Dear James:
I’ve been listening to you for a while, and have been encouraged by various of the things you have said and done, but also discouraged by other things you’ve said. I’ve even lectured at the Presbyterian seminary you have attended, and went to Carolina with my old friend Andy Dearman, who taught there for years. He ended up being an OT seminary professor, and me a NT seminary professor, both under the considerable guidance and encouragement of a remarkable Presbyterian teacher and minister, Dr. Bernard Boyd.
I certainly agree with you about the profound flaws in the notion of Christian nationalism as often defined. The Kingdom of God is an international reality and movement, and it is not based on one nation’s view of itself or it’s values. It is based on the Bible, not on some sort of mythology about the origins of America which had as some of its most salient founders– Thomas Jefferson, who produced an edited down version of the NT deleting most of the miraculous, Benjamin Franklin of dubious ethics, and various Unitarians like John Adams. Our founding documents owe more to John Locke than to Jesus or Paul. Mainly our founding fathers were seeking to avoid the big mistake of European nations of have an’ official state supported and endorsed christian form of religion’ whether Catholic or Protestant. While most of them were broadly speaking affirming of at least parts of the Judeo-Christian tradition, they were frankly not much like ultra-right wing Christian nationalists of today.
I’ve spent my life making the Sermon on the Mount a major part of the blueprint for my beliefs and behavior (among other things I think Jesus calls us to non-violence and loving of enemies), but I’ve also taken very seriously Jesus’ teachings on marriage being, from the original creation intent of God, between a man and a woman (Mt. 19). While Jesus says nothing directly about same sex relationships or marriage, certainly Mt. 19 speaks to this matter indirectly and the reason is clear. God did indeed create us male and female for each other. And no Paul did not, In Gal. 3.28 say in Christ there is neither male and female, as he does with Jew and Gentile, and slave or free. He says there is no male and female, which I take him to mean, since he is quoting the creation order phrase from Genesis, that in Christ, one doesn’t have to engage in heterosexual marriage. One can remain single for the sake of the kingdom, as Jesus himself says and was, again in Mt. 19. Indeed, Paul in Rom. 1.18-32 clearly condemns both homosexual and lesbian relationships as a form of sexual misbehavior, which he also does in 1 Corinthians as well.
In watching the Ezra Klein interview you did, there was much to agree with you about, but as a NT professor, I would urge you to be more careful as to how you cite the Bible. For example, Paul says ‘the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil’, he does not say money itself is. On the other hand, I found your take on the annunciation story was interesting— Mary’s consent was required before she was impregnated. I think one can legitimately on the basis of this say that of course rape, or forced impregnation is a serious sin. Agreeing to become pregnant must indeed be a woman’s right. This however is not the same issue as choosing to have an abortion, especially if, as I do, you believe what a pregnant woman is carrying is an unborn child, not a mere subhuman thing—a collection of tissue or a mere pre-human fetus. If all human life is sacred, this must include the unborn child. That doesn’t mean there is not a need in emergency situations for the possibility of abortion, for example in the case of rape or incest. I don’t however think that this should fall under the banner of ‘a woman’s right to choose’. There are situations where a woman’s life is definitely endangered by a certain kind of pregnancy, so we can talk about a necessity to choose abortion to save the mother, especially if she has other children, or a husband. But this is not a matter of rights, it’s a matter of necessity.
One of the things that concerned me more was your failure to clearly affirm that Christ is the only savior for all humanity, being the only God-man who ever existed, who can represent God to us and vice-versa (see 1 Tim. 2.5-6) Of course there is wisdom in other religions, especially in Judaism. But that is not the issue. If the question is how then may we be saved, there is only one answer the NT gives repeatedly, while also affirming everyone needs to be saved, since we all sin and fall short of God’s highest and best for us all.
I strongly affirm with you Jesus’ concern for the poor, the hungry, the oppressed as Mt. 25 makes evident. Greed is indeed a serious sin, as is egotism when Jesus himself says ‘I did not come to be served, but to serve and give my life as a ransom for the many’ (Mk. 10.45). He is indeed our role model not those who practice the so-called health and wealth Gospel.
My main caution to you is to continue to study your Bible as your road map for your faith, especially the teachings of the NT, particularly those of Jesus and Paul, but as 2 Tim. 3.16 says–all Scripture is God-breathed.
I’ll be praying for you as you run for Senate.
The Lord bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you,
Dr. Ben Witherington, Amos Professor of NT
Asbury Seminary
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In