18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame--who set their mind on earthly things.
20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.
We can recognize that by virtue of our coming to know Christ, we have been declared to be citizens of heaven, we are part of His Kingdom, and we have the bright promise that we will reside in heaven with Him forever. But, until then, we have a responsibility - we are called and empowered to be obedient to Christ and to fulfill that calling to be faithful to do as He says, to honor Him and His Word, and to follow Him in demonstrating His love.
1st Peter chapter 3 contains what might be described as a "mission statement" for the child of God, as we take seriously our citizenship in the Kingdom of God and our duty to represent our Lord well:
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.
17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
When you see, as I did, that the Washington Post had done a story that featured a church congregation in a city in our coverage area, that certainly arouses curiosity, and, quite admittedly, a bit of fear and trembling.
To read the story, as I did, you see a glaring example of writing to fit a particular narrative and agenda. The premise of the story: how do evangelicals in a Southern Baptist church justify their support of Donald Trump, with the air of mystery: will the pastor, who is preaching a series on the 10 Commandments and has come to "Thou shalt not commit adultery," mention Trump in his sermon?
Not that it would do any good, but there are many in the media who seemingly don't realize that the election took place in 2016 and that Donald Trump won. He drew a high percentage of white evangelical Christian support - and the reason is simple: there was generally no endorsement of his behavior, which the majority of Christians do not condone, but they supported Trump because they could not support a candidate whom they saw did not support the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and religious liberty; they could not support someone who believed that those who held to a different viewpoint than she needed to be re-trained. It's very simple, and the reporter actually heard that from several of the congregants.
The tone of the article, though, bordered on contempt; the reporter was Stephanie McCrummen, who won a Pulitzer for her story on those allegations against - Roy Moore. She also spent an inordinate amount of time prior to the election profiling a mentally ill lady who was a Trump supporter.
In this latest article, she accused one member of the congregation of a "blatant moral compromise." Here's that compromise:
The story goes on:
Ross made three observations; number one included these words:
+++++
1st Peter chapter 3 contains what might be described as a "mission statement" for the child of God, as we take seriously our citizenship in the Kingdom of God and our duty to represent our Lord well:
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.
17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
When you see, as I did, that the Washington Post had done a story that featured a church congregation in a city in our coverage area, that certainly arouses curiosity, and, quite admittedly, a bit of fear and trembling.
To read the story, as I did, you see a glaring example of writing to fit a particular narrative and agenda. The premise of the story: how do evangelicals in a Southern Baptist church justify their support of Donald Trump, with the air of mystery: will the pastor, who is preaching a series on the 10 Commandments and has come to "Thou shalt not commit adultery," mention Trump in his sermon?
Not that it would do any good, but there are many in the media who seemingly don't realize that the election took place in 2016 and that Donald Trump won. He drew a high percentage of white evangelical Christian support - and the reason is simple: there was generally no endorsement of his behavior, which the majority of Christians do not condone, but they supported Trump because they could not support a candidate whom they saw did not support the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and religious liberty; they could not support someone who believed that those who held to a different viewpoint than she needed to be re-trained. It's very simple, and the reporter actually heard that from several of the congregants.
The tone of the article, though, bordered on contempt; the reporter was Stephanie McCrummen, who won a Pulitzer for her story on those allegations against - Roy Moore. She also spent an inordinate amount of time prior to the election profiling a mentally ill lady who was a Trump supporter.
In this latest article, she accused one member of the congregation of a "blatant moral compromise." Here's that compromise:
“I hate it,” he said. “My wife and I talk about it all the time. We rationalize the immoral things away. We don’t like it, but we look at the alternative, and think it could be worse than this.”The story went on:
“She hates me,” Terry said, sitting in Crum’s office one day. “She has contempt for people like me, and Clay, and people who love God and believe in the Second Amendment. I think if she had her way it would be a dangerous country for the likes of me.”Crum is Clay Crum, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Luverne, who actually received some pretty fair coverage from McCrummen, except for one thing, which I'll cover later. The story said:
He gave up on church. He started drinking some and went a little wild, dabbling in world religions and having his own thoughts about the meaning of life until one day when he was listening to Christian radio on a truck haul. He remembered the preacher talking about salvation and suddenly feeling unsure of his own.
“So I just prayed to the Lord while I was driving,” he said. “I want to be sure.”The pastor related how God had led him into the ministry, led him to preach on the Ten Commandments, as of late, and to vote for Donald Trump...the story said: "...it was the same voice of God that had led Crum to vote the same way most of his congregation had voted in one of the most morally confusing elections of his lifetime." He called it, "A crossroads time."
The story goes on:
The dilemma was that Trump was an immoral person doing what Crum considered to be moral things. The conservative judges. The antiabortion policies. And something else even more important to a small Southern Baptist congregation worried about their own annihilation.
“It encouraged them that we do still have some political power in this country,” said Crum.
When he prayed about it, that was what the voice of God had told him. The voice reminded Crum that God always had a hand in elections. The voice told him that God used all kinds of people to do his will.But, the pastor did not mention Trump in his sermon that day. Bobby Ross Jr. at GetReligion.org responded to the Post piece, in an article called, "Hit piece or masterpiece? Digesting that Washington Post story on rural Baptists who voted for Trump."
Ross made three observations; number one included these words:
Sometimes, Post stories — particularly those written by reporters other than the paper's religion specialists — read as if church and politics are one and the same. Perhaps that's true for some churches. Maybe that's true for this particular church, although I don't think this story proves it.
Nonetheless, the entire narrative makes it seem as if the biggest issue in the pastor's sermon on adultery is Trump. Yet the pastor doesn't even mention Trump in his sermon. I would love for the Post to have engaged the issue of whether this pastor — like the Post itself — is fixated 24/7 on Trump.He also wrote:
2. Similarly, I'm not sure this story does a great job of humanizing the folks at this church. The sources quoted seem more like caricatures. I feel like I'm seeing these people through the lens of a Beltway publication with a certain position on Trump as opposed to an unfiltered lens that would present a more complicated picture of these "rural rubes," as the one Twitter user described them.Ross chided some of the outlooks on "immigration, race and other biblical matters." He added, "But I never got the feeling reading the piece that I was seeing a full portrait of these people." I disagree with what some of the congregation members had to say, especially in those matters Ross referred to; and, I did sense some fear, especially in some of the older congregation members who are concerned about the direction of our society.
Ross' third observation included: "There's a whole lot of generalizing in this story and long stretches of text — particularly in trying to explain evangelicals in general — that read more like an editorial than an impartial news story."
Was it a hit piece? I think that even though there was some sensitivity shown toward Biblical viewpoints, I think that the net effect was to denigrate the people of this congregation and to portray them in a negative light. And, of course, to associate them with the big boogey man himself, the man who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., who also lives in the heads of many in the media and even some Church leaders these days.
Did the congregation members help contribute to the image that was spun? Perhaps, but it's not every day that the Washington Post comes to your church. Wonder if the reporter identified herself as such. Did she quote the members of First Baptist accurately? Did she really capture the spirit of the congregation or use sound bites to paint a toxic picture of Christianity? All in all, even though the piece had its moments, I thought generally it was an insensitive example of using real people as characters in a play to further an agenda.
Jeff Poor, writing at the Yellowhammer News website, offered a similar opinion:
Jeff Poor, writing at the Yellowhammer News website, offered a similar opinion:
Trump’s churchgoing supporters weren’t looking for someone that adhered to The Washington Post’s shallow understanding of the Bible and Christianity that seemed to have completely missed the part about the Grace of God as laid out in the New Testament.
Without saying it, the readers’ takeaway was supposed to be: “But, it says ‘THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.’ Why are these rubes with their Bibles still voting for this guy?!?!?”
It is a bad idea to treat any place in America as some alien culture worthy of a 5,000-word Washington Post story full of superfluous details about their way of life. But then again, when have our Fourth Estate been concerned about how they are viewed by the public?
It’s condescending. It’s demeaning. It’s par for the course when national media come to Alabama to validate a bias.
Well, there are certainly some areas to consider. For one thing, we have to examine the role of politics in the Church. We are to participate in politics, and we are to be informed; I actually saw some areas of critical thinking among the church members portrayed. But, we can participate without being consumed by politics - and as Ross points out, church and politics are not "one and the same." We should develop a well-crafted opinion of the issues of the day, and be able to express them clearly.
That leads us to another takeaway, and that is the role of proclamation in our culture...it's unfortunate in this culture that many do not know what real Christianity is. And, we have been charged by God to show people what it means to love Jesus, to follow Him as Savior, and to live a life of love toward others. We are certainly His ambassadors, to the reporter from Washington or the neighbor next door.
And, finally, a little bit of an aside - there is the role of perspective of the earthly and the heavenly...that was a thread of the article that was explored, but I'm not sure how well it was portrayed. I think the point for some of these fine residents of Luverne was that we should not become so entangled in earthly pursuits because we have a heavenly reward. We have to be clear on our citizenship - we are not of this world, we belong to a Kingdom that is established on Christ; we have a mission here on earth, and when God is done with us, it will be time to go be with Him. We can live each day discerning and pursing that calling.
And, finally, a little bit of an aside - there is the role of perspective of the earthly and the heavenly...that was a thread of the article that was explored, but I'm not sure how well it was portrayed. I think the point for some of these fine residents of Luverne was that we should not become so entangled in earthly pursuits because we have a heavenly reward. We have to be clear on our citizenship - we are not of this world, we belong to a Kingdom that is established on Christ; we have a mission here on earth, and when God is done with us, it will be time to go be with Him. We can live each day discerning and pursing that calling.
No comments:
Post a Comment