The Real Sins of Sodom

Standard

'The Destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah' by John MartinOn Monday,  I wrote concerning Christians who err by judging the failings of others while simultaneously forgetting to examine themselves to check for their own complicity in those failings.

Today, I want to look at the notorious city of Sodom.

Long the hallmark of wickedness, Sodom is repeatedly held up in the Bible as an example of how NOT to live. And if you’ve been around American Evangelicalism long enough, you’ve been drilled on the exact reason God destroyed Sodom. (Hint: We get the word sodomy from this particular association.)

If you’re still lost on the reason, Genesis 19 is the standard text. Lot’s life in the city and what befalls him, his divine guests, and his immediate family are laid out for all to see, as are the despicable actions of the denizens of the city of Sodom:

The two angels came to Sodom at evening. Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them. He bowed himself with his face to the earth, and he said, “See now, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, stay all night, wash your feet, and you will rise up early, and go on your way.” They said, “No, but we will stay in the street all night.” He urged them greatly, and they came in with him, and entered into his house. He made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. They called to Lot, and said to him, “Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.” Lot went out to them to the door, and shut the door after him. He said, “Please, my brothers, don’t act so wickedly. See now, I have two virgin daughters. Please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them what seems good to you. Only don’t do anything to these men, because they have come under the shadow of my roof.” They said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one fellow came in to live as a foreigner, and he appoints himself a judge. Now will we deal worse with you, than with them!” They pressed hard on the man Lot, and drew near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves to find the door. The men said to Lot, “Do you have anybody else here? Sons-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whoever you have in the city, bring them out of the place: for we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before Yahweh that Yahweh has sent us to destroy it.”
—Genesis 19:1-13 (WEB)

Cut and dried, right? Homosexuality was the primary reason God destroyed Sodom.

Well, maybe not.

I was reading in Ezekiel today and came across the following passage. The context is that God is chastising His chosen people for being even more sinful than the wicked nations that surrounded them:

“Behold, everyone who uses proverbs will use this proverb about you: ‘Like mother, like daughter.’ You are the daughter of your mother, who loathed her husband and her children; and you are the sister of your sisters, who loathed their husbands and their children. Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite. And your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. Not only did you walk in their ways and do according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it….”
—Ezekiel 16:44-50 (emphasis mine)

What is fascinating about this passage is that God explicitly names what it was about Sodom that caused Him to destroy them:

1. Pride
2. Excess food
3. Prosperous ease
4. Lack of love for the poor and needy
5. Haughtiness
6. Practicing an abomination

While not explicitly named, the abomination that was practiced surely included homosexuality.  Exchanging heterosexual practice for homosexual is an abomination because it mocks the created order and the character of God. (I have written about this previously in “Sex and the Created Order.”)

But for us Christians in America who love to hold out the homosexual agenda as the worst possible thing to happen to our country, please note the five explicitly named sins that preceded the sixth.

I can wait while you read the list again.

When I read those top five, they nearly define American Evangelicalism circa 2009.

The pride of having somehow “arrived” with our Christian radio stations and our Jesus T-shirts, the Time and Newsweek cover articles proclaiming our ascendancy, and the whole of our Evangelical subculture that seduces us into thinking that we are somehow living in the world but are not of it

The gluttony evident by the number of morbidly obese “saints” who never met a pantry they didn’t like or an all-you-can-eat buffet they could ignore, and the hording of food that allows us to feel safe and well insulated against the “childish” idea of “Give us this day our daily bread”

The vacation homes, McMansions, iPhones, Playstations, spa trips, Christian cruises, and amassed luxury that we so often attribute to God’s imprimatur on our “righteous” lifestyles

The blind eye we turn to the destitute, the alien, and the least of these—the very ones who signify Christ Himself

The self-reverential belief that we are better than those around us who do not show the same outward manifestation of our blessings, and the certainty of heaven for us because we alone have done it right while our clueless neighbor has done every last shred of it wrong

Five devastating, explicitly named indictments of God against Sodom, yet for some reason, all we can think about is the sixth, because that final one applies to the other guy—you know, the flambouyant one with all the Streisand CDs.

Dear God, bring us to repentance before it is too late.

Is American Evangelicalism on the Verge of Collapse? – A Response

Standard

In my previous post “Is American Evangelicalism on the Verge of Collapse?,” I included a series of links that responded to a study showing a decline in American Evangelicalism. Michael Spencer of internetmonk.com riffed on the study, and Leith Anderson, the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, rebutted Spencer’s article. (I would encourage readers to check the previous post for details.)

I want to thank those readers who responded to my post. Today, I want to add my thoughts.

Back in the dim, distant past (the mid-’80s), when the show was actually still funny, I enjoyed watching Saturday Night Live. One of my favorite characters was Martin Short’s tobacco industry lawyer, Nathan Thurm. 'That's a lie! I never said that! Show me the papers....'A sweaty, nervous man with a pronounced twitch, Thurm would be interviewed by 60 Minutes-type investigative reporters and would dodge any question that made Big Tobacco complicit in the deaths of smokers. To Thurm, everything that came out of the interviewer’s mouth was a lie, no matter how true it might be. He would spin every statistic, turn damning statements into PR copy, and keep glancing nervously at the camera to see if the audience was buying his confabulations. Watching Thurm squirm and twist the facts egregiously made for the comedy.

But Leith Anderson’s update on Nathan Thurm should make none of us laugh. If anything, we should be crying at how blatantly he spins reality as he dodges painful truths. And I say that with a pronounced heavy heart. None of what follows gives me any joy.

In what ways does Anderson pull a Thurm?

1. Spencer’s article is aimed at the decline of Evangelicalism in the West, with the U.S. being a key focal point, as reflected in the ARIS study. This is Anderson’s response:

Evangelical Christianity is rapidly growing in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Traditionally Catholic South America is fast turning into an evangelical Pentecostal continent. Christians are multiplying by the millions in Communist China. And in the USA? The growing edge of almost every evangelical denomination is Hispanics. Many of the largest and fastest growing evangelical megachurches in this country are Hispanic, African American and Asian. While white megachurches have been around for a while many of these new ethnic megachurches are just getting started.

Excuse me, but since when is Anderson’s title president of the International Association of Evangelicals? It is true that Evangelicalism is growing in places once deemed “The Third World,” but that is not the West. And the East is not the area over which Anderson presides. In other words, he fails to speak directly to the Spencer article’s area of focus.

2. Anderson notes a positive trend in U.S. Evangelicalism: the rise of Hispanic Evangelicals.

My question: If polled, how many Evangelicals would say that we have too many Mexican immigrants in this country, especially of the illegal variety? I see that hand, and that one, and you over there, and you, and…boy, that’s a lot of hands going up.

I don’t think there has been a group screaming for tighter border control than Evangelicals. Seriously. In fact, immigration issues are on the forefront of the culture wars, right up there with  abortion.

Does Anderson truly believe the collection of people he oversees is supportive of the growth of Hispanic churches, many of them populated by people of suspect citizenry? Sadly, I suspect that many of the constituency would love nothing more than if the attendees of those churches went back to where they came from.

Also, the rapid growth of Hispanic Evangelical churches is no counter to the precipitous decline in all other Evangelical groups, as the ARIS survey shows. In other words, this is a dodge by Anderson.

3. Anderson notes the rise of Pentecostalism around the world as a positive sign for Evangelicalism.

Imagine you’re a kid again, and you form a club for kids your age. It will be the best club ever. No uncool kids, just your friends. Then your Mom catches a whiff of your plan and asks if your kid brother will be included. When you say no, because he’s a whiny little kid and your club is only for older kids who have it going on, Mom tells you right away that he’s either in or there will be no club. Shattered, you relent, though not without a kick at the kitchen table leg and a lot of mumbling.

As someone who has been associated with a number of Evangelical churches and ministries over the years, I can say with no hesitation that Pentecostals are considered the snotty-nosed kid brother in the Evangelical clubhouse. They may be in, but they are merely tolerated.

Too mean? Then ask how the largest Evangelical denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, feels about their missionaries speaking in tongues. The fact that the mission board of the SBC tried to eliminate “Pentecostal-ish” members from serving is telling.

In fact, I suspect that the group of Evangelicals most ardent in their Evangelicalism would be aghast if people in their congregation spoke in tongues or claimed to have a word of knowledge, a gift of healing, or a prophecy to share. Evangelical churches split over such things.

So I find it disingenuous on Anderson’s part to hold up Pentecostalism as the bright, shiny hope of Evangelicalism worldwide, when a lot of Evangelicals wish that Pentecostals would stop crashing their club.

4. Anderson says its wrong to define Evangelicals by their political affiliations because the leadership isn’t political:

I have talked to thousands of evangelical pastors in almost every state and rarely have I heard any of them talk about politics. They talk about God, the Bible, faith, Jesus, salvation, evangelism, discipleship and a lot of other spiritual themes. The political label has been added mostly by the press, politicians and religious leaders not connected to or accountable to churches. If those who wrote the label now want to peel it off, most evangelical church leaders either won’t notice or won’t care because they are focused on what they’ve always been focused on–God, the Bible, faith, Jesus, salvation, evangelism, discipleship and a lot of other spiritual themes.

Even if one can say that pastors in Evangelical churches aren’t politics-minded (and that’s a stretch if one looks at the history of the Religious Right), there is no doubt that the people in the pews are. To be an Evangelical is to be a Republican. To be an Evangelical is to fight on the forefront of the culture wars, a battle that is waged politically.

The problem is that this battle has largely failed, as it was destined to do. Jesus alone changes hearts, government laws do not. If the people are ungodly, the laws will not turn their hearts to righteousness. When even James Dobson admits the battle is lost, it’s lost. And that admission is creating havoc in Evangelical ranks, because for too many people, the culture war (as fought through political means) defines their entire Christian faith. That political manueverings have largely failed may, in fact, be one of the reasons that those discouraged people are abandoning Evangelicalism. They want a vital relationship with God, not their elected officials.

Lastly, Anderson’s comments tell us nothing of the bigger picture.  George Barna has  published numerous polls that show that Evangelical pastors do not adequately reflect their congregations. The pastors ARE more spiritually minded than the people they serve. In addition, they are curiously unaware of this at times, rating themselves highly on their ability to transmit the Gospel to their charges in a life-changing way that forms those people into little copies of themselves. But Barna’s numbers show that the people in the seats are two-thirds less likely to actually espouse what the pastor believes, no matter how much the pastor believes it. That’s a pretty serious  disconnect in belief between the leadership and the average Joe or Jane Evangelical. Anderson should know this.

5. Anderson says that the best exhibition of Evangelicalism comes when bad times strike:

There is a very practical way to observe the depth of evangelical Christian faith across America. The next time there is a tragedy–tornado in a small town, shooting at a school, apartment fire in a major city–listen to what the survivors say on television. You will be impressed by frequently declared depth of Christian faith in Jesus when facing the harshest traumas of their lives. This is the evangelical faith that has spread across our land and will continue into the next generation.

To me, what you are at all times better reflects a changed life than what you are when the heat is on. If people only trot out their faith in disasters, can they truly be counted among the faithful? Remember the old line: There are no atheists in foxholes.

It’s a sad state of affairs when the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals has to stoop this low to find anything positive to say about the movement he leads.

6. Anderson points to new blood as a positive sign:

In the coming decade many older local congregations will go out of business. Of course they will, just as many older Christians will die and many older businesses will close. But, have you seen what is happening in your local elementary school on Sunday mornings? Across America there is a rapid spread of new churches meeting in schools, community centers, restaurants, theaters and any other rentable gathering place. Almost all of them are evangelical congregations with young pastors and young parishioners.

Folks, all we’re doing in the above is splitting existing congregations into tinier and tinier factions. We’re recycling people. We’re passing around the same people and calling that church growth. For every new church plant that starts with ten families, those ten families were most likely cannibalized from an existing congregation elsewhere. Evangelicalism is not growing in the United States, even when younger congregations led by younger people are factored in. This is the whole point of the ARIS report.

Frankly, I am stunned at the Thurm-job Anderson did in his rebuttal of Spencer.

We don’t need leaders like that heading anything. He said nothing that dealt with the reality of declining numbers. Nothing. With a wave of his hand and a few words, he dismissed it all.

Look, we need serious people who talk bluntly and truthfully. The best thing Anderson could have done is to kick some butts and take names, to admit that the culture wars and political wranglings have diluted the Gospel message and driven people away from or out of Evangelicalism. He could have talked about the necessary things Evangelicals can do to stop the hemorrhaging.

So if he won’t, I will:

1. Get serious about evangelism.

Isn’t the word evangel at the root of Evangelical? If so, why aren’t we evangelizing people? If Anderson wants to know why the world is turning Pentecostal it’s because the Pentecostals are still serious about evangelism when most others couldn’t care less. Go to an Assemblies of God church some Sunday and I’ll bet you they have a wall covered with photos of missionaries they support. Now go to a non-Pentecostal church (especially the vaunted Evangelical megachurch) and attempt to find that same wall. Missing, right? Hmm…

2. Get serious about discipleship.

When poll numbers come back showing that 85 percent of Christian youth who go to college apostasize by the time they graduate, that’s one serious problem. And the fault lies in the pathetic Christian education departments most churches run—if they run one at all. I can tell you that the demise started when churches fired all their paid, trained Christian ed staff and replaced them with volunteers. In the defense of those amateurs,  there’s nothing wrong with volunteers teaching, unless they’re amateurish. And most of them are. They’ll claim they don’t have the time due to career obligations (which is another issue) to devote to doing the job right, so they don’t. Too many do just enough to get by. And it shows.

The lack of a coherent vision for Christian education in our churches manifests in the complete lack of biblical worldview in all too many Evangelicals. Barna has repeatedly shown that pastors rate their flocks’ adherence to a Christian worldview almost three-times higher than the actual response numbers show from those in the pews. We have got to stop lying to ourselves on this issue. The people in the seats don’t know the Scriptures, so they have no coherent framework from which to make godly decisions about life.

We need a decisive, coherent, systematic, cradle-to-grave indoctrination into the Christian faith for every last person who claims the name of Jesus. But we’re simply not doing that in the West.

3. Drop the political rhetoric.

Neither major party in the United States adequately reflects the Gospel. There, I said it.

All the political wrangling in the world will not change the hearts of people. Jesus Christ does that, not Sarah Palin, and not Barack Obama.

If Evangelicals are sick of the direction this country is headed in, then they must stop trying to ramrod morality down the throats of the immoral through one piece of legislation or another. Instead, get out there and lead people to Christ. He’s the only change agent that truly works.

4. Get the focus off of Evangelicalism as a movement/culture.

Evangelicals spend far too much time navel-gazing. Being a Christian is not self-focused, but others-focused. Let me tell you, people today have a high B.S. meter, and they know disingeuousness when they see it. We don’t need to put any more impediments in their way to Jesus. It’s time to take the focus off ourselves and get some real humility. When Leith Anderson pulls a Nathan Thurm, he does a disservice to humility. Better to fess up when seriousness is called for than to cop out in an effort to be positive .

5. Stop the factionalization.

Evangelicalism is dying in the United States because it is splitting into smaller and smaller pieces that end up becoming less and less effective. Evangelicals have become so brand-conscious that we now have a niche church for every possible need, just like we have a coffee flavor for every single person living in America. Our military may be shilling an Army of One, but that’s what the Church here is becoming—to its detriment.  If we don’t find the commonality and quite sniping at each other, we’ll become increasingly irrelevent.

6. Give the lax an ultimatum.

Dead wood is hurting our churches. It’s also inflating the numbers. The Southern Baptists claim more than 40 million people on their rolls, but only 15 million actually attend church on a regular basis.  It’s time for churches to tell people to commit or go elsewhere. The Army of the Lord won’t function as intended if the majority of its soldiers are AWOL. There are no private Christians. You either join the group or suffer the consequences.

7. Stop talking, start doing.

The Western Church cannot endure if we talk and talk yet fail to practice that talk. If the lost are to ever know that we are Christians and what we say is truth, we have to walk the talk. And we need to severely chasten those who make excuses for the lack of walking. We don’t need that kind of talk. With all due respect to Leith Anderson, his talk in his rebuttal to Spencer’s article just plain stinks. Where is the call to repentance and practice? Isn’t that why he’s president of the NAE? Shouldn’t he be doing more than just glossing over the genuine unpleasantries that American Evangelicals must face if we are to turn this thing around?

Evangelicalism in on the decline because it loved itself too much and loved the lost too little. It didn’t take the Great Commission seriously, yawned at the plight of the disadvantaged, and spent too much time preening. When its leaders only promulgate those errors and ignore the hemorrhaging, then it probably needs to be kicked off the national stage until it remembers its lines again and learns how to act right.

Is American Evangelicalism on the Verge of Collapse?

Standard

A recent, ongoing conversation occurring around the blogosphere concerns what to make of some study numbers showing declines in stalwart Evangelical denominations. Below is a series of links that pertain to the issue:

The American Religious Identification Survey study that kicked off part of the conversation. (An excerpt is here.)

Michael Spencer’s Christian Science Monitor article that propounded the idea that the survey figures signaled a collapse of Evangelicalism within ten years. (Spencer blogs at internetmonk.com.)

Michael Bell posted an intriguing statistical portent that hints at which churches will decline, plus two articles at internetmonk.com that unpack those numbers (Post 1, Post 2).

Leith Anderson, the current head of the National Association of Evangelicals, responds to Spencer’s CSM article.

And finally, Spencer rebuts Anderson.

Today, I’d like to ask what you think of this debate. Is Evangelicalism on the downward slide? And if so, why?

(I wade in with my thoughts in this follow-up post: “Is American Evangelicalism on the Verge of Collapse?†“A Response“)