On the Confederate Flag

My ancestors fought for the confederacy; one served in the Georgia 53rd Infantry Regiment throughout the Civil War. Prior to the Civil War he was an overseer on a Georgia plantation; after the war he moved his destitute family to Cass County, Texas.

I grew up in east Texas with a confederate flag in my bedroom. I was taught that that symbol represented the regional pride of the South.

I was proud of my Southern heritage ... until I became a Christian in high school. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, I then understood that ALL of us are equally loved and adored by God. God favors NO race. Indeed, my Savior, Jesus, was the brown-skinned Messiah of the Jews!

Every culture has its strengths; every culture has it sins. A love for the South is part of my heritage and I embrace that. But the South also has its sins. I am especially moved by the Christian forgiveness encapsulated in a speech of Dr. King:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'. 

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

God has allowed me to sit at the table of brotherhood -- amongst the red hills of Georgia! -- with sons and daughters of former slaves. It was a joyful experience for me.

As a follower of the Messiah, I repudiate the symbolism of the confederate flag. It is today a symbol of racism and race hatred. I react to it with nausea. I have no respect for that flag and I pray for those who see anything positive, in this day, in displaying that flag.

Is the Church Anti-Science?

Is the church anti-science?

This was a question posed by the local chapter of Ratio Christi and the topic I chose to discuss at one of the Friday meetings of this group.

Is the church anti-science?  Yes.

And No.

To really look at this question carefully, we need to define Science and Church.  By "the Church" I simply mean the visible representation of Christianity, across time (but with an emphasis on present day.)  Related to "the Church" is the concept of "Biblical teaching", that is, concepts that are expressed or taught by Scripture.

By "Science" I mean the knowledge built up from investigation, experimentation and measurement. (From Wikipedia, "Science ... builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.")

Is it Church or Culture?

The culture I live in (early 21st century USA) is often ignorant of scientific concepts, unaware of the meanings of probability and correlation and is confused about the role of scientific experiment.

In our culture, people misjudge lottery odds, see a cold snap as disproving global warming, drink coca-cola (or coffee or red wine) based on a news reports about a recent "scientific discovery". At times this is humorous (I love Big Bang Theory) but society's abuse of science can be deadly, for example, when it comes to serious misunderstandings about vaccines or tobacco.  (One example of a significant misunderstanding in Italy led to geologists being charged with manslaughter after an earthquake, see here.)

Our culture reveres scientists and yet, at the same time, makes fun of them and feels threatened by them.  These different reactions are connected.  They are due to significant misunderstanding of scientific development.  It is easy to fear someone that is highly revered or appears very powerful, whether a scientist, wizard or politician.

Because of the reverence for science, our culture often hears of "scientific" concepts that support a certain viewpoint (or corporate product) but which may have no real relationship to scientific experimentation.

The church in America (sadly) reflects our culture.  Everything said about our society can be said about the church in America.

The conflict between science and faith

Although the church in America reflects our culture, there is a sharper conflict between the church and science (on some levels) because of the nature of religious faith and practice.  This is often expressed as "Faith versus Science" but this phrase is misleading.

The conflict might be better described as "Conviction versus Science". And in this realm there is some legitimacy to claims by scientists that certain aspects of the Church rebuff scientific investigation and discovery.

The attacks by scientists on "faith" is easily deflected. Where religious people use the word "faith", many of us might use "trust".  We "trust" God based on our experiences and reasoning about the nature of God and most of us don't use "blind faith", despite the claim by (almost) every atheist that we do!

However the church often asks for "complete conviction" on issues where there is not a Biblical need for confidence.  The church (in various times and places) has insisted that its followers affirm a set of beliefs and has not allowed questioning or dissent.

It is OK to say, "I don't know"

If you think you know all the answers, then a genuine seeker, one who is thoughtful and mature,  will tend to shy away from you, for they will see your confident answers as simplistic attempts to cover up deep problems.

This is true in science. Most genuine scientists have lots of questions about almost everything, including the nature of the universe and the existence of God or the actions of God in the universe. If our faith makes us claim to know all the answers (to very hard questions!) then we should not be surprised if they shy away.

Two stories

Years ago, I had a friend, a philosophy professor, tutor me through a number of the great works of philosophy, beginning with Plato's Republic.  (I think we spent a year in Plato's Republic! It was wonderful!)  After two to three years of this conversational friendship -- with me learning much more from him than he from me -- my friend called me up one Saturday morning and said, "Ken, I just thought you should know, since you wear your religion on your shirt sleeves, that I have decided to set aside the next semester to study God and learn how to love God."  Our years of philosophy conversation had led me to a place where I was certainly more humble than I had been before and I think it also contributed (a little?) to my friend's decision to make God and Christ the focus of his personal philosophy and beliefs.

This occurred because I wanted to learn and I genuinely enjoyed our friendship. I was not confident and sure of everything.

I did not make my friend an evangelistic target.

Another time, I was invited to be in a debate over Christianity and Atheism.  This debate was hosted by the university Philosophy Club and would  take the following format: each side would have a student advocate and a professor advocate.  I and a philosophy major (who happened to attend my church) would defend Christianity and debate an atheist philosophy professor and another philosophy student.  I agreed to the debate, on the condition that my professorial opponent go out with me for beers afterwards.  This condition was acceped, indeed, two philosophy professors joined me for drinks afterwards at a local pub.

In the debate I took the stance that I was still learning and still seeking answers. I was weary of the stereotypical church stance, "I know all the answers and have no doubts."  In fact, I was quite willing to admit to having lots of questions. (I had learned a great deal from my philosophy tutor, mentioned earlier!)  It was somewhat easy for me to take this "humble approach" since everyone knew I was a mathematics professor and not a philosophy professor!

I think the debate went well.  There were some things I could have answered better, and at least once, in a question from a genuine seeker, I clearly missed the mark.  (Some of the fumbling on my part were overcome by a very articulate young Christian woman who was my partner in the debate!)

One of the things that is still vivid to me from the debate is that in the Question and Answer period at the end of the debate, several guys sitting in the back row tried to "fix" my answers.  I had not come across as the confident Christian they knew I should have been!  I had not corrected some the "errors" of my opponents.  These young college men did not really ask questions but made a number of strong statements in support of Christianity.  They acted out the very stereotype I had tried to avoid -- they knew all the answers and were frustrated that I was so dumb.  (Or so it seemed.)

I don't think anyone was convinced by the cocky claims of these young men.  I appreciate their desire to serve Jesus, but the questions we were discussing were hard! If you are 22 and think you have all the answers, the main thing you communicate will be your youthfulness, not your wisdom!

At the pub afterwards, I had an enjoyable evening.  I asked lots of questions.  At one point I suggested a trade -- we each should share the most vulnerable aspects of our own beliefs.  What is the weakest part of our beliefs?  (I love that question!)  My answer was, "The existence of evil."  Both of my friends (one an aggressive atheist, the other agnostic) said, quickly, "The issue of design."  The universe seems beautiful.  It has the "illusion" of design.  If anything keeps an atheist awake at night (listening to my friends) it would be the nagging belief that maybe the beauty and design of the universe is not illusion!

Question authority!

The modern science vs. religion debate is much more complicated than popular science would imply. (See, for example, the Galileo dispute.)

Unfortunately, some within the Christian community attempt a "homerun" against science, trying to derail scientific reasoning by claiming evidence for a "young earth". As people in the church argue for a young earth, other Christians in the sciences push back against this.  This has been going on for a long time! More recently, in the last decade, a number of Christians have confronted the half-truth approach of young-earth organizations such as Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research. It is my opinion that Christians need to be more aggressive in confronting groups like AIG or ICR. These groups make a mockery of the depth and complexity of the Bible and Christian belief. I appreciate posts like this review of a recent Christian film on creation.

There are a variety of good resources for Christians in the sciences. For example, here for an article from Reasons to Believe (an organization started by astronomer Hugh Ross.)  Reasons to Believe (RTB) also has some nice articles on engaging the Church in intellectual pursuits.  I recommend this article at RTB. (I appreciate colleague Darren Williams recommending this link to me.)

I personally recommend BioLogos, started by NIH director, Francis Collins. A related excellent blog is Musings on Science and Theology by RJS, a Michigan scientist who is a friend of a friend.

At some point it comes down to us. What do we say within the church and how do we say it?  (I led a class on Science and Creation at a church, working through parts of Genesis.  I am also more confrontational with AIG people....)

At times the emphasis on conviction is on the other foot: see typical simplistic Facebook quotes of Bertrand Russell.

It is OK to not know, to be unsure, to have questions. But don't stop with the questions!

Believing in God in a Children's Hospital

In the twentieth century we had bumper stickers on cars. A "bumper sticker mentality" described beliefs so simplistic that they could be put on a bumper sticker.  The modern version of this simplicity is the Facebook meme, a simplistic idea that spreads on Facebook, shared by the small percentage of people who actually agree with the simplistic post. (Did I mention that these ideas are simplistic??)

Here is a meme that recently came across my FB feed:

This FB bumper sticker briefly mentions two legitimate issues in philosophy and religion, but, of course, it just touches on the tip of these philosophical icebergs, as if they were shallow concepts, not deep. An atheist may attempt to explain away beauty as mere illusion while Christians must deal with the problem of evil and pain.

A children's hospital will rub one's face in the problem of pain.

But the problem of evil has a long and deep discussion within Christian philosophy, going back to the book of Job in the Old Testament and discussed in some depth by C. S. Lewis in  his book  The Problem of Pain at the end of World War II.

I am vividly reminded of this meme by some recent visits to a hospital, Children's Minnesota in St. Paul.

Most of us do not visit children's hospitals because we are curious or because we have philosophical questions. For many of us, a visit to a children's hospital is forced on us by the pain and grief of an ill child that we dearly love. Years ago, Jan and I visited a children's hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, at the invitation of a frightened young couple whose daughter was critically ill. I recall tearing up and crying, just getting off the elevator. The sight of numerous children bundled into hospital beds with anxious parents standing nearby -- all that innocent suffering -- it was overwhelming.  

I had the same feeling this time. This time the sick little girl was my granddaughter and the anxious parents were my son and daughter-in-law. This deepened the pain. We cried and prayed over the little bundle in the hospital bed and worried and hoped -- and then rejoiced -- as she slowly got better.

During the week that our granddaughter was in the PICU at Children's Minnesota, she was treated by devoted nurses and doctors. This began in the hurried flurry of activity in the ER as the little girl was admitted and then continued throughout the week.  (We have hopes that our granddaughter will be discharged later in the coming week!)  

In addition to experienced and dedicated staff, there were a variety of other support services, including the Ronald McDonald Family Room in a nearby wing of the hospital. The "Family Room" has friendly staff and many awesome resources for parents and family members dealing with a child in a nearby wing. The "Family Room" includes four private sleeping rooms and a kitchen with lots of different foods (some ready to be microwaved.) There was a bright, exceptional children’s play area with staff who were ready to play with young children. Guest could do laundry, take a shower, nap, relax, recover.  They could talk to other families; home-cooked meals are offered on a regular schedule. Yes, it is traumatic to have a child in this part of the hospital but the staff understand the suffering and they help families eat, sleep, grieve and then hurry back to hovering over their child’s bed. Alex and Sierra had opportunities to meet other anxious couples at the Ronald McDonald house during their visits.

If there is to be pain and evil in the world, I am grateful that there are places like a children's hospital, where one can see a variety of caring people reaching out, as a hand of God, to hurting families. Each actor, whether doctor, nurse, security, or Family Room staff, each seems to be using his or her talents in critical acts of compassion.  I am grateful to God for children's hospitals. 

The Samaritans

Any reader of the New Testament learns that there is a collection of people called "the Samaritans." They are mentioned by Jewish leaders in derogatory ways (in the Gospel of John, for example) while Jesus uses them in his story about the "Good Samaritan."  The Samaritans represent a New Testament ethnic and racial division and it is interesting to see how Jesus interacts with the Samaritans.

To the devout Jew, the Samaritans were a mixed breed, involved in a false version of Judaism. To many the term "Samaritan" was derogatory. When Nicodemus challenges the Jewish leaders in John, they respond by calling him a Samaritan.

The Samaritans developed as a separate, distinct portion of Israel, probably around the time of the Assyrian invasion in 721 BCE. They may have originated from the northern tribes of Israel and were later accused of intermarriage with the local, pagan inhabitants.  A lengthy Wikipedia article on the Samaritans provides considerable details of their history.

In that racial environment, Jesus goes out of his way to include them in his ministry.  He deliberately begins a conversation with a single Samaritan woman in John 4, breaking a number of social taboos. He heals Samaritans in the gospels.  He uses a Samaritan as his central figure in a lecture on the meaning of the phrase "Love your neighbor" (see Luke 10: 30-37.)  Luke's gospel also records Jesus healing ten lepers; it is the Samaritan who returns to thank him (Luke 17: 11-19.) In John 8, Jesus is accused of being a Samaritan, a charge which he does not refute.  (He is also charged with being demon-possessed and does respond to that accusation.)

In Acts, Samaria is the next region, after Judea, to be evangelized. (Acts 1:8, Acts 8:1-25.)

Throughout the gospels, contrary to the religious leaders, Jesus is seen as deliberately singling out the Samaritan in a positive manner, looking to them, defending them.  Both the gospel accounts of Luke and John emphasize this, Luke because after the Good News of the Jewish Messiah reached those dirty Samaritans, it went on even further, to people completely outside the world of Israel, to the Greek Gentiles who needed a Savior.  Luke was one.

In our own lives there a Samaritans that are easy to dismiss or reject.  If we can see them as Jesus did... then we will be modeling the citizenship of Heaven.

Conflict with the World, Part 2, Practice (When I was President of Citizens for Decency)

In John 17:14-16, Jesus prays that his disciples not be "of the world" since he is not. Jesus then goes on to say that The World will hate the disciples of Jesus. In John's first epistle (I John 2:15-17), he tells the followers of Jesus to "not love the world."

How do Christ-followers put this into practice?

In my experience there are two different approaches. In the first approach, one attempts to control the world and culture, turning it into a "Christian" culture that reflect Christian values.  In the second approach, one attempts to live as a "stranger", a citizen of heaven in a nonChristian system, recognizing that the cultural and political system will always be opposed to God, and not expecting otherwise. In this second system, we minister individually, being part of the "yeast" within the bread of society.

The Old Testament, with its emphasis on the kingdom of Israel, is an attempt at the first method. As the Old Testament itself makes clear, the process of creating a nation controlled by God, was a complete failure.

In the New Testament, the emphasis is very different.  In the New Testament, the followers of the Messiah, led by the promised Holy Spirit, "turn the world upside down."  But the political system was unchanged and, as the apostle John makes clear, the World is still very opposed to the Messiah.

Anyone who attempts to force their culture and country to become "Christian" has misread the New Testament.  There is no Biblical concept of a "Christian country".

I know quite a lot about this -- I have paid my dues here. Let me tell you what not to do!

When I was President of Citizens for Decency

Long ago, in the 1980s, I got involved in the "moral majority." I bought into the belief (promoted by one particular political party) that one could wage a culture war for Christianity.  I became active in the local chapter of Citizens for Decency (CFD), eventually becoming president. With this organization, I fought a "war" against pornography in my community. (Among other things, I successfully waged a campaign to have softporn magazines removed from the campus bookstore. Here is a link to a campus newspaper article about the group I led.  Unmentioned in the article is the threat by a university VP that if he had his way, I would be fired from the university.)

CFD accomplished a lot. We met with, and received support from the local DA. Most local stores which had originally sold soft porn magazines and/or rented hard porn videos eventually took these items from their shelves. At the high point of our work, we printed, once a month, 4000 bulletin inserts and delivered these inserts to local churches which then distributed them to their congregants. These inserts described research on the dangers of pornography.  It also rated local stores on their products, outing those stores that still sold pornography and praising stores that no longer did.

We accomplished a lot politically. But we did a lot of damage to the cause of Christ.  I regret my identification in this group as "Christian".

I don't want to downplay the cultural impact and dangers of pornography. But to accomplish what we did, we bullied local store owners.  Mom-and-pop stores that sold Playboy magazine or had a backshelf of x-rated video rentals were threatened by our "Christian" demands. They could support our "Christian" values or not -- but their livelihood depended on their response.

As our group became more powerful, the calls for compliance became more strident.  The problems of the "culture war" became clearer.  Some in our group wanted to ban R-rated rentals from the community. Many churches supported our boycott attitude, but few church attenders rewarded stores that announced themselves a "family friendly."  Other Christians were happy to see us attack "those bad guys", but few went out of their way to reward stores that caved in to our commands.

One local couple ran a small video store about half-a-mile from my house.  They endorsed our political activism and they removed the adult movies from their collection. We then promoted their video store regularly in our monthly bulletin inserts. I dropped by several times a month to chat and to rent videos for my children.  As I chatted with these "good guys", I watched their rental sales quickly drop off. (College students weren't visiting them anymore).  They tried to put a good face on their new "family values" but after a year, they closed.

I don't regret the political activism.  I regret that it was identified as Christian.  Regardless of the official stance of our organization, the community heard, "If you are Christian, you don't own or visit these stores".  That easily translated into, "If you own or visit these stores, you cannot be (or become) a Christian."

We identified Eternity with local business decisions!

Jesus died for these store owners.  He did not die so that they could have shelves clean of porn. By identifying our actions as "Christian" we made pornography a priority over the gospel.

As our group became more powerful and as some members made more strident boycott demands, I began to feel uncomfortable with my work. I eventually stepped down as president.  After a little time, the group collapsed.  Once I had backed away a bit from my leadership in this group, I was able to see its work more objectively and I could observe more closely its many failures among its successes.

Years later, one Sunday morning, my pastor arrived at church with three dozen donuts just purchased from a local donut shop.

"We should not be buying donuts from [that shop]," said one of our lay leaders. "We should boycott them."

This man went on to explain.  "That chain of donut shops is owned by Waldenbooks. Waldenbooks sells pornography.  We should send a message that we are opposed to pornography by boycotting any store owned by Waldenbooks." (See this related news article about the Waldenbooks boycott.)

I quickly objected. Every week our pastor visited this local store, chatted with the owner and clerks, and purchased several dozen donuts.  Our church was identified as supporting this small business. We were appreciated by the owner. This appreciation was a (small) result of our love for others in our community. Let us not ruin the gospel by becoming a "Christian bully"!

Our practice should follow our theology. As the New Testament confronts the world system, it does so by changing hearts, by changing souls. Politics is incapable of doing that.

Tomorrow, in another blog, we begin working our way through the Book of Revelation, the final book in the Bible.  It will have a lot to say about Christians and the world system!

Conflict with the World, Part 1, Theory

In John 17:14-16, Jesus prays that his disciples not be "of the world" since he is not. Jesus then goes on to say that the World will hate the disciples of Jesus. In John's first epistle (I John 2:15-17), he tells the followers of Jesus to "not love the world."

In a separate blog, I am working my way through the New Testament, chapter by chapter.  There, as we move from the Gospel of John into the epistles (letters) of John, we look at this concept of "the world". The Bible has a fair amount to say about the "World" (Greek "kosmos") and the path of the citizen of heaven.  According to the Bible, the cosmos is under the control of Satan (I John 4:4 and I John 5:19.) The world is the object of God's every action. Other passages on examples of "loving the World" include Genesis 3:6, Joshua 7:21, 2 Sam 11:2. New Testament verses on "the World" are John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11.  (I'll return to these at some later time.)

In my country (USA) in my times (late 20th, early 21st century) the Christian conflict with "the World" has often been misunderstood. This conflict is often interpreted to mean that believers must wage some type of "war" on the culture around them.

The New Testament view of "the World" is quite different. The follower of Jesus recognized that there was a higher kingdom, a higher citizenship (see Hebrews 11: 13-16) and that the political establishment (primarily the Roman empire) and the social establishment (civic Judaism) was in principle opposed to the things of God. Even the local social fabric in Israel seemed to promote a fake religiosity that allowed one to act spiritual (to act like a sincere Jew) while being insincere.

This has not significantly changed in two millenia. The Christian still should not expect to be rewarded socially or politically by his/her commitment to follow the Messiah. One of Jesus's teachings (Matthew 10:34-39) is particularly depressing in that regard, unless we are indeed looking for the City that God has prepared for us.

The relationship between the Christ-follower and their community is a complicated one. It should be so.  There should always be a certain tension between a Christ-follower and the community within which he/she lives, just like there is a certain tension in traveling overseas, in a culture and community that is not one's home.

Some of our community culture comes from within "the church", from religious organizations. Just as  Jesus experienced the sharpest conflict with the Jewish religious leaders, so too the Christ-follower will discover that religion (Christian religion) is in conflict with genuine spiritual growth and action. In any society in which Christianity has begun to hold significant social or political power, the culture has invaded the church. In my experience, we may need to be most alert to the influences of "the World" on Sunday. And it will not be in ways we first expect.

I have been in a number of churches that used Romans 14: 13-21 -- a passage that emphasizes compassion for spiritually weaker brothers or sisters -- to prohibit the drinking of alcoholic beverages. This is not because of some deep understanding of Scripture, but instead a long running cultural response to Prohibition in twentieth century America. A thoughtful reading of that passage in Romans should lead one to act differently in a number of ways -- and alcohol is the least of the problems of the church!

At some point, one has to decide with Habbakuk (Habbakuk 4: 17-18): "Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior."

In the New Testament one might observe the "Agrippa Principle" -- Christians often speak from chains -- (Acts 26: 28-29)... Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"  Paul replied, "Short time or long--I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

I will try to flesh this out further in a second, later post.  At one time I was very much immersed in the political fight against "the World". At one time I was president of the local chapter of Citizens for Decency, leading a campaign to rid the community of pornography (among other concerns.) I lost track of the true focus of the Christian life and I stooped for political influence.  I regret that.

Culture, "Culture Wars" and the Jewish Messiah

The various writings of the New Testament have an interesting approach to the first century culture and to culture and politics in general.

At a certain level, there is a deliberate lack of engagement with local culture and politics.  Jesus does not attempt to overthrow the Roman government and when challenged regarding Roman taxes, has a famous response about giving to God the things of God and giving to Caesar the things of Caesar.  In a similar way, Paul makes no attempt to overthrow the first century institution of slavery, but does pressure Philemon to free his runaway slave, Onesimus.

On a different level, there is a direct and confrontational approach to culture and politics.  Jesus forgives tax collectors and prostitutes and confronts religious hypocrites and the control of Jewish leaders.  In personal interactions, he tells an adulterous woman to "go and sin no more" and gets a tax collector to promise to repay everything he has stolen.  In a similar way, Paul confronts the jealousy and gluttony of the church in Corinth and insists that they are to be a model of the kingdom of God.

So how are Christians to engage in their culture and community?  I want to lay out some principles from the New Testament readings.

1. It begins with the heart.  There is such a human desire to change other people.  But one cannot engage as a Christian in the community unless one begins with their own life, recognizing their own selfishness, self-deception, jealousy, ego.  The world changed in the first century because people changed, because individuals committed to joining the Kingdom of God, not because they tried to enforce "religious" actions on others.  If I want to be an agent of change, then the first person I should hope to see changed is me.

2. It relies on the Holy Spirit and God's power and sovereignty.  God changes people; my  life is changed as I allow the Holy Spirit to work.  Paul repeatedly tells believers to pray and "not be anxious."  Change comes not through a legalistic set of resolutions but through genuine concern and love for others, seeing others through God's eyes.

3. The church has authority only over the church!  In I Corinthians 5, Paul confronts a very human desire to tell others what to do.  There, in verses 12-13, he asks, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church?"  If one says, "I am a believer and want to be part of your believing community," then it is appropriate to say, "Our community of believers has both rights and responsibilities."  It is only within the community of believers that Paul lays out expectations for truth, love, honesty and generally healthy community behavior.

4. The most common threat to the body of Christ seems to come from religious authorities! Throughout the New Testament the direct conflict to the young church comes first from Jewish religious leaders and later, occasionally, from pagan religious leaders (such as the followers of Diana in Ephesus, see Acts 19:23-41.)  It might be pointed out that religious leaders have often worked out a way to profit financially from their religion and so find true religion a threat.

In the United States, Christianity has suffered greatly at the hands of religious leaders who claimed to represent Christian beliefs and then used those beliefs for political gain.  I recall Richard Nixon, in 1972, getting Billy Graham to endorse him; Nixon also presented himself to the Explo '72 crowd as a Christian president who fully supported the evangelistic goals of Campus Crusade.  (I was there.)

I could list numerous examples that followed.  Routinely religious leaders (see item 4!) have used Christianity as a way to gain power, bully those who don't believe (item 3), pressure people to be anxious and frightened (#2), while routinely living personal lives of greed, jealousy, lust and abuse (#1.)

The only comment I might make about current US politics is already said in this link. However, let me give a more general example of how not  to engage in culture change.

A US television network tells people there is "a war on Christmas."  It encourages its viewers to get angry and fight against this war.  (See items #2 and #3.)  As it encourages Christians to speak up to "preserve Christmas", the network's ratings go up and certain "Christian" leaders gain popularity (#4.)  But if you are a believer and follower of Jesus, why engage in this? Relax!  God is ultimately in control. If you want to "preserve Christmas", make it a time of joy and kindness. Remember the Messiah born in the Jewish city of David, who died for all humankind.  Let nonbelievers celebrate the holiday (or not) as they wish. And be leery of people with financial incentives (ad revenue) who attempt to get you to abandon compassion for conflict.