Rogue One and Thoughts on the New Direction of Star Wars

I saw Rogue One, and it is a good action movie.  It felt a bit more like a Star Wars film, but without any character development.  Droids still steal the movie.  It is not directed by J.J. Abrams so no need to worry about crazy light flares.  But it does fit with the new direction of the franchise set by Abrams.  So here are a few thoughts now that we have two movies from the new direction.

First, it is clear that the concept of the Force has changed.  The Force is now acting on its own, and has a will.  People seem to pray to it in Rogue One, and it can look as if Rey might be doing the same thing in Force Awakens to change the momentum of her light saber fight.  This makes the ground split between Rey and Kylo Ren have new meanings as well.  The Force did not want Rey to kill Kylo.  Everything now is part of the will of the Force.  It is taking the Force from a more Eastern mysticism to something closer to Christian conception of a personal god. 

This is different from Lucas’s view of the Force.  Even in the Phantom Menace where it is mentioned the Force has a will, but then it also obeys your commands.  Lucas used the Force as more of something that gave people abilities, and can be used rightly or wrongly.  Now with this new view of the Force having a will, it brings with it a host of complications.  What does it mean to return the Force to balance, as they discussed in the Prequel Trilogy?  Why did the Force allow the Emperor and the evil he wrought?  Vader killed younglings after all.  Why does the Force have a light side and a dark side? 

Second, these movies are no longer really fantasy kids movies.  Force Awakens was the first film to earn a PG-13 rating, and this movie, Rogue One, is a war movie where, well, when you see the end you will understand.  At least Rogue One is a self contained movie unlike Abrams’s Force Awakens where the mystery is never revealed. 

Third, the original trilogy was great in creating characters.  After all, we love those characters enough to have all these other movies.  It still stands as one of the best trilogies ever.  The Prequel was not as good.  Some of the characters failed miserably.  But, it did a good job of showing the government go from a Republic to an Empire.  That was well done.  The belief that councils and republics don’t work well continues in Rogue One.  Force Awakens showed us some great new characters, but gave us very little and left with so many questions that it was annoying.  Rogue One does not give great character development, but does a good job of showing the evil of the Empire and the nature of the war that does not come through in the original trilogy. 

Fourth, Rogue One should have had a slightly different ending.  Princess Leia being in that massive fight makes no sense.  Worse yet, the beginning of Star Wars now feels like stupid pathetic lies.  It seems as if Leia and the guy who said it was a diplomatic mission are a little like PR guy for Saddam Hussen. 

Fifth and finally, the technology of allowing dead people to appear in movies is amazing.  It will be bad in the long run as now the dead can be used to advertise beer or Snickers, but it is impressive technology.  The moral questions of who owns the likeness of dead people is what will be interesting.  Still, it cannot be denied that seeing some of the original people was fun. 

Go see the movie, and hopefully Abrams will give us a better movie in 2017.

Mockery in the Church

I recently wrote about the decline in discussion thanks to the rise in mockery.  It was in the context of why we have Trump vs. Clinton.  It turns out that Trump won and in large part because the middle of America felt put upon and scorned by the mocking left.  I was not surprised. 

But now I must say that I have long been bothered by the same trend in church.  Mocking is often now the way the church communicates too.  Douglas Wilson is excellent at it with a sharp wit and a sarcastic tongue.  He helped popularize the heresy of Federal Vision with his mockery.  But it has gone from the controversial to the church mainstream in the Babylon Bee.  I see this posted everywhere I go on social media.  

  

Some of the Bee’s stuff is quite harmless using well-worn jokes as fodder like the need to end a sermon on time.  Others are more satire directed at new evolving ways of communicating on social media.  But more and more are mocking of people directly.  And not always individuals but large groups.  Some were so popular they were fact checked by Snoopes. 

Now mockery in and of itself is not sinful.  We do see it used in the Bible.  Surely Paul is mocking to some degree in Galatians 5:12 where he wishes those who would require circumcision would emasculate themselves.  God participates in a bit of mocking or sarcasm at least in his conversation with Job in Job 38.  God knows where Job was when he set the limits to the waters, and he knows Job cannot hook the Leviathan.  But it was used to make a point.  Job need his sense of importance and power torn down by God, which God did to Job’s spiritual benefit.  But we also see the Bible warn quite a bit about mocking such as Proverbs 3:34 or the incident in 2 Kings 2:23 where the she-bear tears apart some mocking children.  So there is a limit, a time and place, for the use of such communication. 

The problem today is the overuse of mockery.  Jesus and Paul could mock, but that was far from their only weapon.  It had a place and a purpose.  The majority of the conversation was to build up.  They mocked to bring a listener to change by laying bare his folly.  But they never ever left someone there.  Tearing down without building up is not good at all.  It clears out the strong man without filling the house with the Spirit.  Jesus mocked and so did Paul and Elijah and others, but can we find a Scriptural example where the mockery was not done in order to bring about change, but rather to bring about a laugh.  Did the disciples sit around and tell jokes to each other about the Pharisee who was eaten by a wolf on Saturday because he could not exceed the proscribed number of steps for the Sabbath?  Probably not.

And here in lies the rub, for me at least.  Do we believe this mockery is effecting change?  Is this tearing down leading to a building up?  Does anyone really think Joel Osteen is reading this, much less motivated to start using the Bible correctly?  Do we think this helped any followers of Osteen?  Do we think it helped protesters in the streets?  Are modern worship services starting to tone it down after seeing how they are likenight clubs thanks to the Babylonian Bee?  Is the mocking of the anti-gluten diet craze really changing minds?  Of course not.  But is the conservative Reformed crowd being affected by this mockery?  We don’t make these mistakes, but what is the attitude portrayed toward those that have contemporary worship or were so upset by the election they took to the streets?  Is it compassion and love?  Even Jesus loved the Rich Young Ruler when he pointed out his sin and shortcoming.  Does this form of communication, which seems to be just for our entertainment, moving us to help the protesters in the street who need to know from where the only comfort in life and death comes, or does it make us look down our noses at them because they need a participation trophy? 

And let us also hold up the “do onto others” mirror that the Bible desires us to hold up.  Would Adam Ford want to be at the end of his mocking satire?  He has often pointed to his anxiety disorder as part of his journey that was very formative for him.  He takes anxiety medicine and has openlysatirized those who think you should not be taking medication for suchdisorders in some of his comics.  Would Adam think it good and funny satire if someone wrote an article with a title along the lines of “Blood tests confirm levels of sin (just like Diabetes), Jesus pill the answer”.  Would he even allow such as post on his Babylonian Bee?  According to a search on the Bee's sight, the answer is apparently no.  I am not saying that people with anxiety should not take medicine.  What I am saying is that this is a more complicated question than comparing it Diabetes.  Again the more the mockery the less the discussion.  And the other thing I am saying is that if he would not allow such an article, then he is being hypocritical about his support of satire/mocking.  His goal was to mock from a place of love, but if you are doing something to others that you would not be okay with being done back to you, you have failed the biblical test of love. 

The problem I have with what goes on today in places like the Babylonian Bee is that mockery is presented for mockery's sake.  The main audience is not even those who it is mocking.  Rather, it is those who already agree.  It is not tearing down for the purpose of building up, it is tearing down so we can all have a good laugh at those fools over there.  

This is a worrisome trend especially in the church.  

Blame Jon Stewart for the 2106 Election

It is hard not to be confused by how the American 2016 presidential election has come down to Clinton and Trump. They are hated by almost everyone and have the highest disapproval numbers ever.  How did this embarrassment happen? 

Obviously the answer is complicated, but let me suggest one reason you might not have considered.  Jon Stewart.  Stewart, the former host of the Daily Show, helped bring America to its knees and has led us to the farcical match up of Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton.  Let me explain.

In 1999, Stewart took over The Daily Show on Comedy Central, a news satire and talk show, turning its focus away from pop culture and toward politics and the national media.  He interviewed political guests such as presidential candidate John Kerry.  As host of this program, Stewart repeatedly criticized Crossfire, a current events debate program airing on CNN.  Eventually in 2004, the hosts of Crossfire invited him to be on their program as a guest.  In that appearance, he stated that Crossfire was hurting America, and he called the hosts “political hacks” and worse.  He rejected the concept of a two part only (liberal-conservative) worldview, and in turn he rejected the political discourse that took place on Crossfire.  Within three months, Crossfire was cancelled by CNN.  A little over a year after Stewart’s appearance, his own Daily Show launched a successful spin-off, The Colbert Report. 

Both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were comedy shows that garnered their laughs through mockery of politics, politicians, and political beliefs.  Both shows concentrated their jeering on conservatives with very little spent on the liberal/progressive side.  Originally this was explained by Stewart as simply a consequence of the Republicans presenting a bigger target since they were in power; however, when Barak Obama became President, both shows continued to focus their fire on Republicans, conservatives, and conventional values. 

The serious-minded debate show on CNN died, Daily Show ratings went up, especially among young people, and Liberal politicians noticed.  Not only did they all want to appear on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, but this joking-at-the-conservative's-expense began to be imitated by Progressive Liberals.  By the time of the 2016 presidential campaign, Stewart’s method of dealing with political opponents with mockery is the main way politics is done, and it is not a coincidence.     

Bill Maher is another comedian who reflects this trend.  From 1993 until 2002 he hosted a show called Politically Incorrect.  It was not as contentious as Crossfire, usually incorporating guests from various viewpoints speaking together in a light debate style on various topics.  The show was canceled before Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire, but well after The Daily Show was growing in popularity.  Maher then launched his own mocking show called Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO. This show has a much more liberal tone and jeers conservatives with jokes such as: “Conservatives don’t believe in facts.”  In 2008 he filmed a “documentary” titled Religulous, designed to make fun of religion and deter people from belief. 

In 2008 the people of Minnesota actually elected a comedian to the Senate, further bolstering this movement away from thoughtful, even-handed debate and toward sarcasm and mockery as a primary means of political expression.  The drive to destroy one’s opponents with ridicule rather than argumentation was well-established on the political Left and is evidenced in the fact that most people believe that Sarah Palin, Republican candidate for Vice President, said that she could see Russia from her backdoor, a statement which in reality came from a Saturday Night Live skit. 

Remember when then-candidate Obama was taking on Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination?  What helped sway the tide for Obama?  There are lots of factors, but one that stands out is Obama’s mocking, patronizing dismissal of Hillary as “You’re likable enough,” during a January 2008 debate.  Hillary’s likability became a regular concern for the rest of that election cycle.  It is a routine part of Obama’s arsenal, and he uses it effectively.  Rather than engaging in dialog and rational discussion with his rivals or even arguing like participants on Crossfire, President Obama ridicules his opponents a la Jon Stewart.

“But apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion,” he said. “At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them during debates. Now they’re worried about three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.”

In fact, this was a deliberate strategy of his campaign in 2012.  Ridiculing Mitt Romney became the path to winning.  It was implemented apparently on October 4.  He stopped speaking of lower expectations and began “adding a heavy dose of ridicule”.   Mitt Romney was caught by surprise when, during the second presidential debate on October 16, he was asked about his “binders full of women.”  The phrase was then used by both President Obama and Vice President Biden on the campaign trail to mock Romney. 

Hillary Clinton learned the lesson and now uses ridicule and mockery regularly.  Whether it is her “delete your account” tweet to Donald Trump, the hashtag #Trumpyourself, telling Trump she knows he lives in his own reality, or even her “basket of deplorables” comment, she uses mockery as a campaign tactic.  Secretary Clinton has imbibed deeply at the well of Stewart’s method of ridicule.

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens (Ecclesiastes 3:1).  This includes a time to laugh, but when we get confused and laugh at the wrong time, we end up with vanity and confusion. 

Jon Stewart’s rejection of political discourse in favor of sarcasm and ridicule as a means to promote political beliefs is an example of such confusion and vanity.  His behavior had the cover of “comedy” to prevent backlash or thoughtful disagreement.  Unfortunately, this approach has changed our culture so that comedy is now a weapon rather than a release and escape.  Jerry Seinfeld, a satirist in his own right, admits that he no longer performs on college campuses because the college kids don’t understand comedy and are too easily offended.  (And of course he was attacked for stating this.)  The reason, I believe, is that this generation of people in college grew up hearing comedy as a tool and a weapon.  Being the butt of a joke is not funny; it’s an attack.  Comedy’s purpose is now tearing others down, not making people laugh.  A similar incident occurred when comedian Jimmy Fallon interviewed candidate Donald Trump on the Tonight Show and good-naturedly joked with him as he does all his guests.  The progressive world, most notably Samantha Bee, the host of another Daily Show spinoff, attacked Fallon for his “softball” interview.  The next week Candidate Hillary Clinton appeared on the Tonight Show, and she mocked Fallon by giving him a bag full of softballs, but she did not complain when Fallon treated her just as he had treated Trump.  It is now expected that comedians use their comedy to accomplish a political goal.  Comedy is a weapon. 

But how does this give us Trump vs. Clinton?  Progressive liberals have mocked and ridiculed the conservative right for over a decade now.  The progressive left appears to be winning the Culture Wars, and candidates from the right who try to participate in debate are mocked out of the public square.  Enter Donald Trump.  Trump was already rather famous for his insulting treatment of people on his TV show The Apprentice.  The primary campaign began, and one by one, the other Republican candidates fell away before Trump’s onslaught of ridicule.  Some tried to fight back with ridicule and the subsequent Republican debate went down in the books infamously featuring an exchange on the size of the candidates’ hands, which served as a euphemism.  Senator Marco Rubio experienced some of his highest approval numbers after that exchange.  Ridicule wins.  The people on the conservative right are now embracing fighting fire with fire.  Ridicule with ridicule.  Senator Ted Cruz, perhaps the best debater in the group, embodied the final vestige of reasoned debate and policy knowledge.  And he, too, fell.  Trump won the primary using the Stewart method and backed by an electorate that’s tired of being mocked and eager for a candidate who can fight fire with fire.

It should not be surprising that eventually the conservative side pushed back and adopted the same mocking methodology.  Nor should it be surprising that they picked a professional mocker to do it.   The war is on, but it is no longer a war of ideas; it is a war of ridicule. 

Jon Stewart helped introduce us to this age where ridicule is reason and comedy is policy.  Now, no matter who wins, we are going to have a clown in the White House. 

More Hyde on the 4th Commandment

Hyde makes the claim that there is no way around the fact that the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath.  And the article and a good portion of the podcast are discussing the pronouncement of Dort concerning the Sabbath.  Rev. Hyde claims that this shows agreement with the Puritan position, and I disagree.  Now Dort is probably a bit closer than the Heidelberg to the Puritans and closer than the Second Helvetic Confession, and close to in-line with Jan Laski, but not in agreement with the Puritans. 

First let us remember that this is not the Synod of Dort that was all the Reformed from across the Continent.  This was the same synod, but the foreign delegates had left by this point.  It is what is called the ‘post-acta’ portion of the Synod.  So this is only the Netherlands.  A Netherlands that was in the midst of being highly influenced by the Puritans from England.  William Ames was currently ministering in the Netherlands and was serving as a help to the Synod President, and the Dutch had a church in London as well.  Thus the Dutch had internal divisions on this subject.  Gomarus was against the Puritan view and Voetius was for it.  Both at the Synod. 

Dort has six points regarding the 4^thCommandment.  The first point speaks of having a ceremonial and moral aspect.  The ceremonial nature of the commandment that includes the “rest on the seventh day” and the “strict” manner of observance according to point 2.  Hyde states the ceremonial aspects as the “day on which the Sabbath fell” and the “strictness” (Regulae. pg.171 see article link above).  But that is not what the text seems to say.  The word “rest” is included.  Hyde’s formulation assumes the Sabbath will continue, but that is actually what is being debated.  The moral portion, according to point 3, is one day a week needs to use for worship and all that gets in the way of that should be rested from or stopped.  So note that there is no equation of the seventh day with the first day.  Just one day a week is required.  The fourth point is the Sabbath of the Jews is abolished, and Sunday is to be hallowed.  This is a follow up on the ceremonial points, this is all abolished.  Strict observance is abolished.  The Sabbath is abolished.  No mention of a new Christian Sabbath.  The word Sabbath is used only here to say it is abolished.  Point 4 does seem to be saying that Sunday is the day appointed to worship, but it is not the same as saying it is the Sabbath.  The fifth point now references the long standing tradition of worshipping on Sunday.   It is saying that it is now a well-established tradition.  That should have weight.  Point 6 then speaks of consecrating the day to worship by resting from servile labor and all recreation that gets in the way of worship.  It is not a call to rest form all work, nor from all recreation.  So this is clearly less than the Westminster.  Still, it does go further than the Heidelberg.

Just in case anyone thinks I am crazy, Douma comments on Dort and the fourth commandment saying “the Synod did not come up with a strictly Puritan pronouncement” (The Ten Commandments pg.144).  He too argues it is a compromise statement. 

It is not a Puritan interpretation because the Puritans make rest on the day as well as worship part of the continuing moral force of the commandment.  The Heidelberg does not.  This pronouncement from Dort does not.  It says you have to rest from stuff in order to worship, but that is not the same as what the Puritans are arguing for.  They want all work on the day to cease (including recreation).  Rest itself is part of the moral force not simply as an aide to worship, but rest for rest’s sake. 

It should be noted that Dort, as well as the Westminster, downplay the everyday portion of the 4^th commandment.  The Heidelberg and earlier Reformers emphasized resting from your evil works all the days of your life.  It is not found in this pronouncement by Dort (although perhaps outside of its intention), nor is it mentioned in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. 

Rev. Hyde and the Sabbath

One cannot click around for more than a few seconds before running across someone slobbering all over the Puritans and talking of their greatness.  Everyone wants to be part of Puritanism now and show how Puritanism is Reformation theology down the line.  Rather than admitting that Reformed theology has some breadth to it, many desire to simply make everyone into a Puritan.  No example is better than the idea of saying there is no difference between the Continental and Puritan view of the Sabbath or 4^th Commandment. 

The latest example of this is Rev. Daniel Hyde.  He is a guest on the Christ the Center Podcast Episode 450 (congrats on that number by the way) and has an article being republished in the Confessional Presbyterian arguing that everything was always Puritan Sabbatarianism.  Rev. Hyde and the hosts make this claim at about the 5 minute mark.  They go on to talk about how sometimes the application is different, but the principle is the same.  And proof is offered in that the URC is very strict on the Sabbath and a lot of Presbyterians are not.  And it must be said this is true; however, it is because the URC holds the Puritan view of the Sabbath not because there is no such thing as a Continental view.  From this point on in the podcast they talk of the “myth” of the Continental view or the “so-called” Continental view. 

Rev. Hyde does attempt to prove this from the Heidelberg Catechism Q.103.  At the 18:31 mark and again at the 20:30 mark, Rev. Hyde quotes from the HC and reads the answer as “and that I especially on the Sabbath, that is the day of rest, . . .”  He makes a big deal about the inclusion of the word Sabbath.  The problem is the word Sabbath is not in the answer.  Now it is my understanding that while the URC has adopted the Three Forms they did not adopt specific wording or versions until this past Synod (which I do not have access to), so it might be in whatever version Rev. Hyde is using.  However, Ursinus’s commentary on the catechism does not include Sabbath, nor does any RCUS version of it, nor does the Christian Reformed Church, or really any version I can find.  The Heidelberg avoids the word Sabbath.  Hyde concludes at the 21:20 mark by saying “There is no way around it, The Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath.” 

I disagree.  Rev. Hyde has told us the Dutch are real strict about Sunday’s but he has not shown us that it comes from the Confessions nor has he dealt with the ample proof that the Lord’s Day is not the Christian Sabbath.  Remember this quote from the Second Helvetic Confession Chapter 24 “Besides we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and not the Sabbath, and that with a free observation.”  The Second Helvetic makes a distinction between Lord’s Day and Sabbath.  Not an equation.  And remember the Second Helvetic is the single most widely adopted Confession of the Reformation.  Calvin’s 1545 Catechism is similarly focused on saying that “the observance of rest is part of the ceremonies of the ancient law, which was abolished at the coming of Jesus Christ” (Q168).  The Lord’s Day is not the Christian Sabbath, and if I read Calvin right, not even required to be Sunday.  Add to that Ursinus’s Major and Minor Catechisms, which speak of honoring the ministry and removing hindrances, but fail to call the Lord’s Day the Sabbath and specifically says the time and place is set by the church.  Also the Larger Emden Catechism, which gets closer to what Hyde wants, states the external Sabbath is maintained “when the church of God is honored in its office and ministry” (q.41) and goes on to state this time is set by the church (43). 

In the end, Hyde’s claim that the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath is the heart of the dispute.  That is what makes one a Puritan Sabbatarian.  If you believe the Lord’s Day, Sunday, is the Sabbath on a new Christianified day, then you hold to the Puritan view.  If you believe the fourth commandment is really about resting from your evil works all the days of your life and a helpful pattern to aid our weakness in calling us together to worship once a week, then you hold to the Continental view.  If you believe cessation of labor is the obedient response to a holy day instituted by God then you hold to the Puritan view, if you believe cessation of labor and physical rest is not really the point of the commandment then you hold to the Continental view of the Sabbath.  They are different and they have existed since the Reformation.  People have to stop denying it.  If you think one is right, then argue for it, but don’t pretend everyone has always held to that view.  It is okay to say you think Calvin was wrong or that Bullinger was wrong.  It is not okay to say that they really meant the same things as the Westminster.

I will deal with Hyde’s discussion of Dort in another post.

Activism vs. Action

The Gospel Coalition has a blog up trying to figure out why the videos showing Planned Parenthood selling baby parts did not have any affect on anything.  They have five main reasons including over estimating the pro-life mood of the country, focusing on illegality vs. immorality, not coordinating with other pro-life groups, not anticipating the attacks, and not having a marketing strategy. 

I agree with some of those and not with others, but I don't think this is why they failed to change any laws or politicians on the matter.  And the reason is simple.  Today people have replaced action with activism.  Success is not measured in change, but in hashtags created. 

Let me explain.  I think if you were to have asked people in congress and many they would think that they did an all out assault on Planned Parenthood, and they would be surprised so many think nothing happened.  Even the article admits that dozens of investigations were launched, media attention garnered, and even congressional investigations.  This is activism.  But since nothing changed, there was no action.  Congress did not put forth any new law.  The FBI did not prosecute.  The laws were not changed.  Funding was not cut.  No action. 

This is the world we live in.  Think for a moment about all the stunningly awful things that have happened.  Email scandal - no action.  Benghazi - no action.  IRS scandal - no action.  Lots of talk about all of it,  No action. 

But let us leave the realm of politics.  And we can see the same behavior.  Boko Haram kidnaps girls and forces them into slavery.  No action.  A hashtag was created and sad faced pictures posted.  So activism was done.  Now we can all move on.  Terrorist attack in Boston.  Hey we can now all buy Boston Strong t-shirts, but no real action to fight terrorism happened.  We can change our FB profile to make our pic covered with a French flag, or we can "pray for Nice", but we will do nothing else.  Action is not the goal.  Activism is. 

Today it is enough to be seen to be caring.  It is about looking good and being on the right side of history.  It is not about participating in history, or writing history or doing anything at all.  For sometime one's intentions have been the measure of whether something was good or bad.  Outcomes were unimportant.  That social program was meant to help the poor.  It does not really matter if it does or not, the intention was good.  The intention of putting the bands in the church is to be evangelistic, so it is good.  It doesn't matter whether we ought to put bands in churches, the intentions make it good.  This is simply the next logical step.  I just need you to see my intentions, I don't need to do anything.

So why did the Center for Medical Progress expose on the evil of Planned Parenthood fail?  Because we live in a "look at me" combined with a "do nothing" culture. 

Taylor is not Trump

Recently Politico began a stream of thought that the Republicans could be the Whigs because Trump is like Zachary Taylor.  Sadly, it is an article that understands little of history and in fact are just making stuff up.

The Whig Party did dissolve not long after winning the Presidency, but it was not Zachary Taylor’s fault.  In fact, the Politico article skims past the actual reasons.  Taylor was close to the perfect Whig candidate, a candidate who stood for next to nothing.  The problem with the Whig party was that it was always a party that simply opposed Andrew Jackson and his principles.  They were not united by any real set of beliefs.  Thus, the quotes calling the nomination of Taylor a betrayal of Whig principles are laughable because there were no Whig principles.  Even the article notes it was a “strained” coalition of Northern and Southerners who were against Jackson.  The quotes from abolitionists like Greeley are not universal for the Whigs because they had a large group of Southerners.  Taylor was chosen because he could stop the party from splitting by not having a real position on slavery.  This was always the Whig way.  Clay stands as the perfect example.  He owned slaves, but was not really for slavery, but not really an abolitionist either.  Clay is the picture of the Whig Party, and it slowly became an impossible place to be.  That is hardly Taylor’s fault. 

It is also not exactly fair to claim Taylor an outsider.  Yes, he had never held office, but he was a general, and that had always been a path to the Presidency.  Washington, Jackson, and Harrison had all be war heroes.  And every one of them had been opposed by people for not having the right background to be President.  Yet, we can see from the way James K. Polk managed that war that he very much understood the war hero who comes out of the Mexican American war will be a candidate for President.  And in fact, both major generals, Scott and Taylor, stood for nomination.  Being a general during war was at this time in American history, an acceptable path to the Presidency. 

In fact, the election of Taylor and his resulting Presidency (and that of Fillmore who followed after Taylor’s death) was probably the high point of the Whig movement.  It is during this time that the Whig party controls congress as well as the Presidency.  It is during this time that Clay pushes through the Compromise of 1850, with the help of Stephen Douglas.  This adds California to the rolls as a free state.  No minor feat.  It kept America together during that struggle, and that is exactly what the Whig platform had always been.  Together.  This led to them ignoring and compromising over and over.  Their greatest member, Henry Clay, is known as the Great Compromiser.  Their death came when the public no longer wanted compromise, but a more permanent solution.  The Whigs failed to see this and died.

In the end the Whig Party died not because of the lack of success that Taylor had as President.  In fact, he did not even make it out of his first term before dying.  Taylor had little impact on the Whig Party’s ultimate doom.  The election of Taylor does show the seeds of the ultimate doom of the Whig’s but not because of Taylor, but because of the presence and success on the ballot of Martin Van Buren.  Van Buren the former Democrat President ran as a Free Soil candidate and garnered lots of votes.  Not enough to win anything, but enough that he changed the election.  And it was enough that people should have seen that this issue was too important to ignore.  But both parties did just that.  They ignored it.  Thus, by 1852 the party has been badly wounded by a refusal to take sides on the slavery issue as evidenced by the Compromise of 1850.  And it is at that convention, when Southerners prevent Millard Fillmore from running for another term, and get General Winfield Scott as the nominee, that the first meetings of what would become the Republican Party emerge.  Scott is a beautiful example of the Whig Party.  Scott himself was anti-slavery, but ran on the platform that accepted the Fugitive Slave Law.  His personal stance killed him in the South, and the party’s stance killed him in the North.  He was crushed in the election.  And by 1856, the Republicans have fielded a candidate of their own.  And by1858 the Republican Party dominated the North.  Republicans had a clear message and stance.  “Free soil, free silver, and free men”.  This addressed the issue of the day decisively.  Southern Whigs turned to the Know Nothing Party, and even the Democrat Party as they feared the rise of anti-slavery parties, like the Republican and Free Soil parties, in the north.  Although one can argue the 1860 Constitution Union Party was what was left of the Whig Party.  Again, its main platform.  Together.  Unity.  Avoid the issues. 

If there is a lesson for the Republican Party it is that taking a stand is important as is keeping up with what is important to the people.  I do not believe Trump will be the death of the Republican Party.  Without a third party to siphon off voters, there will be no death for the GOP.  If the Libertarians gain a massive increase, then maybe, it is the beginning of the end.  But the Libertarians do not run candidates well for other offices. 

Sadly, this comparing Trump to Taylor is very unfair to Taylor, misses the real message of the Whigs, and is just bad history.  I know people want to think this is the end, but it is probably not.  And that message is the one that really ought to scare us. 

Celebrity Pastor and Seminaries

You read a lot today about the Celebrity Pastor and the problem and even how to fix it.  Opinions vary on the causes and solutions.  Sometimes it is an overhaul that includes no multisite churches, or the Evangelical Industrial Complex, or calls to humility and proper ambition, or even just simple accountability.  But I wonder if there is another factor . . . seminaries.

Today the vast majority of seminaries use “celebrity” professors as a way to lure you to their seminary.  These seminaries almost always have at least one well-liked, well published professor.  The better the finances of the seminary the more publishing by more professors, usually also equals more students.  You don’t need me to name the big names at each seminary you probably know them off the top of your head.  Besides the problem here is not in professors who write good books, but in the attraction students have to them. 

Modern seminaries also love distinctions.  You need something that sets your seminary apart.  What makes Westminster in Escondido, CA different than the rest?  What makes Mid America distinct so that you should go there?  Yes, this is promoted and encouraged.  And it is hard to blame the seminaries for doing it.  It is what businesses are supposed to do.  Carve out your place and grow that place.  And independent seminaries are no different. 

So perhaps part of the “celebrity pastor” begins with seminary.  We want future ministers to go to the seminaries with big names, but then when they get into the pastorate we don’t want them to pursuing having a big name or follow other pastors with big names. 

If we really want to fight against the cult of celebrity, we have to fight it everywhere, including in our seminaries.

Rethinking Seminaries Part 6

The Apprentice Model of the Seminary has many advantages over an academic model.  First and foremost among them is that it returns training of ministers to the church. 

Today in the Academic model most Presbyterian and Reformed churches garner graduates from many independent seminaries around the country.  Independent seminaries like Reformed Theological Seminary (insert whichever city name here), Mid America Reformed Seminary, Westminster Seminary California, Westminster Theological Seminary, New Geneva, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the list goes on.  In almost every instance the diploma serves as proof that the man is ready to at least sit for exams.  Most denominations have a program that oversees men pursuing the ministry, but it often is little more than checking up on studies at the seminary.  There a few denominations that have denominational seminaries, but they still have the problems of the academic model.  The CRC and Calvin Theological seminary exemplify the tail of the seminary wagging the dog because the academic institution was not so much under the church as over it.  The Canadian Reformed Church also has a seminary in Hamilton.  It too is on an academic model.  Even here the graduates are assumed to be ready for service in the church without really ever having been around serving the church.

The Apprentice Model gives a different kind of oversight for the denomination.  Each candidate would be intimately known, along with his family, and his gifts and abilities along with his spiritual temperament would have been assessed regularly, by both the pastor serving as the mentor, but also the elders.  The pastor would be able to train him theologically, and when he was ready, he would then begin to get his toe into ministry.  He would be able to do some guided teaching, maybe lead catechism, eventually give a sermon or two.  The elders would be able to give feedback and see all of it.  The apprentice would meet and sit in on Consistory or Session meetings and learn the value of elders up close and know how the system works.  The giftedness in teaching could actually be evaluated and not just his giftedness at writing a paper.  A paper and a sermon are not the same thing.  Being able to read Turretin and teach 1^st graders are not the same thing.  This way the church has complete oversight over both the instruction and the student.  If the student is not cut out for the ministry, he can be gently told, and the apprenticeship can stop.

This is direct oversight by the church over every area of ministerial training.  It is not mediated through an independent contractor, who may have other motivations or not share your ideals. 

It is better for the student as well because he has not had to uproot his family, quit his job, and sink thousands of dollars into something that he may not be called to do or cut out for.  He would be able to see what ministry was first hand, and see if he still felt this was his calling.  He would be able to do so at low cost and low risk, so that if either he was not cut out for it or decided he was not called to do it, an easy exit would be painless for him and his family. 

The Presbytery and Classis could then proceed to a theological exam to see if he was knowledgable enough for the ministry.  Frankly, this is the part that most denominations do well.  The exams are great to discover knowledge.  Where they are weak is in character, calling, and commitment.  These are all addressed already by the church when the church is the one actually doing the teaching and overseeing.

Sure no method is fool proof.   But a church that has tried the student, taught the student, and lived with the student for years would be able to come before the Classis or Presbytery and give an honest and open account of the spiritual character and commitment of the individual, who himself would have a better understanding of his internal calling. 

Returning training to the church in the Apprentice Model gives the church back the ability to know the men they make into ministers. 

Rethinking Seminaries Part 5

So what is the better way than seminaries?  I think it is the apprenticeship model. 

The whole world used apprenticeships for every kind of vocation for centuries.  You go and stay with a person already in the vocation.  You learn from him, are taught by him, get hands on experience that ends up helping both you and the man already in the job, and then you are ready and you go out on your own.  The same principle is easily applicable to ministry.

One could easily argue that this is the model used in the New Testament.  Jesus had twelve disciples.  They each went out and they appeared to train up men and send them out.  Paul for example always seemed to have men around him.  Timothy, Titus, Luke, and a host of others.  Barnabas could be argued to have been with Mark or maybe he started off around those at Jerusalem like Peter.  Mark would later be with Barnabas.  Mark is usually (according to tradition) with Peter too.  But at the very least we can say the Apprenticeship model fits with Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 4:6-16 and other verses.  I do not argue this is the only way, I just think it a better way that what we are doing now.

The basics of this model are people who desire to get into the ministry go to be with a pastor, perhaps even their local pastor, who then apprentices the man.  He takes him under his wing, teaches him, and gives him firsthand experience in the ministry.  And I think there is a big role here for elders in that church as well. 

I can hear people already complaining that this is not academic enough.  But yes, academics would be involved.  It would simply be done on the Cambridge / Oxford system, sometimes known as the Tutorial System.  The pastor would be assign readings, the student would do them on his own, and the duo would discuss.  Oral communication would be at a premium, which is the way an eventual pastorate would be.  Writing could be required to help people organize their thoughts.  I disagree that this would be a lowering of actual knowledge gained.  I simply think this would return pastoral education to a way in which people actually were trained and prepared for the pastorate.

Having ever so briefly outlined the model I recommend, I will in future posts outline some benefits of this model.

Rethinking Seminaries Part 4

Seminaries present problems because they are based on an academic model.  This means that like any graduate school, you have to pick up and move to take years of classes.  It is true that today many seminaries offer a lot of work over the internet, but that is just watering down the actual point of the seminary, class room instruction. 

Adam Parker penned a very nice letter to his wife about her wonderful labor during his five years in seminary, and I don’t want to diminish the love and care this letter shows to his wife.  I want to emphasize the problem with seminaries this letter shows. 

Adam notes that it took 17 years after his becoming convinced he had a call to ministry to get to the place where he could go to seminary.  Seventeen years!!!!  Now, it was probably lengthened by his marriage and having children, but he did not even meet his wife until two years after he had decided he was called to the ministry.  Adam knew he was called to serve God as a pastor, but took 17 years before he was able to start training for ministry and another 5 to complete it.  In other words if Adam felt called to the ministry at age 22, he is finally able to begin following that call at age 44.  The main reason for the delay is seminary.

Seminaries are expensive.  They usually have multiple professors (three at least) who need full time salaries, and probably a full time fundraiser.  Also they are going to need some part time staff like a secretary or two, maybe a janitor, and probably one professor who only teaches from time to time, but makes the catalog look better.  This does not include insurance, a building, and travel expenses, promotional material, and office supplies.  We could go on, but the point is it takes money and lots of it to run a seminary.  At least a portion of that is going to come from the student in tuition. 

Seminaries also take time.  Remember the whole model is class room based, so we have to be in a class room for classes.  You need to be in class to earn three credit hours for each class.  There are academic standards to be met, so you can’t just pretend a class earns three credit hours.  You actually have to meet enough to earn it.  Plus you need to be doing out of class work, and so many hours per every hour in class is expected (Academic standards again).  And you need to do it for at least three years so that the degree looks academically rigorous enough.  This makes full time employment during school difficult.  If you have full time employment, it makes full time school difficult, expanding the number of years you are there. 

I don’t know how old Adam is, but what I do know is that seminary has cost him 22 years of serving the church and following his calling.  Yes, he apparently has preached some while in seminary.  That is good.  The Jackson area benefits from having so many students able to help with preaching.  But, guest preaching during seminary is more like filling in than working in the church. 

It is amazing to think that the way we train people to work in the church so far removes them from the church.  It takes them into a setting they will never see again in church work.  And it stops them from actually being able to do what they feel called to do for something like 22 years.  There has to be a better way.

Rethinking Seminaries Part 3

One of the fundamental planks of Dr. Pipa’s defense of seminaries is the superiority of Princeton to other methods of training men for the ministry. 

There are somethings that cannot be denied about Princeton.  Princeton was a place of great learning.  There is no doubt those who graduated had a tremendous education.  Princeton made a bold and beautiful stand for orthodoxy for a little over 100 years.  That cannot be denied either.  Nor can it be denied that in 1929 Princeton Seminary went liberal. 

Yes, it is true Princeton was orthodox for more than 100 years and that is longer than every other seminary, but it still went liberal.  But, it must also be noted that remaining orthodox for 100 years is not the same as being the best way to train pastors.  The stand for orthodoxy is impressive precisely because of how liberal most seminaries are and how fast they go liberal.  This really ought to be seen as the exception that proves the rule that seminaries are not the best way to educate men for the ministry. 

But let us look beyond the fight for orthodoxy.  For here is the real key to the discussion.  Were the men who graduated from Princeton good ministers, better prepared than those who came before them being trained in a different manner? 

Think about the great graduates of Princeton Theological Seminary.  You think of men like Charles Hodge, Casper Witsar Hodge Jr., Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, and J. Gresham Machen.  You know what these men had in common?  They never served a church as pastor.  B.B. Warfield was an evangelist briefly and stated supply a couple of times, but never a full time pastor.  And these are not the only names that fit this bill either (O.T. Allis, James Moffat, and J.A. Alexander for example).  Princeton had trouble training men for ministry.  Listen to the evaluation of David Calhoun, a Princeton Seminary supporter, commenting on Princeton ignoring complaints from the student body in the early 1900’s.  “Princeton had maintained faithfully the founder’s priorities in promoting ‘solid learning’ and ‘piety of heart’, but it had lost something of Alexander’s and Miller’s ability to teach and model for the students skills of ministry” (Princeton Seminary Vol. 2 pg. 269).  Or again, Princeton faculty “concentrated their energies on fighting to maintain the legacy that they had inherited from Archibald Alexander, Samuel Miller, and Charles Hodge.  However, in Old Princeton’s desperate struggle, attention to some very good things was lessened.  Sturdy biblical exposition, great preaching, and more evangelistic and missionary zeal – along with its stalwart defense of the faith – would have strengthened the Princeton cause” (Ibid. pg. 398).  Calhoun explains why this was the case, “It was difficult to find the scholar-pastor-preacher combination to fill the need, and there was apparently some reluctance on the part of the faculty to develop this department fully, fearing that it would detract from the more “academic” work of the seminary” (Ibid., pg216). 

And there lies my chief complaint about the modern seminary.  It is based on the “academic” model, and what will always be stressed above all else is academics.  Dr. Pipa is holding Princeton out as a standard even though Princeton willingly sacrificed preaching and practical pastoral theology in favor of academics. 

Princeton did produce wonderful scholars and theologians.  Some of the best in American History without a doubt.  They produced not only replacements for themselves as professors, but also filled the chairs of other theological seminaries.  Men like William Henry Campbell (professor of languages at New Brunswick Seminary, and later President of Rutgers) who followed the Princeton theology, and some who didn’t like John Williamson Nevin (at Mercersburg Seminary), and some who were in the middle like James Petigru Boyce (founder of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).  And for the record none of those men served as a pastor for any real amount of time.  In the end, Princeton failed to produce enough solid biblical preachers and pastors to combat the worldly influence and the church’s slide toward liberalism.  And producing solid biblical preachers was the weakest part of the Seminary.  Obviously there were many other factors in the Presbyterian Church’s slide into liberalism, but Princeton’s failure in the area of pastor training cannot be overlooked or excused either. 

After all this is a discussion of the best way to train men for the ministry, training men to be pastors, not training men to be future seminary professors. 

Rethinking Seminaries Part 2

Continuing a discussion about seminaries started from Dr. Pipa’s article “Seminary Education” from the Confessional Presbyterian 2007, we move into the discussion of how seminaries came into existence historically.

Dr. Pipa begins with the catechetical school in Alexandria.  This began as a place to train new converts, but apparently at some point begins training men for the ministry too.  Dr. Pipa admits that this first seminary fails and leads the church into error because of its foundation on the allegorical approach and Greek Philosophy.  This example then seems to be as much against seminaries as for them.

The Middle Ages presents the monasteries as the equivalent of seminaries.  Here Dr. Pipa suggests the monks were often better educated than the priests, and he points to Jerome in Palestine and Cassiodorus in Italy.  The problem here is he often neglects how in the middle ages the monks were bigger problems too.  It is the monks of Egypt who kill Bishop Flavius of Constantinople at the Robber Council of Ephesus.  It is the monks who demand the reinstatement of images and the Second Council of Nicaea while many priests were opposed to the images.  Leaving out such prominent negative examples seems to cast doubt on the supremacy of this method of training men for the ministry.  One could also make the argument that training men to be monks is not the same as training men for the ministry, but we will not pursue that avenue. 

I must admit that I am a little surprised Dr. Pipa leaves out the school of Charlemagne.  Perhaps because it was not meant to be for men going into the ministry, but just people in general.  Although it seems probable that some of Charlemagne’s illegitimate children were educated here and ended up in the ministry like Hugo and Drogo.  It was here Charlemagne gathered Alcuin, Theodulf of Orleans, Einhard, and others helped create a Caroligian Renaissance.  If Dr. Pipa ought to include counter examples, so should I. 

Dr. Pipa then points to the early Universities that helped spawn the Reformation.  The University system clearly aided the rise of the Reformation with the majority of Reformation leaders coming from Universities.  However, this could also serve as a counter example.  The point of the University was to turn out men in the Roman Catholic Church, but failed miserably by letting people read the Bible and allowing criticism of the church and non-conformity.  While these university/seminaries were great for the Reformation they failed in their job to provide an educated clergy for the Roman Catholic Church.

Dr. Pipa also notes the early American colleges that were meant for training ministers.  Harvard was founded just a few years after the colony itself was founded.  It was clearly important to the Puritan men.  He goes onto say that when “Harvard began to slip, Yale was formed; when Yale began to slip, Princeton developed. (pg.225)”  This is true, but shouldn’t this be another sign of the problems with seminaries?  And if we continue to look at this trend when doctrinal divisions arise the parties often responded with their own college.  College of Delaware was Old Side to combat Princeton (New Side).  Kings and Queens college were founded by opposing sides of the Dutch Reformed church.  We could go on.  This seems to point to a controversial nature embedded in seminaries that I think is part of the problem.  More on that to come. 

But Dr. Pipa sees some of these problems.  His answer to the failing results of seminaries is found in systematic theology, classical education, and a confessionally united faculty.  This, for Dr. Pipa, protects against the slide to liberalism by demanding confessional fidelity as well as not jettisoning systematic courses for practical theology (a problem he believes many modern seminaries have pg.228).  Much of this is taken from Princeton Seminary and their founding documents and teaching with slight updating to hit modern problems and issues. 

Yet a glaring problem is that Dr. Pipa assumes the greatness and superiority of Princeton rather than actually proving it (probably for lack of space in the article).  It is however an issue that deserves closer attention.

Rethinking Seminaries Part 1

In the 2007 edition of the Confessional Presbyterian (vol. 3), Dr. Pipa has an article entitled “Seminary Education”.  And it is a defense of seminaries as the way to educate our future pastors.  I would like to challenge that article because I am no longer convinced seminaries are the way to go. 

Dr. Pipa begins by admitting that formerly Presbyterian ministers were the best educated men in town, and that is no longer true.  He admits that this may be the worse trained generation of ministers ever and points not just to not being the best educated, but also to the state preaching and churchmanship as proof.  He also freely admits the high cost of maintaining seminaries serves as another strike against seminaries, but he continues to believe it the best idea. 

Dr. Pipa then goes into a biblical defense of seminaries.  The main biblical support for seminaries is the “sons of the prophets” found in places 1 Samuel 10:5.  Dr. Pipa’s main argument appears to be that there was a group of people called “sons of the prophets” who appear during the time of Samuel and continue and appear to dwell with prophets and serve them.  Dr. Pipa argues that from these men are drawn future prophets, so they are sort of a prophet in training.  His proof for the assertion that most prophets came from the school of the prophets comes from Amos 7:14 where Amos denies being a sons of the prophet, but rather a man who shepherded.  He claims they studied and became the historians of the divided kingdom and he points to verses like 2 Chronicles 12:15 as proof.  Although those verses speak of Iddo the Seer and names prophets, it never says the person was from the Sons of the Prophets.  Dr. Pipa also assumes that bible training would have taken place as well as musical training and poetry readying them for life as a prophet.  Dr. Pipa concludes then the Sons of the Prophets were OT seminaries. 

Now, I think this is shaky proof at best.  We don’t really have an example of an attender of the “sons of the prophets” becoming a prophet.  Amos specifically says he was not one.  Elisha is not one despite the Sons of the Prophets being around.  Isaiah is not one.  Jeremiah is not one.  Ezekiel is not one.  Thoes three were priests.  Daniel does not appear to be one.  Neither does Zephaniah, who may also have been a priest.  These are a lot of exceptions.  The best picture of someone who was a son of the prophet being a prophet himself is in 1 Kings 20:35 where a certain man of the sons of the prophets commanded someone to strike him and he died when he did not, and that son of the prophet then delivered a prophetic message to Ahab.  Dr. Pipa is assuming that the rest of the prophets came from the sons of the prophets. 

But let me put forth an alternative suggestion.  Perhaps these sons of the prophets are the source for the 400 false prophets of 1 Kings 22.  Here there are four hundred men who are pretending to be prophets of God, but are accepted by the king and many others as legitimate prophets.  I have read some who suggest these are the 400 prophets of Ashoreth that are not mentioned as being killed by Elijah on Mt. Carmel, but how would they be accepted as legitimate if they all switched from Ashoreth to Jehovah?  Something has happened to make people believe these prophets are legitimate.  And what of the false prophets like Hananiah opposing Jeremiah in places like Jeremiah 28?  Could they not be products of the sons of the prophets?  It might help us understand why so many listened to the wrong voices.  Would this not mean that the Bible is really telling us seminaries are dangerous and should be avoided at all costs because they will lead the church astray?  This seems to fit a bit better with more modern historical evidence like Calvin Seminary and the CRC or the Mercersburg Seminary and the RCUS. 

But in the end, the Bible is not saying either what I just put forth or what Dr. Pipa puts forth.  We are both drawing conclusions through assumptions.  The Bible in the end is not saying anything about seminaries.  Yes, it teaches we should have an educated clergy (see 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 2).  But, the how of that education is really not spelled out.  This gives the church freedom to do what they deem best to educate men for the ministry. 

Next I will look at some of Dr. Pipa’s historical points. 

Trump, Evangelicals, and the Mega-church

Donald Trump.  He is the front runner to be the next President of the United States.  And he is doing so with large evangelical support.  This has many baffled and searching for explanations.  Is it pent up rage?  Is it an anti-establishment mood?  People are desperately searching for an answer to the question how could evangelicals vote for Donald Trump?

I have my own theory.  Mega-Churches. 

I don’t think we should be all that surprised that Donald Trump is winning evangelical votes.  The surprise is based off the premise that evangelicals care about spiritual issues, and thus they are not only going to pay attention to issues like abortion, but also pay attention to the content of one’s character.  This I think is no longer true.  The new model evangelical is a mega-church evangelical.  And this model is different. 

According to some studies at least 10% of Protestants today attend a mega-church each Sunday.  The number is probably a little higher when we limit it to evangelicals and remove the liberal mainline Protestants from the equation.  The number is even bigger if you count the churches that are imitating mega-churches, but have not achieved the actual magic number to be a mega-church (which is 2,000).  This is a significant number of evangelicals attending mega-churches or mega-churches-lite.  What is it then that makes this group so different? 

The answer is the mega-churches and mega-church attender are generally personality driven not doctrinally driven.  The day of the evangelical choosing based on beliefs is long gone.  Today churches are chosen based on the personality behind the pulpit (personality should not be confused with character).  Evangelicals choose their church based on names like Andy Stanley, Mark Driscoll, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and Craig Groschel.  Evangelicals are not choosing churches based on names like United Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Reformed Church in the United States.  And these mega-church pastors for the most part are not stopping at one church.  No, they have multi-site churches today so that even more people can choose to come to their church even if they are in Seattle and the worshiper is in Phoenix.  These mega-church pastors have larger than life personalities, and it comes across in person or through the TV screen worship broadcast.  The mega-church is at its base a personality driven phenome. 

Just in case you disagree let us just review some facts.  Crystal Cathedral evaporated into bankruptcy once Robert Schuller left the pulpit.  His own son could not do anything about it.  Now the church has been sold.  Bill Hybels saw attendance at his church plummet when he stepped back to be the “international minister”.  Jimmy Swaggart had 7,000 worshippers on a Sunday before his scandal.  After his second scandal the church dropped to about 500 on a Sunday.  Now that he is back on airwaves again, the church is back up to about 5,000.  Mars Hill did not survive Mark Driscoll’s departure.  In fact at least a couple of the satellite locations completely closed as well.  One could go on. 

So if this is how many evangelicals choose church, why are we surprised this is how they choose a President?  Evangelicals are voting for Trump because they are attracted to big personalities and beliefs are not so important any more.  Trump is easily the biggest personality of the bunch, and the fact he had his own TV show doesn’t hurt either. 

This is the new reality for the evangelical movement.  Gone are the days of beliefs, standards, and fundamentals.  Here are the days of personalities, controversies, and bombast.  The church always leads the way for culture and this disappointing trend is no different.