“Christian Nationalism” is not Christian

Christian Nationalism is the belief that a certain variety of Christianity should rule over a nation, usually by imposition. This nationalism is a misguided objective of some “followers of Jesus” and by questionable politicians who try to take advantage of people’s religiosity.

The New Testament does NOT teach that faith in Jesus should be imposed upon a society. The Gospel is the Good News that people can be forgiven by God’s grace and become reconciled with the Lord and with others. God invites people to respond in faith and respects their freedom and responsibility. Followers of Jesus are called to contribute to the wellbeing of their society as salt and light. In modern democracies, this means persuasion, voting, (even paying taxes), and in myriads of other ways, but not via imposition (even if it is well-intentioned). The New Testament urges government officials to practice commonly accepted forms of justice (fair treatment of citizens, no bribes).

In the long history of Christianity, there are many examples of attempts to create “Christian nations” which have been disastrous. Let’s begin with Constantine and his mythical “conversion” before the important battle at the Milvian Bridge. He supposedly saw a cross in the sky and the words “with this cross you will conquer”. During his reign (AD 306-337) Christianity was transformed from a persecuted religion into a tolerated one, then into a preferred one, and then into the religion of the empire. Freedom of religion was, in effect, abolished. Equally bad, Christianity was wedded with the goals of the empire: violently warring against their neighbors with the “blessing of God”. Christians’ faithful commitment to pacifism gave way to a sinful killing of humans made in God’s image.

We can see a continuation of the tragic idea of a “Christian nation” in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition did not permit religious freedom. It imposed Christian doctrines upon its citizens and forced Jews to convert. Christianity was also used by Spain as a major rationale for the horrendous conquest of the indigenous populations of the Americas.

To a greater or lesser degree, Protestant churches in Europe (Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans) practiced a church/state alliance that greatly reduced religious freedom in many countries. This led to the emergence of Anabaptists, Mennonites, and a variety of “free” churches that yearned to practice their faith according to their conscience.

The USA did not develop a state church, but there have been attempts to have religious/ethical prescriptions imposed on its citizens. Some of these (like declaring Christmas to be a national holiday) are not coercive and have broad approval. The prohibition against murder and perjury have been upheld by the states and the federal government. “Blue Laws” and “Dry Counties” have some roots in religion and/or religious ethics. They used to be quite common across broad swaths of the United States but have generally been voted into obsolescence.

Some have argued that the United States was a Christian Nation in its founding. Although many of the colonists were devout Christians, most advocated for religious freedom. Other founders (like Thomas Jefferson) were Deists who did not believe in Christian Nationalism. For those who claim the United States was a Christian Nation, I urge them to get on their knees and confess our national sins: the devastation of indigenous people, the enslavement of Africans, and the most unjust, “imperialist war” against Mexico in 1846 (Lincoln’s words, not mine).

I strive to follow Jesus and I frequently fail. It is right for me to contribute to our national conscience through persuasion, an honest use of the evidence, and elections.  It is not right for me to try to impose my convictions upon others. Let us seek the truth and let it set us free.

“Illegal”: From Linguistics to Divine Ethics

There is an ongoing debate about the use of the word “illegal”. For most of its five-century history, the word has been used as an adjective to describe actions that violate a law. Only more recently has the term been used to refer to people, usually immigrants who supposedly do not have the necessary documents to be in a country and usually with a derogatory connotation.

I suggest that the word “illegal” only be used as an adjective to describe actions. This would bring clarity to our discussions. The reason should be obvious. I (and most people who read my blog) have driven over the speed limit. Such action is illegal because it violates the law. Those who commit such violations should be fined (or at least warned). But driving over the speed limit does not make me an “illegal”. Actions can be illegal, people are not.

There is a much more important reason. According to most religions and philosophies, every human has immense value. The three largest monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) agree that people are valuable because each person is made in God’s image. This is abundantly clear in Christianity, my chosen faith. Jesus taught that every action directed towards another person was, in reality, an action directed towards God. (Matthew 25:31-46) We wouldn’t dare call God an ”illegal”, so why do we use that word to put down people created by a loving God’s? Those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be “pro-life” in the truest sense, by cherishing every human being as “wondrously made” in God’s image.

There’s another reason why I don’t use “illegal” to refer to immigrants. I (and many of my readers) have some ancestors who immigrated to North America hundreds of years ago. Most became settlers, but they usually did not get permission (or something comparable) from the indigenous people who were stewarding this land. Immigration is a two-edged sword which frequently reveals our own hypocrisy. If we don’t want to be descendants and heirs of “illegals”, we should use the word more appropriately.

The Judge’s ruling ironically favors both Willis and Trump

Judge Scott McAfee issued his decision this morning about the Georgia trial regarding former president Trump’s election interference. On the one hand, the judge decided that the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue on the case in spite of her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor. Ironically, his ruling favors both Willis and Trump, but is a setback for the American people.

The good news for Willis is that she can continue her legal career, although the judge criticized her for using poor judgment.

The good news for Trump is that his lawyers now have more fodder to delay this and the other trials until after the November election. Trump knows that a significant number of citizens would not vote for him if he were convicted of a felony. It should be obvious to all that his strategy is to stall, stall, stall. If he could just stall until the election, and if he would win, he could make all the trials disappear. Even if he were guilty, he would be “above the law”.

I am disappointed by everyone who favors this stalling tactic. Our citizens deserve to know whether Trump is found to be “guilty” or “not guilty” by a jury of his peers… before the election. In our country, nobody is supposed to be above the law, not even a president. Stalling is an attempt to distort justice.

The trial is to decide whether Trump tried to steal the 2020 election in Georgia. He officially lost the election in Georgia by 11,779 votes. We have a recording of the phone call from Trump to the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (a conservative Republican) on January 2, 2021. I suggest listening to the entire conversation, but here are the pertinent quotes:

Raffensperger – “Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong…. We believe that we do have an accurate election.”

Trump – “Look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes.”

Most objective people who listen to the tape acknowledge that the former president attempted to steal the election. Listen to his own words… and you be judge.

The State of the Union address last night and the Republican response: Facts and Fiction

Last night, President Biden gave his State of the Union address. Before (and during?) his speech, Democrats were anxious that the president would make many gaffes, would come across as out of touch, and would appear a bit senile. Nevertheless, he surpassed the expectations of his friends and foes alike. He was coherent, fiery, and passionate. His frequent ad libs were on target. He even joked about his age.

In these addresses, presidents highlight their successes. Biden did this with a long litany of achievements, and his fellow Democrats roared their approval. Most of his affirmations were factually accurate, although some were misleading (example, taxes paid by corporations. See Fact checking Biden’s State of the Union | CNN Politics for the evidence that overwhelmingly confirms (and occasionally challenges) the accuracy of his statements.

Biden also tackled immigration, one of his weakest issues. He advocated for the immigration bill passed by the Senate and waiting for a vote in the House. It is a bipartisan bill, largely written by conservative Republican Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma. What are the facts?

  1. Is it the toughest immigration bill of our generation? Yes.
  2. Did Republicans originally support it? Yes.
  3. Is it supported by the union of Border Patrol officers? Yes.
  4. Did former President Trump communicate with Republican congressional representatives to not vote on the bill?
  5. Is this because immigration is his best campaign issue and not a challenge to be resolved? Yes.
  6. Is calling it a crisis and not voting on it in Congress hypocrisy? Yes.
  7. Let’s have the vote!

The Republican response was delivered by Katie Britt, a Senator from Alabama. It was good to see an elected official from a younger generation. Although she was too dramatic for my taste, I agree with her statement that people are only as good as their word. Is our word honest, accurate, full of integrity? Sadly, her few affirmations did not match the truth. She said, “We have the worst inflation in 40 years” (present tense). That is false. Although inflation rose to 9.1% in June 2022, it is now 3.1%. Instead of criticizing Biden on this issue, she should have given him credit. On the topic of immigration, she conveniently forgot to mention that Trump had promised he would “build the wall and make Mexico pay for it”. Of course, the former president did not keep either promise.

The Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was sitting behind the President and was in clear view the entire evening. He has been roundly criticized for not applauding enough. Although I strongly disagree with him on some issues (for example, not bringing the Senate foreign aid bill up for a vote in the House), last night he did urge members of his own party to show respect for the office of the presidency. He applauded when he agreed with Biden and respectfully kept quiet when he did not.

We the people have the responsibility to seek and speak “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Although our political preferences do shape what we see, if we work hard enough, we can overcome our biases, and reach some common ground of truth. For the sake of future generations, let’s seek those truths.

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Getting older! It happens to all of us. Although increased wisdom can come with added years, many of us also experience a decline in our physical and mental abilities. It can be difficult to contemplate intentionally reducing our public activities due to this decline.

This is the situation before us in our national political situation.  A week ago, special counsel Robert Hur issued his report in which he concluded that President Joe Biden was not guilty of any criminal activity in his handling of sensitive government documents. Nevertheless, he also wrote that Biden was a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory”. Biden’s mental gaffes are well-known. In his attempt to refute the poor memory accusation, he gave a talk in which he confused the leaders of Egypt and Mexico.

On the other hand, former President Donald Trump has also committed his share of memory gaffes. The most recent was a campaign speech in which he confused Republican Nikki Haley with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi. Both men are of advanced age and make many mental mistakes. So do I. Although I am not as old as Biden and Trump, I am not far behind. I show the wear and tear of my years in my body and in my mind.

Should Biden or Trump drop out of the race for the presidency at this late date? Is there a precedent? Yes, there is. Back in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson dropped out of his race for re-election in March. I personally believe that the two main political parties (and therefore, the nation itself) would be better off, if Trump or Biden (or both) would drop out. Age and mental acuity are not the only issues. Biden’s handling of the border crisis has not been great (although Republican representatives in Congress are also at fault). Trump’s legal problems are even worse. He has already been found guilty of sexual assault/rape and financial fraud. If the other trials take place this year, he will likely be convicted of other, serious crimes.

Who do I suggest take the place of these men? Although I disagree with some of her policy proposals, Nikki Haley would do a far, far better job as president than Trump. In my opinion, he is morally repugnant, at all levels. On the Democrat side, among the many potential candidates, I would like to see Michelle Obama. She is smart, and of even more importance, very wise due to her life experiences. In addition, her life partner would make a great first “First Gentleman”.

Who Really Won in Iowa? It Depends How You Spin It.

Iowa celebrated its presidential caucus on Monday. Due to the frigid temperatures, voter turn out was lower than expected, but over 100,000 Iowan Republicans braved the weather and participated in the caucuses. Who won? It depends on who is spinning it.

On the one hand, Donald Trump won with about 51% of the votes. Ron DeSantis came in second place with 21% and Nikki Haley in third with 19%. This was the largest victory in the history of the Iowa caucus. From this perspective, it is extremely likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee for president. Most of the other principal candidates have dropped out. Haley has a small window of opportunity. She would have to win the primary in New Hampshire next week, then ride the momentum to win in her home state of South Carolina plus some victories on Super Tuesday. DeSantis has almost no possibility.

On the other hand, there are troubling signs for Trump. Although 51% voted for Trump, 49% of Iowa Republican caucus participants voted against Trump, by selecting other non-Trump candidates. (For example, if Obama had sat out for four years after his first term as president, and only received 51% in Iowa, nobody would describe it as a victory).

In addition, the entrance polls revealed that about one third of Republicans would not vote for Trump in the general election if he were convicted of crimes in federal courts. Although he is currently faring well against Biden in a hypothetical match up, he cannot afford to lose a third of Republican voters. That is why Trump and his lawyers are trying as hard as they can to delay the court hearings until after November.

We, the American people, deserve to know the essential truth about leading candidates…before we vote in November. No one is above the law. If Trump is found to be not guilty, let that become widely acknowledged. If he is found by juries of his peers to be guilty of serious crimes, we need to be aware of that as well. Democracy flourishes if truth is widely distributed. May all people of good will urge that these court trials occur before the general election in November.

A Lesson from the Epiphany: Don’t Believe Leaders who Lie!

On January 6 many Christians celebrated the Epiphany by celebrating when the Wise Men from the East came to worship baby Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Nevertheless, before they reached Bethlehem, they visited King Herod in Jerusalem and asked him if he knew where to find the newborn Messiah. Herod was worried because a rival to his own kingly rule had appeared on the scene. After consulting with religious priests and teachers, Herod found out that Jesus was to be born in the town of Bethlehem. Herod gave the Wise Men this information, and then added, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” (Matthew 2:1-12).

Herod lied. He had no intention of worshipping Jesus. He was using the Wise Men’s naivete to find out Jesus’ exact location in order to kill him. But God spoke to the Wise Men and told them to return their countries by a different way. This they did. When Herod discovered their “disobedience”, he became furious and ordered the massacre of all the little boys in Bethlehem. God told Mary and Joseph to take Jesus to Egypt to find refuge.

There are many interesting lessons to learn from this story, but I would like to concentrate on one. King Herod lied. And he used a religious motivation to cover his lie. Sadly, Jesus, when he was a grown man, taught that kings and other rulers all too frequently lie. They lord it over their subjects yet claim to be doing good (Luke 22:24-25).  What is the lesson to be learned? We should not be gullible. We should not be naïve. We should not believe lying leaders…even when they cloak their lies in religiosity.

There are some leaders who are women and men of integrity who generally tell the truth. Nevertheless, we should use great caution and discernment when we hear politicians. Many leaders in every major country frequently lie. Many Democrat leaders and many Republican leaders frequently lie. Lying is not the exclusive domain of our political enemies.

Former President Reagan borrowed the Russian proverb “trust, but verify” and popularized the phrase in the English language. This is what I urge us all to do. Don’t naively believe everything you hear, especially in an election year. To the degree that is possible, question, fact check, and verify the affirmations of all politicians.

I eagerly watched the Republican presidential debate last night. Three candidates had qualified for the debate (Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Donald Trump), but Trump chose not to participate. It was a lively debate with some substance and some smoke. DeSantis said, “Don’t trust Haley. She is lying.” Haley mentioned a dozen times the website DeSantisLies.com which points out the multiple lies of DeSantis and refutes them with evidence. Here are Republican leaders who tell us not to believe the words and promises of their rivals. They also accused Trump of lying, not just the “little” lies of the value of his properties, the unwanted fondling of women, or the immunity of presidents for all their actions while in office, etc., but the “Big Lie” of the 2020 election being stolen. Haley affirmed, “Biden won, Trump lost. It’s time to move forward.”

Leaders are not usually as good as they claim to be. Their lies must be unmasked. They point to the need for those who will double-check the facts and ask the tough questions. Let us be discerning as we seek the truth that can set us free.

Good News from Latin America: Christian Reflections on Suffering and Crisis

My readers may or may not know that some friends and I began publishing the Journal of Latin American Theology: Christian Reflections from the Latino South back in 2006. With two issues per year, the Journal has become one of the most important voices of Latin American Christian thinking in the English-speaking world. I have the privilege of being the General Editor of the Journal and I believe this issue is one of the very best. It deals with bringing God’s love to those who live in the midst of suffering, trauma and crisis. For those who are interested, here are the contents.

The Journal of Latin American Theology Volume 18:2

Disease and Healing: The Bible and Today’s World by Edesio Sánchez Cetina

Living from the Resurrection Narrative in the Midst of Speculation and Death by Fabio Salguero Fagoaga

An Interdisciplinary Approach for Supporting Women Displaced by Violence and Affected by COVID-19 by Mary Luz Reyes Bejarano

Pandemic, Trauma, and Lament: A Psycho-Theological and Pastoral Approach to Caregiving and Companioning by Daniel S. Schipani

Keys to Post-Traumatic Coping in the Life of Paul of Tarsus by Luis Cruz-Villalobos

Justice vs. Righteousness: A Contextualized Analysis of “tsedeq” in the KJV (English) and RVR (Spanish) by Esteban M. Voth

Sustaining the Momentum of Theological Education by Dieumeme Noëlliste

Film Review – Waaki by Victor Masayesva by Samuel Lagunas

Book Review – Las huellas del reino de Dios: perspectivas teológicas en América Latina (1970–2000) by Martín Ocaña Flores

Book Review – The Lord Roars: Recovering the Prophetic Voice for Today by M. Daniel Carroll R.

Book Review – Los Profetas: The Prophetic Role of Hispanic Churches in America, ed. Daniel F. Flores

Book Review – Introducción a la teología del Nuevo Mundo by Oscar García-Johnson

Theopoetry – “De las cosas sencillas / Of the Simple Things” by Luis Cruz-Villalobos

Available via Amazon and the ATLA theological data bank.

Mary’s Magnificat was neither Meek nor Mild

The Christmas season is when we emphasize the birth of Jesus. Of course, his earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, are highlighted for their actions of faith. The popular notion is that Mary was so meek and mild that she would never rock the boat nor challenge the status quo. Wrong! She was a courageous champion of social change. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Mary sang out her mighty message of social transformation:

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.

He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever,  just as he promised our ancestors.” (Luke 1:46-55)

Jesus set in motion this non-violent revolution by what he preached and practiced in his life, death, and resurrection. He urged a radical love for our neighbors…and for our enemies. God continues this social change through simple human beings who follow the Lord’s leading in filling the hungry and lifting up the humble.  Some examples come to mind: St. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa. May this Christmas season be filled with a renewed commitment to advancing God’s love… on earth as it is in heaven.

Genocide against Israel is Evil…and so is Genocide against the Gazans

On October 7, Hamas attacked Israel and killed over a thousand Israelis and took over a hundred hostages. In response, Israel launched air attacks upon Gaza and, as a result, over ten thousand Palestinians have been killed. Israel also restricted food and water supplies in Gaza, and many additional thousands have died. Hamas is guilty of genocide…and so is Netanyahu’s administration. Both halves of the previous sentence are true and must be affirmed.

In our polarized society, we must apply the same ethical standards to both sides. We must no longer be like sports fans whose favorite team is never guilty of rule violations and whose opponents are never right. International laws that prohibit the targeting of civilians apply to friends and foes alike. If we don’t apply these criteria to all, we are guilty of hypocrisy. The tragic result is that anti-Semitism and anti-Palestinianism have skyrocketed in our country and around the world.

I add my voice to the call for an immediate ceasefire with the following goals:

  1. Hostages on both sides be exchanged.
  2. Humanitarian aid flow into Gaza.
  3. Reasonable Israelis and thoughtful Palestinians sit down together and acknowledge their own guilt.
  4. Both sides sketch out the first steps to achieve a just peace for all involved.
  5. Nations around the world overcome their own interests and biases in order to stimulate and accompany this process of seeking a just peace.