Category: Religion

Tony Evans: We Can Literally Change God's Mind about Taking America off the Scene

Tony Evans is the founder and pastor of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas TX and the chairman of the executive council of The Gathering, a solemn assembly of pastors and Christians which took place yesterday. In his introduction to the day, Evans raised three possibilities regarding America. One is that Christ will return and set up His Kingdom. The second one is that America will be judged and taken off “the scene,” and a third is that American Christians pray and repent and change God’s mind about America’s demise. Watch:

Transcript:

There are 3 options before us. If Jesus comes back, we won’t worry about any of this. In the immediate future, it won’t be our problem. The second option is that our nation is under final judgment and so there is no hope.
But there is a third option. “If my people will call my name, shall humble themselves, turn from their wicked ways, and seek my face, I will heal them, and I will flow from them.” If Jesus doesn’t come back in the immediate future, that’s your children, and your grandchildren, and your great grand children, and they’re gonna live in some kind of land. Either it will be a land influenced by God’s people and godliness, or influence led and ruled by evil, and it all depends on the church.
Regularly, as Pastor Morris says, God say, I’m waiting on you. Moses, as he said, put out the rod, Joshua, tell the priest to put the water-put their foot in the water before I open up the Jordan River. Martha, pull the stone away, until you pull the stone away, I do not need a discussion on mortuary science, until you move the stone, you will not see what I am up to in secret, because you won’t do what I told you to do in public.

But when God’s presence and purpose is being manifested through his people, we give Him another option. And let me tell you how powerful this option is. If Christ be not come. It is such a powerful option that if we gave-give God our undivided attention and undivided focus, it is such a powerful option that we can literally change God’s mind, on earth about what He had previously decided to do from eternity. Throughout the Bible, you will see God changing His mind. So even if Option 2 is on the plate, to remove America off the scene, Christ be not come, let’s go about changing God’s mind. Let’s do what we do like Moses did when God said He would destroy Israel and Moses pled that would mess up your reputation, and when He heard his prayer, He changed his mind. God is flexible. Let’s appeal to that flexibility.
Evans raises all kinds of theological issues which I won’t comment on at this point. My interest is more with what Evans thinks will trigger God’s cosmic mind change.
Evans misquotes II Chronicles 7:14 (bold print above) as a proof that God will change his mind if we pray and repent. The verse in full goes like this:

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

I have never understood why people mistake this as a promise to America.  American citizens are not His people called by God’s name. This verse is not addressed to Americans. This verse is the second half of a sentence started in verse 13 and concerns the dedication of the Jewish temple led by King Solomon.

11 When Solomon had finished the temple of the Lord and the royal palace, and had succeeded in carrying out all he had in mind to do in the temple of the Lord and in his own palace, 12 the Lord appeared to him at night and said:

“I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices.
13 “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 15 Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place. 16 I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.

God made an agreement with Solomon regarding Israel. On behalf of America, who made such a covenant?
This promise was made in a very specific way to Solomon about the very homogeneous Jewish nation. Despite a majority Christian population, there is no civil requirement to keep Christian morality. There is no civil requirement to even be a Christian to serve in government. It is very simple, these verses have nothing to do with us. We are not a new Israel.
There is nothing wrong with praying and repenting. However, a nation such as ours doesn’t do it, people do.

Freeing Bonhoeffer: Goodreads Corrects Attribution of Quote Formerly Attributed to Bonhoeffer

On August 25, I posted research into the attribution of the following quote:

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

Commonly attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I traced the quote back to a now deceased researcher at the Liberty Museum in Philadelphia who added the quote to Bonhoeffer’s exhibit in the museum. The current director of the museum did not know the source and the quote does not appear in any of Bonhoeffer’s writings according to the foremost expert on those writings, Victoria Barnett. It cannot be found before a 1998 newsletter reporting on the opening of the Liberty Museum Bonhoeffer exhibit. Eric Metaxas, author of a biography on Bonhoeffer, has used the quote frequently attributed to Bonhoeffer but has not provided a source for the quote.
Quotes like this are also spread by websites which archive quotes for use on social media. One such website is Goodreads. Today, Goodreads let me know that they have changed the attribution of the quote to “anonymous.”
Before
silence goodreads before b
After
silence goodreads after
International Justice Mission and several others have also made similar changes in the use of the quote.
Good Timing
Thinking about this some more, I believe it is a good time to clear this up. So many people have enlisted Bonhoeffer through this quote for so many different and contradictory causes. Most recently, people for and against Donald Trump have tried to bring Bonhoeffer on their side. With Bonhoeffer’s aura and imprimatur, this quote is used frequently to make the justice of one’s cause seem self-evident.
Recently, Eric Metaxas used a part of it again to encourage a vote for Trump. He said “not to act is to act” and “not to vote is to vote.”


I really doubt Bonhoeffer would have agreed with the perversion of the quote. Not to vote is not to vote. One cannot vote and not vote at the same time. How is the not voting vote to be counted?
To illustrate the absurdity of just taking the form “not to ____ is to ____” and substituting one’s current cause or preoccupation, let’s take another recent blog topic: tithing. I really doubt Robert Morris would go along with “not to tithe is to tithe.” If one is hungry, it won’t fill your stomach to say, “not to eat is to eat.” Also, thinking about the silence from Metaxas on the attribution of this quote, I think it confuses things to say, “Not to take responsibility is to take responsibility,” right?
Freeing the quote from Bonhoeffer invites us to consider that it might not be as wise and universally applicable as it first seemed.

CA Bill Will Require Disclosure of Title IX Exemptions by Religious Colleges

Religious colleges can request an exemption from Title IX which forbids sex discrimination in colleges accepting federal funds or students who pay tuition with federal grants. Exemptions often relate to policies concerning sexual orientation or gender identity. A recent legislative effort in California (SB 1146) would have required exempt religious colleges which accept students with CA student aid to conform to most conditions of the state’s anti-discrimination statute. The bill also gave students who believe they have been discriminated against a right to sue a college on that basis. In response, religious colleges and other groups (e.g., the Southern Baptist’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) opposed the bill because their representatives believed they would have to alter critical elements of their program in violation of their religious views.
Last week, the author of the bill, Rep. Lara (D-Bell Gardens) promised to remove the language allowing lawsuits and requiring conformity to CA’s anti-discrimination statute. Now the bill requires little more than disclosure of the exemption and any actions taken against students allowed by the exemption.  Late yesterday, the new language was posted on Assembly’s website:

SECTION 1. Section 66290.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66290.1. (a) Each postsecondary educational institution in this state that claims an exemption pursuant to Section 901(a)(3) of the federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a)(3)) or Section 66271 shall disclose to current and prospective students, faculty members, and employees the basis for claiming the exemption and the scope of the allowable activities provided by the exemption.
(b) The disclosure required in subdivision (a) shall be made in all of the following ways:
(1) The disclosure shall be displayed in a prominent location of the campus or school site. “Prominent location” means that location, or those locations, in the main administrative building or other area where notices regarding the institution’s rules, regulations, procedures, and standards of conduct are posted.
(2) The disclosure shall be included in written materials sent to prospective students seeking admission to the institution.
(3) The disclosure shall be provided as part of orientation programs conducted for new students at the beginning of each quarter, semester, or summer session, as applicable.
(4) The disclosure shall be provided to each faculty member, member of the administrative staff, and member of the support staff at the beginning of the first quarter or semester of each school year. The disclosure shall be provided to each new employee upon his or her hire.
(5) The disclosure shall be included in any publication of the institution that sets forth the comprehensive rules, regulations, procedures, and standards of conduct for the institution.
SEC. 2. Section 66290.2 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66290.2. (a) Each postsecondary educational institution in this state that claims an exemption pursuant to Section 901(a)(3) of the federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a)(3)) or Section 66271 shall submit to the Student Aid Commission copies of all materials submitted to, and received from, a state or federal agency concerning the granting of the exemption.
(b) The Student Aid Commission shall collect the information received pursuant to subdivision (a) and post and maintain a list on the commission’s Internet Web site of the institutions that have claimed the exemption with their respective bases for claiming the exemption.
SEC. 3. Section 66290.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66290.3. Each postsecondary educational institution in this state that claims an exemption pursuant to Section 901(a)(3) of the federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a)(3)) or Section 66271 shall submit a quarterly report to the Student Aid Commission that includes both of the following:
(a) A detailed explanation of the reason for each student suspension or expulsion that occurred during the preceding quarter, including on explanation of the policy the student violated and whether that policy is authorized under the exemption.
(b) Whether the student was a Cal Grant recipient.
SEC. 4. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

I post this in order to promote awareness that the perceived threat to religious liberty has been addressed for now. I think everyone should be aware of these exemptions. Some students have gone to religious schools unaware that they could be expelled for coming out as gay. Students should know in advance what they are getting into. The last section will keep track of how many students are expelled.

The Gospel Coalition Removes “When God Sends Your White Daughter a Black Husband”

Responding to a backlash against the controversial article “When God Sends Your White Daughter a Black Husband”, the Gospel Coalition removed the article at the author’s request. TGC also posted an audio discussion about the article involving three African-American writers (TGC editor, Jason Cook, Isaac Adams, and Jamar Tisby). Listen to the discussion at TGC’s website.  About the situation, TGC posted:

In this recorded conversation, Jason Cook (editor at The Gospel Coalition), Jemar Tisby (president of Reformed African American Network), and Isaac Adams (editor at The Front Porch) respond to the article “When God Sends Your White Daughter a Black Husband” and the ensuing backlash, as well as broader issues including handling discussions about race and the dignity of black life.

The article has been removed from TGC’s website at the request of the author, who regrets hurting many readers. An article intended to celebrate God’s work in this family’s life also became an occasion for hurt and pain. Understandable frustration and constructive concern was not the only response. Sadly, white supremacists have threatened the author and her family.
We invite you to listen to the conversation to understand TGC’s editorial process, what we could have done better, what we can learn going forward, and more.

The article (archived here) had generated hundreds of comments on the TGC website in addition to a tweetstorm of discussion both supporting and criticizing the article. In particular, the format of the article’s title indicated to some critics that a black husband was less than optimal. However, in this discussion, the participants talk about what can be learned from the situation.
The discussants took a firm stance on the language of the article and lamented the problems in evangelical circles. One said:

This is an issue where our discipleship has a gaping hole.

I recommend you listen to the conversation.
From my point of view, I appreciate TGC’s recognition that the article was hurtful to many. I think it illustrated just how far the church needs to go in order to address subtle as well as overt racism.

The Futility of Donald Trump's Johnson Amendment Promise: Most Pastors Don't Want to Endorse Political Candidates

trump donate campaignCBN’s The Brody File reported yesterday that Donald Trump will speak to a group of pastors in Florida about repealing the Johnson Amendment.

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump will be speaking to hundreds of pastors this Thursday in Orlando, Florida. This is a private event sponsored by the American Renewal Project. Trump will speak to them about his push to repeal the Johnson Amendment. The law, which has been in place for decades, is perceived by some Christians as making it more difficult for pastors to speak out on political issues and candidates from the pulpit.

Correction: the amendment doesn’t prevent speaking on “political issues.” It does prohibit all tax-exempt organizations from campaigning or advocating for specific candidates.  Here is the IRS guidance on the matter:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances.  For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The prohibition is about campaigning for a person, not speaking out on issues. Ministers may speak about any issue and even speak in favor of a candidate, but they may not involve their churches in partisan campaign activities. It is very sad to me that any minister would want to use the church of Christ to promote a candidate but since some would, I am actually glad that the Johnson Amendment exists.
Many Christian supporters of Trump (e.g., Eric Metaxas today) think it is a big deal that Trump wants to pursue a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. If one can rely on surveys, many pastors don’t agree. According to a Christianity Today analysis, most pastors don’t want to endorse specific candidates from the pulpit or on behalf of the church. For instance, CT cited a Lifeway Research survey which found that a whopping 87% of pastors disagreed with the statement: “Pastors should endorse candidates for public office from the pulpit.” Only 29% of a Pew Research sample of Protestants and Catholics felt that churches should endorse candidates during elections.
I am glad a majority of ministers don’t want to use the church as a political tool. Doing so subordinates the mission of the church to political aims. Taking sides also risks alienating church members who disagree. Those members can feel coerced to vote consistently with the church endorsement.
Furthermore, the IRS isn’t enforcing the law. According to CT, thousands of pastors have violated the law (just think of that when you hear Trump say he’s the law and order candidate), but the IRS hasn’t done much about it.  Trump’s Johnson Amendment promise is just another substance-free hook to hoodwink evangelical voters and soothe the doubts of evangelical endorsers.
Brody’s analysis of the Florida event is a pretty good argument why the Johnson Amendment isn’t currently relevant to what churches actually do. Brody said:

Events like this one will be crucial to Trump if he wants to beat Hillary Clinton. The reality is that evangelical pastors are a major key ingredient to mobilizing the masses. They hold great power over a captive audience every week in the pews. Trump needs them engaged. If they are, the flocks will typically follow. The result? A bottom up approach that will affect turnout exponentially. The top down approach of receiving key endorsements won’t do squat unless the evangelicals sitting in the pews are motivated. Trump shouldn’t assume that the anti-Hillary sentiment will be all he needs. No. He needs to do some work and by showing up in Orlando he’s well on his way to striking evangelical gold.

If Brody is right, then why does the Johnson Amendment matter? If Trump can get those pastors on his side, they will go pull spiritual rank on the captive sheep and the flock will get in line. There’s evangelical gold in them there churches and Trump needs to mine it like a boss.
I hope Brody is wrong. First, I hope most pastors will continue to resist a church endorsement of a candidate, and second, I hope the sheep break free from their captivity and become independent in their thinking and voting.