The Bible and the Newspaper

Karl Barth is widely regarded as the greatest (Protestant) Christian theologian of the twentieth century. Among a myriad of other things, Barth (1886~1968) is often credited with saying that people should hold the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. 

Barth’s Important Words

It is questionable that Barth ever spoke the words he is often quoted as saying. But in “Barth in Retirement,” a May 1963 Time magazine article, Barth stated that 40 years ago he advised young theologians to “take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both.”

That article also quotes Barth as saying, “I always pray for the sick, the poor, journalists, authorities of the state and church—in that order. Journalists form public opinion. They hold terribly important positions.”

Now, unlike in 1963 or 40 years before that, the news and the work of the journalists is disseminated by digital means as well as by print. So “newspaper” needs to be interpreted as all the ways the news is reported.

And the journalists for whom Barth regularly prayed includes all of those who seek to communicate and interpret the news by all the various forms of public media, even when—or especially when—they are castigated as being the “enemy of the people” by you-know-who.

The Eternal Word

Barth’s theology is often depicted as the theology of the Word of God. The Word of God comes to human beings in three “forms”: the humanity of Christ, the words of the prophets and the apostles (i.e. the canonical Scriptures), and the words of preachers. 

Barth, thus, emphasized the Word of God in this threefold sense:

** The Incarnate Word of God

          Despite the way much conservative evangelicalism has emphasized the Bible as the Word of God, Barth first emphasizes that primarily Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Certainly, that emphasis is in harmony with John 1:1~18 in the New Testament. (Click here to review that seminal passage.)

** The Written Word of God

The Bible is the record of God’s revelation through the Jewish people and then especially through Jesus Christ, the Word of God par excellence.

** The Proclaimed Word of God

The preachers, or theologians, that Barth referred to are those who speak not just to share their personal ideas or insights but to interpret the written Word of God in order to know the message of and about Jesus, the incarnate Word of God. No “job” is more demanding/challenging than that of being called to proclaim that Word.

The Everchanging Word

Barth was born in Switzerland and always had Swiss citizenship. Most of his higher education, however, was in Germany, and after serving for ten years as a pastor in Switzerland, in 1921 he began teaching in Germany.

Even though he was a pastor and in 1918 the author of a commentary on the biblical book of Romans, he evidently regularly read the everchanging word in the newspapers. Although he was not a German, in the 1930s he became a leader of the Christian opposition to Hitler and the Nazis.

Barth was a leader of the Confessing Church in Germany and the chief author of the Barmen Declaration of 1934. (I wrote about this briefly in a 7/20/19 blog post.) Barth’s reading of and preaching the eternal Word of God was balanced by his reading, and acting upon, what he found in the everchanging words of the newspapers.

As so it should be for us Christians today. During Holy Week this month, Pastor Laura Mayo penned an important op/ed piece titled "For all who seek to follow Rabbi Jesus, now is exactly the time to be political." She doesn’t say so, but it is evident that just as Barth advocated, Pastor Laura had been reading both the Bible and the "newspaper."

For many years after I started my preaching ministry (at the age of 16!), I focused mainly on the Word of God. But gradually I came to understand the importance of Barth’s emphasis on reading both the Bible and the newspaper.

Now I wonder if I spend too much time reading the "newspaper“ (online news articles and opinion pieces) and not enough time reflecting on how all the "news“ should be interpreted by the Word of God.

What about you?

The Appeal of Theological Liberalism

The title of my book that I am updating and slightly revising this year is The Limits of Liberalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Liberalism. In Chapter Three, I highlight the appeal of theological liberalism before writing in the next chapter—and in the rest of the book—about my many misgivings regarding liberalism. 

The Psychological Appeal

Perhaps the primary psychological appeal of liberalism is found in its attitude of tolerance and broadmindedness.

For most college-educated young adults, this is an attractive characteristic, indeed. Many contemporary people seem to consider religious beliefs to be narrow and divisive, and especially so in fundamentalist expressions of religion, Christianity or otherwise.

By and large, though, liberal Christianity is “politically correct” and can be discussed at dinner parties or other social gatherings without ruffling anyone’s feathers, to use an old rural expression.

The appeal of liberalism is not just to young adults, though. Across the age spectrum, liberalism has a strong psychological appeal for many people who are fed up with the divisiveness, strife, and conflicts perpetuated in the name of religion.

From ancient times until the present, many wars have been waged in the name of some religious commitment. It seems, sadly, that Pascal’s words are true: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

Furthermore, in contrast to its condemnation of many “social sins” such as war, discrimination, exploitation, and the like, on an individual level liberal Christianity tends to be non-judgmental and is seldom critical of the personal lifestyles of others.

Yes, for many people there is an attractive psychological appeal in Christian liberalism.

The Political Appeal

It is important to differentiate between theological liberalism and social/political liberalism. Despite some overlapping characteristics, there are also distinct differences and one does not necessarily imply the other.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a close alliance between many aspects of theological liberalism and liberal politics—and most theological liberals have embraced political/social liberalism also, to varying degrees.

Among younger voters in the U.S., for decades now there has been a growing percentage of people who do not claim any religious affiliations. They are often referred to as the Nones.

An October 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 84% of U.S. adults in the “silent generation” (those born from 1928 to 1945) identified as Christians and only 10% were “unaffiliated.” By contrast, only 49% of Millennials (1981~96) self-identified as Christian and 40% were unaffiliated.

Fundamentalism as preserved and expanded by the Religious Right is a major reason for the growth of the Nones, and currently the Democratic Party, which embraces liberal Christianity far more than the Republican Party, is clearly more appealing to that segment of the population.

The Religious Appeal

In addition to the psychological and political appeals, there are also, of course, many religious appeals of Christian liberalism. These are attractive especially to those who are well-educated, sophisticated, and urbane.

Many who were reared in homes where traditional religious beliefs were highly valued have a positive feeling toward religion in general. But their broadened worldview and years of academic study made/make it difficult to hold on to the old theological views that were so much a part of their rearing.

Theological liberalism gave/gives many such persons the opportunity to hold a modern, scientific worldview and to be religious at the same time.

In Chapter Four, which I will highlight next month, we will look at the other side of the matter. Despite the various appeals of theological liberalism elucidated in Chapter Three, there are also some basic problems with Christian liberalism that call for careful attention.

Taking Care of Mother

Although it is still three weeks until Mother’s Day, I am writing today about taking care of Mother Earth. This week marks the 50^th anniversary of Earth Day, so it is a fitting time to think about taking care of our planet. 

The First Earth Day

Earth Day was first observed on April 22, 1970. Do you old-timers remember that important event that celebrates its 50^th birthday this week?

To be honest, I don’t remember that day. I was living and teaching in Japan at that time, struggling at the beginning of a new semester to teach Christian Studies in Japanese to hundreds of university students. And at home, June was in the third trimester of her pregnancy with our third child.

Actually, though, for the first 20 years, Earth Day was mainly an event celebrated in the U.S. and did not become international until 1990. But those early years were important for the environmental movement in the U.S.

Gaylord Nelson, the Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, was the founder of Earth Day. In 1995, Nelson (1916~2005) was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in recognition of his environmental work.

In its beginning, Earth Day was bipartisan in its support and appeal. The co-chair who served with Sen. Nelson was Pete McCloskey, who was at the time a Republican U.S. Representative from California.

One of the ongoing effects of that first Earth Day was the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). President Nixon proposed the establishment of the EPA in July 1970 and it began operation in December of that year after he signed an executive order.

The Clean Air Act of 1963 came under the aegis of the EPA, and then the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 were signed into law by President Nixon.

Yes, taking care of Mother Earth used to be a bipartisan concern.

Earth Day Now

There are extensive plans for the celebration of Earth Day 2020, and I encourage you to check out the website (here) for this year’s events, which they say will be “the largest secular observance in the world, marked by more than a billion people.” 

Enthusiastic observance of Earth Day in the U.S. is especially important now, for the Trump Administration has rolled back many of the programs/activities that started 50 years ago.

Ten days ago, PBS posted “During the Coronavirus Crisis, the Trump Administration’s Environmental Rollbacks Continue.” And it has already been two and a half years since PBS aired “War on the EPA” on their 10/11/17 Frontline presentation.

Much of that war on the EPA, as documented in the PBS program, was led by Scott Pruitt, DJT’s first appointed head of the Agency. Pruitt, a conservative Southern Baptist from Oklahoma, served as head of the EPA from February 2017 to July 2018.

It was no surprise to learn (from this 3/27/18 CBN article) that Pruitt was “one of President Donald Trump's Cabinet members who sponsors and attends a weekly Cabinet Bible study led by Ralph Drollinger, president and founder of Capitol Ministries.”

(If you missed reading my previous blog post about Drollinger, check it out here.)

Things did not improve much when Andrew Wheeler became head of the EPA in February of last year. He previously worked in the law firm that represented a coal magnate and lobbied against the Obama Administration's environmental regulations.

Yes, much needs to be done to take care of Mother Earth—not only because of what is being undone now but also because of the many necessary things that have not yet been done.

And don’t forget, as I quoted at the beginning of the only other blog post I made about Earth Day (here, seven years ago), “The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1, KJV).

Rightly (or Wrongly) Explaining the Word of Truth

Ralph Drollinger is probably the tallest Bible study teacher you never heard of, at least until recently—and he may be one of the most detrimental to the health of the nation. In the Bible, 2 Timothy 2:15 ends with the words “rightly explaining the word of truth.” It is highly questionable, however, whether Drollinger rightly explains the Bible. 

(From a 4/10/18 online article by Andrew Seidel)

Drollinger’s Capitol Ministries

In 1996, Ralph Drollinger (b. 1954), who is 7’2” tall and a former NBA player, started a new organization in his home state of California. Its goal was “to create disciples of Jesus Christ in the political arena throughout the world.”

As a Christian, I certainly can’t fault that goal. But it is important to understand the kind of disciples he and his organization were/are trying to create.

Ten years ago, in 2010, Drollinger established his first national ministry in Washington, D.C., where he began a weekly Bible study for U.S. Representatives. Five years later he began a separate ministry to U.S. Senators. Then in 2017 he created a ministry to members of the White House Cabinet.

In addition, according to the Capitol Ministries website, they have “also created discipleship Bible studies to the political leaders of 24 nations on four continents.”

In their “comprehensive doctrinal statement,” Capitol Ministries declares,

We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess. 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Tim. 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed. We teach the literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture, which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Gen. 1:31; Ex. 31:17).

But, does the world really need more “disciples” who adhere to biblical inerrancy, including belief in a literal six-day creation?

Drollinger’s Bible Studies

Drollinger’s Bible studies on Capitol Hill has an impressive list of “sponsors.” The Cabinet members who are sponsors include Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as Ben Carson and Betsy DeVos. Former Cabinet member sponsors include Rick Perry and Jeff Sessions.

Eleven Republican Senators are listed as Bible study sponsors, including Joni Ernst from Iowa, Cindy Hyde-Smith from Mississippi, James Lankford from Oklahoma, and David Perdue from Georgia.

Then there are 41 Representatives who are sponsors. The two most widely known are Kevin McCarthy, currently the House Minority Leader, and Louie Gohmert, the outspoken Congressman from Texas.

Although who actually attends each Bible study is not made known, the weekly schedule is 7 a.m. Wednesdays for the Cabinet, 8:00 a.m. Tuesdays for the Senate, and 7:45 a.m. Thursdays for the House.

There is no indication that DJT has attended any of the Bible studies, but Drollinger sends a copy of his printed studies to him and reportedly sometimes receives back comments written in his felt tip marker pen.

On March 23, Drollinger’s Bible study was titled, “Is God Judging America Today?” An online article the next day (see here) was very critical of what Drollinger said in that study—and on March 27 Drollinger issued a questionable rebuttal titled “Lies, Distortions and Inaccuracies.”

Drollinger’s Detrimental Influence

Questions about Drollinger’s Bible studies are not just recent. A 10/05/17 article in Newsweek magazine refers to Drollinger as the “next most prominent godly voice in Trump’s White House” after Paula White.

That article points out that in “Entitlement Programs Viewed Through the Lens of Scripture,” an August 2016 Bible study, Drollinger asserted that the Bible “is clear” that caring for the poor is the responsibility of the family and the church, not the government.”

Newsweek also published “White House Bible Study Led By Pastor Who Is Anti-Gay, Anti-Women and Anti-Catholic,” a 4/11/18 article even more critical of Drollinger. That headline doesn’t seem to be inaccurate—and it could have included anti-environment as well.

All of Drollinger’s Bible teaching is, no doubt, based on “the literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture.” But that is the problem—and I address that issue in “Fed Up with Fundamentalism’s View of the Bible,” the fifth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007, 2020).

To a large extent, sadly, Drollinger seems to be wrongly “explaining the word of truth.”

Thinking about Triage

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, triage means “the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors.” In a broader sense, triage can refer to choosing who will live and who will die in crisis situations.

Triage and the Covid-19 Pandemic

The April 4 issue of The Economist includes a short article titled “Triage under trial.” Already by then, in the U.S. and Europe many doctors were “faced with terrible decisions about how to allocate scarce resources such as beds, intensive care, and ventilators.”

The practice of utilitarian triage was suggested as the best solution, that is, using resources (medical staff, supplies, and equipment) for “the patients who have the greatest chances of successful treatment, and who have the greatest life expectancy.”

The article concludes that “humans tend to be inclined to treat others according to need and their chances of survival. That framework seems broadly morally acceptable. Even so, it will involve many heart-wrenching decisions along the way.”

We can hope that during the current covid-19 pandemic, triage, if or when necessary, will be implemented in this way rather than giving precedence to those who are wealthier or more socially prominent to the neglect and detriment of those who are poor and disadvantaged. 

Triage in The Devil’s Arithmetic

At sundown two days ago, on April 8, the Jewish Passover began, and for many Jews it began with the Seder meal, an elaborate ritual based on recounting the Jewish deliverance from captivity in Egypt.

The Devil’s Arithmetic, the 1988 juvenile historical novel by Jane Yolen and the 1999 movie by the same name, begins with an extended Jewish family in New York celebrating the Passover Seder meal together.

I recently read the book and watched the movie after hearing that Carl, my 12-year-old grandson, is going to be reading the book, which evidently has been used in middle school curricula for many years. (I now wonder about the wisdom of having children of that age reading a book with so much violence and suffering/death.)

The Nazis in the Jewish work/death camps used a form of negative triage to decide who to kill, not who to save. Those who appeared to be the sickest or the weakest were chosen for the oven and to go up the smokestack.

Terrible triage, indeed!

Triage and Good Friday

As today is Good Friday for Christians around the world (except for the Orthodox Church that celebrates it a week later this year), let’s consider a type of triage decision that led to the death of Jesus.

According to John 11:48, the religious/political leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem were worried about the growing popularity of Jesus. They fretted that because of Jesus, “ the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our people” (CEB).

In response to that expressed fear, we see the high priest Caiaphas’s employment of “triage.” He asserted that “it is better for you that one man die for the people rather than the whole nation be destroyed” (v. 50).

The Roman rulers were always on guard against subversion—and the Jewish leaders were, probably rightly, afraid that Jesus would be increasingly seen as subversive. So according to John 11:53, “From that day on they plotted to kill him”—and the plot succeeded as Jesus was crucified on what Christians consider the first Good Friday.

So, note that Jesus was not crucified by the Jews because of religious reasons; he was crucified by the Romans for political reasons. And, according to the verses we have looked at in John 11, the Jewish leaders sought Jesus’ death in order to keep the Jewish nation from being destroyed.

Caiaphas’s triage worked—at least for a few decades.

However, Jesus’ death turned out to have a whole new level of significance that neither the Romans nor the Jews in Jerusalem dreamed of.

Yes, today is Good Friday—but Sunday’s coming. Happy Easter!

Learning from the Covid-19 Pandemic

It goes without saying that this is an unusual and highly critical time in the history of this country and of the world. According to Worldometers, by 8:30 pm (GMT) on April 5 the covid-19 pandemic had caused the deaths of more than 69,330 people worldwide and 9,550 people in the U.S.—and the worse is yet to come. Lives and livelihoods have been greatly disrupted for most people. What are some of the lessons that can be learned from all this?

Denial and Delay are Deadly

For those of us who live in the U.S., the seriousness of the covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. could certainly have been greatly lessened by swifter and more decisive action.

It seems to be without question that DJT denied the gravity of the threat for weeks and delayed taking steps that could have lessened the pandemic’s detrimental impact on the country.

On January 22, the day after the first case in the U.S. was confirmed, DJT declared in a CNBC interview, “We have it totally under control.” In a tweet more than a month later, on Feb. 24, he reaffirmed, “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.”

And less than a month ago DJT was still blaming “fake news” and the Democrats for exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic. He tweeted, 

In mid-March the President finally switched to recognizing the seriousness of the pandemic. Nevertheless, it seems incontrovertible that the spread of covid-19 cases and the number of deaths in the U.S. have been at least partially due to his denial of the problem and delay in taking decisive action.

In this case, and others, denial and delay are often deadly. 

“Big Government” Is Necessary

Since the time of Ronald Reagan, many people in this country have agreed with his first inaugural address declaration in 1981: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

For a long time, and especially during these last four decades, the Republican Party has emphasized the advantages of having a small federal government.

But what about now?

The covid-19 pandemic has made it evident that the problems faced by USAmerican citizens are much too great to be dealt with only on state or local levels. Accordingly, Congress passed and on March 27 the President signed a massive relief bill.

That bill, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) Is a $2.2 trillion aid package that will provide financial aid to families and businesses impacted by the current pandemic.

While there are certainly serious questions about the CARES Act—such as there being too much money made available, without adequate oversight, to large corporations—it will substantially benefit many ordinary people who are suffering financially.

Yes, in times of crisis, big government is necessary and beneficial.

Things Will Change Drastically

You know these dates: 10/24/1929 (“Black Thursday”), 12/7/1941 (“Pearl Harbor”), and, of course, 9/11/2001. Those are days that marked the beginning of long, significant changes in American society—although by now the latter date seems much less consequential than the first two.

But 1/21/20 (the date of the first covid-19 case confirmed in the U.S.) may result in drastic changes that will rival those pivotal dates in 1929 and 1941.

In the U.S., the death toll from covid-19 surely won’t be as high as in WWII (over 400,000), but before the end of March it surpassed that of 9/11 and in time it may well exceed the combined total of the wars in Korea and Vietnam (around 95,000).

It is hard to imagine at this point what life will be like in the U.S. by the end of next year. There will likely be some drastic changes—and some things may be even worse than most of us can imagine now.

But life will go on—at least for most. Adaptations can and will be made. And, overall, some drastic changes may well be for the better. At least that can be our hope and our prayer.