What to Do With American Rage

I much appreciate Pastor Smith's thoughts on these matters that have made the term "evangelical" a dirty word in so many respects.   When journalists make use of the term, would that they prefaced every use with a phrase like "persons claiming to be" "evangelicals."  Perhaps generalizing such a characterization of the label would give pause to so many that might otherwise find shelter in, or take comfort from ideologies that might pit believers against one another for temporal reasons.

Pastor's Smith's conclusion that "rage doesn't have to have the last word if its received and absorbed into repentant action" is particularly instructive. 

In the temporal setting, imagine - just imagine - what would be different today, or how things might be different today, how the events of the last weeks might have been different - had we as a nation, driven by the salt and light provided by the nation-wide bride of Christ, had responded to the events of September 11, 2001 differently - if rage had not resulted in war.  And instead caused us U.S. to take stock, grapple with the "why," and intentionally apply use of the God-given tools of reflection, collaboration, diplomacy, etc to engage in more enduringly constructive ways to bring about justice.    Perhaps all that could be done to slow the stampede to war was done.   

Regrettably, the message of the gospel seems too remain too radical for today's world -  to the point where the  "evangelical(s)" is a mere label, useful as a rod(s) to stir conflict rather than a reference to a conflict-tempering collective, whose wise counsel is worth seeking in an effort to devise effective, repentant actions designed to absorb rage, death and destruction in the name of temporal national pride?  What if Christians embraced, rather than eschewed tools God has given mankind to douse rage, especially collective rage?  What if the "evangelical(s)" were revered and sought out for collective counsel as effective conveyers of how to find paths to justice through effective repentant activity rather than destructive warfare? 

I understand the flow of reasoning in Smith’s article to go like this: 1) The current tendency for Christian America to fly into a rage over many issues -- forced vaccinations, the close loss suffered in the past presidential election, Covid-19 lockdowns -- is explained by the threat (fear) felt by many conservative Christians over the loss of white Protestant Christian cultural dominance in America.  2)  Faced with this devastating sense that theirs is a “lost cause,” Christian America is engaging in a practice common to those faced with lost causes: Creating and believing lies (“the election was stolen,” “the Covid-19 threat has been blown out of proportion to tank the economy and get Trump out of office,” “the vaccination is not safe”).  3) Instead of flying into a rage (as David initially did in response to the prophet Nathan’s story of the stolen lamb) or embracing lies, Christian America needs to acknowledge its sins of the past, admit the falsity of its face-saving lies, repent, and accept its humiliating ‘lost cause’ (as David did with respect to Shimei.) 

I believe that this article is correct in identifying the reason that many conservative Christians are currently short- tempered: we have lost our cultural dominance in America and are feeling threatened by this loss.  As a conservative Christian, I have no stomach for talk-show hosts or politicians (conservative or progressive) who make a living by stirring up people’s fears, dealing in the dingy gray atmosphere where half-truths thrive, and promoting unfounded conspiracy theories.  It is true that fear can provide fertile soil for planting lies that only add to the fear and increase the feeling of being under threat.  Where this is the case, repentance is called for.

What this article fails to acknowledge and pastorally address is that the underlying feelings of loss and threat are not baseless.  The underlying anxiety created by the successful efforts of progressives in government to force conservatives to accept, practice and fund (not simply tolerate) a lifestyle contrary to Biblically Christian beliefs is not baseless.  Nor are these feelings ones for which conservatives need to repent (while allowing the Shimei’s of our world to hurl humiliating insults.

While it has been coming gradually, America turned a cultural corner when President Obama’s position on same-sex marriage ‘evolved,’ the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage that had been in place long before the days of the Christianized West, the LGB movement added T, Q and Z, and a progressive government began to force these perspectives/practices on the country as a whole through its public school policies regarding transgender sports, and government-funded healthcare provisions forcing all companies (initially) to pay for all forms of birth control and sex-change operations.  In addition, the lower courts supported attempts by same-sex couples to force religiously-opposed bakers to bake their wedding cakes (when many others would gladly have done so).

Pleas on the part of those seeking tolerance for views and lifestyles contrary to Biblical Christian values – once granted – turned into aggressive intolerance for those with Biblical Christian values.  These cultural changes moved from being disturbing to threatening when all the branches of government rapidly progressed (de-gressed) from endorsing a plurality of lifestyle options to enforcing non-Christian options.  President Trump was elected, in part, because he gained the support of those who were convinced that these cultural changes came too fast and went too far. 

I have no difficulty acknowledging that many conservative Christians are currently short-tempered because of feeling threatened by the loss of cultural dominance.  People seldom are on their best behavior when they feel under threat.  Improper behavior requires repentance.  Yet, in my assessment of the situation, the threat felt is not due primarily to the loss of cultural dominance but to the attempt of progressive branches of the government to forcefully impose the “new” values on the nation as ones we all must embrace, fund, and teach to our nation’s children.

The article would have benefited by carefully distinguishing what requires Christian repentance and what does not, and by offering Christianly commendable approaches to handling feelings of loss.

This article contains some good insights, but it is quite partisan and careless with facts. The author suggests that Daniel Darling and Michael Bird are victims of white rage. Before attributing Darling's firing to white rage against vaccination, keep in mind that vaccination rates are lower among blacks than whites. Before depicting Bird as a victim of white rage, keep in mind that black officer Bird shot and killed an unarmed white woman without facing any charges. He's alive; she's dead.

The author equates American rage with white rage, but American rage is not unique to white, conservative evangelicals. Vast numbers of liberal Americans refused to believe that Donald Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2016 election. They erupted in rage and embraced false narratives about Russian interference. They tried to undo the election by impeaching the President. When a white officer killed an unarmed black man, George Floyd, there was widespread rioting, destruction of property, and loss of life. Sad to say, rage infects people of all races and all political persuasions. We all need to repent and go to the cross--the author is surely right about that.

The article states that Shimei was a prophet, but this is incorrect. Shimei was from Saul's clan, hated David due to political rivalry, and cursed him when David seemed doomed. David did not immediately retaliate against Shimei, reasoning that maybe the curses were prompted by the Lord. But David later instructed his son Solomon to arrange a bloody death for Shimei (2 Kings 2:9).  So this is probably not a good example for Christians to follow.

Well, Reggie,

I guess you have told us a few things we didn't want to hear, but needed to hear. Thanks for your thoughts and reflections. It's not possible to cover every angle in a piece that length. But you put before us some things we need to face.

Carry on,

Tom Niehof