The False Dichotomy Dictated By Ideology: Using Althusser to Read the Changing Epistemologies Underneath Modern American Politics

Switching Epistemologies: Conservatives
A striking divergence has made itself apparent to me of late.

I noticed it first amidst the conservatives. In light of Melania Trump's plagiarized speech at the RNC, there was a surprising amount of right-wingers who came to her defense in order to claim that "she did not plagiarize." While a certain amount of political defense is always expected in matters of major social contortion, the expected response in this sort of situation should have been more to the point of "she did not mean to plagiarize" or "she and her speechwriter miscommunicated something that was intended to be quoted" or "she was quoting and left off the quote because it was Michelle Obama's words and we're Republicans." No, rather, the response was initially "she did not plagiarize," a claim which, unlike the aforementioned defenses, falls into the category of "objective statement that can or cannot be backed up by evidence."

After all, whether or not the American people are educated in the academic circles which have long defined plagiarism, that definition still holds true when discussing its verifiability - that definition being "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." To verify or falsify, then, the claim of the Trump campaign ("she did not plagiarize") would be to identify whether or not Melania Trump did or did not take someone else's work or ideas and pass them off as her own.

When one discusses the matters of "subjective" or "objective" truth / factuality / facticity / &c., while those terms are philosophically-contestable there are certain socially-accepted usages of them that might be useful for the claim I am about to make. To say that something is "objectively true" is, in the common parlance, to say that something is "provable," in a scientific sense. We can take evidence, apply that evidence to an experiment, and then make conclusions based off of that evidence. In this case, Melania Trump quoted the words of the First Lady without citing her (which could be, honestly, a rookie mistake - Melania is not a seasoned speaker the same way that Michelle was when she spoke at the DNC in 2008) and then applied those exact words to her specific context as though they were always about her context. The words she used were not the sorts that one would normally quote and then say "As so-and-so said..."; rather, they were common, everyday words that Michelle Obama had used to describe her husband and her family which now Melania was using to describe her husband and her family.

This is definitionally plagiarism. It is, dare I say it, objectively plagiarism.

Whether or not Melania plagiarizing in this situation actually matters or not is to me an unimportant question. What is more striking is the distinctly subjective response of the Trump-defenders. By saying "she did not plagiarize" they claim something that is distinctly oppositional to objective criticism. Of course, this is not the only moment where the objective truth of a matter has been wholeheartedly ignored by the Trump campaign. If one were to define this campaign, actually, one could describe it as one large propaganda machine that is churning objectively true principles into matters of subjective moral relativity.

What is most shocking about that is how the GOP has branded themselves over the course of the past several decades as the guardians of "objective truth." The association between the GOP and conservative Christian evangelicalism is grounded, in part, as a reactionary response to the liberal pursuit of what the right calls "moral relativism" which is a "subjective" view on truth. But here we see, in an anecdotal way, how the Trump movement signals a bizarre shift in the right's undergirding epistemology. They are becoming "subjectivists" (to coin a phrase) and leaving objective truth behind.

Switching Epistemologies: Liberals
But, as I began, I said "I noticed it first amidst the conservatives." The same thing is happening to the liberals. As observed by Jonathan Merrit earlier this year, the supposed "moral relativism" of the left is actually disappearing (if it ever truly existed). In a season of American history in which battle lines are being drawn for how we define the American culture, certain claims are revealing themselves to be the "orthodox standard," as it were, of the left. Is homosexual activity okay? Should welfare exist? Does racism and sexism exist? Questions that used to be matters of critical reflection - and then became solidified as distinct, calculated responses - are now treated almost like a new moral catechism of the liberal movement.

Despite a claim that views morality as a thing of the Victorian past, it seems evident to me, at least, that my liberal friends hold almost precisely identical views to one another, arrived at through no particular reflection or challenge, and stated with almost evangelistic zeal. A few vignettes should make this sort of intellectual hegemony clear: my liberal friends were unilaterally opposed to the Brexit, and, more locally, my liberal friends are currently unilaterally opposed to the University of Chicago's policy against "trigger warnings." Neither of these topics seem (to me, at least) within the central purview of liberal politics and liberal policy, and yet uniquely identical conclusions are being made about them as if those conclusions were "absolute truth." If moral relativism represented a subjective mode of truth that once claimed the epistemological center of American liberalism, then it has been supercessed by a new objectivity that claims orthodoxy over the liberal mind.

In other words, and to sum up this opening argument: the popular thought of the conservative and the liberal political communities within this nation while aspiring one mode of epistemology simultaneously enact the opposite mode of epistemology without being aware of that switch. Taking a cue from Jean-Paul Sartre, I would say that the conservatives and the liberals regard their own ideologies with "bad faith" - they believe something while simultaneously denying that belief through an oppositional belief.


Since the words "objective" and "subjective" here have served their purposes, I am going to discard them. I've pushed their colloquial definitions as far as I can, trying to avoid confusion with their philosophical / epistemological definitions. But since the following part of my argument is about to become a little more formal in its critical tone, those terms are no longer appropriate. In their place, I will call the truly subjective relativism of the conservatives "the Unorthodoxy of the Right" and the truly objective truth-claims of the liberals "the Orthodoxy of the Left." It should be clear that the use of "[Un]Orthodoxy" here is not, as far as I am concerned, actually about who is "right" and who is "wrong." Instead, it is to signify how the right has abandoned stationary social / ethical mores for relativistic mode and how the left has abandoned relativism for its own brand of "absolute truth."

Totemism / Ideologies
Around three years ago, I wrote a little essay about seeing the American political system through the eyes of totemism. In that essay I noted one problem that I keep coming back to time and again: that is, the way that American tribalism seems to demand obedience to certain "totems" (or "gods"), as it were.

Here's a little view into how that tribalism functions, using myself as an example: I firmly believe that there is a problem in this country regarding the police and how African-Americans are treated by institutions supposedly representing justice. As such, I will often comment or tweet or post - or however I engage the social media world - and tag on "#BlackLivesMatter." And, inevitably, one of my conservative friends will come along and, in some manner or another, insinuate that I have been "taken in" by the liberal media machine, that I have been brainwashed by the liberal university, or something to that regard.

(Nevermind them that I learned about social justice through an evangelical Christian organization doing incredible exegesis on the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis, or that I heard about African-American sorrow firsthand from my black brothers and sisters in Christ.)

On the same regard, I hold firmly the view that life begins in the womb, at conception, and thus am adamantly opposed to abortion in all regards. As such, when the occasion arises, I will make a comment to that end around my liberal friends, and inevitably they either try really really hard to make me see how abortion is a women's right issue [and there are women's rights issues surrounding the topic, no doubt], or they will say that I have been "taken in" by the collusion of conservatism and Christianity, or that I believe some sort of oppressive theology made up by the conservative spokesmen of this world (the Pat Robertson folks) that I can't reject because I've been raised in it.

(Nevermind them that I learned about the unborn from reading the Bible after I became a Christian, since I didn't grow up reading the Bible, or that I have thought very intently about the philosophical and ethical consequences of the pro-life movement, including the importance of post-birth support.)

I do not fit into the simple structures of political ideology that exist within this country. For my conservative peers, if I were to call myself a "conservative" (which I reject), they would call me "a Republican in Name Only," as they do with anyone who is not ideologically "pure enough" for them. For my liberal peers, if I were to call myself a "liberal" (which I reject), they would call me a "reactionary" with "Victorian ideals of sexual morality," or something like that [which, by the by, I saw a liberal peer say about this article by Prof. Ruddick of UChicago... and it seemed to me a very inappropriate label to slap on the Chair of the English Department!].

What these anecdotal, hypothetical name-callings reveal - and what the real-world, actually-occurring, name-callings demonstrate - is an unwillingness for the vast majority of the American electorate to accept structures of identity that are outside the hegemony of our current [totemic] system. In other words, as they say, "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down"... or it switches sides altogether, which in the ideological world of Christian politics (for instance) is how a blogger / thinker like Rachel Held Evans is created, or, by contrast, conservative speakers like Allen Hood who left mainline Protestantism for the Charismatic Movement. It is like a simple code in binary, which cannot accept anything but the inputs of 0 or 1.

The whole world, instead, gets re-defined by terms of "ideological purity" - either by the deceitful-commitment to the Unorthodoxy of the Right or the blind-worship of the Orthodoxy of the Left. Those who do not fit [within 5% of the scale of purity?] are identified as "radicals," as sleeper agents from the "other side" who are "not really one of us." They are "one of them."

An academic friend of mine - a liberal - once told me about how he voiced opposition to the public school system and found himself outnumbered by also-liberal detractors who found his claim... conservative. He, of course, had a different end-goal in mind, and through his critical reflection decided that the current state of affairs would not serve his vision. He improvised. He created. He challenged the hegemony.

Althusser's Ideology and the Invasiveness of Modern American Politics
I use the word "hegemony" in these instances very seriously. After all, in the back of my head I cannot shake a different definition of Ideology than the one I've been using so far. That is, the definition presented by the Marxist-Structuralist Louis Althusser.

While summing up Althusser's definition of Ideology in one paragraph might be a too adventurous claim, I'll try to do so anyways: Althusser said that Ideology is the way our ideas become material [= real, in Althusser's case] reality, continuing to support the structures and systems that already exist. Through Ideology, Althusser was able to point out the ways that society doesn't just reproduce the producers of labor (that is, humans under capitalism), but actually how society reproduces the always-already means and relations of production. To put in less "Critical Theory" terminology: Ideology is what ensures that a society continues producing, even though the ideologies, perspectives, worldviews, and epistemologies within that society might be vying against each other or against the society itself.

How this word is useful in the current context is to point out the increasing invasion of the private in American social life by - not the public, I must hasten to add - the Political. I propose that the Political Ideology of the modern American moment, capitalizing on the new technologies of social media and handheld Internet access which define the hyper-information age, desires the same sort of hegemonic influence as Althusserian Ideology, and that its methods of reproducing the modes and relations of its production are through the aforementioned modes of totemic identification.

This Political Ideology (or Ideological State Apparatus, to use the Althusserian term; ISA) aims for its preeminence by pitting its two "wings" against one another. By creating an ever-narrower gate through which citizens must properly identify their ideological purity, the Political Ideology sets up new subjecthoods. Citizens are no longer "concerned individuals" or "nuanced moderates," but, instead, "conservatives" and "liberals," with a smattering of "libertarians" who think they've escaped Ideology, but instead have simply crafted yet another pre-written subjectified template to experience the world through.

As it should be clear from my introductory remarks regarding the hackneyed and confused epistemological grounding underneath both ideological realms (and I am sure I could point out confused epistemologies in the libertarians as well, going from Descartes to Ayn Rand, ;-) ), this dichotomy between "Right" and "Left" is an enormously false one because it sets up the individual for major philosophical failure. Either accept the surface-claim of objective, absolute truth presented by the Right and end up being swindled into its true Unorthodoxy of relativism, OR follow the Left's relativistic road and end up with a iron-clad, unshakable Orthodoxy of ideals. If one rejects these paths, the Political Ideology course-corrects... "No, you're actually a liberal," or "You're truly a conservative" come the social voices.


I have no critical or investigative thoughts that lend me to the answer of the necessary question following this sort of study. That question, of course, is: "Knowing that this is the way things are, knowing that the Political Ideology desires to inhabit the daily lives of the American person, how should we respond?" That 'ought' is a complicated and difficult one.

But my contention, and, at the very least, the goal that I aim at with this post and with other posts, is that the free mind is worthwhile, and in order for a mind to be free it must cast off the masters that wish to dominate it. (Of course, I would also argue, as a Christian, that total freedom in the intellectual realm is only possible through "the renewal of the mind" mentioned by Paul in the Book of Romans.) To think critically is the answer and antagonism to the enclosing circle of Political doctrine. The free-thinking person is not pre-committed to his or her "party," but is instead challenged to consider each thought and idea on its own merit.

(It also strikes me that this is one of the claims of the Libertarian movement in this country - from their association with Ludwig von Mises, to "Reason.org," and etc. Some day I will write an essay as to why the Libertarian's "Free Mind" is just as submitted to Ideology and to the Political Ideology as the Conservative and the Liberal. It has to do with a flawed vision of the word "freedom," which is at the very root of their thought.)


This is an anticlimactic claim after a long, long essay: to think freely and to think critically is to challenge all of the Political powers-that-be. It is to call "fault" on truth-claims backed up by relativistic epistemologies, and to call "fault" on relativism backed up by absolute truth-claims. These epistemological digressions and dichotomized views of "Either/Or truth" are an affront to those who find Truth - actual, real, legitimate, divine Truth - to be worth defending. And to think freely and critically is to challenge the popular orthodoxy of the Right and the Left.

In those terms, to think freely and critically is to become a heretic in the eyes of the Political Ideology.

An Open Letter to the Charismatic Movement on the Deceitfulness of the Big, Loud Voice.

If I say, 'I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,' there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot. 

                                                                                (Jeremiah 20:9)

There is something of a classic misreading of the above verse from Jeremiah within Charismatic circles. Often, it is interpreted as saying something like: "The Spirit of God is so heavy on me that I cannot but help evangelize, prophesy, sing songs, &c." Someone will start preaching, and we'll say "He's got a fire shut up in his bones;" or someone will have a word of knowledge, and we'll say "She's got a fire shut up in her bones."

Yet the Scriptural context of this passage is to be found within the entirety of the Book of Jeremiah: Jeremiah has been regularly called by the Lord to speak the Word of the Lord in due season to the apostate people of Israel, and they have regularly rejected him. Here, at chapter 20, he reflects on how he feels wearied by these continual rejections. He says:

O Lord, you have deceived me and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all the day; everyone mocks me. For whenever I speak, I cry out. I shout, “Violence and destruction!” For the word of the Lord has become for me a reproach and derision all day long. If I say, “I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,” there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot. 

                                                                         (Jeremiah 20:7-9)

Jeremiah is weary from speaking God's prophetic truths to God's people, and he's weary of being God's chosen messenger in a season of such spiritual decay in Israel. Yet, he will continue to speak, unable to resist because God's Word burns within him. The Word of the Lord must be said, even though it brings its messenger discomfort (and, eventually, a ticket to solitary confinement in a cistern, left to die).

I feel like Jeremiah is the perfect analogue for this (political) season in the American Church. There are some among us who, like Jeremiah, feel a fire shut up in our bones concerning manifestations of evil within our community, places of true spiritual idolatry in which things other than Jesus have taken precedence over His Glory. And, like Jeremiah, these voices go generally unheeded.


It is with heaviness that I come to this keyboard. In the past I have talked about (whether on this blog or in more personal contexts) what it means that my wife and I have begun considering ourselves "Postcharismatic." To re-clarify, what that term means, in part, for us is that we love and will always consider ourselves as Charismatics within the broader spectrum of the Charismatic Movement and within the specific wing of Pentecostalism. And yet, we have witnessed certain ecclesiological and missiological abuses within that movement that we no longer feel comfortable with and that we feel morally compelled to distance ourselves from. I have not intention on delineating those issues presently (though I have many-a-time considered writing a list of 93 of them to post on some random megachurch somewhere...).

I think it is vital, though, to emphasize that for all of the various point-by-point issues which we have noticed within the Charismatic Movement and that we would love to see addressed by the Charismatic leaders, we do still feel emotionally and spiritually tied to the Movement. When we attend our local churches (in Wood River, a Restorationist church; in Chicago, a C&MA), we go with the sort of tacit acknowledgement from our friends that "Hey! there are the Charismatics of our church!" Sometimes during Bible Studies, I have the tendency to say things like "Well, as a Charismatic I think..." We raise our hands in worship a lot more than other folks tend to. Sometimes we silently speak in tongues during times of prayer. Et cetera. For us, being Charismatic is part of our Christian DNA, it is part of our story, and it is part of our family - many, many of our friends are Charismatic Christians. We deeply love and care for the Charismatic Movement, its well-being, and its future.


Thus, it was with incredible sadness that I watched "radio silence" from the leadership of the Movement back during Ferguson October... Not because I desired those leaders - that is, the leaders of the "flagship" streams, Bethel, IHOP, and Morningstar - to take some sort of political stance, but because I knew so many of my black brothers and sisters whose souls were in deep anguish over the state of race-relations in our nation. While leaders from other major (and conservative) denominations - the Southern Baptists, the Assemblies of God - took up their voices to offer consolation to the black members within their communities, the leaders of one of the largest and loudest chunks of American Christianity today were entirely silent.

Thus, it was with great dismay that I heard this past fall that Mike Bickle, pastor and director of IHOP, formally endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for the presidency. That is, that a leader so prominent and influential would 1) endorse a presidential contender (something that pastors - especially nationally-recognized pastors - should never do*); and 2) of all people, describe as a "righteous leader" a man whose entire career has been built on being uncooperative and hard to work with and whose character has been described as "brutal," traits which are hardly reflective of Christian service.

Yet it is with ever-the-greater frustration and lamentation and, as I said earlier, heaviness that I must observe this recent tweet from one of Bethel Church's senior pastors, Beni Johnson (wife of Bill Johnson):

"Is Trump perfect? Nope, who is. Am I voting for him? Yup. Crazy uh. He's the only one I see who can beat Clinton." (3/19/16, 11:36 PM)

This is something very, very different. I don't actually even know how to speak, having to retype that tweet in order to write this post. It oozes off the fingers like some Exxon slime.


Before I say what's "on my heart" (as we say in Charismata), let me address some objections:
1) Can't a Christian person vote for whomever they want?
2) But... isn't keeping Clinton out of the White House a worthwhile goal?
3) Can we make a moral, theological judgment off of one tweet? / Can you judge another person's walk?
4) Isn't Trump a Cyrus sent to deliver us from our Babylonian captivity and who will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so we can finally hang up our harps and stop singing sad songs?

Some thoughts:
1) Can't a Christian person vote for whomever they want? Absolutely. Except, of course, in our current culture a Christian person who votes Democrat would be viewed as a heretic [I know many theological conservatives who vote politically liberal]; or a Christian person who votes for an establishment candidate is viewed as 'part of the problem'. I mean, either a Christian is free to vote as they feel, or there are theological-moral obligations which they are committed to. You cannot have both.

2) But... isn't keeping Clinton out of the White House a worthwhile goal? ... ... ... ... The fact that I must answer this objection is ridiculous to me. Yet it seems to me that keeping Clinton out of the White House has been a prime motivating factor of many of Trump's camp, including the evangelical bloc of his voters. I do acknowledge that, for some folks, there might be a moral quandry of "choosing between the lesser of two evils" concerning Clinton versus Trump, but the bigger issue with this question is that my post is addressing the words of a Christian pastoral leader here, not a political strategist.

3) Can we make a moral, theological judgment off of one tweet? / Can you judge another person's walk? Good point. Solid objection. But it is certainly one of those modern misreadings that we have digested the "Thou shalt not judge" rule in our modern Christian context to mean that we cannot critique the declarations of leaders who live in the public spotlight. Jesus said, instead, "Make right judgments" (Jn. 7:24), and the Apostle John tells us to "discern the spirits" (I Jn. 4). For information's sake, Beni posted many, many, many tweets defending her position in various ways, and (thanks to the power of the Internet) we can go back in time to a tweet in 2011 in which she lamented that Trump was not running that year. She is clearly not simply an "anti-Hillary" kind of supporter; she actually wants Trump to win.

4) Isn't Trump a Cyrus sent to deliver us from our Babylonian captivity and who will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so we can finally hang up our harps and stop singing sad songs?No. Cyrus was a Medo-Persian king who ruled between the years 570-530 BC and whom God anointed to accomplish the first part of rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. There are certainly pagan kings who can be used for God's sovereign and good will, like Cyrus or Nebuchadnezzar, as the "Cyrus argument" runs. There are also pagan kings like Pharaoh, Belshazzar, and Sihon and Og who have through blasphemy set themselves in direct opposition to the purposes of God. Trump fits best into this latter category, as I will demonstrate.


What shall I say? I don't think that Theology is too difficult to apply to our lives. I do think that Political choices can often be morally vague, and that certain things are good for certain people and certain things are bad for others. I generally dislike making big either/or claims concerning political authorities - either they're a Hitler or they're a Jesus-sort of thing. Yet sometimes there appears a Big, Loud Voice that everyone is drawn to, and this voice pricks what everyone's "itching ears want to hear" (II Ti. 4:3), and they do not know they are being hypnotized. I do not think that the content of the Big, Loud Voice's message is the "morally vague" sort of Politics. And, in fact, I don't think that the content of this post constitutes a Political claim at all; instead, I'm really discussing something Moral and Theological. Compare these two lists from the Bible:

And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
                                                                                   (Matthew 5:2-10)

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. 

                                                                                   (II Timothy 3:1-5)

These are basic, theological, and Christian principles. The group in the former list are those who are called "blessed" because they represent the nature of Christ and reflect His Kingdom values. The group in the latter list are those who are representative of the kingdom of Satan and who reject God's Kingdom and advance their own kingdom instead. It should be clarified, too, that Paul is specifically warning Timothy not of the "common sinner" but of the Big, Loud Voices that want to come and invade the Church and pervert its doctrines (cf. v. 6).

Compared with the Big, Loud Voices, Jesus elevates and highlights the Still, Small Voices. In other words, He identifies as blessed those souls which exemplify His Nature. Those who are "meek" will inherit the earth because Jesus is meek and He is the King of the earth. Those who follow Jesus, we know, are imbued with His Holy Spirit, who is also called the Spirit of Jesus, and He will, through the process of sanctification, empower us to become meek, weak, small, little, humble, slow to anger, slow to speak, quick to listen, quick to repent, quick to pray. We have a Spirit of Power who manifests in us a quietness of character which is a bold rejection of a kingdom that pursues its own way.


This is why my various personal statements against Trump are not intended as a political scheme. I am not all that interested in who is elected President in our temporal country which will last as long as a flower in light of the Kingdom of God. I tirade against him because he represents an obvious "spirit of antichrist"; that is, to redeem that term from our Charismatic End-Times lingo (i.e. I am not saying Trump is the harbinger of the end of the world), he represents everything that is opposite of what Jesus represents. This is not some idea I received from television or the big media companies (because I don't watch television, and I don't care for the media); this is an obvious interpretation when one compares the Big, Loud Voice of Trump with the entirety of Scripture: from Pharaoh's hard-hearted refusal to repent, to the rebellion of Korah, to the obstinance of King Saul, to the slimy and insidious deceitfulness of Elymas, to this list of descriptions from II Timothy 3, to some specific descriptions of the antichrist given in Scripture (to name a few: Ez. 28:1, Da. 7:8, Rev. 13:5). To be exhaustively clear: I am neither calling Trump the Devil nor the Antichrist; just that he is obviously operating in an entirely anti-Christ direction, method, and worldview. I am also not saying that he is not the Devil or the Antichrist. I'm holding off that discernment for now.

(And, if my general description of "the Big, Loud Voice" aren't specific enough, one could also look at the way Trump discusses women, people with disabilities, Mexicans, Muslims, &c. - but I think his rhetoric speaks for itself without needing to enter into a moment-by-moment analysis of his words and actions. We have all seen enough from the debates to know what his character is like.)

Thus, it is excruciatingly disappointing that a sister in Christ, a leader in a major portion of the Charismatic Movement, and someone who, I would hope, is desiring to pursue and see God's excellency in Christ would so actively and forwardly support and encourage the work of a man whose very character is so vitally out-of-sync with the entirety of the Christian character, value, message, belief, and doctrine. When we look at what this man represents and what his character reveals, we see that we are not in a situation where we could say "Is Trump perfect? Nope, who is" - there is a difference between a leader being a flawed, sinful human who makes mistakes, and a figure whose words and actions reveal a lifestyle of hatred, which is in 180-degree opposition to the Kingdom of God.

And this is excruciating because, in many ways, it reveals something of a broader theological-moral-Gospel crisis within the Charismatic Movement. How can this Movement last when its leaders so brashly support a man who so clearly represents the opposite of the Kingdom of God? How can this Movement be spiritually healthy and successful in the transformation of people's lives when they actively support leaders who are "strong" and "harsh" and "brutal" and "loud" and admire them? How can this Movement ever expect to see a national Revival - which it proposes to do - when they find themselves so easily swayed by anti-Christ-like leaders? I ask these questions in part because I personally don't quite understand the ideological-theological hoops which some of my Charismatic brothers and sisters are attempting to jump through concerning Trump.

And this is excruciating because there are those of us "out in the middle" (politically-speaking) who love the theologically-deep, spiritually-vibrant, and politically-complex Church and who appreciate the various gifts that the different movements of Christianity bring to us. At this point, Bethel Music has overtaken Hillsong as the folks who make modern Church music. The Charismatic Movement is influential, even in cessationist churches, and Charismatics can bring with them some vital vibrancy to the rest of the Church. Yet, to see a prominent leader within that movement support Trump is like seeing dead leaves on a branch of a tree: something is rotting here. This should be an alarming moment that creates a gut-check for my Charismatic brothers and sisters.


... And yet, I suspect that when I inevitably post this on Twitter and Facebook that I will receive comments that are knee-jerk responses to one or a few of my premises (which, of course, I don't discourage, necessarily). A friend recently observed that I post things just to "bring out the sharks." Maybe. I actually hope that I post things because the Spirit of God has placed His Word on my heart and, like Jeremiah, I cannot hold it in any longer. In other words, I don't write this to create a controversy; I write this because I love God's Church, I long to see us walk together in the true unity of the Gospel, and I hate to see ideologies which are so distinctly contrary to that Gospel being supported from our public stage.

It seems to me that somehow Trump's own rhetoric has turned inwardly of late. First, he created a campaign against "political correctness," and then he instituted his own sort of "political correctness." Under the new political correctness, any claim that observes his nature and character as wicked must be surely wrong and an attempt by mainstream media to discredit him because he represents a threat to their hegemonic system. Under the new political correctness, this post is some sort of threat to the Big, Loud Voice, and, thereby, must either be disregarded or deflated. Under the new political correctness, critique of a person's evil character which is obviously in line with Scriptural descriptions of that sort of character is "judging" or "being politically correct," ironically enough.

In conclusion, I will say this: Do not trust my words. First, do a heart-check. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-8), read Paul's warning (II Ti. 3), and read the entire Book of I John (it's short), which deals with the spirit of antichrist and discerning the spirits. Compare and contrast for yourself: What is the character of Jesus and His Kingdom? What is the character of the Devil and his kingdom? Ponder this too: knowing what you know of God's character from His Word, does He ever manifest His Kingdom-Purposes in the form of the Big, Loud Voice? Does God reveal His Kingdom in Loud, Prideful packages, or in Small, Humble ones?

I say this because I want to challenge my friends - especially my Charismatic friends - to take another look at the Word of God and to let the Word challenge us, rearrange our hearts if need be, and have a fresh look at the world around us. How does God's Kingdom manifest?



* I perhaps should make an entire post about why pastors should never endorse a President / political candidate - I've been meaning to ever since 2011 - but now is not the time. The quick summation is simple: Pastors wield spiritual authority over people's lives, and they can, through their influence - especially so in the Charismatic Movement - override the free-will choices of their flock, even unintentionally. That's not good.

Heretics: Introduction, or A Definition of the Word and an Apologetic for Its Use In Christian Discourse.

In 1905, G.K. Chesterton published a collection of essays altogether entitled Heretics. In it, the Christian author abstracted and deconstructed (to reclaim that term) twenty public figures, writers, philosophers, and political activists of his day in order to reveal the various theological implications of their beliefs and systems. G.B. Shaw, H.G. Wells, and Rudyard Kipling (one of the few in that era not to abbreviate his first two initials) all came under the scope of Chesterton's sweeping criticism.

One of the things that I admire about Chesterton's book is how, despite his polemic and despite his rhetoric, he still manages to honor the person whom he is criticizing. At times he can seem a little heavy-handed; but, then again, rebuke is a heavy-handed thing. It is not pleasant, nor easy. But throughout Heretics, one gets the sense that Chesterton is attempting to be extraordinarily balanced. As a Christian, he cannot afford not to be.

The reason for that is because Christian Love demands, first and foremost, Grace. This is at heart of when Jesus says "First get the log out of your own eye!" So criticism, even judgment (when appropriate), from the Christian must always be a weighed and careful affair. But criticism and judgment, too, must be a direct, thorough, and, in some sense, painful affair, and that is because Christian Love also demands an accounting before a perfect, awesome, glorious God. Solomon says that "Better is open rebuke than hidden love," (Proverbs 25:17) because an inactive, hidden love is not truly Love at all. If my brother or sister has built their faith upon a faulty foundation, then my silence is not love; but if, with Grace first, I approach my brother or sister with a rebuke or correction (by the guidance of God's Holy Spirit), then I clearly Love them.

Even so, that whole rebuke thing is very difficult. I find myself continually wrestling through - as this issue and that issue come through our ever-revolving doors of stories - how much is or is not appropriate for me to engage, rebuke, correct, and the like. I too need rebuke and correction. I think that Chesterton knew this in writing Heretics; and throughout the book one sees him giving "praise where praise is due," sometimes saying good things about surprising groups of people. For Chesterton, the enemy is not the "heretic" per se, but the structure or belief that that heretic presents.

It must be added that this sort of response - the rebuke - has thorough biblical precedent. In the days of Jeremiah, there was a priest who said that the people would return to Jerusalem quickly; God told Jeremiah to declare judgment on that teaching. Paul time again writes his letters to respond to the spiritual crises in various churches brought on by rampant false teachings: whether they be antinomianism (Corinth), racial hostility (Ephesus), the Judaizers (Galatia; and the region thereof), or simply bad eschatology (Thessalonica). John, in writing to several unknown churches, specifically gives his audiences some wisdom about teachers:

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world*; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." 

       (I John 4:1-6)

(John defines "world" earlier in chapter 2: in effect, the world is all of the systems and desires within man to create a life outside of Christ; thus, always lusting with the eyes and the flesh, and boasting of a life separate from God. I present this as an alternative to the commonly-used notion of "world" as "pop culture." No doubt there are "worldly" systems within "culture," but the two are not interchangeable in light of Christian views of the Greek word kosmos. But I digress.)

This means that part of our orthodox Christian walk is to discern when voices are spirits of the world, rather than spirits of Christ. And this distinction, it is to be noted, is not as easy as "Christian" / "non-Christian." When John warns the churches of antichrists in I John 2, he says that they had come out from the church. When Paul warns the church of Galatia (and the region thereof) of the Judaizers, they had come from the church. On the contrary, when Jesus is talking with the woman of Syrophoenicia and with the Roman centurion, he applauds their faith, even though they both, up until that moment, believed entirely pagan worldviews. Likewise, Paul in Athens doesn't reject the Athenian philosophers for their rhetoric: he accepts their rhetoric and uses their own pagan poets to explain the Gospel.

For me the importance of this matter is deeply integrated with my calling in the Lord. God has called me to be an apologist for His church, one who learns the languages of those Athenians known as "Academics" and attempts, through my life and through discourse, to communicate the Gospel clearly and directly while in their midst. That's my missionary calling.

But in the course of that mission, in the course of that call to evangelism, I continually find myself running into unnecessary road-blocks which make the proclamation of the Gospel more difficult than it is and than it should be. Instead of the way being made clear for the lost, as Isaiah cries out: "Go through, go through the gates; prepare the way for the people; build up, build up the highway; clear it of stones; lift up a signal over the peoples." (Isaiah 62:10), the way for academics is full of obnoxious, and unbiblical, obstacles. At first, these obstacles seem like part of the package: "Well, when you become a Christian, you always vote for pro-life candidate because that's the most important issue to vote on," or "Well, as a Christian you can't listen to anything that Darwin says cause he's dumb."

And some - I have to be insistingly clear here - are absolutely part of the package: as a Christian we have a Scriptural sexual ethic, we have a call to a community church, we trust in the authority of the Bible, &c. &c. I don't think that we help anyone ever by "watering down" the Gospel (as some would claim we should). But I do think that what Isaiah is getting at in saying "clear [the way] of stones" is that there are obstacles in the path of the Gospel that are neither the Gospel itself nor a part of it, and that it is the job of the evangelist (or the apologist) to make that way easier by clearing away those unnecessary roadblocks.

These are the issues that Paul and John take to task in their epistles: they clarify the deity of Christ, the importance of having a future hope in His Return, the necessity of Faith over Works (like circumcision; cf. Galatians), &c. These beliefs were roadblocks for both Christian and non-Christian in the early church. Now, I'm not going to go in-depth right now - that will be another post - but there seem to me to be a good handful of heresies going around in the church, especially the evangelical church in America, that are neither founded on Scripture nor should be treated with the fundamental value that Scripture is treated. Some of these are simply unbalanced beliefs, where one sort of belief (political, social, philosophical, economic, &c.) informs theology rather than the other way around; some of these are clear contradictions to apparent core theology in Scripture. Some of these "heresies" are the result of conservative politics, some are the result of liberal politics, and some are the result of entirely non-political forces. And, to be clear, what I will hope to enumerate will neither be an exhaustive nor completed list or overview of heresy in American Christianity; I only hope to observe and compare the power of certain Voices within American Christianity to the more important Voice of the Bible. In some cases I think that these comparisons will need no further extrapolation from me.


To be perfectly and utterly clear: I do think that there is a big difference between a Diversity of Views within orthodox Christian thought and Clear Heresy. This is different than the ways the word "Heresy" is often described by loud voices in Christianity. I personally come from an Arminian (but not semi-Pelagian), Charismatic, Egalitarian, and Premillenial tradition within orthodox Christianity, but I don't think that I have enough Biblical credence to charge Calvinists, Cessationists (although on that point I strongly disagree with them), Complementarians, and Postmillenialists with Heresy. On even further subdivisions of belief, one could list ecclesiological matters like Pedobaptism / Credobaptism, Episcopal / Congregational / Presbyterian church structures, and matters of the like. Heresy is a strong word; I don't think it's appropriate to bring it to theological matters with such diversity within the orthodox, Bible-believing breadth of Christian faith.

(This, by the by, is an important descriptive matter for evangelical ecumenism and nondenominational / interdenominational interactions; orthodoxy, "right-belief," is an important, theologically vital matter for Christians. As such, we can't take such distinctions lightly. But I would argue that the above Capitalized terms are all systems of Christian belief that we can find and constitute a substantial argument for using the Bible. "Heresy," on the other hand, as I will use it here, are non-Biblical beliefs, ones that are self-evidently not in line with God's Word.)

With that all in-hand, I think it's vital to discern and disseminate various "Voices" whom, for some reason or another, have been accepted, in this or that demographic, by the Church and whose voices are distinctly (that is, self-evidently; any honest comparison, looking outside of ideologies, could see that they are such) non-Biblical, and, in some instances, we shall see, actually anti-Biblical and fulfilling what John said was antichrist.

That, of course, will be a matter for another post... ... ...





(One final note: If you are non-Christian and reading this, you might find it strikingly polemical, or over-complicated. I apologize for not writing a more accessible post, which I usually attempt to do. I love and recognize the presence of my non-Christian readership, and I would love as much as possible not to isolate you, but to include you in my blog posts, Facebook conversations, and other social media engagements. I take this privilege of words, conversation, discourse, very very seriously; and I'd prefer, as much as I can, to include everyone in conversations.

But "Heresy" is actually not an appropriate term to apply to non-Christians. The etymology of the word even goes back to notion of "picking and choosing," and in the Christian context it is mostly appropriately used for the "picking and choosing" of non-Biblical beliefs within the Church. As such, I would never approach a non-Christian and say "You are a heretic," no matter how much I disagree with their belief. But I can (and morally ought to, as I said above) approach my brother or sister in Christ and engage them from the authority of the Bible.

Thus, the language in this post is a little heavy, my rhetoric is a little intense, because the intended audience is family and with family one can - and sometimes must be - a little more heavy and a little more intense. This is especially true when the members of your family are hurting people in ways inconsistent with the faith that you share with them. Out of love for my family, and out of love for the non-Christians who are being hurt by my family in various ways, as a Christian I have a responsibility to wade into deep, complicated, difficult, and heavy waters with my family. Sternness here should be understood as a deeply committed and loving sternness, without bitterness, without animosity (except, of course, toward false teachings themselves!).

That being said, I certainly invite you to engage as well nevertheless. As I said earlier, I approach this conversation because I am an apologist and because there is a media-driven image of Christianity (from both "liberal" and "conservative" media) that is not reflective of Jesus. I love Jesus, and I'd love to share Jesus with you, and maybe while I'm refuting the Voice of, say, Donald Trump (to pick low-hanging fruit; we'll hit more popular - and less controversial - figures too) I can share with you the Jesus who stands in direct opposition with that line of belief. The beautiful, lovely, radical, world-changing Jesus, you know, the one that you think really-should-exist-and-then-wonder-why-so-few-people-talk-about-Jesus.

In that way, I hope you too can enjoy engaging in this matter, even though I target it as a conversation for the Church. You are certainly welcome to listen in.)

The Metaphysical Infrastructure of the Gun.

What is in a Gun?
Simply put - bullets.
     Caps, pops, shots, fired and
unfired.
Revolving around chambers or
loaded through magazines,
one at a time - technically -
     though the result might be
Twenty, Thirty, Something like that.

What is the Gun's Nature?
Simply put - death.
    Removal of life, whether completely
or partially.
Killing cells, tearing muscles and
organs, maybe stopping the movement
of the body - technically -
    though the answer is just
Violence, Harm, Something like that.

What is the Gun's Moral Nature?
Simply put - self-dependence.
    Self-reliance, self-protection, self-
defense.
A notion of heroism, with all the sentiment
therein, touching the idyllic, maybe allowing
safety - technically -
    though in reality it's all
Illusory, Fantasaical, Something like that.

What is the Gun's Political Nature?
Simply put - targeted.
    Debated, narrated, fetishized, and
overcomplicated.
Revolving around chambers or
loaded through magazines,
one at a time - technically -
    though the rhetoric appears
Esoteric, Useless, Something like that.

What is the Gun-as-Itself?
Simply put - product.
    Made, distributed, fetishized, and
beloved.
Purchased, sold, gifted, an
abstract signifier awaiting a finger
to give it signified - technically -
    though it is nevertheless
Weapon, Destroyer, Something like that.

(12/05/15)

Thoughts Concerning the SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage.

Something quite astounding happened the other day. I had been hearing of the various details involved with the Obergefell v. Hodges case, but I had not realized that a decision had been made... until I got on Facebook. Suddenly - and quite suddenly indeed - I found myself in a nation in which same-sex marriage is legal.

Even more surprisingly - and this was to me a real shocker - I found myself in support of the ruling*.

(*As you will see further on, this statement refers specifically to the ruling of the Supreme Court, not to same-sex marriage itself.)

Now, I find this altogether baffling. When I first came to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I had been taught that the legalization of same-sex marriage was just another sign of the Lord's Return, or another sign of the utter destruction of our nation, or another sign of God's coming wrath and judgment upon America. So, when I was in high school and in college and I would hear about "equality legislation" or whatnot, I thought to myself: "What nonsense! This is another sign that our nation is going downhill."


Yet last week, when I heard that same-sex marriage bans had been removed, I found myself nodding and saying "Yes, that makes sense." I am still finding this a little strange. So, for my own sake and for your sake - because I consider you a friend, and I don't want you to be misled or confused by why I say these things - I am writing this (hopefully) short little treatise on Christianity, Homosexuality, Democracy, and that tricky little matter of the Separation of Church and State.

(My wife, Hannah Grace Caveny, and her sister, Diedra Weaver, have both blogged about the more important related matter: that is, the Gospel and how we as Christians need to respond to the homosexual community. You can read their posts here and here.)


So, first I want to lay out my two fundamental claims which inform how I feel about the SCOTUS ruling:

First: homosexual activity is sinful according to the Bible. I cannot engage in this conversation without that very, very important clarity. God's intended purpose for human sexuality is either for committed, monogamous, marriage between a man and a woman, or lifelong celibacy. Both the Old Testament and New Testament make these claims, and they all point directly to the detail of the institution of marriage in Genesis 2.

Since my purpose in this blog post is distinctly about the SCOTUS ruling, I will not elaborate more on this here. That being said, there is much more complication involved than this simple statement belies, and it certainly stirs up more questions than it reveals. For example, some would argue that the SCOTUS ruling is a sign that our country has forsaken God. Others would argue that homosexual tendencies are natural. These sorts of questions and challenges are real challenges and deserve real responses. I'm not going to give them real responses in this post. I am simply going to focus on the SCOTUS ruling itself.

(I wrote this three years ago in light of the Chic-fil-a controversy; it's feels old for me, but it is certainly helpful in light of such conversations.)

Second: it is not good for our country to legislate against the homosexual lifestyle.

It is that second claim that is more controversial within my Christian demographic. A simple glance through Facebook reveals a lot of what I had been taught long ago: "If we continue on this direction, the wrath of God is against us!" or "This is a sign that Jesus is coming soon!" (Which, by the by, read Matthew 24. Jesus doesn't say anywhere that "people will marry homosexuals" as He promises His return. Goodness gracious.)

Why do I think it is actually a good thing for our country to remove same-sex marriage bans? Well, to start with, I think it's vitally important to differentiate (as C.S. Lewis does in Mere Christianity; see below) between a legal definition of marriage and the biblical one. The United States government is not a Christian government; it is a secular democracy. As such, when it defines the term "marriage" it cannot ever be talking about the same term "marriage" as Christians discuss. Those two terms are ideologically separate.

Now, this is quite important. The Founding Fathers, having reflected on the sort of government they wanted to form and seeing the issues in the Christianized kingdoms of Europe (Britain, Germany, Spain, and France prior to the Revolution), decided to make America a distinctly secular democratic state, in which there is a separation between the Church and the State. This separation was actually quite applauded and celebrated until more recently; it seems that only within the past century have Christians held the stance that the separation is harmful to the Christian faith.

This is blatantly inconsistent with that separation's purpose. In England, the King (who was Head of the Church of England) could legislate theology. In other words, if the King didn't like... oh, say... the Puritans!... he could make a law say that people with Puritan theology could be sent to jail. And some were (like, for instance, my great-grandfather x14 Rev. Francis Marbury). The opposite sort of power was also true: if church officials could make a theological case for the removal of this-or-that political opponent, then they could influence the rulers to do their bidding.

This sort of politico-theological corruption is in fundamental opposition to the Kingdom of God! It is worth noting that Jesus never aims to replace Caesar with Himself. Nor does He fight Herod for the title "King of the Jews." Nevertheless, the situation in England (as well as in other European nations) up through the Revolutionary War was one of warring political powers using theology as a tool of power.

As such, the Founding Fathers made great stakes to avoid this Scylla and Charybdis of Theology and Politics. In founding America, nothing further from a theocracy was in their minds. They distinctly formed a secular democracy, aware their citizenry was a religiously-diverse community: Christians of various backgrounds (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopals, Baptists, Puritans, &c. &c.), non-Christians like Deists and Atheists, and pseudo-Christian Cults like the Shakers.

This is certainly an ideologically-difficult mire to consider. As Christians, we would certainly like to think that theology is of the utmost importance (and it is certainly on the top five, if you ask me). So "minor details" of this or that theology are a big deal to the Christian person. Baptism by immersion or by sprinkling; transubstantiation or emblems; how many Sacraments are there?; the two Natures of Christ; the Trinity; &c. &c. These matters are of actual importance to the Christian person, let's not lose track of that.

But to the secular political government, these controversies and differences are of no value. The secular political government is founded upon the Constitution, and that Constitution exists to defend the rights of the citizens of its nation. And those rights are irregardless of a person's theological convictions.

This is a good thing. Imagine, if you will, that my wife and I (were non-denominational evangelicals; we believe in baptism by immersion for confessing believers) lived in, say, "Catholic America," where Roman Catholicism had utter rule over the legislation in the country. They could say that the right to marry is only allowed for those who were baptized as infants, as Roman Catholics are. Or that Protestants can be fined for not attending Mass, just like how Catholics were fined for not attending Anglican services in he late 1500s. Yeah, yeah, this is silly - Italy and Spain never got this intense! (It is thought-provoking that all of the members of this SCOTUS are either Catholic or Jewish. I'm glad none of them think it their duty to expunge evangelicalism from American history!)

C.S. Lewis famously once put it this way: "At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine." (Mere Christianity) An amusing statement, but a very real concern if someone were to live in an Islamic society. (I had read this quote before, and in searching for it online found an article, not ironically, about this very subject!)

I could go on with examples of why the secular democracy cannot endorse theology in its legislation. The point of the matter is that in the eyes of a secular government (which exists for the purpose of guarding the rights of all its citizens) theological matters cannot be used to determine the rights of legislation. (And all of my theonomist and dominion theology readers said "noooooooooo!") Otherwise, this or that theological opinion could have authority. I'm glad that teacher-led prayer is not allowed in public schools - because I don't want my children to be read a Mormon hymn or a Buddhist chant to start their morning!!!

Finally, why, then, do I support the ruling of the SCOTUS? Okay, maybe it makes sense to have the above-detailed political philosophy, maybe you can see my point. But "support" sounds strong. Do I "support" gay marriage? Do I "support" homosexuality activity? Isn't "supporting" the SCOTUS ruling antagonistic with my aforementioned Christian beliefs?


You see, I see this political situation in the exact opposite view that the mainstream Christian community seems to see it. So many see it as a "slippery slope" and a "downhill slide," or that soon enough the government will be requiring the churches to perform gay marriages (... ... uhm, I can't really see how they would get around... the First Amendment).

On the contrary! Any time the SCOTUS rules in such a manner that protects one people group's civil liberties, it simultaneously, and needfully, protects all other people group's same civil liberties. (This is part of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was used in Obergefell v. Hodges.) In other words (and isn't this ironic?), the very legal reality which removes same-sex marriage bans from the states, simultaneously has the power to defend the Christian theological viewpoint on marriage. This case just makes it easier to point out the legal distinctions between the legal, governmental definition of marriage and the theological one - which, thereby, makes the latter easier to defend should the government attempt to impinge on the church's right to freedom of religion.

And that is a very very very good thing.


In conclusion, I see it this way: Paul, in writing to his disciple Timothy, gave this instruction:

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." (I Timothy 2:1-2)

Likewise, in writing to the Romans, he says:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1)

And Peter, writing to the Jewish Diaspora, says:

"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (I Peter 2:13-17)

In other words, the Christian response to the political authorities is to be subject to them. And why? So "that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." I don't think it's a stretch to think that what Paul is saying there is that the Christian's interaction with his governmental system is so that he might lead a quiet life! IE. A life where that governmental institution does not impede on the Christian's pursuit of Christ.

So, if the SCOTUS makes a ruling that protects civil liberties, then the Christian should be all for it! If the SCOTUS is defending the rights of homosexuals, then we can be encouraged that, by legal definition (the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) the SCOTUS is also willing to defend the rights of Christians. I do not fear to live in a country that defends the rights of homosexuals. I would most certainly fear to live in a country that neglects the rights of any of its peoples. (See this example.)

The Christian is not commanded ever to riot against his political authority's rulings, nor to disrespect that political authority's decisions (nor is the Christian forced ever to agree or disagree with the political authority; we have freedom of conscience). The Christian is simply commanded to be subject to those authorities, so that he might live a peaceful life. And I see, as I have purported in this blog post, that those authorities have made a ruling which I feel protects civil liberties. And I think that is for the better.

A Prophetic Word: Ferguson, the Church, and, Specifically, the Charismatic Movement.

Back in late August, I was driving home from campus and heading down Illinois State Route 143 when I received a prophetic word from the Lord. It was a beautiful day, I remember, and particularly scenic as I passed one of the industrial plants on my right with the River on my left.

It took me by surprise, actually. Let me be straightforward with you here: I am not usually a "this is the Word of the Lord" sort of guy. I'll go six months and only be able to tell you: "Well, this is what I'm sensing from the Holy Spirit right now" or "This is my leaning" and not hear much otherwise.

But every now and again, the Holy Spirit takes the prophetic training that I've received from the churches I've been involved with, a little dash of Dallas Willard, and a big megaphone and shoots me straight.

I had been praying about what was going on across the River: a young black man had been shot by a white police officer. Something big was happening. So, I took my troubled soul to the Lord, and I began to pray for the situation on my drive home.

And then He said this:

When you spread out your hands in prayer,

    I hide my eyes from you;

even when you offer many prayers,

    I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

Wash and make yourselves clean.

    Take your evil deeds out of my sight;

    stop doing wrong.

Learn to do right; seek justice.

    Defend the oppressed.

Take up the cause of the fatherless;

    plead the case of the widow. 

                                             (Isaiah 1:15-17)

And this made me very distraught. You see, God spoke this Word to me as I prayed for His Church in the midst of the crisis. I was praying that God would help His Church to seek Truth and Justice in the midst of the Ferguson crisis. But what God spoke to me during that drive was very clear: we are in an Isaiah sort of crisis in America right now. Isaiah spoke to a people who were a little before the final siege and destruction of Jerusalem. And here, in the early days of his ministry (near the reign of Uzziah = King Hezekiah), Isaiah's prophetic call to God's people was: "Repent of your Injustice! And if you don't: I will not listen to your prayers."

I knew at that moment that this was very important. So, as any of us should do when we receive a Word, I took to social media and challenged my brothers and sisters to consider God's view of Justice and to engage with the conversation that is being brought up via Ferguson. I even wrote a blog post about it.

Then there was a long wait. Folks got quiet about it. The Grand Jury took a little while to return the (non)-indictment. There was some social action during "Ferguson October," but for a little while there was not a lot of conversation (at least, from my social media perspective). I was keeping my ear open, waiting, listening, engaging as I had the opportunity.

And then the Grand Jury verdict came back on this past Monday. (Goodness, this week felt longer than that.) I had completely forgotten about this Word of the Lord from August. On Monday evening, I was engaging with the events 'cross-River via Twitter when a fellow blogger (By Their Strange Fruit) asked the question; "Hey! This is the first week in Advent! How can we pray in this season in light of what's happening in Ferguson?"

To which I replied: "Ah! Advent is the season of waiting for our Coming King, who will bring True Justice in His Coming Reign..." But I had not yet spent my daily quiet time with the Lord yet, so I proceeded to open up my Book of Common Prayer to the first week in Advent.

And there, staring me straight in the face, was Isaiah: "When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow." (Is. 1:15-17)

Immediately, I remembered the Word God had spoken to me on that sunny drive in August.


Now, why did I say this in this manner? Because I want to challenge one particularly subset of Christianity to repentance: the Charismatic Church.

Something that's been burning on my soul for a little while now has been a longing to see the Charismatic Movement really be a powerful demonstration of God's Love to the world. But also burning on my soul has been the numerous issues and problems within the Charismatic Church.

To be sure: there is a lot of great things in the Charismatic Movement. I was at Onething '09 when my friend's sister had her spine instantly healed from scoliosis. I've been to the Prayer Room at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, and I've stood on the wall as an intercessor before the Lord. I've been on a "treasure hunt" before and been in the midst of a company of prophetic words. I've experienced the fire of God's Holy Spirit in exquisite and powerful ways.

But I also have seen some great abuses within the Charismatic Movement. Without an understanding of historic Christianity, the Charismatic Church often loses touch with orthodox theology. Without a perspective on orthodox theology, the Charismatic Church often functions under extremely weak ecclesiology. I've met some folk who left Christianity directly because of bad soteriology in the Charismatic Church (worse yet: Pelagianism), and others who were frustrated because they were never healed or they didn't understand deliverance (= exorcism, for you non-charismatic folks).

I deeply love the Charismatic Movement. And I pray that she would grow into the beautiful, powerful, freeing voice of Christianity that she is meant to be.


But something bothers me, in the midst of what's been going on in Ferguson. As I look out on social media, I hear one of two lines from the Charismatic Movement: I either hear complete radio silence on the issue, or the same lines of rhetoric ("Well, if Mike Brown had just obeyed the law," or "this is not a race issue," and, even!, "you must understand: this is a Muslim plot...!!!") that I'm hearing from unsaved white folk.

And my question (and challenge) to the Charismatic Movement is this: Why haven't the prophets said anything? I've been watching a few Twitter feeds and Facebook accounts of some of the prominent prophetic ministries in the U.S. (the three major "streams": Bethel, IHOP-KC, and Morningstar), and they have all been completely silent.

That is deeply disconcerting to me. How can it be that something that pretty much every single African American church in America can't not talk about this coming Sunday is a subject matter that none of the "big name prophetic voices" in our country are speaking on? Is it that this "isn't really that important?" Or is there are bigger issue?


I'm sharing about this prophetic word the Lord gave me because I think there's a bigger issue. And I'm convinced that this is, in some sense, a "make or break" moment for the Charismatic Movement. I believe that God is serious, and I believe that He will begin removing fruit from the Charismatic Movement (and any section of the Church) until we begin listening to the warning that He's given us.

I'm sharing about this prophetic word in this way, telling of how God said it to me and how He confirmed it to me, because I've seen people stand up and give a prophetic word with less confirmation and less prayer and be listened to. I share it this way because, yet again, I love the Charismatic Movement, and I do not want her to become an unfruitful vine.

I'm sharing about this prophetic word because I have heard from the Lord on this matter, and He's given me a place to proclaim, and He's given me the tools I need to proclaim it. This is an Isaiah and Joel moment in our country. But if we don't ask the Lord and engage with Him now, it will pass us by and we will be under God's Judgment.

I'm sharing about this prophetic word because I want to see the Kingdom of God advance.

Hear, O Church. I love you too much to not share this with you.

***EDIT 9:41AM***

I felt I needed to clarify one point:

For my Charismatic brothers & sisters: I am not saying this as some sort of "Declaration of War" or "Strange Fire" (MERCY, NO!) or anything of that sort. I really do believe that God gave me a prophetic word for the hour. All I ask is that you would consider this Word, discern according to the Word of God and the Spirit who lives within you, and ask God about it, just like any other prophetic word that may be spoken.

But my warning comes in this sense: If you dismiss this immediately, I want to ask you: "Why have you dismissed this Word so quickly?" Was it because you knew inherently that it must be wrong? Or do you doubt my character? (For those who know me, I hope that is not the case!) Was it because it contrasted with your views on the matter?

The same would go for those (including myself) who would take this Word readily and rally behind it. Again, "Why accept it so quickly?" Is it because you know inherently that it must be true? Or because you so clearly trust my character? (Again, self-reflectively, I hope that is not the case either!) Was it because your views so agreed on the matter?

But here's one final question; Does this Word make you feel uncomfortable? Does it challenge you to pursue God more, or, were you to live it out, would it change our world in some manner? What would it look like if the Church, and specifically the Charismatic Movement in the Church, were to really grasp a vision of Racial Reconciliation being deeply important to God?

Me, I want to lean into my Father. And I believe that He's given me this Word to declare. And though it looks really really hard to speak it to a community that I love, I too feel "fire shut up in my bones" if I were to keep within the revelation He's shown me.

The Alton Observer.

In 1836, a judge by the name of Lawless looked the newspaper-man in the eyes and said to him: "Your newspaper was the reason that this man died."

But Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy did not stand down. You see, he was the owner and principle author of a little newspaper known as the St. Louis Observer, and he had dedicated a large portion of his life and his time to writing about the evils of slavery and the wickedness of racial hatred. By 1836, his printing press had been destroyed three times.

In that year, a free black man named Francis McIntosh was burned to death by a mob. Rev. Lovejoy attended the grand jury proceedings, decrying the manner of McIntosh's death. Judge Lawless blamed the Observer for the lynch mob.

In 1837, Rev. Lovejoy relocated to the city of Alton, right across the River. On November 7th of that year, his printing press was assailed and thrown into the River, and Rev. Lovejoy was murdered by a mob.

Rev. Lovejoy is a powerful symbol for me. I live in the City of Alton, and I too am a Christian and a writer. When I hear about Rev. Lovejoy's testimony before Judge Lawless, his consistency in standing for slave's rights, and his martyred death, I feel a strength to speak using that same prophetic voice.

Rev. Lovejoy was an abolitionist not because he was politically-motivated or because he wanted votes or popularity -- he was an abolitionist because he was convinced by the Gospel that all men were created equal and free, and he was empowered by God's Spirit to be a voice for the voiceless. He declared: "If the laws of my country fail to protect me I appeal to God, and with him I cheerfully rest my cause. I can die at my post but I cannot desert it."

Right now, Rev. Lovejoy is on my mind on a daily basis. Across the River, in the small St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, there is violent unrest and turmoil following the non-indictment of police officer Darren Wilson. And I've been finding myself asking one major question: "How would Brother Lovejoy have responded?"

There's a bit about Francis McIntosh that I didn't share earlier: he was a bad man. Lovejoy himself said of this man: "...a hardened wretch certainly, and one that deserved to die —but not thus to die." McIntosh had interrupted the arrest of two rowdy sailors by two police officers, and he wounded and killed those officers. But Lovejoy defended him because it was wrong for him to have died in the manner that he died: by lynch-mob and without a trial.

In the spirit of Rev. Lovejoy, I look across the Clark Bridge to St. Louis. In Ferguson last August, an unarmed black teen was shot and killed by a white police officer. No matter how you mince things, Mike Brown did not have a weapon, and he had never killed a man. Yet he was shot multiple times and left dead on the street for 4 hours.

We could probably have a conversation about Mike Brown posing a danger to Darren Wilson, about the theft from the convenience store, &c. &c. ... ... But my point (in this blog post) is that no matter how we look at this situation, Mike Brown was not a murderer and he was not armed. Brother Lovejoy defended McIntosh, an armed murderer, because it was wrong for him to have died the way that he died.

I've talked before about this case, but here I want to share another spin: Is it ever right for a man to be killed without trial? And if Lovejoy was willing to put his reputation on the line for, again, a bad man who died in a wicked way, then how much more so should the modern Christian (and the modern Christian writer!) speak out and cry out for Justice for an unarmed teen who died in an unlawful way.

I can see the Arch from my house, through the beams of the Clark Bridge. I can also see the Lovejoy Monument, which is just a few blocks from where I live. How can I not ask for Justice for the oppressed? How can I not cry out for Truth in this world of lies? How can I not say, as I have said before: "This is not right."

If I do not speak, the blood on the ground in Ferguson would cry out against me. If I do not speak, the blood of righteous Lovejoy would cry out against me. That is why I have been so vocal, and that is why I cannot be quiet on this matter.