For context on this reflection, here’s an email that I wrote to those subscribed to my mailing list:
Hello Friends,
A week ago Sunday–four days after The Epiphany of our Lord and the riot at the capitol–I felt compelled to preach a sermon on the undeniable connection between trumpism and evangelicalism. My hope was to rouse awareness of this connection and to encourage change in the stories we tell and in the systems in which we participate.
Since preaching that sermon I've received a fair amount of feedback and on this day–the eve of MLK Day–I feel emboldened to respond. You'll find that the reflection I’m sharing with you is more fiery than my usual reflections. Yet, during these days of hate and violence, especially in Jesus' name, I struggle to imagine a different tenor. Religious reformation is desperately needed and many of the evangelical reasons for why such reformation is unnecessary, I find, are incoherent. Worse, I find such reasoning slowing progress and complicit in fomenting today's violence.
As always, feel free to be in touch. If you find anything worthwhile, thought provoking, or encouraging, please pass it along to others. More so, please consider introducing others to the work of Pearl Church. I believe now, more than ever, that expressing a sacred story and extending a common table that animate life by love, is the kind of light that will help to overcome today's darkness.
Sincerely yours,
Mike Roth
To begin, if you’ve yet to listen to my sermon titled “The Epiphany Gap” from January 10, 2021, please pause from reading this reflection and listen to that first. You can do so, here.
As you can probably imagine, this sermon roused a fair amount of response. The majority of the responses were warm and filled with gratitude. I heard from numerous people—primarily women, LGBTQ folks, and those for whom Christian faith had become bad news—who made a point to send along encouragement. For too long I was complicit in story-telling and religious systems that contributed to these people’s harm and exclusion, and it felt invigorating to participate in trying to name and to intentionally undo those same stories and systems. However, I heard from others—primarily white, straight men (as far as I can tell) for whom evangelical faith still works—who sent me reasons for why my sermon was off-base, and even “ungodly.” Rather than try and respond to each of them personally, I’ve decided to make my response public. I very much doubt that my explanations will change the minds of those who I made upset, but who knows. As Jesus told Nicodemus, “The wind (pneuma/spirit) blows wherever it pleases.” Perhaps an evangelical mind will be changed.
Before diving in let me be clear, I’ve no particular bone to pick with any of the churches that I named in my sermon. Rather, I’m using these churches’ religious stories and systems, and the criticism that I’ve received as exemplars of evangelical thought. It’s evangelicalism as a whole that I’m intending to respond to and critique.
“Give Them Time”
One comment that I received asked me to give evangelical churches time. In short, the point being made was, these churches are evolving and change takes time. I understand that, but when is enough, enough?
On April 16, 1963 Dr. Martin Luther King Junior wrote his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in which he declared:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Of course, Dr. King was writing about black rights and racial equality, which last summer made clear—almost sixty years after he wrote his letter—are still in need of much progress and reformation. However, I believe that his words also prophetically call out contemporary, white, and moderate churches (i.e.: evangelical churches) that continue to use similar reasons for keeping women from leadership and the LGBTQ community from full inclusion. “Give them time.” No! I am fed up with white, straight men in leadership positions who, in their privilege—because they are able to lead, speak, and belong—can move at a snail’s pace in rectifying wrongs and making bold and necessary changes, today.
In 2015, when our church decided to broaden its marriage practice, I met with a wise and seasoned pastor who pastored in a mainline denomination. At the time, he had recently concluded leading his church through a three-year process with guidance from his denomination, in which the attempt was made to decide whether or not to become an affirming church. The result? He told me, “Mike, I had so much hope when we entered into this process. But at the end of three years we were more divided and people were more entrenched in their perspectives than when we began.” Although my experience didn’t last three years, it was very much the same. After several months of discussion it became clear that our board could talk until it was blue in the face and we would still disagree.
At some point, a decision must be made and I’m convinced that decisions for more diversity and more inclusion are decisions that gesture toward the heart of the Divine as it’s revealed in the life of Jesus. I wrote a reflection that elaborates on this point and you can read it here, but in short, enough.
The church, if it’s to be truly good, must cease to be the last to evolve, in the name of Jesus. In the earliest days the Jesus movement was in the front of changing social mores and Jesus himself railed against those in power in order to make room for “the least of these.”
“Gay People on Staff”
Another comment that I received informed me that one of the churches I mentioned has “gay people leading ministries and even on staff.” I’m sure a statement like this could be made about many evangelical churches. However, about this, I’d like to ask some questions. First, are these people in the closet or are they open about their sexuality? Second, are these people expected to live lives of celibacy or are they allowed to pursue and even enjoy covenantal life together with a person of the same sex? Third, are these people’s sexuality publicly celebrated and supported or merely tolerated? Church Clarity describes the churches that I mentioned as being “non-affirming,” which is typical of most evangelical churches, and so I very much doubt that these people are able to pursue life together with a person of the same sex. Unless abstinence is a person’s deepest and most authentic desire, I am convinced that evangelicalism’s demand of singleness upon LGBTQ people is harmful, disintegrating, and violent. Again, enough.
The church, if it’s to be truly good, must cease to be the last to evolve, in the name of Jesus. In the earliest days the Jesus movement was in the front of changing social mores and Jesus himself railed against those in power in order to make room for “the least of these.”
“Women do Lead”
A final comment that I’d like to respond to explained to me that women do in fact lead at some of the churches that I named. Similar to the previous comment that I received, I’m sure a statement like this could be made about many evangelical churches. But is it true? Church Clarity identifies the churches that I highlighted as either “non-egalitarian” or “undisclosed.” I’ll address the non-egalitarian statement first and then conclude this reflection by addressing the notion of a church’s dogma and doctrine being undisclosed.
“Non-egalitarian” refers to the belief that women are subordinate to men and therefore cannot lead at the highest levels of a church. Out of the three churches that I mentioned in my sermon, one says nothing about their stance on women in leadership on its website. Another—on its link about staff and elders—used to use the unconscionable title, “The Elders and Their Wives” but they recently changed that to simply, “Elders,” who are of course, only men. I guess that’s better? The other church makes clear on its site that they have Elders and then they have a “Women’s Council.” About this, I’d like to ask, what exactly is a women’s council? Do the women on this council have the same authority as the Elders? Does their voice and vote have equal standing? Or does the Women’s Council act like women in non-egalitarian marriages, i.e.: they can share their thoughts and opinions but have no actual weight in decision-making? I’m fairly certain it’s the latter but I can’t be sure because this church’s stance on women and other doctrinal positions, is as Church Clarity explains, “undisclosed.” Side-note: why is this bifurcation of genders into male and female councils even necessary? Please don’t say, “Because the Bible tells me so.” For a more ancient and historical approach to understanding the Bible, read this reflection. The practice of non-egalitarian church leadership reflects the dualism deeply engrained in evangelicalism that perpetuates gender roles and the subservient role of women. As I said in my sermon, it’s stories and systems like these that foment today’s violence.
“Undisclosed”
I’ll conclude this post by addressing a church’s dogma and doctrine being “undisclosed.”
The site of one church that I mentioned in my sermon has a page that explains some of their theological positions. For example, under “Eternal Security and Assurance of Believers” they write, “The redeemed are kept by God’s power and are thus secure in Christ forever.” It’s of interest and importance to note that this same page says nothing about their position on those who do not believe. Why? Do they not have a position on what happens to those who do not believe in their particular gospel? I’m fairly certain that they do but in order to have access to that information a person must submit a request in writing. Similarly, to know what they think and require their parishioners to believe about women and LGBTQ people, a person must submit a request in writing to see their positions. This is a novel approach among evangelical churches—at least for those that are considered socially woke and culturally relevant. They bury or vaguely allude to that which they believe but know people will find offensive or unpalatable. A decade ago, the beliefs of churches like these were broadly delineated and publicized. However, that’s changing and access to evangelical churches’ dogma and doctrine are much more difficult to access.
May I be so bold as to say, once again, enough? May I exhort, own your beliefs? Yes, I am choosing to be both bold and to exhort. If you think that people who do not believe what you believe go to hell forever, make that clear. If you think that women are subordinate to men so they cannot lead at the highest level, make that clear. If you think that LGBTQ people cannot enter into covenantal relationship or be on staff if they do, make that clear. Tell people up front what you believe about these weighty matters before they get swept up into community only to find that they are at odds with your positions and have to make the heart-wrenching decision to stay and compromise themselves or leave behind the friendships and relationships they’ve developed. Please, for the sake of kindness, no more bait and switch. Be not ashamed of your positions and display them clearly. As children in evangelical churches are often taught to sing, “Hide it under a bushel, no! I’m gonna let it shine.” Let people see you as you are so that they can make wise and informed decisions about the stories and systems in which they participate.
As we celebrate and honor Dr. King tomorrow, may his poignant words to the white, moderate Christian continue to unsettle and beckon ever-increasing love and inclusion, until every person truly belongs. “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection” (MLK, Letter from Birmingham Jail).