A feature of Jim Lyon’s tenure as General Director of Church of God Ministries has been the regular Town Hall “ask me anything” events that he has held. Initially, these took place exclusively in-person at conventions, but with the ubiquity of technology he is now hosting them every few months (or as required) utilizing Facebook Live. The latest took place yesterday, February 15th.
After watching this latest edition, I want to comment on the nature of the questions that Lyon is getting, and how they are indicative of some deeper battles taking place both within and outside the Church of God. In particular, we are seeing the effects of the culture wars that are being waged right now across the United States, especially in an election year where society is more polarized than ever and dragging the church along with it.
On the surface, there is much to like about these Town Halls. It is not uncommon for people outside of the Anderson vortex to feel disconnected and unheard by our national offices and leadership. Lyon is unafraid to tackle any issue and thinks quickly on his feet, so in many ways relishes the opportunities to speak to the questions, concerns and even grumblings coming from across the movement. At times these sessions are extremely tedious, as it is not uncommon for periods of prolonged rambling. Yesterday’s Live was over an hour long, but only three questions were answered. (Viewers are encouraged to text in their requests, and we are told that Lyon does not see these beforehand).
Here are the first two questions presented:
“Highlighting specific races during specific months of the year seems woke and sad. How does highlighting specific races fit into the theology of the Church of God?”
“Why is there such a thing as PreachHer Sunday? Shouldn’t people be selected to preach by the leading of the Holy Spirit, and not gender?”
In an “ask me anything” format, these are probably fair questions. But, Town Halls have been full of these kind in recent years, especially since last June when the ChoGAffirm issue arose. As snapshots in time, these rhetorical inquiries provide us a good indication of what Church of God people are thinking and focused on. They also reveal that the larger culture wars are in full force within our movement. I find it interesting how they are couched with Christianese trigger words such as “theology” and “leading of the Holy Spirit,” but at the same time are reinforcing racial and gender biases, utilizing loaded terminology (e.g. “woke”) and deflective logic to emotionally charge their statements. As I see it, these are not earnest questions, but about placing stakes in the ground and forcing Lyon and the Church of God to declare their positions so the vultures know where to attack.
Lyon gave appropriate responses to these inquiries, all within the bounds of our heritage and theological understanding. Of course, this will hardly satisfy those who think “Anderson” has gone off the rails and is promoting a left-wing agenda in contrast to their interpretation of the Gospel.
In any case, this is not just about the Church of God. You do not have to look far to see how these battles find their origins in the political sphere. Where you stand on racial justice and gender equality (let alone other hot button social issues) are the markers of whose team you are on. One of the great insights from sound research is that, contrary to what many well-intentioned people believe, politics influences theology today far more than the other way around. I will have more to say on this in the book I am writing, but this is becoming more and more apparent today as political causes and parties seek to shape the hearts and minds of Christians for the sake of their own quest for power.
We look to the Super Bowl this past weekend for another example of how these battles are unfolding. The “He Gets Us” commercial has received a major backlash from many conservative Christians, despite its powerful message modelled on footwashing. We can debate whether millions of dollars needed to be spent on a PR campaign for Jesus, but it has been incredible to watch how uncomfortable this has made many Evangelicals feel. It is almost as if even though Jesus “gets us,” they “do not get” Jesus. The portrayal of Jesus and his followers extending compassion to the hurting and marginalized is rejected. An unofficial alternative video is currently makings its rounds on social media, providing a different take on Jesus’ ministry, focused on individual salvation, a similar theological tactic that was used to give a slavery a pass in the 19th century. I have seen a number of people, including prominent Church of God folk, sharing this neutered video version of the Gospel. Could it be that many are disturbed that the “He Gets Us” commercial does not represent the culture war Jesus they desire?
As holiness people we should reject this impulse. We believe that God not only wants to save us, but also to sanctify us. There are practical implications to faith that extend well beyond the point of salvation, and these need to be lived out. This should include a rejection of the worldliness of political partisanship, and all that it is doing to dismantle a healthy, functioning society. If we are serious about living a holy life, we would resist the quest for power that dominates our world, and instead seek to model our lives on Jesus and his Kingdom alone.
There was a third question in yesterday’s Town Hall:
“How can we maintain unity while respecting theological diversity?”
This may be the ultimate challenge we face in the midst of the growing divisions we are seeing across our country and now in the church. I was disappointed in Lyon’s answer, as he resorted to his “five non-negotiables” position. I am not convinced that by somehow reducing everything down to these five doctrinal distinctives we will find the practical outworking of unity that has eluded us for over 140 years. Ultimately, it will only happen as we center our lives around Jesus and our relationships to each other in the Body of Christ. It will also mean foregoing our allegiances to the Principalities and Powers of our day, of which the political systems and the culture wars are their prime expressions.
Well said, Lloyd, particularly this sentence: "As I see it, these are not earnest questions, but about placing stakes in the ground and forcing Lyon and the Church of God to declare their positions so the vultures know where to attack." You've hit the nail on the head. It is disturbing indeed how much people's political viewpoints drive their theological perspectives, not the other way around.
In yesterday's Live video, the comments section was particularly interesting. Lots of folks (including me) were sharing their beliefs, opinions, and requests. It seems clear to me that there is a broad desire for real conversation about hard topics...not just occasional one-directional monologues.
Lloyd. Once again you have hit the nail on the head, with your focus on the unity question. We seem to forget that it is our job to encourage one another, to bear one another burdens. Instead we seem to be content to pick one another part. When I was managing editor of Vital Christianity, we did an issue bow biblical attitudes. I avoided the use of the word infallible because it is a word that many people have different understandings. They use a word and one other to use a word, but they don't mean the same thing when they use a word. I received a letter from a Brother, who accuse me of being wishy-washy and asked if I believe in them availability or not. I wrote him saying that I could support a position, affirming and availability scripture as set forth by Donald Bush and his book essentials of the evangelical faith. I could not support a position of infallibility for by Harold Lindell in his book battle for the Bible. I got a letter in return, saying, I was even more wishy-washy than before. I wrote back, saying that if he wanted to have a discussion between two brothers for our Mutual education on how we understood the nature and authority of scripture, I would be glad to write to him talk to him on the phone or even travel to him to have a discussion on this if he just wanted a paragraph or two that he could copy circulate to 60 of his friends to indicate what my pigeonhole position would be I was not interested. He never wrote back.
This pigeon holding of each other, labeling each other, drawing up the battle lines between each other does not promote unity and does not promote the grace of Christ. In fact, we spend more time and energy and money. Probably fighting one another than we do lifting up CHRIST. We are not one of all agree that it's just impossible , unity will never can never come through uniformity. We need to leave room for people to grow.
I am absolutely convinced that I am right about many things and I am wrong about many things and often I don't know which is which. That is OK because of the grace of Christ and the love of my brothers and sisters in Christ. we would do well to pay attention to efficient. Chapter 4. for what purpose are the gifts of the spirit given? For the building up of the people of God until we all come to what? Till we all come to the unity of the faith and the full stature of the son of God. also, let us look at first Corinthians 13 and understand how we are to love.
Richard Willowby