![\"Horace](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/307\/2017\/12\/SA_160-Jeremia_op_de_puinhopen_van_Jeruzalem.jpg\")
<\/a>In my last blog post<\/a>, I mentioned that a student asked me why I still call myself an Evangelical Christian. On account of all the conflicted positions and associations politically and culturally, many people connected with the movement are now abandoning the label.\u00a0 Should we abandon ship, or abandon the idols of power, wealth, comfort and privilege that serve as stumbling blocks to right relationship with God and others? In this post, I will consider the prophet Jeremiah as well as other prophetic voices, and what import they might have for our situation today.<\/p>\n In the paragraph above, I mentioned the idols of power, wealth, comfort, and privilege. Before proceeding with our analysis, it is important to specify what I have in mind by these idols. Here I turn to the late Evangelical statesman, James Montgomery Boice. In 1998, Boice wrote an article titled \u201cOur All-Too-Easy Conscience.\u201d It was a play on Carl F. H. Henry\u2019s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. <\/em>Boice said that Henry, in his 1947 work, had put his finger on a matter that was disturbing many fellow Evangelicals: \u201cEvangelicals had been avoiding the great social issues of the day, above all racism and the plight of the poor and we were uneasy about it somewhere deep in our inmost thoughts and hearts.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In his historic manifesto, Henry called the fundamentalist-evangelical movement to rigorous theological reflection and social engagement: \u201cFundamentalism is wondering just how it is that a world-changing message narrowed its scope to the changing of isolated individuals.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Later Henry writes, \u201cWhereas once the redemptive gospel was a world-changing message, now it was narrowed to a world-resistant message. Out of twentieth-century Fundamentalism of this sort there could come no contemporary version of Augustine\u2019s The City of God.<\/em>\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Boice notes that the time had come for another book to be written, this time \u201cThe Easy Conscience of Modern Evangelicalism.\u201d Boice was referring to Martin Marty\u2019s claim that the most worldly people in America at the end of the twentieth century would be the Evangelicals.[4]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Boice concurred with Marty\u2019s assessment: \u201cWe have fulfilled his prophecy, and it is not yet the year 2000.\u201d Boice argued that Evangelicals have fixed their gaze on gaining the kingdom of the world and \u201chave made politics and money our weapons of choice for grasping it.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In addition to raising concerns about pop psychology and the like replacing sound biblical doctrine, he lamented the Evangelical movement\u2019s preoccupation with \u201csuccess, wonderful marriages and nice children,\u201d in addition to being fixated on \u201cnumerical growth and money.\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Troubled that Evangelicals cared very little for \u201cgetting right with an offended God,\u201d Boice exhorted them to take seriously the words of the prophet Amos, who spoke the following words to a culture much like the present: \u201cWoe to them who are at ease <\/em>in Zion.\u201d Boice said that fellow Evangelicals should become uneasy about their complacency and comfort. One area where this complacency is evident is the Evangelical community\u2019s failure in the inner cities of America: \u201cI would like us to become uneasy about our failure to establish strong churches in America\u2019s inner cities, where the breakdown of American culture is so obvious and the needs of the people are so great.\u201d[7]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Moving on from Boice to the present day, it is worth drawing attention to a recent\u00a0Brookings<\/em> report and analysis<\/a> on the changing cultural norms in our society on how Americans view those politicians with ethical improprieties and lack of strong religious convictions. The report highlights a dramatic shift for many Evangelicals. The analysis is instructive, and so I will quote from it at length:<\/p>\n The breakdown along religious lines is instructive. Americans without any religious affiliation haven\u2019t shifted much\u201463 percent in 2011, 60 percent today. Catholic acceptance of politicians\u2019 personal misconduct has increased from 42 to 58 percent. White mainline Protestant support is up by 22 points, from 38 to 60 percent.<\/p>\n These large shifts are dwarfed, however, by the change among white evangelicals. In 2011, only 30 percent believed that personal immorality was consistent with an ethical performance of official duties. Today, 72 percent of white evangelicals\u2014up an astounding 42 points\u2013believe that the two can go together.<\/p>\n In a related change, fewer white evangelicals now believe that strong religious beliefs are very important for presidential candidates\u201449 percent today, versus 64 percent just five years ago.<\/p>\n The survey did not go on to ask why people have changed their minds. But the data are suggestive.\u00a0 Yes, the general public\u2019s center of gravity has shifted toward greater acceptance. But white evangelicals have shifted more than twice as much. As recently as 2011, white evangelicals were the least likely of any religious group (including unaffiliated Americans) to say that personal immorality was compatible with an ethical political life. Today, they are the\u00a0most<\/u><\/em>\u00a0likely to affirm this.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The article concludes by saying that Evangelicals cannot go back to claim the high moral ground in a future election:<\/p>\n One thing is clear: Now that evangelicals have crossed this bridge, they will not be credible if, in some future election, they try to cross back and return to the status quo ante of inviolable principles backed by stern anathemas for dissenters. Henceforth they are in the same boat with the rest of us, judging each individual as an ensemble of good and bad traits. They have forfeited the standing to regard as morally defective those who disagree with their conclusions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While the author of the article says that Evangelicals will not be credible in the future if they go back to their earlier moral stance, many today (including those inside my Evangelical movement) are already claiming we are no longer credible.<\/p>\n So, in view of Boice\u2019s rebuke and the Brookings<\/em> report, why don\u2019t I abandon ship? It is not because I disregard or seek to justify the sweeping changes in our moral stances. Rather, it is because I don\u2019t think abandonment of my tradition is the solution, but rather repentance and renewal. We find an example for this orientation in the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah prayed to the Lord God to have mercy on his people and not condemn them to destruction, even while rebuking them for their unfaithfulness to their covenantal relationships with God. He never abandoned ship on Judah or his Jewish faith, even while opposing their conduct at every turn. The NIV Study Bible puts the matter well<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u2026 an aura of conflict surrounded Jeremiah almost from the beginning. He lashed out against the sins of his countrymen (44:23<\/a>), scoring them severely for their idolatry (16:10\u201313,20<\/a>; 22:9<\/a>; 32:29<\/a>; 44:2\u20133,8,17\u201319,25<\/a>)\u2014which sometimes even involved sacrificing their children to foreign gods (see 7:30\u201334<\/a> and notes). But Jeremiah loved the people of Judah in spite of their sins, and he prayed for them (14:7,20<\/a>) even when the Lord told him not to (7:16<\/a>; 11:14<\/a>; 14:11<\/a>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not only did Jeremiah pray for his people, but also he identified himself with them in solidarity with their sin. Here are a few of the verses that were noted above:<\/p>\n Though our iniquities testify against us, We acknowledge our wickedness, O\u00a0Lord, Like God\u2019s messenger Jeremiah, righteous Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel identified with the people in their sin (See Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9 and Daniel 9). Moses interceded on behalf of his people Israel and begged God not to destroy them. Moses pleaded with God not to start anew with him and his descendants, as God intended on account of Israel\u2019s sin (See Exodus 32, Numbers 14, and Deuteronomy 9). Even more radical is the sinless Lord Jesus who knew no sin, yet became sin, so as to make us the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). If these righteous saints of old did not abandon their people, and if the Lord himself does not abandon us, but remains in solidarity with them and us, why should we who do not hold a candle to these holy leaders of the faith abandon a movement that has changed its convictions for political expediency and power in many cases?<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 6:14 informs us to come out from among unbelievers in certain cases, but not from believers. Moreover, the New Testament gives examples of people being expelled from the Christian community due to sin, as in the case of the immoral brother in Corinth, or due to false doctrine, as in the case of false teachers (1 Corinthians 5:1, 5, 12-13; 1 John 2:19), but I don\u2019t find examples of changing churches or movements because of them. While I do not wish to claim one should never leave a church or movement due to moral and doctrinal failings, I believe we should be extremely slow in considering the possibility of abandoning ship.<\/p>\n Like Jeremiah and the other prophetic leaders noted here, we must see ourselves in solidarity with our people. The point is not to condone or excuse sin, but to bring about change from the inside out\u2014starting with us. It begins with acknowledgment, with joint confession and repentance, for we are not immune to the charge of sin or beyond scrutiny. So, the transformation of thought and conduct must include all of us. If he were hear today, I doubt Jeremiah (or Boice after him) would encourage us to abandon our faith communities, but our idols. In keeping with his context and message noted above, may we all return to the Lord, forsaking our idols of power, wealth, comfort and privilege, and ceasing to sacrifice our children and orphans, widows and aliens in their distress to those gods. Lord, have mercy on us! [1]<\/a>James Montgomery Boice, \u201cOn My Mind: Our All-Too-Easy Conscience,\u201d in Modern Reformation <\/em>7, no. 5 (September\/October 1998): 44.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism <\/em>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947; reprint, with a foreword by Richard J. Mouw, 2003), page 14.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>Henry, The Uneasy Conscience,\u201d page 19.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>Boice, \u201cOur All-Too-Easy Conscience,\u201d page 44.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>Boice, \u201cOur All-Too-Easy Conscience,\u201d page 44.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>Boice, \u201cOur All-Too-Easy Conscience,\u201d page 44.<\/p>\n
\nact, O\u00a0Lord,\u00a0for your name\u2019s sake;
\nfor our backslidings are many;
\nwe have sinned against you (Jeremiah 14:7; NIV).<\/p>\n
\nand the iniquity of our fathers,
\nfor we have sinned against you.
\nDo not spurn us,\u00a0for your name\u2019s sake;
\ndo not dishonor your glorious throne;
\nremember and do not break your covenant with us (Jeremiah 14:20-21; NIV).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n_______________<\/p>\n