On Sunday morning, a group of protesters associated with Minneapolis’ “Black Lives Matter” chapter entered Cities Church, stopped the service, and confronted pastors and members.
Amen. In my worst moments I am angry. In my best moments I am sad. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Keep going brother.
A thousand times "yes" and "amen" to this. Thank you, Samuel. May this be shared far and wide to all who need to hear it (which is almost everyone), whether they think they do or not.
I agree with you on the methods of the protestors. They should have stayed outside. But you left out why they did what they did. ICE is terrorizing this country man. They absolutely are. And a pastor has no business being part of such an evil organization.
They are harassing legal and U.S citizens due to their accent or how they look. How you you like to be profiled and asked for papers by masked men running around? That is bringing terror even to those that have done nothing wrong.
i don't need to provide a citation. I have seen videos of the actual people being detained themselves for their accent, I have seen videos of ICE agents coming up to people asking where they were born? This is happening , you may not want to see it but it is happening. ICE is overreaching and their are no constraints on them .
So I am assuming that you are ok with a "paper please" type of country? I know what kind of person you are simply by the fact that you are ok with masked men running around asking for papers from whoever they like.
I get the author’s point- that he’s offended his friends church service was interrupted. That’s a fair point for any friend to have.
Also. When our grandparents were telling our parents/us not to chew gum in church, the Black Church was clinging to the gospel for their actual dear lives and forced into activism with little to no support from their white Christian brothers. So. There’s that.
I do not agree with the methods that the protesters in going into the church, but I do agree with what they said to the church goers. ICE is terrorizing people even people that are U.S citizens and children. The church should not stay silent in what is happening to their neighbors and maybe even some of their owne members.
What good is it to worship Jesus at church while people are being terrorized outside? so some people were made to feel uncomfortable, following Jesus should be uncomfortable.
Christians should feel uncomfortable with what is happening. God transcends borders undocumented people are made in God's image too, God is the God of the whole world not just the United States. We will have to stand before God and answer to how we treated these "illegal aliens| that are being vilified.
He has, actually. Go read up.on his comments about Christian nationalism, then ask yourself if you'd be engaging in this sort of obnoxious finger-wagging if he had been denouncing rightists.
And what "idolatry" is there in routine American religious preaching?
I'm glad that he isn't a political captive of either side, like so many American Christians seem to be. I have not had the opportunity to read all his work, but anyone who exposes 'Christian Nationalism' as a contradiction in terms is to be supported. My post was not about the whole corpus of his work, but that specific article.
You ask "Ask yourself if you'd be engaging in this sort of obnoxious finger-wagging if he had been denouncing rightists."
The answer to that is 'What obnoxious finger-wagging?' Did I not say at the very beginning that the church should not be politicised? No political ideology is immune from critique. As I said in my original post, I am NOT defending the 'invaders' but I am asking why they are singled out for rebuke and not the systemic oppression the invaders were protesting. I was asking for balance, nothing more.
Even if he had said "Black lives DO matter, and the church generally has to concede that it has been part of that historical obscenity; but invading a worship service is not an appropriate way of raising this issue"; then I would have agreed with no 'but' at all. My 'obnoxious finger-wagging' is no more than an entirely reasonable objection to that lack of balance.
Now to answer your question "What "idolatry" is there in routine American religious preaching?"
I have heard a few American 'Evangelicals' who have followed a creed of 'Rugged Individuality' (much like the 'Muscular Christianity' of the Victorian era) to a point that effectively denies the obligation to 'bear one another's burdens'.
I have heard altogether too much 'Prosperity Gospel' and not much of the 'Way of the Cross'.
There is sometimes a pervasive atmosphere that confuses 'Patriotism' with righteousness. This is to make an idol of the State. Genuine patriotism is not about obeying the government's dictates, but of serving the people of your community and nation in clear conscience.
There is a heavy emphasis on condemning sexual non-conformity; while cruelty, lying, pride, financial corruption, abuse of authority, and other 'sins of the powerful' are rarely condemned.
In some of these the connection to idolatry is clear, such as Prosperity Gospel, Faux-Patriotism and the worship of the 'strong Individual' or 'strong Leader'; but all of them implicitly hold up a lifestyle centred on something other than the Imitation of Christ.
Let me summarize your post thusly: "I get all of my news about America, and American Christianity in particular, from biased media outlets." I know this, because you think that actually enforcing immigration law is "systemic oppression."
You know so much that isn't so about ICE and how the vast majority of American churches are that it's not even funny, so please kindly have the humility to confine your opining to what is going on in Australia.
(Also, based on your comments, your version of Christianity is late 20th/early 21st century Western progressivism with a cross painted on it, so spare us the comments on politicization.)
Thanks for your candid assessment, Tom. In passing, I have to suggest that I don't really need you to 'summarize' my words. I stand by what I said, not by what you said I said. Specially when what you said is nothing like what I said.
Of course, all media outlets you don't agree with are 'biased'. Apart from that, do you think my information about American Christianity is gained ONLY through T.V. headlines? I try to keep up with scholarship, but not much comes out of USA these days. Much of it is childish compared to (say) Tom Wright. But America is really big on brain-dead Fundamentalism!
By-the-way, why do you think I was referring to "enforcing immigration law" when I mentioned 'systematic oppression'? Where did I even mention ICE? Your response shows that you know in your heart that this is just one aspect of such oppression. In fact, I was referring to America's systemic racism on several fronts, not just one aspect of it. Not that my country is much better, I would certainly concede. It is a denial of the Gospel, wherever it happens, and I am critical of it here at home as well as overseas.
I don't think my understanding of the faith is simply "late 20th/early 21st century Western progressivism with a cross painted on it". I got Credits and a Distinction in Church History subjects when I gained my B. Th., so I have a good grasp of how both theology and praxis has changed over time. So I confess that I tend to be annoyed by people whose grasp is not far advanced from what they learned in Sunday School, but still accuse me of following the latest fashion. So tell me; what are the formative influences in your understanding of the faith delivered to the Apostles? Schofield, perhaps? Just asking.
Yes, I know that's most rude of me, to pull 'superior understanding' rank on you. But if you start questioning the basis of my understanding, why is it not reasonable for me to challenge YOUR understanding? There comes a time when knowing what you're talking about actually matters.
Meanwhile, your previous post asked me "What 'idolatry' is there in routine American religious preaching?" I gave you several examples, which you carefully ignored. In proper debate, that signifies that you can't dispute those answers. It's good to know that you accept the accuracy of my critique, even if you don't have the courtesy to admit it.
So show me that you know what you're talking about. Don't hide behind denials, but actually put up a reasoned case of your own and be prepared to defend it. Such a pity that you can't!
I expect that I will regret these intemperate words tomorrow, but sometimes the facts have to be stated bluntly. In the meantime you will learn that I'm prepared to fight for a proper Christian position rather than selling out to political or social fashion like the 'Religious Right' or the 'Socialist Left'. I'm here to argue for the Imitation of Christ, nothing less.
Spare me the histrionics, Bob. If you don't know that this incident was people protesting ICE, you just proved my point about your need to not comment on things you don't know anything about, and if you do know, then you're being disgenuous at best in your paragraph about how I must "know in my heart" that this is oppression. Which is it?
Also, spare me the degree-waving as evidence that you understand theology. Anyone who refers to sexual sin as "sexual non-comformity" need not be taken seriously.
If we're going to armchair psychologize, you know good and well that I've got your number, which is why you're reacting as you are. I get it, I've been there. Being called out isn't comfortable, especially when you're used to the culture affirming you. But that's your problem, not mine.
As to my supposed failure to provide a "well-reasoned-case," kindly don't demand of others what you don't provide yourself.
I really appreciate the tone of this article and ultimately agree: let the church be the church. That’s a vital reality we should fight to maintain. I’m curious what you think that looks like practically. I ask because I kept reading, expecting a moral stance on the actions that prompted this post and on your rightly stated concern to let the church be the church. Instead, in the end you seem noncommittal, offering no moral judgment on the activities/policies that led to the invasion of Cities Church. In doing so, it seemingly weakens everything that came before it. My point is this: the actions that led to the disturbance are as important as the disturbance itself if the goal is to let the church be the church in a way that prevents these incidents from becoming a pattern. This is where the battle is raging. I really appreciate the thought-provoking post and this Substack as a whole. I'm always encouraged and challenged by your writing.
Don Lemon still has the shroud of authority that he had as a news anchor, but we should remember he's desperate to regain his lost relevance after being cancelled (he reminds me of Milo Yiannopoulos, who similarly tried bomb-throwing as a way to capture a news cycle). Normally, I'd give an activist the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity--but not in this case. And I think that's what makes the difference here--I've seen lone wolves disrupt church services before in viral videos. This feels more organized and deliberately designed to code as "invasion", not just "counterargument."
I (and our laws) consider churches "sensitive locations". Whether its "Black Live Matter" or it's ICE, there is no excuse for interrupting a worship service. However, there is Jesus' cleansing of the Temple to deal with biblically. Talk about interrupting worship...Where do you think that might fit into this discussion?
I appreciate your desire to keep worship services sacred in this way. I trust this means that you would be in support of such measures as the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's lawsuit to prevent ICE from disrupting Quaker worship services?
Amen. In my worst moments I am angry. In my best moments I am sad. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Keep going brother.
A thousand times "yes" and "amen" to this. Thank you, Samuel. May this be shared far and wide to all who need to hear it (which is almost everyone), whether they think they do or not.
I agree with you on the methods of the protestors. They should have stayed outside. But you left out why they did what they did. ICE is terrorizing this country man. They absolutely are. And a pastor has no business being part of such an evil organization.
Lol next time just put in the part after the “but”. Unless you enjoy coming across as insincere.
"ICE is terrorizing this country man. They absolutely are."
How dare the government fulfill part of its purpose, which is to bring terror to the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:4)
The way they are attempting to do it is evil.
How so?
They are harassing legal and U.S citizens due to their accent or how they look. How you you like to be profiled and asked for papers by masked men running around? That is bringing terror even to those that have done nothing wrong.
Citation needed for your first sentence.
i don't need to provide a citation. I have seen videos of the actual people being detained themselves for their accent, I have seen videos of ICE agents coming up to people asking where they were born? This is happening , you may not want to see it but it is happening. ICE is overreaching and their are no constraints on them .
Given that your last sentence is blatantly untrue, I see no reason to believe the rest of your paragraph.
So I am assuming that you are ok with a "paper please" type of country? I know what kind of person you are simply by the fact that you are ok with masked men running around asking for papers from whoever they like.
I get the author’s point- that he’s offended his friends church service was interrupted. That’s a fair point for any friend to have.
Also. When our grandparents were telling our parents/us not to chew gum in church, the Black Church was clinging to the gospel for their actual dear lives and forced into activism with little to no support from their white Christian brothers. So. There’s that.
I do not agree with the methods that the protesters in going into the church, but I do agree with what they said to the church goers. ICE is terrorizing people even people that are U.S citizens and children. The church should not stay silent in what is happening to their neighbors and maybe even some of their owne members.
What good is it to worship Jesus at church while people are being terrorized outside? so some people were made to feel uncomfortable, following Jesus should be uncomfortable.
Christians should feel uncomfortable with what is happening. God transcends borders undocumented people are made in God's image too, God is the God of the whole world not just the United States. We will have to stand before God and answer to how we treated these "illegal aliens| that are being vilified.
I am so angry at what is happening!
This is an amazing article emphasizing the importance of the church (that is an assembly of believers worshiping God). Thank you, Samuel!👏
I agree totally that the church should not be politicised. But that has been happening for years now. Haven't you heard of the 'Religious Right'?
Are you as eager to speak out against the Gospel being distorted for partisan ends as you are to express dismay at disruptions to meetings?
I'm not defending the 'invaders'; but why do you not condemn the idolatry implicit in 'routine' American religious preaching?
He has, actually. Go read up.on his comments about Christian nationalism, then ask yourself if you'd be engaging in this sort of obnoxious finger-wagging if he had been denouncing rightists.
And what "idolatry" is there in routine American religious preaching?
Thanks, Tom.
I'm glad that he isn't a political captive of either side, like so many American Christians seem to be. I have not had the opportunity to read all his work, but anyone who exposes 'Christian Nationalism' as a contradiction in terms is to be supported. My post was not about the whole corpus of his work, but that specific article.
You ask "Ask yourself if you'd be engaging in this sort of obnoxious finger-wagging if he had been denouncing rightists."
The answer to that is 'What obnoxious finger-wagging?' Did I not say at the very beginning that the church should not be politicised? No political ideology is immune from critique. As I said in my original post, I am NOT defending the 'invaders' but I am asking why they are singled out for rebuke and not the systemic oppression the invaders were protesting. I was asking for balance, nothing more.
Even if he had said "Black lives DO matter, and the church generally has to concede that it has been part of that historical obscenity; but invading a worship service is not an appropriate way of raising this issue"; then I would have agreed with no 'but' at all. My 'obnoxious finger-wagging' is no more than an entirely reasonable objection to that lack of balance.
Now to answer your question "What "idolatry" is there in routine American religious preaching?"
I have heard a few American 'Evangelicals' who have followed a creed of 'Rugged Individuality' (much like the 'Muscular Christianity' of the Victorian era) to a point that effectively denies the obligation to 'bear one another's burdens'.
I have heard altogether too much 'Prosperity Gospel' and not much of the 'Way of the Cross'.
There is sometimes a pervasive atmosphere that confuses 'Patriotism' with righteousness. This is to make an idol of the State. Genuine patriotism is not about obeying the government's dictates, but of serving the people of your community and nation in clear conscience.
There is a heavy emphasis on condemning sexual non-conformity; while cruelty, lying, pride, financial corruption, abuse of authority, and other 'sins of the powerful' are rarely condemned.
In some of these the connection to idolatry is clear, such as Prosperity Gospel, Faux-Patriotism and the worship of the 'strong Individual' or 'strong Leader'; but all of them implicitly hold up a lifestyle centred on something other than the Imitation of Christ.
Let me summarize your post thusly: "I get all of my news about America, and American Christianity in particular, from biased media outlets." I know this, because you think that actually enforcing immigration law is "systemic oppression."
You know so much that isn't so about ICE and how the vast majority of American churches are that it's not even funny, so please kindly have the humility to confine your opining to what is going on in Australia.
(Also, based on your comments, your version of Christianity is late 20th/early 21st century Western progressivism with a cross painted on it, so spare us the comments on politicization.)
Thanks for your candid assessment, Tom. In passing, I have to suggest that I don't really need you to 'summarize' my words. I stand by what I said, not by what you said I said. Specially when what you said is nothing like what I said.
Of course, all media outlets you don't agree with are 'biased'. Apart from that, do you think my information about American Christianity is gained ONLY through T.V. headlines? I try to keep up with scholarship, but not much comes out of USA these days. Much of it is childish compared to (say) Tom Wright. But America is really big on brain-dead Fundamentalism!
By-the-way, why do you think I was referring to "enforcing immigration law" when I mentioned 'systematic oppression'? Where did I even mention ICE? Your response shows that you know in your heart that this is just one aspect of such oppression. In fact, I was referring to America's systemic racism on several fronts, not just one aspect of it. Not that my country is much better, I would certainly concede. It is a denial of the Gospel, wherever it happens, and I am critical of it here at home as well as overseas.
I don't think my understanding of the faith is simply "late 20th/early 21st century Western progressivism with a cross painted on it". I got Credits and a Distinction in Church History subjects when I gained my B. Th., so I have a good grasp of how both theology and praxis has changed over time. So I confess that I tend to be annoyed by people whose grasp is not far advanced from what they learned in Sunday School, but still accuse me of following the latest fashion. So tell me; what are the formative influences in your understanding of the faith delivered to the Apostles? Schofield, perhaps? Just asking.
Yes, I know that's most rude of me, to pull 'superior understanding' rank on you. But if you start questioning the basis of my understanding, why is it not reasonable for me to challenge YOUR understanding? There comes a time when knowing what you're talking about actually matters.
Meanwhile, your previous post asked me "What 'idolatry' is there in routine American religious preaching?" I gave you several examples, which you carefully ignored. In proper debate, that signifies that you can't dispute those answers. It's good to know that you accept the accuracy of my critique, even if you don't have the courtesy to admit it.
So show me that you know what you're talking about. Don't hide behind denials, but actually put up a reasoned case of your own and be prepared to defend it. Such a pity that you can't!
I expect that I will regret these intemperate words tomorrow, but sometimes the facts have to be stated bluntly. In the meantime you will learn that I'm prepared to fight for a proper Christian position rather than selling out to political or social fashion like the 'Religious Right' or the 'Socialist Left'. I'm here to argue for the Imitation of Christ, nothing less.
Spare me the histrionics, Bob. If you don't know that this incident was people protesting ICE, you just proved my point about your need to not comment on things you don't know anything about, and if you do know, then you're being disgenuous at best in your paragraph about how I must "know in my heart" that this is oppression. Which is it?
Also, spare me the degree-waving as evidence that you understand theology. Anyone who refers to sexual sin as "sexual non-comformity" need not be taken seriously.
If we're going to armchair psychologize, you know good and well that I've got your number, which is why you're reacting as you are. I get it, I've been there. Being called out isn't comfortable, especially when you're used to the culture affirming you. But that's your problem, not mine.
As to my supposed failure to provide a "well-reasoned-case," kindly don't demand of others what you don't provide yourself.
Thank you, Tom.
I was aware that the incident weas people protesting ICE. What I was NOT aware of was that this justified summary execution.
Bye!
Curious Samuel, you mention the two pastors. Did you know David Easterwood as well?
I really appreciate the tone of this article and ultimately agree: let the church be the church. That’s a vital reality we should fight to maintain. I’m curious what you think that looks like practically. I ask because I kept reading, expecting a moral stance on the actions that prompted this post and on your rightly stated concern to let the church be the church. Instead, in the end you seem noncommittal, offering no moral judgment on the activities/policies that led to the invasion of Cities Church. In doing so, it seemingly weakens everything that came before it. My point is this: the actions that led to the disturbance are as important as the disturbance itself if the goal is to let the church be the church in a way that prevents these incidents from becoming a pattern. This is where the battle is raging. I really appreciate the thought-provoking post and this Substack as a whole. I'm always encouraged and challenged by your writing.
Don Lemon still has the shroud of authority that he had as a news anchor, but we should remember he's desperate to regain his lost relevance after being cancelled (he reminds me of Milo Yiannopoulos, who similarly tried bomb-throwing as a way to capture a news cycle). Normally, I'd give an activist the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity--but not in this case. And I think that's what makes the difference here--I've seen lone wolves disrupt church services before in viral videos. This feels more organized and deliberately designed to code as "invasion", not just "counterargument."
Yes, Tom,
I was referencing the Renee Goode shooting. As for the rest, go back over the thread.
So, you decided to change the subject we were talking about without saying anything.
Yeah, that's definitely the mark of someone with integrity. /s.
This whole episode is not only a disgrace but illegal.
https://www.hiddentruthsbysunny.com/p/what-if-it-was-a-mosque-or-a-synagogue
Amen - we in the wider world need to pray more for Christians in the USA
I (and our laws) consider churches "sensitive locations". Whether its "Black Live Matter" or it's ICE, there is no excuse for interrupting a worship service. However, there is Jesus' cleansing of the Temple to deal with biblically. Talk about interrupting worship...Where do you think that might fit into this discussion?
Pretty simple. Is having someone who works for ICE in your church leadership anywhere close to what the money changers were doing in the Temple?
I appreciate your desire to keep worship services sacred in this way. I trust this means that you would be in support of such measures as the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's lawsuit to prevent ICE from disrupting Quaker worship services?
If so, you can find more information on that lawsuit here: https://6abc.com/post/quakers-group-religious-society-friends-sue-trump-administration-keep-immigration-agents-houses-worship/15842415/
Amen.