The math doesn't add up

My estimation of Bishop T.D. Jakes has risen just a little.

Jakes, long-time pastor of Potter’s House in Dallas, Texas, was caught on a CBN News tape challenging the idea that churches should be in charge of feeding the hungry but also some other diaconal issues in the community rather than government welfare programs that many conservatives despise. He said that he “pulled out my calculator,” the math didn’t add up and the church would go bankrupt in trying to feed the hungry in its zip code alone — not to mention helping to pay for prescriptions for the elderly woman who may have “five things wrong with her.”

Two things we can take from Jakes’ diatribe: 

1) The church of Jesus Christ is not primarily a social-service agency; its primary function is to bear witness to an unseen world and live by Kingdom values and, in the process, draw people to Him. Well, didn’t the early church meet physical needs? Yes, but for one specific reason: Its members had personal experience with destitution, as it originally was an underground, often friendless institution that obliged them to lean on each other.

That’s a far cry from today, especially in America where attending a church is a sign of respectability and discipleship is little more than a private affair having no bearing on what people do with their money and possessions. In many cases churches, particularly larger ones, aren’t even located in poorer areas and are often out of touch with those who are suffering. 

2) In referring to the woman who may need medicine, which can be expensive in its own right, Jakes also critiqued the occasional — and, some would say, systematic — rapaciousness of capitalism, which wouldn’t go over well with some others trying to defend that system against “socialism.” It’s not even about the money, however; it’s about access, which people who worship (and I use that word deliberately) at its shrine never address, insisting that living properly and maintaining Christian “morals” is the key to prosperity. Never mind that Jesus rejected that bad theology, which is why the Pharisees, who “loved money,” couldn’t stand Him.

During President George W. Bush’s first term the idea of “compassionate conservatism” was thrown around, with churches invited to apply for government aid to maintain their programs. But only to churches, not mosques or secular agencies, I suspect because they were supposed to “convert” people and thus stay out of trouble. Thing is, however, that the forces that keep the poor in their state are often systemic — something not to be addressed because the power of the “rich” might be threatened.

Which is the point of the Magnificat, what Mary recited when she learned she was pregnant with Jesus — and also possibly the point of the Gospel.

Jakes said something that a lot of people don’t want to hear: Following Jesus costs something. And it may cost more than some may want to pay — not just money, either.

Trump idolatry

During the last election campaign I said to a woman on Facebook who supported Donald Trump for president, “You worship Trump.” She became angry and immediately unfriended me, but I was OK with that because I knew that she did.

And despite all of his promises and pronouncements that he has made, not to mention the deflections and evasions that have occurred on his watch — including this week’s firing of FBI director James Comey, apparently for requesting more funds to investigate the probe of Trump’s possible connections to the Russian government and if it indeed interfered in that election — folks are still defending him.

I can thus assume that it’s due to Trump being an idol in his own right, a symbol of their fears not afraid to denigrate any opposition. And from a spiritual perspective, that should be frightening.

They’ve been silent as of late, but some folks were actually predicting a revival due to his “reign,” and frankly I don’t understand why. In order to spark revival you have to admit and confess sins, including the ones you commit or are involved with. And so far that hasn’t happened, nor do I expect it to because he’s apparently so full of himself. Sure, he signed an executive order guaranteeing “religious freedom” but which proved to be basically toothless and, really, irrelevant anyway because revival won’t result from getting rid of gays in society.

Trump has been in the Oval Office for not even four months, and in that time he has yet to demonstrate any respect for his office, the Congress or the bureaucracy that are a part of government. Perhaps he’s aping Louis XIV, who famously said, “L’état, c’est moi” (translated: “I am the state”).

Dude — no, you’re not.

A useless executive order

Yesterday President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would restrict the Johnson Amendment, which restricts churches and other non-profit groups from engaging in direct electioneering at the risk of losing their tax exemptions. Some Christian leaders have claimed — falsely — that the amendment restricts churches from speaking out on political and social issues.

That part is completely bogus on its face, as most churches I’m aware of have that right under the First Amendment and no one is trying to take it away. But most pastors are too busy doing the work of ministry, including visiting the sick, counseling, preparing next week’s sermon or interviewing potential new staff, among other things.

An op-ed in today’s New York Times, “Clerical Speech Isn’t Persecuted,” by Amy Sullivan, described in the tagline as author of “The Party Faithful: How and Why Democrats Are Closing the God Gap,” gave a hint as the true intent of such leaders; two she named were Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University and namesake son of its late founder, and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Note that these organizations are not churches; indeed, they operate independently of any ecclesiastical body. (Falwell’s father of course founded the late but hardly lamented Moral Majority, arguably the most prominent group involved with 1980s “religious right” activism.)

How such groups operated back then was to identify a target that they needed to defeat and watch the money roll in — whether the Democratic candidates in particular or the Party in general, LGBTQ activists and supporters or abortion-rights groups. There’s a reason for that; as Cal Thomas, vice-president of communications for Moral Majority who had since sworn off such activism was once told, “You can’t raise money on a positive.” Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition was strong and powerful only when Bill Clinton was president, petering out when George W. Bush got to the White House.

And while they made a lot of noise, they got little, if anything, done that’s lasted, and part of that was due to the oppositional nature of their advocacy, which in fact sought to divide between “us” and some “them.” It seems to me that had people put money into church ministry and worked at the grass-roots level much more could have been accomplished. (When the civil-rights movement, which I did agree with, got away from its overtly Christian roots and became somewhat partisan it too began to lose its punch.)

Let’s admit that this campaign for “religious freedom” was, and is, about nothing more than recapturing an era that never really existed — it’s always been about worldly power. The problem with that is obvious: When you have cultural, political, social or economic power, you often don’t want, or feel that you need, the power of the Holy Spirit.

Sullivan mentioned that most churches and many Christians oppose partisan entanglements, ostensibly because they get in the way of the spiritual goals, and I believe they’re correct. Changing “Washington” won’t happen, so people ought to concentrate on changing themselves and their communities. Which will last.

No 'buyer's remorse'

Many of my friends on the political left who opposed Donald Trump, given reports swirling about his alleged corruption and ties to the Russian government, were absolutely convinced that, once the truth was revealed, the populace would turn against him and the Republican Party would thus be obliged to abandon him and cooperate with his impeachment.

Yet, recent polls have shown that, were the election held today, after 100 days of his administration he has retained almost all of his support. That is to say, between 96 and 98 percent of those who voted for him in November would do so again.

That may make absolutely no sense until you consider the driving force of many, if not most, conservative (including Christian) voters: Putting someone they don’t like out of power. Never mind that many of his supporters benefit from programs that he intends to cut, such as the Affordable Care Act — indeed, they didn’t realize until he actually made a proposal to dismantle it and substitute something nowhere near as comprehensive that they began to worry.

Indeed, that’s been the goal since the 1980s. For the 1984 presidential election the group Christian Voice put out a “Presidential Biblical Scorecard” that painted Democratic candidate Walter Mondale as a “humanist.” (Not that Ronald Reagan needed its help, the way things turned out.) Distortions and outright lies have been the stock in trade since then, with Bill Clinton in the 1990s; Barack Obama in the 2000s; and, more recently, Hillary Clinton. Some Christians will honestly tell you that they voted for Trump, despite his open rejection of the same Christian principles they live by, merely to keep Hillary out of the White House.

And that speaks to the unwillingness of that side of the political fence to talk to, let alone work with, anyone who disagrees. In that mindset and narrative politics is bloodsport, with every defeat turning into gnashing of teeth and victory resulting in gloating, governance be damned.

I see parallels between the potential impeachment of Trump and the actual impeachment of Bill Clinton, the latter, though victimized by an illegal perjury trap, still staved off being removed from office largely because of popular support. I see the same thing happening with Trump for similar reasons — his people will tell the politicians, “Impeach him and you’re dead.” And they care more than Clinton supporters.

So what happens now? Status quo.

Perhaps not just the 'O'Reilly factor'

In light of the recent firing of Fox News Channel talk-show host Bill O’Reilly amid accusations of sexual harassment and large out-of-court settlements resulting from such, some folks have complained that what they might call “strong conservative voices” are being systematically removed from the airwaves.

I don’t believe that kind of comment has any basis in fact. Indeed, it may not simply be a problem with O’Reilly — recall that longtime chairman Roger Ailes was canned for similar reasons a few months ago, and Sean Hannity, another FNC pundit, had an accusation leveled against him just this week. With all this going around, it seems to be an institutional problem with Fox, which is now costing the network millions.

Why do I suspect this? Well, the book “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative” by David Brock, formerly a right-wing journalist who probably appeared on the network but who worked for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign last year, made several references to “blond pundits” on Fox, several of whom he said “were not above reproach themselves, taking moral offense at adultery” in reference to President Bill Clinton’s tomcatting 20-some years ago.

In other words, you had a lot of pretty female faces on that network feeding that audience with red meat, likely with the intention to grab the attention of male viewers, but who Brock knew had, shall we say, improper relationships in their personal lives.

Does that kind of thing happen at other places? Oh, sure. But make no mistake: Money’s talking here, and when you lose too much of it heads have to roll. I sometimes wonder just how many of those “blond pundits” are being hit on by their bosses or coworkers just because of their beauty — and perhaps some even go along with it to keep their jobs.

We may be seeing even more of this in the future. Stay tuned ...

A campaign of resistance?

The pastor of my church has written “A Creed of Resistance,” which we’ve been reciting at the beginning of services. He has never mentioned President Donald Trump in his messages and the creed is itself theologically correct, but I can’t help but think that he’s making a statement. (He does nothing without approval of the board of elders, so he’s not acting as a lone wolf or an autocrat.)

We’re also engaged in an “expanded influence” campaign in which we’re trying to reach primarily other urban neighborhoods for Jesus.

The two may have more connections than is obvious.

Many evangelical churches often try to blend in, be “relevant” or make communicating “values” in the public square their focus. In doing so, however, they make the mistake of forgetting that Christians are a “peculiar people” who live by Kingdom values and should never pay homage to the status quo.

What brings people to faith in the first place is just that difference — I mean, what’s the point in adopting something if you’re not looking to make a change? It’s why the maintenance of “traditional Christian values” often ends up calcifying the true spiritual life.

And that’s the real reason much of evangelicalism’s embrace of Trump is not only problematic but also compromises its stated goals. In other words, rather than bringing people to Jesus it actually drives them away from Him because Trump has simply refused to adhere to any consistent moral standards, let alone Christian ones. That’s one part of the “resistance” in which we may be engaging in.

Some more liberal Christians have suggested that the church needs to act as a latter-day Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor who engaged in active resistance against Adolf Hitler and paid with his life. As things stand now, however, doing so would be a little premature because the situations are quite different, especially since we have nowhere near the consistent nationalism that took place in Nazi Germany.

Besides, the focus of the church should be on maintaining its distinctiveness, never on “resistance” for its own sake. If resistance is part of that, all well and good, but the spiritual goals must be paramount. Always.

Pence's stance should be commended, not condemned

Recently Vice President Mike Pence was criticized for invoking the “Billy Graham rule” — that is, not being seen alone with a lone woman other than his wife in private, which the evangelist established in the 1940s. Now, I understand that his connection to President Donald Trump might make him sound hypocritical because of Trump’s rejection of similar decorum.

But, frankly, I think it’s a good idea, especially for a Christian man. It’s good to see someone take his marriage vows seriously not to give even the appearance of suspicion.

Those of you who remember the TV-evangelist scandals of 1987-88 would do well to remember what might happen when such safeguards weren’t in place. Remember, Jim Bakker ended up having an affair with PTL secretary Jessica Hahn, partially when he felt he was losing his wife Tammy Faye (and they ended up divorcing anyway). Then, Jimmy Swaggart was caught in a hotel room with a prostitute. Both men’s ministries collapsed as a result.

Pence has never been an evangelist to my knowledge, but even in Pence’s case — since he is a public figure — the same situation might apply; after all, he would get that tongues would wag were something appear not quite right. Besides, I’ve seen adultery in leadership of my present and immediate past churches and, especially in the latter, how it hurt the church.

Whatever you think of Pence’s politics, and I’m not crazy about them myself, you have to give him a hand for trying to be above board in his personal life. So please — don’t go off on him for, at least in this case, trying to do what's right.