"I Didn't Move; You Did" (#21) Three "Hot Button" Case Studies Through The Lenses Of Orthodoxy, Orthopathy, and Orthopraxy

I’ve had lots of time to think, pray, and study while I have been on a sabbatical the past five months. During that time - and as I have been writing my series on leaving evangelicalism - I have been thinking about the Big Three in the Christian life:  Orthodoxy (right belief), orthopathy (right emotion), and orthopraxy (righteous actions).

Orthodoxy: Have righteous thoughts and right beliefs.

"Be transformed by the renewing of your mind." (Romans 12)

 "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Philippians 4:8)

There were some necessary truths that writers in the Old Testament revealed, Jesus taught and lived himself, and that the New Testament writers built upon. It address life in a pretty wholistic (though not exhaustive) way. Sometimes, the Bible affirms what people already believed to be true. Other times it offered correction. (See Acts 17 for an example of how Paul does both in one speech.)

For the sake of brevity, let's look at just the example of how biblical writers differentiated God (as revealed in Jesus) from, say Baal or Molech. This is not an exhaustive list by any means.

"God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)

"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-9)

"And [God] passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, 'The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'” (Exodus 34:5-7) [1]

"God is not a God of disorder but of peace." (1 Corinthians 14:33)

If you want more detail, there are several places in the Bible that we can think of as early creeds, statements of faith. [2] As church history unfolds, we see longer and longer creeds emerge as people are trying to keep guide rails on true belief, but we get the basics in Scripture.

And then, of course, there is the life of Jesus as recorded in the gospels, in whom me get the most accurate and complete revelation of Jesus. From this revelation, we are taught what orthopathy and orthopraxy look like for followers of Jesus.

Orthopathy: righteous emotions

Jesus didn't merely teach ideas. He shaped emotions and  loves.

• Matthew 9 - He had compassion.
• Mark 3 - He was angry and grieved.
• Luke 19 - He wept over Jerusalem.
• Matthew 26 - He experienced sorrow.
• Mark 11 - Jesus showed righteous indignation.

This isn't important simply because Jesus showed emotion. It revealed a heart that had rightly ordered emotions that were appropriate for the situation. This, then, gives is a model to follow. So, we read passages like this:

•  "Rejoice with those who rejoice...weep with those who weep." (Romans 12)
• “It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart and, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me. God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1:7-8)

HELPS Word Studies gives us a helpful explanation of what is meant by the “affection” of Jesus. 

“Properly, the internal organs ("viscera"); (figuratively) "gut-level compassion" (visceral feelings); the capacity to feel deep emotions (sympathy, empathy, etc.).

Following Jesus isn’t going to be just mental agreement with God’s truth. It’s going to put deep emotions into our gut that are meant to represent the affections of Jesus, in which we have rightly ordered emotions appropriate to the situation. 

When we hear about abortion (both the child and the mother), prisoners, victims of war, addicts, refugees and immigrants (and citizens), fellow Christians (and people of different faiths and worldviews), victims of discrimination or abuse (and the perpetrators), the poor (and the wealthy), our political enemies....

What do we feel in our gut? And is it something Jesus would feel? Notice we are not talking yet about what actions should follow. We aren’t there yet. We are just asking if we have the same affection for people that Jesus has. 

Orthopraxy (righteous actions)

What are we to do? 

• James 2 tells us that faith without works is dead.
• Micah 6 reminds us to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly.
• Isaiah 1:17 (after rejecting their sacrifices) -  “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow."
• Isaiah 58 (after rejecting their fasts) - “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?  Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard."
• Jeremiah 22 - “This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place. For if you are careful to carry out these commands, then kings who sit on David’s throne will come through the gates of this palace, riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by their officials and their people. But if you do not obey these commands, declares the Lord, I swear by myself that this palace will become a ruin.’…He did what was right and just,  so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the Lord."

Jesus not only modeled what this looks like, but also told multiple parables in which he echoed the prophets. Matthew 25 reminds us to feed, visit, clothe "the least of these" - basically, to care for all people in need. Luke 10 gives us the parable of the Good Samaritan that reminds us that the neighbor we are to care for is, well, everybody.

* * * * *

I Didn't Move; You Did (#20) May The Revival You Desire For America Begin In You

As I said at the beginning of this series, I have not abandoned evangelicalism’s stated theological convictions. I just no longer recognize them in its public expression. If faith without works is dead, evangelical orthodoxy without evangelical orthopraxy might just be dead too.

If we are going to call for truth and respect in our nation, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about truth.

If we are going to emphasize the importance of personal character, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason think we are serious about character.

If we are going to lobby for laws that support strong traditional families, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about the importance of traditional families.

If we are going to focus on sexual honor and purity, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about either of these things.

If we are going to demand that all people be treated with the value, worth and dignity due them as image bearers of God, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people won’t think this applies to all people.

If we are going to reject the Black Lives Matter and the #metoo movement because there are woke DEI socialist plots, please, for the love of God, also demand that we find even better ways to address the very real sins of racism and sexual harassment that have haunted our nation, lest people think we are either ignorant or heartless.

If we are going to demand a wall at our borders, we should also demand lots of doors, so that our desire for order and safety when it comes to immigrants and refugees is clearly matched by our desire to show compassion and generosity.

If we are going to follow Jesus' lead from the Sermon on the Mount, and be blessed as peacemakers as individuals and a society, we are going to need to use and promote language, attitudes and policies that are in line with peacemaking, or people may observe that we take our cues from Rome's pax Romana - the peace by the sword - rather than the pax Christi - the peace of cruciform love.

If we are going to value the economy more than anything else (which, according to polls, we do), we should commit to being radically generous with our money, lest people think we are trying to serve both God and mammon.

If we are going to value life, let us do it from womb to tomb, and let us show it by supporting parents and children with our money, time, friendship and things, and by supporting private and public systems that make the choice for life easier rather than harder, lest people think we only care about the lives of children when the weight of the support is on the mother, and costs us nothing.

If we are going to support America First, we should explain what that looks like for someone whose allegiance is first and foremost to the global kingdom of God rather than to the local empire of the United States. And if we don't know what that means, maybe we should figure that out.

I Didn't Move; You Did (#19): The Shift Toward Political Idolatry

During this series, I've looked at the public moral witness of evangelical leaders over the last fifty years (start reading them here). 

Again and again, I found the same themes: care for the poor, concern for racial justice, compassion for immigrants, peacemaking, honesty, the honoring of the imago dei in everyone, the need for personal integrity, the rejection of nationalism, the necessity of impartial justice, and the conviction that the Church must never become captive to any political ideology.

This is a loaded list of issues to address by the political parties of the American empire. Historically – perhaps because of the complexity – evangelical declarations of faith and practice publicly refused to equate the gospel with any political party. All parties and politicians were held to a shared standard; followers of Jesus were expected to follow paths that look like Jesus, whatever direction it would take them. As cited in the earlier posts that excerpted from historical conservative evangelical declarations of faith and practice:

“We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.”

“Our equal duty (is) never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.”

“The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes “the regime at prayer,” Christians become “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form. Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests...”

“The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. The saying is wise: ‘The first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing.” The Evangelical soul is not for sale. It has already been bought at an infinite price...”

Yet in spite of such clear direction, there is an increasing litmus test for being a Christian: support of one party, with almost unwavering loyalty. You must be all in or all out, and there can be no questioning or challenging of the leadership. Perhaps when leaders insist that “I alone can save you,” (as stated at Trump’s acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016), well, the stakes are pretty high.

This has resulted in a demand for unflinching loyalty to Trump that has moved beyond the moral flexibility I have been recording in this series and into borderline idolatry. Christians in the halls of power who are meant to be the prophetic heirs of Nathan, speaking truth and righteousness to power, have abandoned their calling.

“We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.”

“Our equal duty (is) never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.”

The near-total alignment with a party or person is a siren call that for many is hard to resist - and difficult to maintain. This position is going to need over-the-top justification, since no one deserves that kind of loyalty. And there is a comparison at the very top for evangelicals – Jesus, to give the ultimate stamp of approval to comparisons to David, Cyrus, and Jehu. [1]

So, let's look at some of the ways admiration has moved toward idolatry.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 18) - The Shift Toward Accepting Unjust Scales Of Justice

My last post bemoaned the willingness of so many evangelical Christians, followers of a faith that commands us not to bear false witness, to minimize, defend, repeat, or simply stop caring about truth.

In this post, I want to look at how Christians damage the credibility of the gospel when we highlight failures of character and integrity in our opponents while finding ways to excuse it in our allies.[i]

Throughout this series, I have been returning to the same claim concerning the conservative evangelicalism in which I was raised: I didn't move; you did.  When I look at the things that increasingly separate me from American evangelicalism, I keep finding that it's because of the values evangelicalism itself taught me.

For example, I remember being raised amidst the conservative evangelical insistence that character and integrity mattered in private and public life. This wasn’t reduced to merely our sex lives. Greed was spiritually and societally dangerous. Dishonesty and hypocrisy eventually corrupt everything they touch. Having power or being popular did not excuse immorality but made character even more important, because the consequences impacted so many more people. 

The statements and declarations I have been revisiting throughout this series are remarkably consistent in warning about greed, corruption, selfish ambition, dishonesty, covetousness, the seduction of wealth, and the danger of Christians becoming too comfortable with the rich and powerful. They insist that Christian proclamation must be accompanied by Christian character unmarred by greed and corruption, because otherwise our testimony loses its credibility.[1]

“When there is no distinction in conduct between Christians and non-Christians – for example in the practice of corruption and greed…then the world is right to wonder if our Christianity makes any difference at all. Our message carries no authenticity to a watching world…”

“The proclamation of God’s kingdom necessarily demands the prophetic denunciation of all that is incompatible with it. Among the evils we deplore are destructive violence, including institutionalized violence, political corruption, all forms of exploitation of people and of the earth…”

“Our challenge to others to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ will be plausible only if we ourselves have evidently died to selfish ambition, dishonesty, and covetousness, and are living a life of simplicity, contentment, and generosity.

“We are called, as those who serve God and not mammon, to recognize that greed perpetuates poverty, and to renounce it."

Scripture repeatedly condemns dishonest scales, an image I think will be helpful for this post. For example:

“A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight. When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom. The integrity of the upright guides them, but the crookedness of the treacherous destroys them.” (Proverbs 11:1-3)[ii]

There is something profoundly unjust about having one measure for one person and another measure for someone else. It’s not just about weighing grain; it’s about measuring a fair, righteous and consistent judgment on all attitudes, words and actions.

What happens to our Christian witness when the standards we once proclaimed loudly become negotiable when applying them consistently would cost us political power?

I see a relevance here not just for individual witness (which is really important), but to corporate witness as well. To whom or what have we hitched our moral wagons? And at what cost? And is it a consistent, steady scales or a compromised, sliding one that a watching world sees the people of God using?

“I Didn’t Move; You Did" (Part 17) : The Shift Away From Defending Truth

Throughout this series, I have been returning to the same claim concerning the conservative evangelicalism in which I was raised: I didn't move; you did.

I don't mean that I haven't changed. Of course I have. My theology has changed in some significant ways over the years. I hope my character has changed too. But when I look at the things that increasingly separate me from American evangelicalism, I keep finding that many of them are values evangelicalism itself taught me.

Tell the truth. Keep your word. Admit when you are wrong. Don't bear false witness against your neighbor. Don't spread gossip. Don't excuse dishonesty simply because the dishonest person is on your side. Character matters. Integrity matters. Truth matters because God is a God of truth.

None of that was controversial when I was growing up evangelical.
And this is where this post connects with the others in this series. 

Whether I am writing about racism, violence, war,  human dignity, care for the vulnerable, or now truthfulness, I keep finding myself in roughly the same place: trying to hold onto things I learned from the conservative evangelical tradition while watching influential parts of that tradition make accommodations I was once taught Christians should never make.

This time, the issue is truth.

Every president in my lifetime has exaggerated, shaded the truth, misrepresented opponents, and sometimes simply lied. This isn't an argument that dishonesty began with Donald Trump, nor is it an argument that Democrats are uniquely truthful.

Something different has happened, though. Donald Trump's (lack of) relationship with truth is extraordinary in its frequency, brazenness, and persistence. Even more troubling to me has been the willingness of so many evangelical Christians—people formed by a faith that commands us not to bear false witness—to minimize, defend, repeat, or simply stop caring about truth.

That change matters to me, because I remember when we said truth mattered.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 16): The Shift Away From Honoring The Imago Dei In Everyone

One of the things evangelical Christianity taught me was that every human being bears the image of God. Probably everything in this series references this is some fashion: the help of the poor, the care for the immigrant and refugee, the rejection of racism and unjust discrimination, the interest in alleviating global poverty, the concern for the environment so that deadly pollution is curbed, the rejection of war as the preferred way to solve conflict, the importance of honoring the autonomy of people, etc. 

All these things were embedded in the evangelical creeds that formed my life and my evangelical church community for decades.

That conviction helped make me "pro-life" (though these days I prefer the term "whole-life".) I believe human life should be protected and honored from the moment it begins until the moment it ends. But honoring life means more than keeping someone physically alive. It means treating people with dignity, justice, mercy, kindness, and love.

The unborn child bears the image of God. So does the immigrant at the border. So does the prisoner. So does the person with a disability, the elderly person, the poor person, the Muslim, the atheist, the political opponent, the transgender person, the Republican or Democrat politician...the list goes on.

Human dignity cannot depend upon whether someone looks like me, votes like me, worships like me, shares my citizenship, or seeks my approval. If the image of God means anything, it means that human beings possess a dignity we did not give them, and we cannot take away.

That is why the last decade has been so disorienting for me.

Something has changed in significant parts of American evangelicalism. Language and behavior that Christians once would have recognized as cruel, vulgar, degrading, or dehumanizing are increasingly excused—and sometimes celebrated—when they come from the right political leaders.

We seem to have lost something more fundamental than civility. We have lost some of our capacity to walk in another person's shoes—to do and say unto others as we would have them do and say unto us. We have lost not only sympathy, but empathy.

Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us. Charlie Kirk famously said that he couldn't stand the word empathy. Books with titles such as The Sin of Empathy and Toxic Empathy have found receptive audiences in conservative Christian circles.

Of course, empathy can be misguided. Feeling another person's pain does not require agreeing with everything that person believes or does, and it doesn't mean we have to avoid truth and confrontation.

Yet the Christian tradition that has often spoken about orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right action) has an underused third "ortho" -  orthopathy (rightly ordered affections). It asks. "What kind of heart am I cultivating? Or, more simply: am I learning to feel about people the way Jesus does?

I am concerned that conservative evangelicals will win political battles while losing something far more important: empathy. We can become the kind of people who no longer recognize dishonor and cruelty when we see it - or, even worse, when we do it.

So, let’s look at how the administration that evangelicals have put into office twice is doing in the areas of orthopraxy and orthopathy when it comes to viewing, treating, and speaking about everyone as image bearers of God.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 15B): The Shift Toward Christian Nationalism And The Abandonment Of Character

In the first part of this series, I spent a good deal of time looking backward. I revisited the statements, declarations, and public witness of the evangelical movement that shaped me. Again and again, I found leaders insisting that Christians must care for the poor,  pursue justice, tell the truth, defend the vulnerable, practice humility, and maintain enough distance from political power to speak prophetically to it. And we would do all of this not just personally but corporately. We were called to build a society that valued these things as well as reflected in leaders and laws.

Then I turned to the present. I have been asking a simple question: What happened? Why have so many voices that once challenged immoral presidents and unjust policies now defend and even applaud them? To look at this, I have been chronicling various areas in which a profound shift has taken place and explaining how it reveals the conservative evangelicalism I was raised in moving from solid Kingdom foundations of orthopraxy to shaky Empire foundations of power, violence, callousness and idolatry.

In the previous post, I argued that Christian nationalism changes the church in predictable ways. First, it encourages the nation to borrow God's authority for the empire's actions. We saw that in the way war can become wrapped in the language of divine mission, turning national victories into God's victories and military power into an instrument of God's kingdom.

But there is a second consequence, one that may be even more damaging to the church itself.

Once the church becomes closely intertwined with a political movement, it gradually abandons the call to speak prophetically to those in power. Instead of holding leaders accountable, it begins protecting them. Instead of confronting sin wherever it appears, it starts making exceptions for "our side." The result is not simply political compromise. It is moral compromise that deals a devastating blow to the public witness of the church.

I think nowhere is that shift more visible than in the evangelical movement's dramatic reversal on the question of character.

" I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 15A) Christian Nationalism And The "Sacrament" of War

In the first part of this series, I spent a good deal of time looking backward. I revisited the statements, declarations, and public witness of the evangelical movement that shaped me. Again and again, I found leaders insisting that Christians must care for the poor, pursue justice, tell the truth, defend the vulnerable, practice humility, and maintain enough distance from political power to speak prophetically to it. (My previous post looked at the kind of global responsibility the evangelical movement once took seriously.)

Then I turned to the present. I have been asking a simple question: What happened?

Why have so many voices that once challenged presidents now defend them? Why have leaders who once insisted that character matters decided it suddenly doesn't? Why has the movement become so comfortable with nationalism, partisan identity, and political power?

I don't think there is only one answer. But I do think one answer explains much of the shift. It is the growing embrace of Christian nationalism, a danger we were constantly warned about for the past 50 years. Here are some excerpts from the declarations I posted.

We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.

God has ordained the two co-existing institutions of church and state as distinct and independent of each other with each having its own areas of responsibility (Rom. 13:1-7; Mark 12:13-17; Eph. 4:15-16, 5:23-32).

All too often we have abandoned our Lord’s concern for those in the shadows, the twilight, and the deep darkness of the world, and become cheerleaders for those in power and the naïve sycophants of the powerful and the rich…

…The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes “the regime at prayer,” Christians become “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form. Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests...

Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith…Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church – and disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons...

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival...

The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. The saying is wise: “The first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing.” The Evangelical soul is not for sale. It has already been bought at an infinite price...

We repent of our failures to condemn and restrain violence by remaining silent, by promoting nationalism, or by unjustly supporting conflicts through deficient theological justification.

We lament that some Christians have looked to the state rather than the gospel as the key means for bringing about God’s intentions for the world. This takes an especially regrettable form when wed to nationalism—here defined as the belief that every state should have a single, national culture and no other—or ethnonationalism—which is the belief that every ethnic group should have its own state. This is a great evil in our world.

We lament that many Christians have been sadly complicit in it, as well as in the claims of ethnic and racial supremacy it fosters. Against this, we assert that no modern state is able to claim or will ever be able to claim to be the special agent of God’s saving rule.

I read Francis Schaeffer back in the 80s and 90s. I taught the How Should We Then Live video class to high schoolers. Though Schaeffer had some unfortunate influences (#rushdoony), he had some good insights that were spreading throughout the evangelical world.

“There is no New Testament basis for a linking of church and state until Christ, the King returns. The whole "Constantine mentality" from the fourth century up to our day was a mistake. Constantine, as the Roman Emperor, in 313 ended the persecution of Christians. Unfortunately, the support he gave to the church led by 381 to the enforcing of Christianity, by Theodosius I, as the official state religion. 

Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day. There have been times of very good government when this interrelationship of church and state has been present. But through the centuries it has caused great confusion between loyalty to the state and loyalty to Christ, between patriotism and being a Christian.

We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country. To say it another way: "We should not wrap our Christianity in our national flag.” ― Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

The late Billy Graham, Christianity Today’s founder, gave us a loud warning in an article he wrote for Parade Magazine in 1981, when he said: 

“I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.”[1]

Historically, evangelicals advocated for a prophetic distance from power, especially wealth and political authority, from which they could freely speak truth and righteousness to those in power. They had a stated suspicion of nationalism and “near-religious loyalty” to the state.[2]

Today, in practice and teaching, it endorses proximity to power[3] and defense of leaders regardless of character, often openly embraces Christian nationalism, and seeks to merge faith with political identity.