced by using the scientific method: state a hypothesis; test and measure to see if the hypothesis holds water; formulate a theory; test the theory repeatedly.  Is the scientific method a true way of getting knowledge?  Well, you have to assume that it is.  You have to trust that it is.  You cannot test the scientific method by using the scientific method.  Philosophers call this circular reasoning.  Trusting that the scientific method is an accurate way of obtaining knowledge is a creedal belief.  It is a deep, foundational belief, but it is a belief none-the-less, and one does not change those sorts of beliefs easily.

Which brings us to the Creeds of the Church, and I am intentionally capitalizing the letter C on both of those words.  There is a reason for this as I shall get into shortly.  

Within the Christian Church, there are three, recognized, orthodox Creeds: the Apostles' Creed; the Nicean Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, and what you need to realize about these statements of faith is this: these Creeds were recognized by the whole Church as true affirmations of the Christian faith.  They were based in Scripture.  They were developed over time or argued over or carefully thought through.  They were not put together in a pastor's office to make a particular group or segment of society feel welcomed or accepted.

In general, they were written to stomp out heresy.  They were written to unify a divided Church.  They were written to solidify and codify what the Church believed about God the Father; Christ the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  And as such, they are not to be trifled with.

Imagine for a minute if you will, gathering with a group of Christians circa 250 A.D.  You are in hiding because Christianity is still not a recognized religion of the Roman Empire.  It is the Easter Vigil, the time that it has become traditional for converts to be baptized into the faith.  As the baptismal liturgy begins, the presider looks into the eyes of the converts.  He begins addressing them and asks them three questions: Do you believe in God the Father?  Do you believe in God the Son?  Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?  And the converts begin reciting what they have been taught about who God is; who Jesus is; and who the Holy Spirit is.  These statements have come together over decades of persecution and trial.  Speaking them would immediately set these converts apart from the dominant culture and could lead to arrest and persecution.  Such is the nature of the Apostles’ Creed.

Or consider a church divided by various sects all claiming to represent the one true faith.  Yet, those beliefs are contradictory at times.  Some are not grounded in scripture.  Some are off the charts.  What does it mean to be a Christian?  What are the foundational beliefs?  Is this world truly, totally evil?  Does only the spiritual count? Was Jesus indeed fully human and fully diving or a really good human being only adopted by God and infused with the divine Spirit?  What do you Christians truly believe?  And bishops from far and wide gather to hammer such things out.  They consult deeply with the scriptures; argue their points vehemently and passionately; and put together a statement of faith which declares: this is it.  These are the non-negotiables.  It is accepted by the church council and has stood the test of time for centuries.  Such is the nature of the Nicene Creed.

The "Sparkle creed" shares none of this history.  It was written for entirely different reasons and has not even come close to being vetted by the whole Christian Church on earth.  In fact, the majority of the Christian Church on earth would out right reject it. 

Therefore, it follows, that it has no standing to replace the Creeds in worship.  

I mean: if someone wants to say that they adhere to the "Sparkle creed," then they can personally say that they believe exactly what is in that statement.  If a congregation wants to go so far as to use this creed in worship, then they are free to do so, but I strongly believe it should be introduced as a statement of that individual congregation, not of the Christian Church–it is not “the faith of the Church, the faith in which we baptize.” 

For to use it in such a manner is to actually separate one's self and congregation from the global Church.  It is to become myopic and rather self-centered.  Arguably, it is creating one’s own personal faith and religion–dare I say one’s own god.

And yes, I am quite aware that I belong to a denomination whose founder separated himself and then many congregations from the larger Church body of the time.  The irony is not lost on me; however, Luther didn't mess with the Creeds.  He affirmed them and what they stood for repeatedly.  He didn't tinker with the Creeds or try to change them for he never wanted to split with the Church of Rome.  These statements of belief were not up for negotiation or reformation.  They were good “as is.”

They still are.  They are meant to hold us together despite our disagreements on secondary issues.  Trying to put "sparkle" in them only causes more division.  

Leave the Creeds alone.

On Toxic Masculinity

Yesterday was Father's Day, and my family treated me very well.  There were several moments of reflection as it was the second Father's Day since my dad died, and I thought long and hard about how privileged I was to have had my dad.  

He taught me how to be a father.  It wasn't in classroom instruction or in long talks about what to do and what not to do with raising children, but it was with his actions; with his presence; with his discipline; with his forcing me to do things I didn't want to do.  It was the right amount of challenge and love.  It was pushing me beyond what I thought I could do.

I talked with my mom about one of those times.  We were reflecting on how old her house is.  They moved into it in 1980, and there are numerous things in need of repair.  But we reflected on when it was being built.  And while it was being constructed--a project that we did on our own--I had one of the  most traumatic experiences of my life.  Dad made me get on the roof.  

You can laugh all you want.  I don't care.  It scared the bejeezus out of me.  I'm five years old and terrified of heights.  Terrified.  Still get queazy.  Dad made me get up on the roof as we were installing the plywood decking.  I'm sitting up there crying my eyes out.  I want down.  My sister is up there having the time of her life while I'm white as a sheet.  Dad wouldn't let me down.  Dad made me stay up there.  He wouldn't let me down until I drove a nail in the plywood and hammered it into a stud.  Have you ever tried to swing a hammer while you were bawling your eyes out?  Bet you haven't.  It was one of the hardest things I ever did, but I did it.  And I got down off that roof as fast as my shaking legs would let me down that ladder.

A day or so later, dad had me get back on that roof.  Wasn't thrilled with the proposition.  Still scared.  But took a few steps.  Didn't shed any tears.  Tentatively made made my way around as decking was completed and tar paper was being nailed in place.

A day or so later, when shingles were being installed, dad had me up there once again.  This time, I helped out.  I was walking around the roof.   Progress.  

Now, I have no problem up on roofs.  I can manage it.  Even enjoy it.

Some would argue that dad shouldn't have done that to me.  They would say that he pushed me too hard and that I should have been allowed to go at my own pace.  You are entitled to your opinion.  My dad was doing something that needed to be done: he made me face my fears.  He made me overcome them.  He made me become more of a man--at five years old.  He made me find something important: courage.

I've had to call on that courage numerous times in my adult life.  It has helped me face situations that I otherwise might have cowered from--especially as a father.  Now, I am working to pass that same courage onto my children.  They aren't always happy about it, but they are learning.  And they are successfully facing things that they otherwise might have been willing to back away from if they hadn't had my influence.

Among some, what my dad did and what I am doing is called "toxic masculinity."  I don't find it particularly toxic.

Although, let me be clear, I do think there is such a thing as toxic masculinity.  I would prefer to call it immaturity, personally.  It's men who act like boys.  They treat others with disrespect and distain.  They will look at women as objects meant to fulfill their own sexual gratification.  They look down upon the weak and prey upon them.  They believe that rules do not apply to them, and they are inherently selfish.  That's toxic masculinity.

But here is the thing, at least from my perspective. The cure for toxic masculinity is not to make men feminine.  That's not what needs to be changed.  The noun does not need to be changed, the adjective does.  Instead of toxic masculinity, we need healthy masculinity.  

Femininity is not the opposite of masculinity.  They are complimentary.

Healthiness is the opposite of toxicity.  Plain and simple.

We need healthy masculinity.  The studies are bearing that out, and they have borne that out for decades.  Warren Farrell writes about it deeply in his book The Boy Crisis.  Christina Hoff Summers also corroborates in her book The War Against Boys.  They cite a plethora of studies that have been done on boys, men, and what the lack of fathers is doing in our society.  Even more studies have shown how religion has been affected by the rejection of positive masculinity.  

The world needs good men.  Men who are responsible.  Men who are willing to push others to do better than they thought they could otherwise.  Men who are strong and who make others stronger.  Men who teach courage.  Men who teach honor.  Men who teach respect.  

It's time to man up.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Heaven, and the Reality of What He Said

 I saw the clickbait headlines, and I clicked.  

That's what they are there for, right? 

And when a famous movie star says that heaven is a fantasy and that those who say we won't get to be reunited with those who have died are effing liars...well, that makes news.

And, boy, was I formulating a response.  Was I ready to jump into the fray and hammer what was reportedly said.  I had it all laid out and ready to go.

But, the thing about clickbait headlines and the articles that follow is: they often are misleading.  They pull quotations out of their context and create a narrative that may or may not be true to the initial setting.

So, before I decided to open up with both barrels, I decided to search for the original commentary in Interview Magazine.  Please read it if you have not.  It is worthwhile if you are interested in this story as I am--particularly as a pastor, theologian, and someone who preaches the reality of heaven.

As I read through the interview, I see a man whose life experiences have led him to a place where it is natural to question the existence of heaven.  Just read about what Schwarzenegger's life was like in Austria.  The guy knows poverty.  He knows what it means to struggle.  He had to use an outhouse and dream of having music in his home.  (These are things that many of us in the U.S. have no clue--no friggin' clue--about.  

Schwarzenegger found a pathway out of that poverty through weight training, joining the military, obtaining his passport, and coming to the U.S.  He was given opportunity through the generosity and care of famous gym owners.  

Schwarzenegger recognizes that he is no self-made man.  He knows there were people who gave him breaks.  He knows there are people who helped him along the way.  The tribute he gives to these people is packed with emotion.

And he is grateful.  Extremely grateful for everything that he has.  From extreme poverty to absolute wealth, the contrast he has experienced in his life is amazing.  And here is the thing: if you take into account where he started to where he is now, he has passed from hell into heaven.  From a house with no electricity and no running water to sitting down with famous people, smoking Cuban cigars, able to buy whatever he wants.  How could it get any better for him?  I mean, really, how could it get any better?

He went from the lowest of low to achieving the highest possible position of power that he could achieve in the U.S.--as the governor of California; the highest possible position of fame--a Hollywood movie star who has been in multiple blockbuster movies; to one of the wealthiest people in the world.  What more is there to look forward to?  How could heaven possibly be better?

And that's likely why death scares him, in my opinion.

Arnold claims to be no spiritual expert, and that comes through in his conversation in the interview.  As I read it, he is wrestling back and forth with the concepts of nihilism, hope, spirituality, body, soul, and how it all might work out.  It's much more nuanced than many of the headlines and articles report.

And I am thankful for his wrestling.  I wish the news articles would have highlighted that more, and I'd love to have a conversation with Arnold regarding these matters.  It might be difficult to persuade him, but on the other hand, it might not be.

Because I would like to ask him what his perspective might be if he had never gotten out of Austria; if he had never become Mr. Universe and a movie star; if he had never achieved the status that he had achieved.  Would he be as enamored with this life now?  Would he think that there could be nothing better than this life?  How does he grapple with the billions of humans who never come close to experiencing the life he has?  How does he deal with the fact that millions upon millions of people never experience justice, satisfaction, fulfillment, and the like?  

Would he look at a mother and father who are burying their still born child and say that the person who tells them they will see their child again in heaven are liars? Would he tell them that the child is simply going to disintegrate, to get over it?  Would he say the same to a mother and father staring down into the casket looking at their daughter's body for what seems like an eternity, not wanting to close that casket because when they do, it rams home the reality that they will never see her dance, sing, or laugh again?  Would he look into the eyes of a widow or widower who has just lost their spouse of 50+ years and now has to think of what life will be like without that person; who wonders how they will move on and deny the existence of heaven?  Will he look down on a person suffering from cancer whose every breath is painful; who is wondering why this disease has come upon her and wondering if this is all that life has to offer; and say that someone telling them about heaven is an effing liar?

I don't think so.  I don't think he would at all.  He's mad that we die. That comes across plain and clear in his interview.  He doesn't want it to be that way.  He wants someone or something to blame.  But he also has no clear way to resolve these thoughts.  Intellectually, he is in a rough space.

He is not alone.  He's not the only person who wrestles with such things. Lots of people do.

Those of us who are Christians have a resolution to these problems: answers that have been passed down for over 2000 years.  They are still very good answers, but they are also best shared in person; face to face; over coffee, beer, lunch, dinner, and the like.  Not likely that any such meeting would ever take place between me and Arnold, but I have had those conversations numerous times.  Some of them took place with the examples I shared earlier--those weren't made up.  They were situations I found myself in as a pastor, and I cannot express how the Christian view empowered each and every one of them to face the days ahead with a sure and certain hope.  I hope Arnold has someone who can sit down with him and help him see it too.