Lloyd, thank you for this thoughtful and wise post. Welcome back. I'm very happy to see your post. I think you've helpfully described important aspects of the challenge of being the church in our time, including our complicity with destructive forces. I appreciate your invitation to return to our (Church of God) core emphases of holiness and unity. Even as I agree, I also hope we can rethink what we mean by these decisive emphases. Holiness, it seems to me, is sometimes understood in the Church of God in entirely personal terms. And unity is sometimes seen as the absence of dissent. While I certainly affirm personal holiness, I hope we can be open to a holiness that, as made known in Jesus, provides a powerful force of resistance by way of love to the principalities and powers of our time and a unity that enlarges the circle of fellowship beyond the fragile 'peace' of unanimity. Again thank you for your post. I'll be thinking about this for some time...
Excellent thoughts, Lloyd. Are you able to share them with anyone on the Ministries Council and/or the General Director transition team?
Our divisions within the Church of God - and our inability to tolerate differing viewpoints or even to have conversations about those differences - have been extremely present in my local ministry in the past few weeks and months. There has to be a better way.
Part of the challenges we face as a culture (both in the Church of God and in the broader Western culture) is in the narratives we accept. All sides (there seem to be more than just two) use language that can be at least misleading, if not incendiary. The word "fascism" is one of those words. And, if we seek unity, I don't believe that using such words is helpful.
Fascism, along with "Nazism", is often used to describe the current president and administration, which actually bears little resemblance to fascism. Italy, whose dictator coined the term, took power by force (marching on Rome with his thugs, pressuring the King to name Mussolini as Prime Minister), as did Hitler (appointed as Chancellor, then made dictator through the Enabling Act, 1933). The current and former US administrations were elected to office by both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
Italy and Germany used the secret police, concentration camps, and mass arrests to quell dissent. While the ICE tragedies in Minnesota brought such imagery to mind, it is simply not the same. There is no one-party control in place in this country. People can (and do) rightly criticize the current and former administrations - and continue to do so - even to the point of outright lies (again, on both sides). A fascist regime would have put a stop to criticism long ago.
Whenever the executive branch is strong (think Lincoln, FDR, and Obama), there is always criticism of any perceived overreach. A strong executive branch does not mean fascism.
I believe that we, as a church and as church leaders, can and should speak boldly on relevant issues. But words matter. When we read fascism on one side and "woke" on the other side, such labels tend to divide.
I wonder if Jesus encountered such zealotry when confronted about the horrific atrocities of Pilate (Luke 13:1-5). It's like hearing, "Did you read what the President said (or typically wrote) today?" Jesus didn't take the bait, and neither should we. Those confronting Him expected outrage, but what they received was refocus: on repentance. Could that be a better approach in the Church of God? When politics (sometimes to the point of idolatry) creep in, should we instead focus on repentance?
Greg, thanks for your feedback. My intent was not to be unnecessarily provocative by using that term, although we may have to agree to disagree here about its meaning and usage. While the fascism of early 20th century Europe had its unique expression, I remain convinced that by broad definition the United States is beginning to exhibit fascist tendencies (beyond mere overreach and testing of the boundaries), if not even just by virtue of the fact that we lack a robust democracy (mainly a healthy Congress) that holds leaders accountable and that functions within the checks and balances established by the constitution. Strict party allegiance and fear of speaking truth to power to those in one's own party (yes, on both sides) is overriding virtuous action. As a non-partisan individual myself, I have no horse in the race. I believe, however, that this is not just a matter of political rhetoric, but ultimately a holiness issue since Christians have been responsible to contributing to this downward spiral. Instead of allegiance to Christ and the Kingdom, many have bought into the worldly myth that aligning closely with parties and electing the right politicians, regardless of their character, etc., is the answer to the problems we face. As I see it, this needs to be called out, because it cuts to heart of living a holy life under the lordship of Christ. Ultimately, the problem may be less about who's in the administration than the willingness of our country (and Christians in particular) to blindly allow the things they do to take place. Authoritarianism then is more than just a possibility. Regarding unity, until we who follow Jesus surrender our partisan shackles, politics will remain divisive in the church, and we will continue to tip-toe around needed efforts to call out the ways in which we may be complicit to the evils around us.
Your writing always inspires me Lloyd and I wish I had opportunities to sit over coffee with you. You poignantly wrote, “We must, however, begin by speaking truthfully about our current reality.” I couldn’t agree more. Not only are we not being honest with ourselves that we are a denomination and much of our leadership is now seeking control and homogeneous thinking, we are not a movement by any definition of the word unless going backwards counts and our lack of ability to discuss difficult issues of any nature make us incapable of addressing our most basic core value of unity in Christ, not uniformity. I found my theological home with the Church of God 48 years ago but I am not as hopeful as you as we are requiring our leaders to agree to creedal statements of our own making and we are digressing by every available metric. Regardless, thank you for boldly writing and addressing the elephants in our room.
Lloyd, thank you for this thoughtful and wise post. Welcome back. I'm very happy to see your post. I think you've helpfully described important aspects of the challenge of being the church in our time, including our complicity with destructive forces. I appreciate your invitation to return to our (Church of God) core emphases of holiness and unity. Even as I agree, I also hope we can rethink what we mean by these decisive emphases. Holiness, it seems to me, is sometimes understood in the Church of God in entirely personal terms. And unity is sometimes seen as the absence of dissent. While I certainly affirm personal holiness, I hope we can be open to a holiness that, as made known in Jesus, provides a powerful force of resistance by way of love to the principalities and powers of our time and a unity that enlarges the circle of fellowship beyond the fragile 'peace' of unanimity. Again thank you for your post. I'll be thinking about this for some time...
Thanks Steve. Yes, we must find new ways of stating these core emphases.
Excellent thoughts, Lloyd. Are you able to share them with anyone on the Ministries Council and/or the General Director transition team?
Our divisions within the Church of God - and our inability to tolerate differing viewpoints or even to have conversations about those differences - have been extremely present in my local ministry in the past few weeks and months. There has to be a better way.
Thanks, David. Yes, some members of the Ministries Council, etc. are reading here, so hopefully this contributes to the conversation.
Good morning, Lloyd. It is good to have you back.
Part of the challenges we face as a culture (both in the Church of God and in the broader Western culture) is in the narratives we accept. All sides (there seem to be more than just two) use language that can be at least misleading, if not incendiary. The word "fascism" is one of those words. And, if we seek unity, I don't believe that using such words is helpful.
Fascism, along with "Nazism", is often used to describe the current president and administration, which actually bears little resemblance to fascism. Italy, whose dictator coined the term, took power by force (marching on Rome with his thugs, pressuring the King to name Mussolini as Prime Minister), as did Hitler (appointed as Chancellor, then made dictator through the Enabling Act, 1933). The current and former US administrations were elected to office by both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
Italy and Germany used the secret police, concentration camps, and mass arrests to quell dissent. While the ICE tragedies in Minnesota brought such imagery to mind, it is simply not the same. There is no one-party control in place in this country. People can (and do) rightly criticize the current and former administrations - and continue to do so - even to the point of outright lies (again, on both sides). A fascist regime would have put a stop to criticism long ago.
Whenever the executive branch is strong (think Lincoln, FDR, and Obama), there is always criticism of any perceived overreach. A strong executive branch does not mean fascism.
I believe that we, as a church and as church leaders, can and should speak boldly on relevant issues. But words matter. When we read fascism on one side and "woke" on the other side, such labels tend to divide.
I wonder if Jesus encountered such zealotry when confronted about the horrific atrocities of Pilate (Luke 13:1-5). It's like hearing, "Did you read what the President said (or typically wrote) today?" Jesus didn't take the bait, and neither should we. Those confronting Him expected outrage, but what they received was refocus: on repentance. Could that be a better approach in the Church of God? When politics (sometimes to the point of idolatry) creep in, should we instead focus on repentance?
Greg, thanks for your feedback. My intent was not to be unnecessarily provocative by using that term, although we may have to agree to disagree here about its meaning and usage. While the fascism of early 20th century Europe had its unique expression, I remain convinced that by broad definition the United States is beginning to exhibit fascist tendencies (beyond mere overreach and testing of the boundaries), if not even just by virtue of the fact that we lack a robust democracy (mainly a healthy Congress) that holds leaders accountable and that functions within the checks and balances established by the constitution. Strict party allegiance and fear of speaking truth to power to those in one's own party (yes, on both sides) is overriding virtuous action. As a non-partisan individual myself, I have no horse in the race. I believe, however, that this is not just a matter of political rhetoric, but ultimately a holiness issue since Christians have been responsible to contributing to this downward spiral. Instead of allegiance to Christ and the Kingdom, many have bought into the worldly myth that aligning closely with parties and electing the right politicians, regardless of their character, etc., is the answer to the problems we face. As I see it, this needs to be called out, because it cuts to heart of living a holy life under the lordship of Christ. Ultimately, the problem may be less about who's in the administration than the willingness of our country (and Christians in particular) to blindly allow the things they do to take place. Authoritarianism then is more than just a possibility. Regarding unity, until we who follow Jesus surrender our partisan shackles, politics will remain divisive in the church, and we will continue to tip-toe around needed efforts to call out the ways in which we may be complicit to the evils around us.
Your writing always inspires me Lloyd and I wish I had opportunities to sit over coffee with you. You poignantly wrote, “We must, however, begin by speaking truthfully about our current reality.” I couldn’t agree more. Not only are we not being honest with ourselves that we are a denomination and much of our leadership is now seeking control and homogeneous thinking, we are not a movement by any definition of the word unless going backwards counts and our lack of ability to discuss difficult issues of any nature make us incapable of addressing our most basic core value of unity in Christ, not uniformity. I found my theological home with the Church of God 48 years ago but I am not as hopeful as you as we are requiring our leaders to agree to creedal statements of our own making and we are digressing by every available metric. Regardless, thank you for boldly writing and addressing the elephants in our room.
Thanks Lewis. Yes, sitting down over coffee to banter about these ideas would be wonderful. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to do that again!