The problem with "fake news"

In December, Edgar Maddison Welch, a 28-year-old North Carolina man, reacting to a story he had read online, drove to Comet Ping Pong, a Washington, D.C. pizzeria with a machine gun to confront an alleged child-sex ring supposedly involving Hillary Clinton.

When he got there he got a big surprise — the story that inspired him to take action turned out to be false, with no ring in sight.

Last night the CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes” aired a segment about “fake news,” during which unverifiable facts are spouted as news designed to smear someone. It’s not news, as this kind of thing has been going on for some time, but it shows me that folks simply aren’t using discernment.

I first began to notice this in 1992, when conservative media began attacking Bill Clinton when he was running for president; I eventually learned about the conspiracy in the fall of 1995, which was actually reported in legitimate media. Things have gotten worse since, with the focus on online media that report “what the mainstream media won’t.”

Which is true — for a good reason: Real news outlets check, double-check and triple-check their sources. These fake sources don’t even bother.

Last week I confronted someone online whom I know to be a Christian about his posting a video on “Pizzagate” and told him to take it down because I knew it was false. He refused, insisted that it was true and tried to blame me for being “partisan.” (That was beside the point.) When we Christians engage in gossip for the purpose of hating someone for political reasons we compromise our witness.

Solution? We need to come out of our bubbles and not always listen to people who tell us what we want to hear. These days that’s a tough sell — but needs to be done.

A failure to govern

I wonder if President Obama is chuckling now …

Since it was signed into law in 2010 Republicans have been determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The complaints were legion — that it didn’t cover everyone, its costs were too high and — falsely — it would lead to a government takeover of the health care system.

But in its haste to repeal it with the election of Donald Trump as president, the GOP didn’t count on a few things.

One, it actually did help a lot of people, ironically many of whom live in rural areas and voted for Donald Trump for president last year but who want to keep it. (They were told that they really wanted to repeal “Obamacare,” not realizing until it was too late that they were the same.)  Two, the “American Health Care Act,” coming from the Trump White House, jettisoned several key planks in the ACA, including the mandate for coverage, as well as not being anywhere near as comprehensive and thus rendering it virtually ineffective. Three, the GOP’s “Freedom Caucus” has never wanted any bill at all no matter which side proposes it and are opposing the AHCA on what they call principle.

What we have, and have had for decades, is a failure to govern properly on the part of the Republican Party. It has told people for years “This is what is good for you” rather than listen to people with open ears, its “donor class” often drowning out those voices. That has led to the present stalemate in Washington.

You see, this is what hate does — folks were so determined to rid themselves of the legacy of a man they despised that they didn’t think long-term about what they were doing and whom they were doing it for, and now it’s coming back to haunt them.

I said seven years ago that GOP leadership was green with envy when it came to the ACA, and that resentment is coming full-flower now. Some differences simply cannot be split to benefit everyone; at times hard choices need to be made for the good of all even though some might complain, because when you try to please everybody you usually end up pleasing nobody. Obama understood that in pushing through the ACA, but apparently his critics didn’t. And still don’t.

Here we go again ...

It has always puzzled me how and why President Trump, who has never pretended to embrace the basic doctrines of the historic Christian faith, could receive so much support from evangelical Christians. An article I read today shed light on that phenomenon, focusing on one fast-growing group.

Writing in “The Conversation,” Brad Christerson, a professor of sociology at Biola University; and Richard Flory, of the University of Southern California, identified a group to which they referred in their book “The Rise of Network Christianity” as “Independent Network Charismatic,” which focuses not on building churches but “in spreading beliefs and practices” and that has close ties to conservative U.S. politicians, including Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry and more recently the president.

The article says that INC leaders have identified "seven mountains of culture" to be surmounted that would include business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, family and religion. “In this form of ‘trickle-down Christianity,’ ” the article says, “they believe if Christians rise to the top of all seven 'mountains,’ society will be completely transformed.” It sounds good and wonderful for those who subscribe to the “culture wars.”

Don’t be fooled in the least, however, because it actually represents nothing more that just another demonic deception. If that sounds arrogant, consider the devil’s only real goal — to keep people from knowing and recognizing Jesus as LORD, and he will misuse even “Biblical principles” to do it.

Yes, I chose the term “misuse” carefully and deliberately. If you have the “principles” and the resultant cultural power, what do you need God for? You’ll have to excuse me if this appears to be the 1980s redux, complete with organizations that answer to no one — not even to God.

It seems that people just don’t learn from their mistakes. The kind of revival such groups and their supporters want is possible only through local churches and comes from the bottom up, not through major campaigns from para-church groups that try to impose an ideological agenda from the top down. What we’re seeing here is yet another attempt to impose Christian values on society without the bother of spiritual warfare — which, of course, is hard and doesn’t get the quick results folks want because they don’t want to address the transformation of hearts. (That, of course, would include their own in the process.)

Moreover — and here’s the dangerous point — those Christians willing to do things “the old-fashioned way” and not go along with this movement, let alone speak out against it, will have their faith questioned. We know this because that’s happened in the past.

This appears to be yet another occasion for Jesus to say at the final judgment, “I never knew you.” I don’t see INC as having sanction from the Holy Spirit and, as such, failure is guaranteed.

A moral center — or the lack thereof

Yesterday I watched the movie “Fences” based on the August Wilson play of the same name and which was nominated for several Academy Awards, including Best Actor for Denzel Washington, who played protagonist Troy Maxson, who worked as a garbageman for the city of Pittsburgh.

In both the play, which I saw in 1989, and the movie Maxson shared his story, running away from his Alabama home when he was 14, eventually ending up in prison, where he developed a love for — and, apparently, some skills at — baseball but never made it above the Negro League level because major league teams weren’t interested during his youth. By this time he had become embittered toward the world and in the process driven away virtually everyone he was connected to, including his son Cory, whose football career the son believed he sabotaged out of jealousy; his wife Rose (in the movie, played by Viola Davis, who did with the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress) when he got another woman pregnant; and even longtime friend Jim Bono.

But while I did develop some sympathy toward Troy Maxson, I couldn’t but notice that he didn’t have a defined moral center. His whole life was based on what he could get at the time; while he demanded credit for taking care of a family, Rose Maxson noted that he had done a lot of taking — and taking people for granted. Eventually Cory ran away to join the Marines and Rose, after cuddling the daugher that resulted from Troy’s dalliance, told him, “You a womanless man.”

After watching the movie, it his me that the attraction to President Donald Trump by many of his supporters was tied to a similar lack of bedrock convictions, theirs as well as his — all that mattered was that they got what they wanted, meaning that folks they considered enemies were defeated. And it didn’t start with Trump, either, as they were willing to believe outright lies against Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the Democratic Party in general, the mainstream media and anyone else seen as liberal, whether true or not. Consider the name-calling they have to endure — “libtards,” “communists” and the like.

And this is why I consider Christian support for Trump problematic; folks clearly wanted someone who could win, preferably by domination, and to hell with the Constitution or consistent Biblical principles in the process. It should come as no surprise to anyone that our country is divided right now; while Trump didn’t cause the breach, he certainly exploited it for all he could get out of it.

The last scene of the play and movie was the impending funeral of Troy Maxson, with Cory Maxson making it home from the Marines but originally not intending to attend (and Rose reaming him out for even entertaining such a notion). I remembered that singer Wiliam DeVaughn performed a song, “Blood is Thicker Than Water” but also with the following line: “But nothing’s thicker than love.”

And that love was missing in the Maxson household. So it is in America today.

The real 'new world order'

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”

—     Revelation 21:5

For the last couple of decades we’ve seen fears of a “new world order” courtesy of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Rothschild banking family, complete with “one-world government.” Perhaps we Americans prize our independence from the rest of the world so much that anything that might challenge it needs to be opposed.

But if you look at the Bible, it’s clear that there will be a “new world order” with a one-world government — when Jesus comes to rule, as a local Christian talk-show host said over a quarter-century ago.

I suspect that we still want to hang on to our conspiracy theories because they give the illusion of power, but it certainly appears that we’re not trusting God to take care of us. And that insults him to the max.

The book of Revelation (more completely, the Revelation of Jesus Christ) represented a vision that the Apostle John, the last living apostle, experienced while he was exiled to the island of Patmos and was written to encourage Jewish believers who were experiencing persecution. The imagery was largely symbolic and thus not designed to be taken literally, which means that some of the “prophecies” that people have gleaned from it may be flat-out wrong.­

But more importantly, John’s audience was waiting for Jesus to return. Of course all Christians believe that, but it isn’t always clear what would happen beforehand. And that may not be relevant anyway.

So let’s focus on the main thing and not get off-track. New world order? Yep — at the top. The very top.

A "Cyrus anointing"?

Now I think I’ve heard everything …

There’s this doctrine in some charismatic Christian circles that President Donald Trump has a “Cyrus anointing.” I first heard about it right after the general election last year, but it was reinforced by a so-called prophet named Lance Wallnau, who was a guest on a TV show hosted by Jim Bakker. He was comparing Trump to the Persian emperor Cyrus, who allowed the Jewish people of that day to return to their traditional homeland in that Trump would, shall we say, set Christians free. (There are 20 mentions of Cyrus, in 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Isaiah and Daniel.)

This represents another case of violence being done to the Word of God to justify supporting a clearly ungodly man, let alone a divisive one.

It’s important to note that when Cyrus was on the throne God had sent Israel into exile for 70 years due to disobedience (it had been in the land for 490 years but failed to observe the Year of Jubilee in that time), and it’s thus quite likely that the “remnant” that was left was somewhat repentant. But I see no repentance among Christians for their disobedience, so it doesn’t apply there.

Moreover — and this is probably the key issue here — Christians are not being persecuted in this country because of their support for Trump. Let me say that again: Christians are not being persecuted. If there’s any persecution going on, it’s being directed toward those Christians who came out against him (Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention has had his job threatened for speaking out against him, and, according to an article in a recent issue of Atlantic magazine, other believers have lost ministry opportunities for not toeing the line).

Of course, Trump gained favor with evangelicals by saying that he would grant them the special status that they’ve often craved. But there’s a price to be paid for that, and I don’t want to know what that will be. This much I do know: The idea of Trump having any kind of “anointing” is ludicrous.

Churches, don't allow yourselves to be suckered

The New York Times is reporting that President Trump has said that he wants to overturn the Johnson Amendment, enacted during the 1960s, that disallows churches from being active directly in the electoral process at the risk of their tax exemptions.

If this actually happens, I hope to God that church bodies would still remain outside of partisan politics.

In fact, the only thing the amendment actually does is to keep churches from endorsing or opposing, including working directly for or against, specific candidates — that’s all, and any other interpretation is simply inaccurate.

Many Christians believe that the law keeps them from speaking out on social or moral issues. They haven’t been to my church because that’s happened occasionally there, and most other evangelical churches do. In fact, much of the social action that has taken place over the past 40 years has come from churches, and few complain about that. Further, occasionally pastors have endorsed candidates from the pulpit (this is seen mostly in African-American churches, which often lean Democratic).

The real danger here is when churches and Christian leaders start saying “God endorses (or opposes) _________” when in fact He’s much bigger than that. On top of that, they often give the wrong impression that, to be a Christian, you have to believe X politically, never mind one’s personal relationship with God. Such groups tend to cherry-pick Bible verses to use as prooftexts for their respective positions.

Even worse, if a church does become politically involved to that extent doing so threatens its true mission — to bear witness to an unseen world. It should seek to live by alternative Kingdom values in a world that not only doesn’t agree with but even opposes them, and to think that such Kingdom values would ever be accepted, let alone become dominant, in a fallen world makes absolutely no theological sense — in such a scenario the Christian faith by necessity becomes watered-down.

Yes, that’s right. Liberal. 

The scuttling of the Johnson Amendment is seen as a sop to the “religious right,” which has always sought religious privilege. But if it wins this battle it cannot win the war — for the souls of men. And women.