Category: Uncategorized

A casualty of this election season is Eric Metaxas’ reputation as a scholar. He acknowledges this in an interview published yesterday on NPR. In addition to his political statements, Metaxas again hurt himself by continuing to misattribute a quote to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the service of support for Donald Trump.

Metaxas said he has been misunderstood and that he was only quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As we now know, Metaxas wasn’t quoting Bonhoeffer but using a quote he has misattributed to Bonhoeffer.

To his dismay, Metaxas’ suggestion that Christians who do not support Trump will have to answer to God for their vote quickly got him in trouble with other Christian leaders.
“I have been horribly misunderstood, and it’s really damaged my reputation,” Metaxas told NPR. “When I put that out there, I didn’t realize most people aren’t going to get the joke, so to speak.”
Metaxas explained that when he said “God will not hold us guiltless,” he was simply quoting the German theologian and anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the subject of one of Metaxas’ numerous books. Bonhoeffer famously said God would not hold Germans guiltless for appeasing Hitler, because “silence in the face of evil is itself evil.”
“The point of the quote,” Metaxas said, “Is that you can’t say, ‘Oh, I’m not going to vote.’ You have to make a sober, difficult choice, because people are depending on you.”

I don’t understand what keeps Metaxas and his publisher Thomas Nelson from issuing a correction. His continued misuse of quote now seems to be willful and fraudulent. Ethical scholars make mistakes but they don’t keep on making them when evidence is presented. I have reached out to him and his publisher. I know he has received messages from mutual friends and his twitter followers. He has offered no source for the quote nor an explanation for why he keeps using it. Even a cursory review of academic ethics demonstrates that he should correct and is damaging his reputation by not doing so. For instance, read what Des Moines University says about proper citation:

Locating scholarly resources and then citing these references accurately should be the foundation of your own academic and professional writing.
Why is this an ethical issue? Correct documentation

1. Provides attribution or credit to the original author or creator.
2. Allows someone to find the documents you cited on their own.
3. Enables the reader to follow the continuum of research. What important contributions were made before your work and where does your body of research contribute to or add to current knowledge?
4. Enables others to verify the accuracy and completeness your work. A thorough reference list demonstrates that you are knowledgeable about your field of inquiry.
5. Communicates transparency, trust and integrity and helps you to avoid plagiarism.

Incorrect Documentation
Ethical research and writing means giving proper attribution and credit to the work of others. In the academic community the ideas, words, and formal or informal publications of others is considered intellectual property. Failing to provide the correct citation may not always be plagiarism. However, if another scholar cannot easily find the research you claim to have consulted, one may reasonably conclude that you either “raided” the reference list of someone else, or that you made up the reference(s) on your own. In either case, you did not actually do the work of reading and analyzing the source material yourself. Citing sources without reading them is considered fraudulent because you are lying about the work you have done.  Finally, you should not blindly trust the conclusions of others.  Always track down and read the original research yourself to make sure that the data is accurate.
Finally, sometimes the expression of someone’s creative work is copyrighted. You may see official copyright or creative commons licensing information on a website or publication indicating that the work is protected. Regardless of whether or not you see an official notice, you should always consider any written, visual, multimedia, or auditory work as protected under copyright law whether or not you see an official trademark or warning.

I have repeatedly asked Metaxas for a source for the quote. He has not answered. A review of ethics standards for scholars is clear that being able to provide sources for one’s work is foundational.

Yesterday, Eric Metaxas referred his dwindling Twitter followers to read an article comparing Donald Trump with Samson. Roughly, the narrative casts imperfect Trump as a modern day imperfect Samson from the Old Testament. According to the article, we should accept Trump as an imperfect man God can use in the same way God used Samson.
I submit that casting a vote in terms of God’s will is misguided both religiously and politically. I was reminded of Benjamin Rush’s exchange with Thomas Jefferson on a similar point just after Jefferson was first elected president. Below is an segment from my book with Michael Coulter on Jefferson which features Benjamin Rush.
From Getting Jefferson Right:

On August 22, 1800, Jefferson’s friend and fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, wrote to Jefferson asking for a clarification of his religious views. At their last meeting, Rush had extracted a promise from Jefferson to read William Paley’s book, A View of the Evidences of Christianity. In addition, Jefferson apparently promised to explain his “religious Creed.” As of that writing, Jefferson had not complied with the request.
Rush wrote:

You promised me when we parted, to read Paley’s last work, and to send me your religious Creed.–I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of Republicanism. Its Spirit is opposed, not only to the Splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many” of its precepts have for their Objects, republican liberty and equality, as well as simplicity , integrity and Economy in government. It is only necessary for Republicanism to ally itself to the christian Religion, to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions in the world. I have lately heard that Lord Kaims became so firm a Beleiver in Christianity some years before he died, as to dispute with his former disciples in its favor. Such a mind as Kaims’ could only yeild to the strongest evidence, especially as his prejudices were on the other Side of the Question. Sir John Pringle had lived near 60 years in a State of indifference to the truth of the Christian Religion.–He devoted himself to the Study of the Scriptures in the evening of his life, and became a christian. It was remarkable that he became a decided Republican” at the same time. It is said this change in his political principles exposed him to the neglect of the Royal family, to whom he was Physician, and drove him from London, to end his days in his native Country (p 318) [144]

Apparently, by telling him of those who converted to Christianity later in life, Rush hoped to convince Jefferson that it was not too late for Jefferson to turn to orthodox Christianity. Jefferson wrote back on September 23, 1800 saying that time constraints had prevented him from honoring his pledge. Jefferson had been thinking about it and wanted to have adequate time to write a complete answer. To Rush, Jefferson wrote:

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary , it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Diests, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum( 2) who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot showed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion , had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.– But enough of this. It is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies which have been preached or printed against me. [145]

Jefferson does not address Rush’s proselytizing but instead described his frustration with his critics and his opposition to establishment of Christianity “through the United States.” Rush then wrote back on October 6, 1800 in order to clarify his views on religion and the state.

I [Rush] agree with you [Jefferson] likewise in your wishes to keep religion and government independant of each Other. Were it possible for St. Paul to rise from his grave at the present juncture, he would say to the Clergy who are now so active in settling the political Affairs of the World: “Cease from your political labors-your kingdom is not of this World. Read my Epistles. In no part of them will you perceive me aiming to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a throne. Christianity disdains to receive Support from human Governments.” From this, it derives its preeminence over all the religions that ever have, or ever shall exist in the World. [146] (emphasis added)

Throckmorton, Warren; Coulter, Michael (2012-05-01). Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President (Kindle Locations 2267-2328). Kindle Edition.

Rush told Jefferson that St. Paul did not aim “to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a throne.” What this suggests to me is that these two founders did not believe Christianity needed help from a human leader. In the case of Bonhoeffer, he was trying to save lives and I believe he was right in that. However, to equate stopping Hitler with stopping Hillary, as Eric Metaxas regularly does, diminishes (unintentionally I believe) the Holocaust.
 

This is a bold move and one I admire. In an editorial just out, World magazine’s editor Marvin Olasky called on Donald Trump to withdraw from the campaign.
Calling Trump “unfit for power,” Olasky said, “Our journalistic task is to call powerful people to account, regardless of their party, regardless of the politics of the moment.”
While there was concern before the 2005 tape was disclosed by the Washington Post, clearly the revelation was key. Olasky wrote:

The new video pushed theologian Wayne Grudem to withdraw his endorsement of Trump and urge him to drop out of the presidential race. The videotape, in the words of Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “revealed a sexual predator, not merely a playboy.”
In suggesting that Trump drop out and let someone else carry the campaign for the remaining weeks, we at WORLD are not endorsing any other Republican and certainly not Hillary Clinton. We also realize Trump is unlikely to heed our call. We’re aware of the practical difficulties in making a change at this point.

This kind of principled response is what I have been hoping for from evangelicals. On top of Christianity Today’s column by Andy Crouch, this is a powerful call to Trump, but probably more practically and importantly to evangelicals on the fence.

Remember the huge solemn assembly of 75,000 pastors Gateway Church pastor Robert Morris promised his congregation? Here is what he said last year about it.

You know, I was just standing here thinking, I am really, really glad, to be in church.  I’m just, I just, really enjoyed worship.  And I hope you feel the same way.  Um, I will, just to let all of you know, so you can be in prayer and also so I like for you to know things like this because it’s, we feel like at Gateway Church, obviously we’re part of the body of Christ  and um God has given me a role, in the body of Christ as well. So I’m speaking at the Southlake campus on Saturday, uh but on Sunday morning I will be at Oakcliff Bible Fellowship with Dr Tony Evans tomorrow morning or this morning if you’re watching this Sunday morning, I hope you got all that figured out.  Um, and Dr Evans and I have been talking about for a while along with some other pastors that we feel have given us leadership in the body of Christ to help.  Uh Dr Ronnie Floyd, is one of these on the Executive Committee with us who’s President of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Um, Sammy Rodriguez uh who’s the head of uh Hispanic congregations all over the world, over 400, 000 churches.
Uh, we are planning, just so you know, we’ve already got, put the reservations and all.  Next July uh we are calling a solemn assembly and asking 75,000 pastors to join us in Cowboy’s Stadium for a day of prayer for our nation, isn’t that good? (applause)

I wonder if Morris, Evans and Kingdom Church Council got their Cowboy stadium reservation deposit back.
The huge mega assembly didn’t happen, but tomorrow a much smaller and perhaps even more solemn assembly will assemble at Gateway Church in Southlake, TX. Now called The Gathering, there will be lots of solemn prayers for the nation as if the U.S.A. was Israel.

The sponsors say there isn’t a political agenda, but it seems they can’t help themselves. From the website:

The Gathering is free of political agendas, merchandise, and ministry tents.

But then the prayers will be on behalf of a Christian version of government.

Sounds like a political agenda to me.
 
 

This WaPo article said Trump intervened in one issue during the week of putting together the GOP platform: Ukraine.
Specifically, the Trump camp did not want the platform to call for providing arms to Ukraine to defend themselves against Russian aggression.
Most conservatives want to help defend Ukraine. Why doesn’t Trump? Perhaps, his advisors and his own view of the world is that Putin isn’t a threat or that Ukraine isn’t our problem.
Ukraine watchers are worried and I believe Trump supporters among the committee should provide an explanation for their vote.