It has been over two months since I’ve last written anything on my blog. The end of the school year, as well as a few other contributing factors, has taken up my time. That, plus the fact I simply didn’t have anything pressing to write about. Now that summer is here, I’m going to try to get back in the groove. I’m thinking of starting to do a number of posts on various books in the Old Testament.
But that is not what this post is about. In this post, I want to comment on a couple of things biblical scholar Peter Enns posted last week. I first came across Enns all the way back in 2006 when I read his book, Inspiration and Incarnation. It was a key book in my understanding regarding how to read and interpret the Bible. In fact, I liked it so much that when I first got in trouble at the Christian school I worked at in Little Rock over how to read Genesis 1-11 in its proper ancient Near Eastern context, I showed Enns’ book to my principal to show him that what I was bringing up in my class was the kind of thing that Evangelical scholars were teaching in college. When my principal looked at it, his faced scrunched up a little and he said, “Hmmm…I’ve heard about this guy.”
Needless to say, things didn’t turn out so well. That was my first rude introduction to the toxicity of the current “culture wars” in modern American Evangelicalism. Enns eventually had to resign his teaching position at Westminster Seminary in 2008 over the controversy regarding his book. I lost my job at that Christian school in Little Rock in 2007…so that means I beat him in the “getting screwed over” contest! And in a way, Enns played a part in that! (Yes, I got whacked again at another school in Alabama in 2015…you can read more about that adventure in my book, The Heresy of Ham.)
In any case, over the past few years, I’ve cooled a bit on Enns for a variety of reasons. On some issues (both biblical and cultural) he’s taken some positions I don’t necessarily agree with. But that’s neither here nor there. But last week I came across a couple of posts by Enns (a video clip and a quote) that, given the current hyper-partisan state of things over the past few years, got me thinking. After mulling it over for a few days, I thought I’d finally sit down and write something. To be clear, the purpose of this post isn’t necessarily to criticize/attack him (although I am critical of a few things in the posts he shared). What I want to get at is what I feel in an underlying problem in both conservative Evangelicalism and the more progressive ex-Evangelicalism. So, let’s jump in…
The first post Enns shared was a quote that read:
“Stop me if you’ve heard this one, but instead of Christians supporting one political party as God’s instrument to make America great again, perhaps consider adopting a biblical prophetic witness. The witness focuses on: (1) being vigilant not to syncretize worship of God with human institutions (i.e. Christian America), and (2) denouncing the systemic disregard of the poor and the marginalized.”
The second thing Enns posted was a short video that (as you’ll see) served as the impetus for the quote above. In the video, he shared a clip from another video in which four guys (presumably conservative pastors?) were discussing being accused of being partisan. One pastor scoffed made a joke (the others laughed), then said it wasn’t about political parties, but about being a prophetic witness regarding good vs. evil. That was their job as pastors.
This was the snippet Enns wanted to comment on. First, he called these guys “testosterone theobros,” then said what they were doing was the equivalent of trying to pick a fight in a bar. He then picked up on the term “partisan” and said, despite what those four guys were claiming, the term “partisan” literally means to have “unflagging support for a party.” By its very definition, the term “partisan” is political. Therefore, even though those four guys were claiming that they weren’t being politically partisan, but just speaking out about good and evil, Enns (because he had listened to a few videos of a couple of those guys before) said it was clear they were pushing a “hard right-wing agenda.”
He then said, “Allegiance to a party is something that Christians should never do. You can vote for a particular party, but to say, ‘I’m this, and that’s all there is to it,’ is not something Christians should do.” If anything, Enns said the Christian’s role should be “anti-partisan” across the board. Cristians should be a voice of critique of power, and it doesn’t matter what party it is.
After that, Enns picked up on the comment about being a prophetic witness. He pointed out that if you’re really going to strive to imitate the prophets and truly be a prophetic witness, you should realize that the prophets railed about two primary things. First, syncretism—the worship of God should be kept pure. Enns said, “In today’s world, the danger of syncretism is right in front of us. It’s actually advocated by at least a couple of the people in this video. And that is the allegiance to the current president as God’s person to set America straight. That is undeniably an example of this syncretistic attitude that God Himself aligns with any particular party.”
Second, speaking out for justice and righteousness towards those who are not in power, especially the marginalized. Enns added it did not mean “going after the hot button issues of trans or LGBTQ. He said, “If you want to uphold the moral law, if you want to mimic the prophetic witness, what you should be doing is advocating for the poor and the marginalized in our midst, loudly, constantly, without stop.”
My Reaction
First off, I have no idea who the four guys in the video were. I’m assuming they were probably Reformed (possibly hardcore Calvinistic?) pastors who, as Enns claims, are really into Trump—call them “MAGA pastors” if you want—so much so that they think Trump really is “God’s anointed” to save America. For the sake of argument, let’s say that’s true. Given that, Enns is 100% correct in his discussion regarding what “partisan” means—it is pretty much blind allegiance to a particular political party. And yes, specifically within Evangelicalism, there certainly are some Evangelicals (and Evangelical pastors) who blur the lines between the Kingdom of God and the American political parties way too much. Yes, there are many conservative Evangelicals who view their politics through that broad-brushing lens that tells them that the GOP is Christian, and the Democrat party is godless, etc. And yes, that kind of allegiance to party is something Christians should never do. Yes, vote your values and conscience; but no, don’t blindly follow one party and demonize the other.
That basic point of Enns is spot on, but there are a few things he said that I want to take issue with, the most glaring one is that many “progressive Christians” and “ex-Evangelicals” have a huge blind spot when it comes to Enns’ basic point. Simply put, they can’t see they are often equally as guilty of political partisanship. In fact (and I’m going on the informed assumption that Enns would probably consider himself now an “ex-Evangelical”), I think the very way he makes his argument from the prophets betrays what I might call a “progressively partisan” stance.
Syncretism
So, let’s look at what Enns, in his criticism of these “MAGA pastors,” says about what the prophets railed against. First, he said they railed against syncretism. Yes, they did, but I have serious questions about how Enns defines “syncretism.” The syncretism the prophets railed against was the kind in which Israelites treated YHWH as just another ANE god, and thereby ended up not just worshipping YHWH, Baal, Asherah, Chemosh, Molech, etc., but worshipped YHWH with the same kind of practices of those other gods—idols, sacred prostitution, etc. Part of the reason the prophets railed against syncretism was that the results that were “baked in” the worship of the pagan gods was the oppression of the weak and vulnerable. The prophetic message is clear: When you worship idols made in the images of beasts, you end up becoming like what you worship and acting “beast-like” to the weak and vulnerable.
Enns, though, defines “syncretism” as thinking God prefers a particular party or candidate. Sure, there are some Evangelicals who think Trump is “God’s man” to set America straight, and yes, that thinking is bonkers, but no, thinking God has chosen a particular person to “make America great again” is not syncretism. It is shocking that although Enns correctly calls the guys in the video for giving a faulty definition of “partisan,” he then turns around and does the same thing with his definition of “syncretism.”
If “syncretism” meant the thinking that God chose a particular person to lead His people or a particular country, I’m pretty sure we would have to throw out the entire biblical teaching regarding the Davidic covenant! We should say “bye bye” to Psalm 2, where God laughs at the rulers of the earth who try to rebel against Him by rebelling against His anointed one. Psalm 2 ends by telling the rulers of the earth to serve the Lord and “kiss His son,” or else God will be angry and destroy them. And who is the Lord’s “anointed one” and “son”? In the original context, it is the Davidic king whom YHWH has chosen to rule and who He clearly prefers! Let’s be clear, syncretism IS NOT thinking God has chosen a particular person to rule…or to be president. Yes, one can be wrong to think God prefers Trump and the GOP, but that’s not syncretism.
So why would Enns give such an obviously poor (and wrong) definition of syncretism? I think it is obvious—he doesn’t like Trump and doesn’t like anyone (particularly Evangelicals) who support Trump. Therefore, he is shoehorning (and yes, distorting) the prophetic condemnation of actual syncretism into his own partisan dislike for other Evangelicals who voted for Trump. In an odd bit of irony, the very thing he is accusing these four “MAGA pastors” of doing (i.e. distorting what “partisan” means in order to portray themselves and their support for Trump as “good” and those who oppose them as “evil”) he, in fact, is also doing (i.e. distorting what “syncretism” means in order to insinuate these “MAGA pastors” aren’t just wrong to support Trump, but are, in fact, the equivalent of the syncretizing Israelites whom the prophets condemned as evil…and by extension, Enns is good because he’s on the prophets’ side).
Now, I don’t think Enns is purposely doing that, but I do think that’s what he’s doing. In fact, I think there are a whole bunch of people today—Evangelicals and ex-Evangelicals alike—who do this sort of thing. That is why I want to emphasize that this post really isn’t about Enns. It is just using something he has posted that illustrates a larger problem within the Evangelical (and by extension, ex-Evangelical) worlds. I think that larger problem and fundamental fault within modern conservative Evangelicalism and the reactionary and aggressively progressive ex-Evangelicalism is that both are theologically rudderless, in that neither one has a true identity shaped by Church Tradition. Both camps, being rooted in Protestantism, end up claiming some form of “Sola Scriptura,” while cherry-picking certain passages and verses and then fitting them within their actual fundamental identity: that of a partisan, political action group. The result is that groups, whether they want to admit it or not, view “Christianity” as fundamentally political, and fundamentally involves fighting the culture war.
Simply put, Christianity becomes a theological justification for their preferred political and cultural ends, and the result is that the way both Evangelicals and ex-Evangelicals approach American politics is fundamentally religious in nature, and that has the effect of actually amplifying toxic political partisanship. Both sides clearly see it in the other group but are completely oblivious that they are guilty of the same thing.
Now, when political partisanism becomes so deeply ingrained, that partisanship is manifested in one of two (or both) ways. First, there is the blind support for a particular candidate or party as “God’s chosen.” An outgrowth of this is the tendency to completely deny any suggestion that your preferred candidate or party has ever done anything wrong. Second, there is the blind objection to the other particular candidate or party as “godless” or “corrupt,” etc. An outgrowth of this is the tendency to completely believe every single, solitary accusation and outrageous claim against the candidate or party you hate. I’m going to flesh this out with some examples in my next post. For now, I’ll just ask this question: in this past election, did you see the candidate/party you opposed in absolutely evil terms and did you rush to post and amplify every single whiff of wrongdoing of that candidate? At the same time, did find yourself praising your preferred candidate as a paragon of morality and goodness, and did you immediately reject, ignore, or excuse any wrongdoing or possible corruption of your preferred candidate/party? Basically, did you view the election as pretty much a “good vs. evil” kind of thing? If you did, you might be more partisan than you’re willing to admit.
The Prophetic Witness of Advocating for Justice for the Poor and Marginalized
The second thing about the prophets that Enns emphasizes is that they always were advocating for justice for the poor and the marginalized. Overall, Enns is correct—that is something the prophets continually did. But again, I think the way in which he is couching this betrays the typical ex-Evangelical partisan bias against conservative Evangelicals (indeed, anyone) who happened to vote for Trump. Just like Enns’ implication regarding the prophets’ condemnation of syncretism is that Evangelicals who vote for Trump are guilty of it, here, he is implying that Evangelicals who vote for Trump don’t care about injustice against the poor and the marginalized.
But how does he know that? The answer is, not surprisingly, political: because Evangelicals voted for Trump, and not Hillary, or Biden, or Harris, that shows they don’t care about the poor and they want to oppress the marginalized. They just want naked power; it’s all about Christian nationalism. But why would that be the automatic conclusion based on someone’s voting record for president? Again, the answer is always political: Conservative Evangelicals don’t agree with the policies of the Democrat party, and the Democrats care about the poor and the marginalized and aren’t really about just grasping for political power—THEY CARE! Therefore, to vote for Trump must mean the opposite. There is a curious circular (and tragically comic) logic to this way of thinking that far too many people get caught up in–conservatives, liberals, progressives, you name it. Not only is it comically illogical, but it is woefully simplistic, uncritical, foolish, and yes, unchristian. That kind of thinking doesn’t reflect the mind of Christ; it reflects the manipulative machinations of a party activist seeking to influence voters.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that Trump and the GOP want justice for the poor and marginalized and the Democrat party doesn’t. I think most people, both GOP and Democrat, care about the poor, needy, and marginalized. The two parties, though, have different ideas regarding how to address that…and they both have their share of spineless politicians, manipulative politicians, and corrupt politicians…and they have different views regarding what the role of the Federal government should be…and even when a bill is passed that seeks to address a real problem, it’s always going to be flawed and some people are always going to get hurt because of unforeseen consequences. If you want to be more non-partisan, a good place to start would be to realize that. If you do, you are going to pump your breaks when you hear people scream “bloody murder” every minute of every day regarding the sins of one politician or party, while remaining remarkably silent (or even justifying) the clear log in their preferred candidate/party’s eye.
This post isn’t trying to advocate for one party or another. Rather, I’m trying to drill down to what I feel is the deeper problem that goes beyond the current political partisanship within Evangelicalism and ex-Evangelicalism alike. But to flesh that out more, I’m going to need a second post. Stay tuned.
