It seems like Donald Trump is offering no end to discussions. Recently, he invited several evangelicals to meet with him. What struck me was that he also invited NPR. Now it doesn't seem to me like they would be a very good group to invite if you're just trying to hash things out among supporters. Donald Trump has made it quite far in the primaries by appearing to be just a simpleton. This played right into the liberal media's narrative of him and, to a lesser extent, the conservative media as well. To borrow a line from George W. Bush, we "misunderestimated" him. Donald Trump may not be a very good business person, or perhaps it is just that he lets other things get in the way of being a good business person. He may be a narcissist. He may be a person who will promise you the Sun and the Moon if you will just like him. He may be a person who is bought and celebrity culture more than anyone else in this country. He is not the idiot that the Liberals hope he is.

I want to focus on the fact that invited NPR to a group of Evangelical leaders. This is the same person who refuses press to come to his events if they disagree with him. I want that to linger in your brain. He wanted that information of meeting with Evangelical leaders to get out. Why? The simple answer is the fact that he knew that the lockstep liberals who are more affiliated with a tribe then they are with liberal policies would grapple on to this and use it as an attack against evangelicals. Then the evangelicals would feel a binary choice between Donald Trump and people who were mocking them. It is already been reported, erroneously, that the evangelicals were huge supporters of Donald Trump. In fact, the evangelicals have been the weakest link. If the liberals with in the media wish to weaken Donald Trump, the best idea would be for them to reach out to evangelicals. Trump knows this, and is trying to beat the media to the punch. He knows he faces stiff opposition from Conservative Catholics to the Southern Baptist convention.

Laying that aside, I want to focus on the things reported in the NPR article. I want to focus on three things in particular. I want to focus on tax status. I want to focus on Hillary Clinton. And, I want to focus on freedom of speech.

I'm a graduate of a conservative and traditional seminary. We discussed tax exempt status. Right now, very few people are actually concerned about the tax exemption for religious institutions. Most people still believe that religious institutions are good and charitable organizations. And, the religious left also would be advocating for tax exemption for their institutions. In fact, they would be arguing even more vociferously because of the loss of membership and the location of their churches. It seems to me that no one on the left really wants to do that and in addition it would cause problems not just within the Christian Community but within Jewish and Muslim communities as well. In addition to this , even if people wanted to remove the tax-exempt status of many religious institutions, that tax-exempt status is located in areas that make it difficult to remove. Tax exemption would effect chaplains in the military and other things as well. Churches are not facing any immediate threat to removal of tax exemption.

Let me be blunt. If I were politically motivated Christian, I believe Trump would be the safer choice. The questions that we are dealing with in a pluralist society will only become more difficult if Clinton is the president. However, I am not politically motivated Christian. I'm a gospel motivated Christian. My goal is not to make my life easier or safer for myself. My goal is to make the gospel available to all. If Trump were elected, I would probably be more comfortable. However, the gospel would not be shared as easily or as readily. My power would be an artificial one handed down from Caesar. People would look at me as someone who was being allowed to push my views on others because I was in the dominant clique. The cost is merely too high for our proclamation. In the years shortly after Christianity entered the scene, Romans were aghast as Christians routinely rushed into plague ravaged cities in order to care for people. Because of such self-sacrifice, Christianity gained respect. Christianity in this culture has lost a great deal of that. The Evangelical representatives gathered around Trump today demonstrate this to a tee. I suspect that in addition to the prosperity gospel preachers (the early 21st century's moral majority Evangelical second-stringers), there were many Evangelical leaders who have deluded themselves into believing that Trump can be won over (or at least tamed). The problem with this way of thinking is not its naïveté per se, but the loss of focus on the true calling of Christians. We are not supposed to guard the halls of the powerful. We are supposed to walk the earth with our savior. To declare against Trump is to say that we are Christ's and not the world's.

Finally, Trump has shown a blatant disregard to freedom of speech at his rallies. More than that though is muzzling the Gospel with a golden bit. When our speech is viewed as being only the speech of the powerful, then we have no freedom of speech. What happens to Christians who disagree with Trump? I am not talking about the mainline denominations, but people like Russell Moore who have been denigrated by people like Trump and even preachers of large churches. What happens to the Evangelical message when it is considered to be the message of Trump? We are already finding out this answer. The Evangelicals have been split to put it charitably, but the world is already lumping them together with Trump. Imagine what will happen if even a small contingent of Evangelicals back Trump. As a pastor who professes the truth which was handed down to me, I want to remind all of you that we must keep to the only freedom of speech we have, that is the Gospel.

Whatever the world will say about us, whether it be from our so-called representatives or the media elites (right or left), we have been entrusted with a sacred message. We are to be little Christs. We must be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We must love our opponents and pray for those who deride our message. We must not use the world's methods of intimidation to broadcast this message that was given to us. Above all we must not look to life or angels or rulers or high things or low things to fight evil. We must look to the only one who has promised to save us and whose promises are sure. This is most certainly true.

Having to Speak Up a Bit

A good friend of mine recently re-posted a blog piece written by Paul Raushenbush which declared he was done viewing anyone who disagreed with him about the gay agenda as anything but a bigot. Needless to say, I was a little disheartened because I fall into his bigot category. Such accusations get one thinking obviously. I don't think I am a bigot, but then again, isn't that what a bigot would say? How many bigoted statements start out with "I don't mean to sound ... but ..." or "I'm not a bigot, but ..."? So, I want to unpack what moderates on the issue of homosexuality in America believe. I understand this will not make many people happy. Some will say I am a bigot because because I have gone too far, while others will say I am another mouthpiece for the secular agenda because I have not drawn a line in the sand. Yet, this is what moderates do. We stand fixed in place being blown by neither set of winds. We go down deep in culture and we reach for growth. History is littered with extremists who accomplished nothing except strewing the land with the debris of that which is blown by some wind or another.

I remember being in college. It was a conservative institution. I can remember the run up to the Kerry/Bush election. I remember distinctly the bumper stickers declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. What was striking about this was people's desire to turn this into a political debate. I remember discussing with a classmate the need to carve out some sort of political area so that people could be able to pass on inheritances to whomever they desired. If a person wanted to think of themselves in a relationship with anyone, was it our business to force them otherwise? We live in a society where people are allowed to believe whatever they want, why should the government control the purse strings of this group of people? Would we Christians disavow Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist weddings because their beliefs were different than our own? I don't see how we could. I still don't. 

This point was driven home years later while at seminary in Columbus. During the day I would have school officials attempt to compel us to tow a certain political line. I can still remember when my former denomination informed us we were going to attend an "open discussion" about the new viewpoints about homosexuality that had just been ratified. I was excited because I was finally going to hear an open discussion by intelligent people from all sides. What I found when I got to the meeting place was a panel of four people ranging from enthusiastic towards the new position to wildly enthusiastic. Suffice it to say it was embarrassing that an institution charged with equipping people charged with care of souls, theological quandaries, community outreach and Biblical interpretation deemed it necessary to spoon feed us our dogma. It was at that moment that I realized I did not have a future with them not because of their beliefs about so called tolerance, but because of their lack thereof and their failure to do their job. 

This may seem a harsh attack, but let me explain. I worked down the street from the seminary at Starbucks. This was world's away from the institution even though it was less than an eight minute walk. People here didn't know or care that the seminary existed. The seminary had its dogma, but it didn't see the need in sharing it with the world. I often said of Starbucks that it was the best seminary class I ever had. It was here that I had to defend or promote my ideas to a needy world. It was also a place where I was forced to listen to others who were outside the church. I had no leverage on them and they had none on me. I worked with people of all sorts of backgrounds and lifestyles. (Cue, I can't be a bigot because I have non-like-me friends.) 

One such person and I usually closed down the store. He was agnostic and a homosexual. I was straight and a Christian. We discussed everything from politics to sexuality to religion. Talking with that practicing homosexual coworker taught me more about what a Christian's response should be to the homosexual community than anything at seminary. Neither of us would change our viewpoints, but we respected one another. This is more than I can say for many on the so-called Christian left who appear just as intolerant as their boogey men on the other side of this issue.

So here is what I have learned. If you are an orthodox Christian, you must love your neighbor. You are commanded to love your gay neighbor, your atheist neighbor, your Muslim neighbor. There is no wiggle room. You must also debate them in love. You must not look to win an argument or chaulk up another soul. You must get to understand why they believe what they believe. While working at Starbucks, I would often listen to the confessions of coworkers. They would have ethical and theological questions. I never demanded that they "come to Jesus," but like Joseph, I made sure they knew that my insights were from God. When you care about your neighbor, they may be open to caring about the One who cares for you.

So, I cycle back to Raushenbush's article. He declares he is done "accommodating." He declares he is through (in vulgar language) with "love the sinner, hate the sin." In essence, we infer that he is done with humanity. He is done with people who disagree with him. He is done with trying to live amongst messy human beings trying to figure out the answers. He is done, in essence, with love. I am not willing to go there. 

As a person who comes down on the other side of this issue, I know I am not popular. I have my beliefs. I have my sins that I wrestle with. ("Love the sinner, hate the sin" applies as much to me as to my neighbor as I root out the sins in my own heart while attempting to feel God's love for me.) I have kept silent because I believe it is best to talk with people one on one. Yet, when society is divided between talking heads who spew hateful vitriol and moderates who feel the need to keep silent about the issue since indoctrination is not the way to change people's hearts and minds. So, let me put it to you this way. I am an orthodox Christian, am I going to be hated for my worldview? Am I going to be dismissed because of the decision I have reached? Or are we all going to afford people the single-minded focus on civil law that we say have.