Do Evangelicals Hate Jesus?

The Huffington Post recently published an article by Dan Cady that was provocatively entitled, “Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus.” If the article’s title didn’t tip you off, let me clue you in: Cady really seems to dislike Evangelicals, particularly what he views as their hypocrisy.


Here is the central argument of his article, which is based upon a recent Pew survey:

White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

It is an audacious claim, and Cady backs it up by first summarizing his understanding of some aspect of Jesus’ teaching and then how Evangelicals violate it by their actions and political stance (paragraph breaks added for clarity).

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.

Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.

Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do.

In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

Before I address the problematic aspects of Cady’s article, let’s begin with confession. Is there anyone among us who would claim to follow our Lord completely? I hope none of us would be so arrogant. I am certainly guilty of loving this material world too much. My prayer, of course, would be that when confronted with my failure, I would respond with repentance. May each of us have the grace to acknowledge that our critics are right on one point: we fail to perfectly practice what we preach. 

I would hope that we find that more dismaying than they!

That being said, I take several issues with Mr. Cady’s argument. First, there is not a single citation of Scripture throughout his work. Cady is not a theologian and cites no Scripture or even other sources as he attempts to summarize the totality of Jesus’ teaching. It is shocking that he fails to mention the centrality of repentance and faith in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus preached a coming theocracy...does Cady wish Evangelicals to work to implement that into public policy?

Second, Cady presents a worldview that he has hand-crafted using absurd twists of logic. “Evangelicals” are a gross caricature that seem to march in lock-step on various positions. I believe that Cady actually fails to understand the study he is citing to make his argument. The study he cites is about the beliefs of the Tea Party not about the beliefs of Evangelicals. The Pew study notes that many Evangelicals support the Tea Party and that many Tea Party activists have similar moral views, but nowhere does it delve into the beliefs of Evangelicals. In fact, the Pew study notes that only 42% of Tea Partiers indicate an agreement with Conservative Christians.

Third, another logical fallacy consists of the false dichotomies he presents. According to Cady, I either support the democratic tax policy or embrace corporate greed? I must either embrace a national health care system that will expand access to abortion or I hate poor people? Can I have a third option? Please?

Cady has created an idolatrous Jesus, one that agrees with him on policy, and Cady seems upset when Evangelicals don’t bow down to it.

I have expressed concern before that Evangelicals believe that the Republican party or Conservative movement is synonymous with Christianity. It is not. There is a love for the material world that is damning for the soul within the Republican party. No matter how much it talks about moral values, that does not mean that it has embraced the repentance and faith that the gospel demands. Don’t be deceived.

At the same time, don’t be deceived by those who deny the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ. Just because a party talks about helping the poor doesn’t mean that it rightly understands the life-transforming and God-exalting compassion to which we as believers are called.  Simply proclaiming that you are trying to help people doesn't make it so.

Senator Reid and Legalized Prostitution

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has been representing the state of Nevada since 1987. That’s twenty-four years. According to the Wall Street Journal, on Tuesday he spoke out against legalized prostitution in his state…for the first time.

It is remarkable that it took him that long to publically declare that the time had come to end prostitution in the state. Reid, says The Journal, “has long taken a relaxed attitude toward his home state’s casino and brothel industries.”

What is also remarkable is the reason Reid gives for outlawing prostitution. “If we want to attract businesses to Nevada that puts people back to work, the time has come for us to outlaw prostitution.” The Journal notes that Reid “maintains conservative Mormon values personally.”

No, he doesn’t.

Reid’s silence on this issue for twenty-four years speaks volumes, as does the fact that the reason he now opposes brothels is not moral but economic.

Our private, personal values are lived out in our public lives. This Sunday, we will be considering how God’s majesty is portrayed in the transformed lives of the broken.

Should Conservative Christians Just Give Up?

In the February 14, 2011 edition of USA Today, Tom Krattenmaker offers some advice to conservative Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong: give it up!

His point is that our culture has reached a point that homosexuality is generally considered socially acceptable and the Neanderthals who continue to oppose it simply look foolish. He notes the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the classification of several extreme anti-homosexual organizations as “hate groups” and comes to the conclusion that it is time for conservative Christian groups to make a decision:

Do they fight to the last ditch, continue shouting the anti-gay rhetoric that rings false and mean to the many Americans who live and work with gay people, or who themselves are gay? Or do they soften their tone and turn their attention to other fronts?

Notice that there are only two alternatives presented in this paragraph. If you believe that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin, your choices are either (a) shout “anti-gay rhetoric” or (b) soften your tone and find some other battle.

The problem with these alternatives is that (a) is mean and an unbiblical way to engage in a disagreement and (b) implies that opposition to homosexual activity is itself synonymous with (a). Essentially, the options Kratttenmaker offers us are: will you continue to beat your wife or will you stop it?  To say we will stop is to acknowledge that at one time we did!

Followers of Christ must be steadfastly committed to loving communication. In fact, we must be committed to loving those with whom we disagree, despite their attitude toward us. I would like to present, therefore, at least a third option that exists for us: continued humble opposition to lifestyle choices that hurt those who engage in them and go against God’s will for one’s life.

Why do we care about homosexual activity? Is it because we desire to control the lifestyles of others? Is it because we want to demonize some sins while minimizing our own? I certainly hope not.

When one minimizes the reality of sin—be it homosexuality or adultery or lying or theft—one minimizes the need for the gospel. Far from being a loving, non-judgmental act, downplaying the reality and pervasivness of sin causes people to doubt their need for a Savior.

P.S. Incidentally, in the article, Krattenaker references a book by Jennifer Wright Knust entitled Unprotected Texts. For a commentary on this book, see Al Mohler’s blog: http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/02/09/what-the-bible-really-says-about-sex-really/

Becoming Anti-Anti

In the upcoming edition of our church newsletter, Preparing and Proclaiming will be an article entitled: “How Sorry Do You Need to Be?" In it, I contrast how Protestants and Roman Catholics view repentance.

As I was writing the article, I tried to think through how what I was writing might sound to a Roman Catholic. I wanted to be fair while at the same time standing firm in my convictions and clearly articulating our differences.

I was reminded of one conversation with a Roman Catholic who had accused me of being “anti-Catholic.” The accusation had stung and completely caught me off guard. In my mind, I was being “pro-gospel” and not “anti” anything. To be “anti-Catholic” in my mind meant to target individuals of a certain creed unfairly and with hostility. I have many Catholic friends and I would never want to hurt them or treat them unfairly.

I don’t like being called anti-Catholic any more than I like being called anti-choice or anti-homosexual. Calling someone “anti-(fill-in-the-blank) is relatively easy. It means that you no longer need to deal with the substance of their objection. Instead, you merely attack their motives and lament their vitriolic attack on you.

For Christians who are committed to proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ, such comments are inevitable. I have a few thoughts about how we as Christians should respond:

First, we should boldly proclaim the gospel.

I would prefer to be known by what I am for than what I am against. My desire would be that those who know me would say that I am passionately pro-gospel.

Second, we should realize that we must sometimes stand against things.

Even though it is sometimes unpleasant, we are called upon by God to stand against things such as false teaching, injustice, and evil. For example, consider what Paul writes in Ephesians 6:10-12:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Third, we should consider how our words sound to others.

When I disagree—strongly—with the Roman Catholic sacramental system as a means to achieving righteousness, I need to understand that there are many precious people who hold this system close to their hearts. When I attack it, it feels as though I am attacking them personally. It feels as though I am “anti-Catholic.”

Charity requires that we consider carefully how our words sound to those who are hearing them. Paul’s injunction to the Ephesians is one we would do well to heed: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph 4:29).

John Piper Tweets

UPDATE: HT to Kevin Sauder for this video:

At our staff meeting this week, we were discussing how to use social media in a Christ-exalting way.  As is often the case, we remembered that John Piper had gone before us on this issue. 

In June 2009, he posted a blog in which he described his take on social media and his decision to tweet.  His original post can be found here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/why-and-how-i-am-tweeting

Below are extensive excerpts from his post:

I see two kinds of response to social Internet media like blogging, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and others.


One says: These media tend to shorten attention spans, weaken discursive reasoning, lure people away from Scripture and prayer, disembody relationships, feed the fires of narcissism, cater to the craving for attention, fill the world with drivel, shrink the soul’s capacity for greatness, and make us second-handers who comment on life when we ought to be living it. So boycott them and write books (not blogs) about the problem.

The other response says: Yes, there is truth in all of that, but instead of boycotting, try to fill these media with as much provocative, reasonable, Bible-saturated, prayerful, relational, Christ-exalting, truth-driven, serious, creative pointers to true greatness as you can....

Now what about Twitter? I find Twitter to be a kind of taunt: “Okay, truth-lover, see what you can do with 140 characters! You say your mission is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things! Well, this is one of those ‘all things.’ Can you magnify Christ with this thimble-full of letters?”

To which I respond:

The sovereign Lord of the earth and sky

Puts camels through a needle’s eye.

And if his wisdom see it mete,

He will put worlds inside a tweet.

So I am not inclined to tweet that at 10AM the cat pulled the curtains down. But it might remind me that the Lion of Judah will roll up the heavens like a garment, and blow out the sun like a candle, because he just turned the light on. That tweet might distract someone from pornography and make them look up.

I’ve been tweeting anonymously for a month mainly to test its spiritual and family effects on me. In spite of all the dangers, it seems like a risk worth taking. “All things were created through Christ and for Christ” (Colossians 1:16). The world does not know it, but that is why Twitter exists and that’s why I Tweet.

Pastor John is correct. It is exactly this ability to see the God-glorifying potential in so many things that encourages me about his minstry.  Our church will do well to emulate Pastor John as we employ the venues available to us!

Adoption is the Antithesis of Abortion

Sunday, I argued that adoption is the antithesis of abortion. Everything that adoption is, abortion is not. Abortion destroys a family; adoption creates a family. Abortion squanders life; adoption redeems life. I also contended that it is not enough for one who is “pro-life” to be against abortion. We must also create a competing vision for how the world should be. We must be pro-life and present adoption as an ideal for a society that must sometimes deal with what to do for unwanted children.

In his blog today (http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/01/24/in-his-own-words-a-radical-pro-abortion-president/) , Al Mohler notes that President Obama’s statement Saturday to mark the observance of Roe v. Wade did little to dispel the notion that he is more radical in his pro-abortion views than his campaign rhetoric suggested. Obama’s final sentence was this:

“And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

This logic, as I mentioned Sunday, is deeply troubling. It ignores the central issue at stake: what are the rights of the baby in the womb. It instead focuses only on the perceived benefits—or potential benefits—to the mother and father.

On Mother Jones’ website, there was an article posted about a pro-life attorney. One comment on the story caught my eye:

“I can tell you right now that if I were to get my girlfriend pregnant (accidentally, of course) I wouldn't even have to think about it. I've still got 3 years of University left, and my current girlfriend is JUST starting her career. There is no way I can support a child, and with the field she's going into, a child will destroy her career at this point in time. If we brought a child into the world it will be a meager minimum wage existence plagued by all the problems that come with low income families.”

Though stated more crudely, this is the same argument that President Obama is making and the same argument Nazi eugenicists made. The destruction of some life protects people’s rights to pursue whatever future they have envisioned for themselves.

The mind-numbingly obvious response, of course, is: what about the future of the aborted child?

Praying for the Protection of Life for the Glory of God,


Pastor Daniel

New Year Predictions

Recently, Pat Robertson made his annual predictions for the coming year.  The bottom line: “It’s going to be another good year for CBN [his ministry], but a tough one for the world.” 

Many well-meaning but, frankly, gullible believers have been scared by Robertson’s doom and gloom scenarios in the past and 2011 is no exception.  

There’s nothing wrong with making guesses for what might happen in the coming year.  The problem is that Robertson claims that God is the one who is making these predictions.  For example, he famously claimed God had told him that in 2008 a major U.S. city would be destroyed.  That didn’t take place, unless God was speaking metaphorically about the Giants beating the undefeated New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.  But New England really refers to a region instead of a city, so I think Robertson missed that one (and many others).

I’ve seen several news articles and blogs rightly take Robertson to task for his wild predictions.   My concern with Robertson is both practical and theological.  How does his “prophetic” word undermine the confidence in Scripture of those who follow him?

In Deuteronomy 18, God commands the people to put to death those who claim to speak a word in God’s name and lie.  How will they know if the prophet is lying?  “when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

I don’t know what will happen in 2011.  Neither do you.  And neither does Pat Robertson or any other religious figure who claims to have a word from God.  What I do know is that Scripture offers us the hope that whatever God has in store for us, we can endure it through the grace of God working within us.  May we as believers have that confidence for the coming year!