The Problem of Donald Trump's Faith

The Donald is at it again. 

Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

In a swarm of unlikely GOP candidates, Donald Trump caps it off by convincing almost a quarter of likely GOP voters that he's the one to go up against Hillary. There's already talk that if Rick Perry gets his way, Donald will personally fund his own third-party candidacy. This would likely rob Republican votes of a worthwhile GOP candidate and almost guarantee a win for the Democrats in two Novembers time. In a world where Fox News has warned its viewership of the plague of political correctness, it's not surprising that a straight-talking, wildly-rich, anti-political Mr. Fix It is attracting a bunch of regular folks who are fed up with the current Administration. 

At this point, Trump is almost impenetrable. He denigrated a beloved maverick. He read aloud a private cellphone number of a likable bachelor. He, perhaps most dramatically, racially profiled millions of America's workforce. And somehow each time, no matter how much the press has pushed him, he's managed to weasel his way out only to grow in the polls. It is fascinating.

His bit about John McCain at The Family Leadership Summit was untrue, unwarranted, and wildly stupid and though it received, by far, the most media attention, it wasn't the the most remarkable part of that interview for me. I found myself entranced by his comments about faith. Most significantly, forgiveness.

Bluntly, Trump was asked, "Have you ever asked God for forgiveness?"

Trump answered it as Trump always does, as only he can. "That's a tough question. I don't think in terms of...I'm a religious person, shockingly...I'm Protestant, I'm Presbyterian, I go to church and I love God and I love my church." He continued with a story about "the great" Norman Vincent Peale, a man he reveres and whose sermons made a lasting impression on him. Never, of course, answering the question, "Have you ever asked God for forgiveness?"

I love this next part. The moderator didn't let it go. "But. Have you ever asked God for forgiveness?" The audience laughed. Trump responded, stumped. "I'm not sure I have. I just go and try and do a better job from there. I don't think so."

He likely could not have been more honest. While later he rightly referred to taking the "wine and crackers" at communion as a way of asking for forgiveness, there was a certain attitude of humility and repentance that the moderator was looking for to which Trump, truthfully, could not admit. Maybe it's because Trump can't admit to wrongdoing; that certainly seems likely. Maybe it's because Trump thinks he's the greatest man to walk this earth; that seems possible.

I can't help but point to his own admission: his pastor, to which he immediately made reference and shared exuberantly about his influence, may have shaped--or at least allowed--this mindset of Trump. 

To those familiar with recent American history and theological thought, the name Norman Vincent Peale isn't foreign. A controversial pastor after the release of his book, "The Power of Positive Thinking", Peale's teachings were shunned by both the mental health and theological communities being regarded by some as heretical.

Indeed Peale's writings are problematic for Christians who seek not to find faith in themselves but to find faith in Jesus Christ. Even Amazon's description of Peale's best-selling book says it bluntly:

"With the practical techniques outlined in this book, you can energize your life—and give yourself the initiative needed to carry out your ambitions and hopes. You’ll learn how to:

· Believe in yourself and in everything you do
· Build new power and determination
· Develop the power to reach your goals
· Break the worry habit and achieve a relaxed life
· Improve your personal and professional relationships
· Assume control over your circumstances
· Be kind to yourself" 

Seems an odd set of goals from a Christian pastor, eh? It's a self-help book, sure, but its Christian message, if there even is one, leaves much to be desired.

Wikipedia's entry on Peale quotes John Krumm(the book linked above), Reinhold Niebuhr, and G. Bromley Oxnam on Peale's anti-Christian espousing in his book. Wikipedia's choice of quotes from Liston Pope was my favorite though, "There is nothing humble or pious in the view this cult takes of God. God becomes sort of a master psychiatrist who will help you get out of your difficulties. The formulas and the constanat reiteration of such themes as "You and God can do anything" are very nearly blasphemous." ("The Case against Easy Religion," William Peters. Redbook Magazine, September 1955, pp. 22–23, 92-94). I mean, come on Dr. Pope, tell us how you really feel.

Either Trump needed to name-drop to evade a question about his own brokenness or Norman Vincent Peale made a lasting impact on The Donald through his preaching. The evidence, Trump's refusal to admit to his need for forgiveness, points to the latter. If a preacher preaches that one can overcome the most difficult obstacles and accomplish anything simply by thinking positively about it, how can one be convinced of their own need for redemption and forgiveness?

It doesn't take a political genius to realize that Trump's humility is lacking. I'm convinced, as a Christian minister, that humility and a self-awareness of one's own brokenness is essential to their discipleship. If one claims to be a Christian, as Donald does, one must be convinced of their own need for grace. Without it, there's no point in Jesus.

The problem? GOP voters have already proven in large part that politicians speak louder in their hearts than their pastors do and conservative pastors continually shape the work of their sermons and their reading of Scripture within the political atmosphere. I fear that an influential presidential candidate might renew a sense in America's Christians that one's own humility is not necessary for the gospel.

That is a lie. That is a problem. 

-B

True Freedom and Its Costs

Early yesterday morning, shortly after midnight, the freedom that a young man (younger than I am) named James Holmes had to own an assault rifle, legally, cost 12 people (maybe more) their lives. It cost 12 families their loved ones and it cost the world 12 individuals who could have made it a better place.

James Holmes was free to own the weapons that he used to shoot those 71 people yesterday. He legally purchased those guns, all that ammunition, and likely anything that he used to booby trap his apartment which he knew he would never return to.

James was free, like you and I. He had a right, a freedom, to own those guns.

Interestingly enough, that freedom that James enjoyed was paid for by the lives of soldiers who fought courageously both here in the States and abroad so that no one would take away that freedom. People lost loved ones in war, terrorist attacks, and random acts of violence, all because we were fighting to maintain our freedom. Simply put: we must defend ourselves in order to keep our freedom.

This concept isn't new. We know this. In order for us to have freedom, we must defend our freedom. But it does get more complicated.

Last night I asked a still-unanswered question via the wonderful world of social media and it went something like this: Is there any reason that non-military or non-police citizens should be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle? I didn't phrase the question well, and I was unsure of what verbs to use, but I think the message was semi-clear: what good, honorable reason would there be for someone to own a weapon like James used in Aurora? Should it be legal to own a weapon that can do that much damage?

Of course, as many of my posts do, it sparked controversy. Americans are only as free as they can defend themselves to be! People attack us? We must fight back! We are only as free as we can assure ourselves that we are. Otherwise, those attacking us impending on our freedom have every opportunity to take away our freedom, which makes it so that we aren't truly free.

I should be clear: I think this is a giant load of crap.

If we define freedom in this way then we are saying that freedom only comes from the way in which we defend ourselves.

Friends, this isn't freedom. This is fear.

I'd invite you to take a step back and look at what this freedom has brought us: countless wars ending with much of the world hating our arrogance, machines in airports that send radiation into our bodies, racism, patent wars, and undying greed.

I have family members that carry a pistol wherever they go. The idea is that if anyone were to attack our family, they'd have a way to defend themselves. Again, I ask, is this freedom? Can we truly enjoy such a "freedom" if we are always concerned with who might be following us, ready to attack us? What is it that this freedom truly gives us?

Perhaps the question really is: what is the point of such a freedom? What is this freedom all about anyway? Is freedom the right to bear arms? Is freedom the right to say whatever we want, even if it is harmful? Is freedom the right to put up a fence so that the neighbor can't see me mowing the lawn? Is freedom the chance to eat BBQ, drink beer, and party with fireworks?

This, to me, doesn't sound like real freedom. It doesnt sound like a culture ready and willing to make this world a better place. It doesn't sound like a culture who cares about one another. No, this freedom sounds like a culture in which online bullying meets crazy heights and encourages suicide. This freedom sounds like a culture that encourages the defense of religion rather than the religion itself. This freedom sounds like a culture that has at least one mass shooting a year. This freedom sounds like a culture that is so obsessed with the work of the individual that it encourages such an individual to refuse to recognize the assistance they've received that led to their success.

In short: this freedom sounds like it delivers a worse product and costs more. It costs us the lives of soldiers overseas. It costs us the lives of moviegoers in a theater. It costs us a dying reputation. And what do we get? A degraded culture who cares nothing about what we should care about.

I sense a very different freedom in Christ. Christ assures us, because of his death and resurrection that the chains that once bound us through sin are broken forever. This freedom, true freedom, allows us to live into the people we have been made to be. This freedom, true freedom, allows us to recognize the gifts and graces of one another. This freedom, true freedom, inspires us to live as one with the peace that only Christ can give us. This freedom, true freedom, gives us life and life abundantly. The other freedom results in death; this freedom, true freedom, results in resurrection.

And the best part: the price for this freedom has been paid. The sacrifice has been given, by the very one who gives us life! It costs us nothing but the willingness to follow in the steps of the one who said "Come, follow me."

Many may say, "Wrong! This freedom costs us everyday. It costs us because the life of discipleship is one of martyrdom. It costs us because of the persecution of the world." AHA! The world wants us to buy into its version of freedom. But we must not. It wants us to pay the cost (and many many before us have). But we must not. Even if we are persecuted on this earth, we know that true freedom of being forgiven for our brokenness is still had. That price has been paid.

This freedom is not concerned with our rights as individuals, it is concerned with our holiness. It is concerned with who God wants us to be. It has nothing to do with our individualistic rights, it has to do with our calling.

In America, for some silly reason, we have been defining freedom in terms of the right to defend ourselves and right to do what we want. That freedom has a poor outcome and costs a lot. And that doesn't end well. It ends with dead bodies on the floor. It ends up with bloodied theater seats.

If only we would desire true freedom.

-B

We remember the lives of those who were shot in Aurora yesterday morning. May God's hand of comfort be on their souls and their family members. May God's comforting and guiding hand help this nation to recover from such a tragedy, and guide the world toward true freedom, for which the price has already been paid. We are a broken people. Let us remember that we are also a forgiven people.

Posted with Blogsy

Incompatible with Christian Teaching

A note regarding this post: I am and have been close with several self-avowed homosexual people within my lifetime. It is my personal belief that God loves all of God's children and calls upon all of us to act and behave in the same way as God has demonstrated through Jesus' life here on earth. I do not claim to understand the homosexual lifestyle (as it simply does not describe me) and choose not to judge the lifestyle because of my extreme lack of knowledge regarding the topic. I do, however, think that our culture is on the verge of a gender and sexual orientation crisis that has been snowballing for years. I think that if the Church does not handle such a crisis with grace, mercy, and love, we will not only have disobeyed God's will for us, but we will have lost (please define "lost" however you'd like, it will still be true). My opinions listed below are indicative of my own observations of the said situation at the given time, with as much information as I felt like I could find. I would hope that they do not anger any readers, as I have attempted to choose the words carefully so as to be inclusive, yet honest, with describing and arguing a very difficult situation that no one quite knows the "right" answer to. I have attempted to be mindful of those that I know and love while writing this post, because if at the end of the day I have angered people close to me, I have lost. If at any point you disagree or wish to point out my own ill-thinking, please express this to me in a way that embodies the grace, mercy, and love referenced above. Rev. Amy DeLong of Wisconsin is on trial in the United Methodist Church for "chargeable offenses" according to Paragraph 2702 in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The Book of Discipline is edited, morphed, and revoted on every four years by delegates from each of the Annual Conferences within the United Methodist Church. For those uninterested in church procedure and polity, it reads a lot like a phone book (do they even still have those anymore?).

The story of Amy goes something like this: she fell in love with the United Methodist Church around the time she was in college. She began to feel a call to pursue ordained ministry. By the time she had affirmed that call and applied to seminary, she fell in love with her partner, Val. You can read Amy's account of her story here.

Then, in 2009, "Amy officiated at a Holy Union for a same-gender loving couple."(Link) She then reported about it in the annual required report that pastors must submit. She was called in to meet with the Bishop and she explained what she had done and described to the Bishop her on-going relationship with her partner, Val. The link at the top of the paragraph has the rest of the story's timeline. Given what you've read so far, you can put the pieces together.

What are the offenses against Amy? The Book of Discipline (remember, decided on by United Methodists worldwide) says you can't do that.

The Book of Discipline lists the word "homosexual" 17 times. It lists "gay" seven times. It lists "lesbian" three times. In regards to homosexuality in general, the Book of Discipline says this:

The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all. we will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons. (Paragraph 161, F)

Basically, the UMC implores individual churches to love and care for homosexual people, but still considers the practice of homosexuality "incompatible with Christian teaching."

Rev. DeLong, though, at this point isn't guilty of anything. She's cited as guilty of charges under PP 2702.1b. Paragraph 2702 refers explicitly to reasons that a bishop, clergy member, local pastor, clergy on honorable location, or diaconal minister may be tried. Here's what it lists:

• immorality including but not limited to not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage.
• practices declared by the UMC to be incompatible with Christian teaching, including but not limited to: being a self avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual union; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies.
• crime.
• failure to perform the work of the ministry.
• disobedience to the order and discipline of the UMC.
• many others including sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, harassment, and racial or gender discrimination.

Short and sweet: Rev. DeLong broke the rules.

So, according to the Book of Discipline, she is being charged with breaking the rules. Sounds fair, right? When she was ordained as a pastor, she agreed to hold to the rules. She didn't.

Obviously Rev. DeLong didn't take nicely to this. She has employed help and a defense system including the recently popular www.loveontrial.org.

Here's what I don't understand: why is she angry? Obviously, she is on the verge of losing her job (one that she loves and feels called to). I guess that makes sense. But, we musn't forget: she knowingly did something that she was consciously aware was against the teachings and rules of the church. When you have a private job (remember, churches are private institutions) and you break the rules of that job, your employer has the right (and the responsibility) to remove you from your position at their own discretion. This issue is often compared to the Civil Right's issues in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. I don't personally think this is a fair comparison in this instance because Amy has a private job. Martin Luther King went to jail. Amy will not. The government has no rules about her own ordination. If she loses this trial, she is not going to go to jail. The best argument that she has is that the UMC shouldn't legally be able to ask you whether or not you are gay in order to be employed. (It is worth noting that I noticed this during my recent investigations into the ordination process of the UMC. The church does background checks--expected--but also financial checks, health checks, marriage checks, etc...things that other businesses in the private sector are not legally allowed to base employment choices off of.)

However, the reality remains the same: she agreed to hold to a value and behavioral system. In exchange for her agreement (and hard work), the church agreed to give her a job, insurance, and a house for the rest of her employable life. Setting aside any spiritual aspect of the role of the pastor (of which there is obviously much of), she didn't hold to her side of the deal.

If you read her material on www.loveontrial.org, you'll notice that she is a talented speaker. She has a gift for writing sermons and has a real heart for ministry. I feel for Amy. She's in a tough situation. There's not a great way out at this point, except to gain a following and leave the UMC in a big way. If she can gain followers, perhaps she can make a difference in the future. I personally wonder, that if this is where she is, why is she still so "called" to the UMC? If I felt as if a church body wasn't including me, I'd look somewhere else.

(Irony, noted)

There is one more thing, though. In a sermon Rev. DeLong gave the other night, she said this:

You see, they don't want my ordination back, they want my baptism back. They don't want me included. They don't want me to feel beloved. They don't want the Holy Spirit to be poured out on me and they certainly don't want God saying, "Amy, in you I am well-pleased." They aren't after my ordination. They're after my baptism. They're saying God's grace isn't sufficient. (Link)

I see that Amy is in the midst of perhaps the most emotional time in her life. I get that she is using the argument that the UMC is being a legalist and she is being "spiritual." I see why she says what she says. I don't always agree, but I can see where she is coming from.

But, in the quote above...I think she is wrong. The Book of Discipline explicitly states that homosexual people ARE to be welcomed. Remember the "implore" line above? They do want her ordination back, not because they have a political stance, but because the General Church agreed that that was what was required. To let her keep her job after what she is done is not being fair to her, it's being unfair to the rest of the church.

They do not, in any way, want her baptism back. I can see why she might feel that way, but to explicitly state that the church is unable to keep her from being a Christian is not only a misrepresentation of the situation but it is also extremely out of line.

My only hope is that somehow some sort of reconciliation can come out of this. I'm not sure the church is completely right. I'm not sure that Amy is completely right. Somehow, the Church is going to have to learn how to deal with the changes in culture in order to continue to be effective witnesses for Christ in the world.

Here's to hoping that actually happens.

-B

ADDITION: I don't like the "incompatible with Christian teaching" language. Not because I don't think it's true (who defines "Christian teaching" anyway?), but because I think it is only used to call out the homosexual lifestyle explicitly. I personally think that divorce is incompatible with Christian teaching, (and in a strict sense, MUCH more than homosexuality) and yet the UMC ordains divorcees every year. I go to school with several. If the UMC were to not allow self-avowed divorcees to be ordained, hell might break loose. There are many many options and times when divorce is the right situation. When divorce is the only way out of an abusive or unhealthy situation. I do not choose to judge those times. I simply wish to point out that the "incompatible" language does not include all things, as it should.

The Church vs. the church

I wrote a paper recently where I referred to the Reformation and I needed to be clear about capitalization of a few key terms.  So I asked.  The answer I got basically said that the Catholic church has capitalized "Church" and so because of that, reformed churches do not capitalize "church" because they are not referring to "THE Church" but rather to "church." Since I began this blog, I've been capitalizing "Church."

I thought I knew why at first. Since then, I have wondered about the significance this might bring about.

I remember learning, in high school, about the difference between "Communism" and "communism." "communism" was the ideal. "Communism" was what actually happened (think dictators and more non-communal type leadership efforts that created a bad name for communism and socialism among most of today's conservative Americans).

To me, in light of understanding the concept of Big C communism vs. Little C communism, I've had to reflect on the significance of the capitalization.  Because, as is true in every language, the words that you use and the way you place them and conjugate them signify and often mimic what you intend to say.  Even in my brief study of Greek in order to learn to read the New Testament, I have learned how certain interpretations of words can change entire theological ideas.

So my gut reaction, after hearing the explanation that the Catholic Church is referred to as "The Church," was to be pissed off. Who says they get to claim the proper noun?

Much of the language that many of the early Christians used, especially those around the time of Luther who did not agree with the dissenting voices, involved the idea of the "true church." Somehow, because the Catholic Church had some apostolic tradition and had been in existence since the beginning (many consider Peter to be the first papal type voice), their traditions were right and though there were many issues that came up...the "universal" (credit to Ignatius?) church was still worth sticking with.  Before the days of video cameras, copy machines, and computers, much emphasis was placed on the succession of traditions and documents. It all mattered where things came from and whom (who? The English language is so confusing) things came from.

The idea is dead simple: because I wasn't there with Jesus, I must try to understand those who were with him. This was important for the early church and it ought to still be important today. (I've always wanted to write a post about how stupid the Gospel of Peter is for attempting to try to pin Peter's name to it to give the document authority. What a bad practice.)

However, to me, the Reformation (both in parts of Europe, including England) changed that. Because we had a Canon, and the Catholic church had some unfortunate leadership, churches split off. Some maintained some traditions, some didn't. And, in 2011 we have a whole mess of churches that call themselves Christian churches.

When I refer to the "Church," I refer to the body of Christ (and purposefully I leave that "body" not capitalized).  For me, despite different traditions and understandings of Scripture, anyone who claims Christ and has confessed of their sins and accepted the love and grace is a part of the Church (this includes, but is not limited to: Catholics, Westboro Baptists, Methodists, persecuted Asian churches,  Calvinists, Church of Christ-ers, casual Catholics, casual Protestants, youth, women, Black churches, and more.)

**To me, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with discipleship. Is discipleship a necessary trait in someone who follows Christ? Of course. They help make up the "Body" of Christ (see, capitalization).**

Here is the issue: if we continue to think of the crazies as some other sort of body, some other entity, we miss the boat and we end up with the same situation as the Islamic people today (i.e. they won't let us build a building of worship wherever we want).  The world paints them and us with the same brush: Westboro Baptists = Christians.

To me, anyone who would call themselves a Christian helps to make up The Church.

And The Church is in trouble. Why? Because as it stands right now, the Western part of The Church (mainly Euro-American bodies) is the body of Christ.  And we need to be the Body of Christ.

Can we continue to use the word "catholic" as "universal"? It seems to be that unity needs to be #1 priority and so when we talk about the future, we ought to use one term and all get behind that in order to move forward.

I think God has such high hopes for The Church.

-B