Not All Laws are Good Laws

Perhaps you don’t know (or remember) anything about the Butler Act, a new Tennessee law signed in 1925, but you are likely aware of the well-known trial that resulted from that law.

John Washington Butler (1925)

The Butler Act was signed one hundred years ago on March 21, 1925 (which happened to be my father’s tenth birthday), by Tennessee Governor Austin Peay.

John Washington Butler (1875~1952) was a corn and tobacco farmer northeast of Nashville, Tennessee, and a member of that state’s House of Representatives from 1923 to 1927. The bill that bears his name was passed by a lopsided vote of 71-5 without hearings or debate, and then also passed by the state Senate.

In May 1925, John Scopes (1900~70), a high school football coach and part-time teacher, was arrested for teaching evolution in violation of the Butler Act. His trial was held in Dayton, Tennessee, from July 10 to 21, and he was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Dubbed at the time “the trial of the century,” the Scopes trial pitted the iconic Clarence Darrow as the defense lawyer and prominent politician William Jennings Bryan as the prosecuting attorney.*¹ As depicted superbly in the movie Inherit the Wind (1960), Scopes was judged guilty and fined $100.*²

In the trial’s aftermath, Tennessee disallowed the teaching of evolution in the classroom until the Butler Act was repealed in 1967. It was then determined that, after all, the 1925 law was a bad law, as it conflicted with modern science and also increasingly had lost the support of many (progressive) Christians.*³

Many “bad laws” have been opposed by civil disobedience. As stated in an online dictionary, civil disobedience means “the refusal to comply with certain laws … as a peaceful form of political protest.” That refusal is because of the perception that some laws are bad and should not be obeyed.

Here are just a few notable historical examples of such “disobedience”:

* Mohandas Gandhi’s protest against the salt tax in India. This month marks the 95^th anniversary of Gandhi’s historic “salt march” that began on March 12, 1930. It was in opposition to the salt tax levied by colonial Britain, which he saw as an oppressive, unjust law.

* Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s protest against the Nazi government in Germany. The Lutheran pastor was one of the best-known opponents of Adolph Hitler, who was democratically elected but soon gained totalitarian control over Germany in 1933 by means of his laws and the use of the Gestapo.

* Martin Luther King Jr.’s protest against the racial injustices in the U.S. According to Copilot (Microsoft’s AI “companion”) King “believed that moral principles were more important than unfair laws, so he “used civil disobedience not just to make a political statement but to really change society.” This included the march to Selma and “Bloody Sunday” 60 years ago in March 1965.

Civil disobedience to bad laws is often costly for the protesters.

* Gandhi was arrested on May 5, 1930, while on his salt march and sent to jail without trial where he remained until near the end of January 1931.

*Bonhoeffer was arrested in April 1943 and was imprisoned until his execution by hanging 80 years ago next month, on April 9, 1945.

* King was arrested 29 times and jailed, usually for rather short times, on many of those occasions. His most well-known incarceration was in April 1963 when he wrote Letter from a Birmingham Jail, during the week he was there.

Now, by contrast, the U.S. President seems to be a “scofflaw.” While the term originally meant disregard for minor laws, scofflaw now sometimes is used for a person who disregards court orders, thus directly challenging judicial authority.

This is the opposite of disregarding bad laws. It is harmful opposition to good laws, such as protecting people’s civil rights. Since his inauguration on Jan. 20, the 47^th POTUS seems to have made many executive actions harmful to women as well as to LGBTQ and non-White people.

For example, during the past few days, the Trump administration has deported three planeloads of Guatemalan immigrants to El Salvador in spite of a federal judge’s temporary restraining order questioning the legality of that action.

That conflict may be fomenting a constitutional crisis according to the news media, such as this detailed March 17 article on the website of Reuters.com.

_____

*¹ In 2023, Gregg Jarrett, a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, published The Trial of the Century, which, “calls upon our past to unite Americans in the defense of the free exchange of ideas, especially in this divided time.” The author describes it on YouTube here.

*² In recent years, it is often implied that $100 was just a token fine for John Scopes breaking the Butler Act in Tennessee. According to Wikipedia, however, his fine was equivalent to $1,793 in 2024.

*³ As I point out in my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007, 2020), the Scopes Trial led to the weakening of Christian fundamentalism (2020, pp. 34~37).

Doubt is Better than Certainty

Last Sunday, the 97^th Academy Awards presentations were made at Dolby Theater in Hollywood. I didn’t watch the award ceremony, but early Monday morning, I read the results with interest. I was especially eager to know the results for Conclave, the only one of the Best Picture nominees I had seen. 

Conclave did not win the Best Picture Oscar, and Ralph Fiennes (pictured above) was not awarded the Best Actor Oscar for which he was nominated.*¹ Still, please think with me about the striking words of Cardinal Lawrence, who was in charge of the conclave to elect a new pope.

Lawrence, the Dean of the College of Cardinals so admirably played by Fiennes, speaks these striking words near the beginning of the film:

… over the course of many years, in the service of our mother the Church, let me tell you, there is one sin which I have come to fear above all others. Certainty. Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance.

He goes on to say,

Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand in hand with doubt. If there was only certainty and no doubt, there would be no mystery. And therefore no need for faith. Let us pray that God will grant us a pope who doubts.

These were perplexing words to most of the Cardinals gathered for the conclave—and they are likely perplexing to many of you also, especially those of you who have grown up as (and still are) “traditional” Christians.

“The Appeal of Certainty” is a short subsection in my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007, 2020). In the first paragraph, I write that “the claim to certainty is one of fundamentalism’s primary attractions.” That same claim is true for many, if not most, conservative evangelicals today.

Nearly 100 years ago, Reinhold Niebuhr, the eminent neo-orthodox theologian, declared, “Frantic orthodoxy [=fundamentalism] is a method for obscuring doubt.” The foundation of that method was an emphasis upon belief in the Bible, believed to be God’s infallible or inerrant Word.

In 1969, W.A. Criswell, the prominent pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, stressed that the Bible is the literal, infallible Word of God, and then averred, ”If the Bible is the Word of God we have an absolutely trustworthy guide for all the answers our souls desire to know.”

That position is appealing to so many who desire the comforting presence of certainty.

God After Deconstruction by Thomas Jay Oord and Tripp Fuller is a new (2024) book, and one that I highly recommend. The second of the twelve chapters is titled “Certainty Crumbles.” At the end of a sub-section called “The Benefit of Doubt,” the authors write,

Rather than being an enemy of belief, we think doubt is essential. Believers aren’t ‘certainers,’ to coin a word. To believe means to be uncertain. The wise ones among us learn to resist the impulse to seek certain foundations of knowledge (31).*²

Then, in “Bible Conundrums,” their fifth chapter, Oord and Fuller deal directly with how many people leave Christianity when they realize that there are many problems related to belief in an infallible Bible as a sure foundation. They give much good advice on how to take the Bible seriously but not literally.

Throughout their insightful book, the authors insist that doubt is more conducive to a life of faith than certainty.

This is similar to what Anne Lamott (whom I plan to highlight in a blog article next month) wrote in her book Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith (2005). One of her religious mentors is a Jesuit priest, whom she refers to as Father Tom. Near the end of her book, she writes,

I remembered something Father Tom had told me—that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. (p. 256).

Retired pastor Martin Thielen recently wrote about the benefit of doubt. He said, “Religious doubt can lead to a more authentic and mature faith, including the embrace of divine mystery ….”*³

Yes, when carefully considered, doubt is better than certainty.

_____

*¹ This was in contrast to the British Academy of Film and Television Arts presentation ceremony held on February 16. Conclave and Fiennes both won the BAFTA awards. 

*² While they didn’t cite him, perhaps the authors had read the eminent agnostic Bertrand Russell, who in 1935 wrote, “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

*³ In April 2014, I posted a blog article (see here) in which I introduced Thielen, who at that time was a Methodist pastor in Tennessee. After making that post, I found out that he had graduated with an M.Div. degree from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1982 but left the Southern Baptists Convention in 1994. He now publishes articles regularly on his website that he calls “Doubter’s Parish.” The words cited above are from his March 1 post, “Faith, Doubt, and ‘Conclave’,” which I encourage you to read (here).

 

Do MAGA Christians Support Trump Because of Malice or Stupidity—or Something Else?

Recently I learned about the adage called Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

The author of an article who cited those words wrote that he knows “lots of MAGA Christians but his efforts to understand ‘why’ they honor Trump have been futile. Since he has failed to find other reasons, he thinks that perhaps it must, indeed, be either because of malice or stupidity.

However, I don’t agree that it must be one or the other of those two choices. 

As most of you know well, I am not a MAGA Republican supporter. But I think that to attribute the reason that many Christians do support Trump and the MAGA movement as being due either to malice or stupidity is too harsh and inaccurate.

What can we say, then, about why there are so many MAGA Christians who do support Trump? That was an issue that Thinking Friend Jerry Jumper wrote/asked about in an email I received from him last month, and many others of you likely puzzle over that same question.

What could it be other than malice or stupidity? Several other reasons are feasible. and I think that the percentage of people who vote for Trump because of malice or stupidity is markedly smaller than those who did and will vote for Trump for other reasons.

Here are five reasons that might explain why many self-identified Christians have voted for Trump and are likely to do so again this fall, and this list is not exhaustive:

◈ Nostalgia. Many people who remember the 1950s—and still live in rural communities that fondly recall then as the “good old days” with an esteemed Republican President—wish that the U.S. could be like it was then. Thus, they are drawn to the Make America Great Again slogan.

◈ Fear. Closely related to the above is the fear of things changing for the worse. Nostalgic people often fear the loss of cherished values of the past. There is a close connection between religious and political conservatism, and one subsection of my book on fundamentalism is titled “The Fear Factor.”*¹

◈ Consistency. Some voters say they’ve always been (or ever since Reagan have been) a Republican, so naturally they vote for the Republican candidate. This was the sort of response June got from close relatives when she asked why they voted for Trump in 2016.

◈ Disinformation. Many people get misleading/erroneous information from “news” sources such as Fox News, “talk radio,” and publications such as Epoch Times.*² Last week I listened to the former some each evening—and was amazed at how their “news” differed from the “mainstream” media.*³

◈ Misinterpretation. Influential conservative evangelical Christians such as Pastor Robert Jeffress (First Baptist Church, Dallas), Ralph Reed (Faith and Freedom Coalition), and Franklin Graham (Samaritan’s Purse), among many others, have fostered misinterpretation of what the Bible says, or doesn’t say, about abortion, gay rights, etc.

Many people who support Trump for the above reasons may, indeed, lack sufficient understanding and/or information. But that doesn’t mean they are stupid. And while such reasons may trigger malicious actions by some, surely those who are MAGA supporters because of malice are few.

So, we who are steadfast opponents of Trump and MAGA Republicans need to beware of fostering arrogant, condescending, and/or belittling attitudes toward people we disagree with politically. Neighbor-love must be extended to them also, and that includes not labeling them as being either malicious or stupid.

Even the leaders of the Christian Right who for decades have sought to change this country into a theocracy, as vividly portrayed in Bad Faith, the new (2024) documentary about “Christian nationalism,” were certainly not stupid nor acting out of malice from their (mistaken) point of view.*⁴

But make no mistake about it: seeking to understand and being friendly toward MAGA Christians definitely doesn’t mean agreeing with their misguided views or minimizing the danger lurking under their unwise support of a wholly unworthy candidate for President.  

_____

*¹ Fed Up with Fundamentalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Fundamentalism (2007, 2020), pp. 100~103.

*² Here is the link to an informative, and rather long, article about The Epoch Times.

*³ One evening last week, the top story at 8 p.m. was the campus unrest at Columbia University and elsewhere. Repeatedly they were referred to as “pro-Hamas” activities. The next morning the mainstream websites invariably called that unrest “pro-Palestinian.” That is a marked difference.

*⁴ This film traces the development of the Christian Right in the U.S. from the early 1970s to the present. June and I rented it from Amazon Prime and watched it last Friday evening. We thought it was a helpful film, fairly done but clear in showing the ongoing threat of Christian nationalism that seeks to overthrow USAmerican democracy. I highly recommend the viewing of, and sharing information about, that fine documentary.

 

 

Why are Teenage Girls “Not Okay”?

Soon after posting my February 16 blog article in which I referred to Diana Butler Bass, I read Bass’s latest newsletter on her Substack blog called The Cottage (which has 32,000 subscribers!) It was partly about teenage girls, which hit home with me. 

Image from Bass's newsletter

Natalie, my youngest granddaughter, turned 13 that very day. I first mentioned her in the blog post I made on February 19, 2010, three days after her birth, and I will probably refer to that article again in an upcoming blog post.

Naomi, Natalie’s sister, is celebrating her 19^th birthday today, so the youngest two of my five granddaughters are both teenagers. They have been, and are, a great delight to June and me. 

“The Girls Are Not Okay” is the title of Bass’s newsletter (click here to read it). Bass was not writing about all girls, and I am deeply grateful that she was not writing about girls such as my granddaughters, who both seem to be well-adjusted young women. But sadly, many girls are “not okay.”

Bass’s article begins by referring to the new study of USAmerica’s teens released by the Center for Disease Control’s Youth Rick Behavior Survey (YRBS), and she reports the findings were “stark and frightening.” She writes that “the crisis is particularly urgent among teenage girls.”*

The YRBS report states that according to the data, “teen girls are confronting the highest levels of sexual violence, sadness, and hopelessness they have ever reported to YRBS.” (A summary of the YRBS report can be found here.)

Interestingly, Bass seeks to link the malaise of teenage girls to an aspect of contemporary society that would not at first glance be considered a cause of that dis-ease.

“White Christian Nationalism” is part of the problem, according to Bass. She refers to “A Christian Nation? Understanding the Threat of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy and Culture,” a study released by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) on February 8 (see here).

That study indicates that White Christian Nationalists, by and large, “believe women must submit to men” and that “society is diminished when women have more opportunities to work outside of the home.” These ideas reflect a belief in “complementarianism,” a widely held view by evangelical Christians.

Bass (who celebrated her 64^th birthday last Sunday) states, “There is little doubt among historians that second wave feminism of the 1970s improved the lives of women and girls in terms of education, health, work, finances, and overall equality.”

She mentions the significance of the 1974 book All We’re Meant to Be: A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation, authored by Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty. As Bass says, that book “caused a sensation in evangelical churches and theological circles.”

June and I, along with many other progressive evangelicals, read that book with much appreciation during the mid-1970s. But a decade later, conservative evangelical opposition had grown to the extent that an organization to oppose the emphasis on gender equality was formed.

That organization called The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was founded in 1987.** That group was the result of anti-equality backlash, and it forwarded the position of “complementarianism.”

While, of course, there are several other important reasons why so many teenage girls are not okay today, I think that Bass is right in declaring that “evangelical theology” with its emphasis on complementarianism for a generation now “bears a significant part of the blame.”

As Bass gladly notes, formerly prominent Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leader Russell Moore ten days ago now posted “a somewhat repentant editorial against complementarianism” (see here).

Unfortunately, though, the SBC continues to support male supremacy. Just two days ago Religious News Service reported that “Southern Baptists oust Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church for naming a female pastor.” That’s a bad sign for teenage girls in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.

 
Strong egalitarian homes with nurturing parents is one of the most important keys to rearing teenage girls who are okay. I am truly grateful that my teenage granddaughters have such a home—and have also been strongly supported by their egalitarian American and Japanese grandmothers.

_____

* Not long after reading Bass’s newsletter, I read “American teens are unwell because American society is unwell,” a Feb. 15 opinion piece on The Washington Post website. It was directly related to the same YRBS report. And then on the morning of Feb. 17, the WaPo posted “The crisis in American girlhood,” another opinion piece regarding the same report.

** In “Fed Up With Fundamentalism’s View of Women,” the eighth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007, 2020), I wrote about the founding and influence of this organization among “fundamentalists” (see pp. 240~2). 

Affirming the Social Gospel: In Appreciation of Walter Rauschenbusch

He was born 160 years ago on October 4, 1861, the first year of the Civil War, and died in 1918, a few months before the end of World War I, but Walter Rauschenbusch hated militarism and other societal problems that cause human suffering and the degradation of human life.

Acknowledgment of Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel

In all three of my “theological” books, I wrote about Rauschenbusch. In Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007, 2020) I wrote that the Social Gospel was “the third factor [after Darwinism and biblical criticism] which helped instigate the fundamentalist movement.”

And I explained, “The most significant leader of the Social Gospel was the prominent Baptist historian Walter Rauschenbusch” (p. 30).

In The Limits of Liberalism (2010, 2020), one sub-section is “The Liberalism of Rauschenbusch” (pp. 31~35), and later I wrote that for many “the main religious appeal of liberalism is found in its ethical stance, which has often been shaped by the emphasis of Walter Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel” (p. 109).

Then in #5 of Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (2018), I wrote about Rauschenbusch’s “strong emphasis on the idea that the kingdom of God is both here now and also coming in the future” (p. 36).

In his book Christianizing the Social Order (1912), Rauschenbusch used the phrase “the kingdom is always but coming,” and that became the title of the superb 2004 biography of Rauschenbusch by Christopher H. Evans.

Formation of Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel

Walter Rauschenbusch was the son of German parents who had immigrated to New York. After graduating from Rochester Theological Seminary, from 1886 to 1897 he served as the pastor of the Second German Baptist Church, located in the slum section of New York City known as Hell’s Kitchen.

That was at the apex of the Gilded Age when there was great and growing inequality between the upper and lower classes. For example, at the time when so many lived in crowded, vermin-infested tenements in Hell’s Kitchen, rich industrialists lived in luxury on 5^th Avenue and Madison Avenue.

John D. Rockefeller’s NYC home was less than a mile from Second German Baptist Church, and J.P. Morgan as well as William K. Vanderbilt and his flamboyant wife Alva lived only 1.2 miles from Rauschenbusch’s church. Here is a picture of the Vanderbilt mansion, completed in 1882. 

Rauschenbusch said that he went to his new pastorate “to save souls in the ordinarily accepted religious sense.” But in the area where his church was located, unemployment, poverty, malnutrition, disease, and crime were rampant.

He came to understand that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount spoke more about how to live in the present rather than how to prepare for life after death. Further, he came to realize that Jesus’ key teaching about the Kingdom of God was also for the here and now, not just about the “sweet by and by.”

Affirmation of Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel

Even though I have remained critical of some aspects of Rauschenbusch’s “liberal” theology, such as his being overly optimistic about the possibility of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth by human effort, through the years I have increasingly come to affirm his basic theological ideas.

Here are some of the most important emphases in Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel.

    * Jesus’ core teachings are found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5~7) and in his parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46).

    * The basis of Jesus’ teachings was his understanding of the Kingdom of God, which Rauschenbusch rightly understood as “always but coming.”

    * In addition to the reality and seriousness of “personal” sins, the pervasiveness and destructiveness of social sin and sinful social structures must be recognized and adamantly opposed.

The crux of Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel is still sorely needed now as it was in the 1890s and in 1917 when he published his last book, A Theology for the Social Gospel.

Can we and will we affirm, accept, and implement that Gospel? It is truly good news for the multitude of people who are suffering deprivation, discrimination, and destructive social structures right now.

The Southern Baptist Convention: 175 Years of Turmoil

Christian Leopold (C.L.) Neiger, my only great-grandparent not born in the U.S., was born in Canton Bern, Switzerland, 180 years ago today, on May 30, 1840. Five years later, and sixteen years before C.L. immigrated to the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845.  

The International Mission Board of the SBC was formed
 on the same day as the new convention.

Turmoil at the Beginning

The Southern Baptist Convention was formed because of turmoil over slavery. There were some other issues that also led to the formation of the new convention, but the slavery issue was unquestionably the most decisive one.

Specifically, in response to the policy adopted in 1844 that slaveholders would not be appointed as missionaries, Baptist delegates in the South formed the SBC.

In May 1845, those delegates met in Augusta, Georgia, to form the new Convention. Beginning with a total membership of nearly 352,000 in over 4,100 local Baptist churches, it was geographically restricted to states that would eventually become the Confederacy.

Turmoil through the Years

Most of the turmoil in the SBC after its founding has been theological. One of the first such controversies centered around C.H. Toy, professor of Old Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was forced to resign in 1879.

Fundamentalists, such as those led by J. Frank Norris, the fiery pastor of First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, caused turmoil in the SBC from the 1920s to the early 1950s.

Turmoil in the SBC again emerged after Ralph Elliott, professor of OT at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, published The Message of Genesis in 1961. He was fired the next year.

The “conservative resurgence” of the SBC (aka the “fundamentalist takeover”) began in 1979 and following years of turmoil, the convention made a massive move to the theological—and to the political—right.

And now this year a new movement has started. It is called the Conservative Baptist Network (CBN), and some are calling it a “second conservative resurgence.” It remains to be seen how much turmoil CBN will cause in the coming years.

An Embarrassed Southern Baptist

Not long after C.L. Neiger married my great-grandmother Margaret (Abplanalp) in Indiana, they moved to Worth County in northwest Missouri, the county where I was born about 70 years later.

C.L. and Margaret’s daughter Laura married George Seat, my grandfather. George’s great-grandfather, Littleton Seat, moved from Tennessee to Cooper County, Mo., about 1818. He moved to Worth County with his family in 1844—and died there the next year, the same year that the SBC was founded.

In the eighteenth century the Seat family lived in Virginia—and they owned slaves. According to family stories, two of Littleton’s older brothers were killed by a 13-year-old slave boy in 1786.

When the Seat family moved to near Nashville, Tennessee, about the turn of the century, they likely took some slaves with them, although the three Seat brothers who moved to Missouri before 1820 didn’t seem to have slaves—and it is quite certain that the Seats in Worth County never had any.

Near the beginning of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism, I wrote about being an embarrassed Southern Baptist—and  in June 2015 I wrote about being both a proud and ashamed Southern Baptist—but that was because of what the Southern Baptist Convention had become, theologically, after 1980.

My first embarrassment, though, was when I learned why the SBC was formed in the first place. As a boy, I always identified with the North/Union in thinking about the Civil War—and I wasn’t prejudiced against African Americans, for I never saw a Black person in my home county.

The SBC formally apologized to African Americans in 1995 (at the annual convention marking the 150^th anniversary of the SBC’s founding) for the denomination's pro-slavery past. Some charged that that was too little, too late. But I am on the side of those who say, Better late than never.

During all the years I was a Southern Baptist, I disliked the name, which embodies its racist beginnings—and I have been an advocate of a name change since my student days at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1960s.

After 175 years, surely the time has come for a name change—and after 40 years of turmoil caused by those on the theological right, surely the time has come for a move back toward the theological center.

Did Your Church Open Sunday?

Although you may not have heard about it, Sunday (May 3) was ReOpen Church Sunday. Did your church open? Mine didn’t either. But should they have? Is religious liberty being attacked by the federal and state governments? That is what some Christians are charging.

There are at least three important issues that intersect in the discussion about when to reopen in-person church services: (1) religious freedom, (2) local church finances, and (3) public health. 

Baptist Church in Des Moines, Iowa, on May 3

The ReOpen Church Sunday Initiative

Liberty Counsel is a conservative Christian law group that promoted May 3 as ReOpen Church Sunday. That organization was founded in 1989 by Mathew D. (Mat) Staver, who was the dean of the law school at Liberty University from 2006 to 2014.

I first learned about Staver in 2005 when talking with people from Kentucky who had bussed to D.C. to protest the removal of the Ten Commandments in public places. They did that in front of the Supreme Court Building, and I wrote about that in my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2020 ed., pp. 123-4).

In the days leading up to May 3, Staver and Liberty Counsel had promoted ReOpen Church Sunday, and more information about that can be found on their website.

For Staver and his supporters, the issue is primarily one of religious freedom. They claim that government agencies prohibiting churches from meeting for worship services, even during the current pandemic, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Church Finances Issue

Despite stay-at-home orders, some churches have defied those directives and held public meetings anyway. Some did that because of their strong belief that they had the right and the need to conduct public worship.

Although usually not said, no doubt many of those churches were inclined to go against the grain for fear of losing financial support. And, in fact, a large majority of churches have seen a  marked decline in offerings and are suffering because of that.

(Without fail, we who are church members need to send our tithes and offerings to our churches even when they cannot conduct public worship.)

Already on April 24, an article in The Washington Post was titled “Church donations have plunged because of the coronavirus. Some churches won’t survive.” Four days later, ReligiousNews.com reported that more than $400,000 had already been raised for small churches at risk during covid-19.

The Churches Helping Churches Initiative relief fund was launched about a month ago, and by last Wednesday had received more than 1,000 applications.

The Public Health Issue

As a strong advocate of religious liberty and an ardent supporter of local churches, I sympathize with those who wanted to open their churches on May 3—or before. But I am also a strong supporter of the government seeking to protect the life and health of the citizens of the country.

I see no indication that churches (or synagogues or mosques) have been unfairly signaled out for mistreatment, although there were a few questionable actions by some local agencies.

I also see considerable indication that many governors and mayors have acted decisively to restrict public meetings in order to keep people safe during the pandemic.

Some have charged that the caution has been excessive. But how can people say that with a straight face when already there have been 70,000 covid-19 deaths in the U.S.?

What about May 10?

In Missouri where I live, Governor Parson’s March 21 order banning gatherings of more than 10 people expired yesterday (May 4). That means that, among other things, events in large venues and stadiums, including churches, will now be able to open with some restrictions.

Many churches in Missouri and elsewhere, it seems, will again have public worship on May 10, which is Mother’s Day. I hope and pray that that will not mean the deaths of an increased number of mothers, and others, because of opening churches too soon.

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.”

Transcending Fundamentalism

This is the eleventh and last blog posting this year related to my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism. I am working to get the updated and (slightly) revised edition published before the end of the year—and am hoping many of you will obtain a copy for yourself or give as a present to someone you care about (or both!).

The Necessity of Transcending Fundamentalism

Some Christians who have grown increasingly dissatisfied with fundamentalism have given up on Christianity altogether. I find that quite sad—and also unnecessary.

There are many other Christians, though, who are quite unhappy with fundamentalism, much like I am, but who have sought and found an expression of the Christian faith that seems decidedly superior to that manifested by fundamentalism and is worthy of wholehearted allegiance.

The latter is what I have been advocating in this book, and this final chapter emphasizes the necessity of transcending fundamentalism and finding a form of faith that fully honors God, is loyal to the Lord Jesus, and is invigorated by the Holy Spirit.

Rising above fundamentalism is important for Christian believers: much of the current rejection of Christianity by those raised as Christians is because of their negative reaction toward fundamentalism.  

Transcending fundamentalism is also important for Christians in their relationship with people who are not Christians. Earlier this month (see here) Pope Francis declared, “We must beware of fundamentalist groups . . . . Fundamentalism is a plague.”

Partly for creating a more peaceful society, it is necessary for Christians, as well as people in other religions, to go beyond fundamentalism.  

Help for Transcending Fundamentalism

There are numerous books, and organizations, seeking to help people who are or have been in fundamentalist churches to leave the clutches of such detrimental ways of thinking.

Through the years there have even been several different Fundamentalist(s) Anonymous groups, treating fundamentalism as a kind of addiction that people need to be freed from.

Unfortunately, many of those books and organizations were largely encouraging people to leave Christianity altogether—and certainly many have done that.

But there are also many books, such as Fed Up . . ., and new church organizations that have shown ways to reject fundamentalism and still remain in the Christian faith. Indeed, the 18^th chapter of my newest book, Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (TTT), is “One Doesn’t Have To Be A Fundamentalist To Be A Good Christian.”

That, I firmly believe, is manifestly true. And in fact, it might even be true that Christians need to transcend fundamentalism in order to be a good Christian.

The Limits of Liberalism

Speaking of (TTT), the 19^th chapter of that book is “One Doesn’t Have To Be A Liberal To Reject Fundamentalism.” I reiterate that important point here.  

While many conservative evangelicals, as present-day fundamentalists are generally called now, tend to label my theological position as liberal, many true liberals likely would see me as fairly conservative from their point of view.

Indeed, soon after completing the first edition of Fed Up . . . I started working on the companion volume: The Limits of Liberalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Liberalism (2010). Beginning in January, I am planning to begin updating and slightly revising that book also to re-publish by the end of 2020.

As I say at the end of the last paragraph of Fed Up . . .,

There is a valid form of the Christian faith that steers between the dangers of fundamentalism on the right and the dangers of liberalism on the left. It is that expression of the faith that I urge my Christian readers to join me in seeking, finding, and following as we try to be true to Christ.

Still Fed Up with Fundamentalism’s View of Three Other Issues

Abortion. Homosexuality. Capital punishment. These are the three highly controversial issues dealt with in the ninth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism, which is currently being (slightly) revised and updated. And, yes, I am fed up with the predominant conservative evangelical views on all three of these highly contentious issues. 

What about Abortion?

As I write in the ninth chapter of Fed Up . . ., back in 1986 I felt too intimidated to attend a political rally in Kansas City because of the protesters who had gathered outside the venue, yelling “Baby killer! Baby killer!” as the candidate who had come to speak was noted for her acceptance of abortion in some cases.

Obviously, these were anti-abortion (aka “pro-life”) people protesting the “pro-choice” (aka pro-abortion) position of Harriet Woods, the senatorial candidate and the sitting Lieutenant Governor—the first woman ever elected to statewide office in Missouri.

Following the long tradition of the Catholic Church, in recent decades most conservative evangelical Christians have adopted the view that human life begins at conception, so all abortions are the same as murder, for they kill human beings. That view was the basis for the raucous protests against Woods (1927~2007).

However, neither science nor the Bible unambiguously specifies when human life begins. Thus, most of us non-fundamentalist Christians hold that abortion, especially when done in the first trimester, should be legal, safe, and rare.

What about LBGTQ Equality?

The LGBTQ issue is the second explosive matter that partly explains the overwhelming support of DJT by conservative evangelicals from before his election in 2016 to the present. Although it is hard to know what DJT actually believes on any issue, it is clear that Clinton was/is not only “pro-choice” but also advocates LBGTQ equality.

Most conservative evangelical Christians “cherry-pick” Bible verses to strongly oppose equality for practicing homosexual persons or the right of gays/lesbians to marry.

Although the right to marry has been granted by the Supreme Court (in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015), many evangelicals continue to oppose same-sex marriage just as they still oppose abortion despite the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973.

I am fed up with the negative, judgmental, “holier-than-thou” attitude of most conservative evangelicals on this issue as well. Not only do they condemn even “monogamous” homosexual activity, they covertly support discrimination against and harassment of LGBTQ persons.

And now, legislation which seeks to protect gays/lesbians from mistreatment is seen by some evangelicals as curtailing their (the evangelicals’ own) religious freedom! Surely, though, religious freedom, which I continue to advocate strongly, can never be condoned if that “freedom” results in harming other people.

What about Capital Punishment?

It cannot be denied that the Old Testament not only condones capital punishment, it even commands it.

It is not surprising, therefore, that fundamentalists and most conservative evangelicals who view the Old and New Testaments as equally inspired and equally the inerrant Word of God, which is to be literally interpreted and followed, are also people who generally favor the use of capital punishment.

It seems disingenuous, though, to base the legitimacy, or the necessity, of capital punishment in contemporary society because of the teachings of the Bible but then completely disregard the many commands—such as for cursing parents (Ex. 21:17), profaning the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14), or committing adultery (Lev. 20:10)—for the use of capital punishment in the Old Testament.

Most of us Christians who are not, or no longer, fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals recognize the clear call for capital punishment for various crimes/”sins” in the Old Testament. However, based on the teachings of Jesus, we believe that Christians should oppose, rather than affirm, capital punishment.