So let’s get back to this whole Rob Reiner thing. I’ve enjoyed thinking this through. Thanks for reading.
If you have no idea what I am talking about, get up to speed here.
This series of tweets is revealing:
These tweets seem to imply that “truth-telling” exists in a vacuum. For example, I am sure that there are a lot of “truths” that all of us could air in public. But just because something is true doesn’t always mean that we should air it. Does “truth-telling” really happen outside of a political or cultural narrative that might require us to be selective in our truth-telling?
When does one speak “truth” and when does one hold back, knowing that if they “go there” it could also cause irreparable damage to another truth or perhaps a greater truth? When do we consider the effect such “truth-telling” has on our neighbors or family? Or do we just “speak our truth” and damn the larger consequences?
How do we think about our “truth-telling” in the context of other “truths” that might be inconvenient or might not fit a particular brand or platform? Do we air those truths as well?
These tweets sound like the very type of binary, uncontextualized rhetoric that we hear from the Christian nationalists.
I once thought in similar ways. Then I learned that this kind of “truth-telling” did not get me anywhere in helping my fellow evangelicals understand the dangers of Christian nationalism, Trumpism, etc. (Check it out, it’s all recorded here at this blog–close to fifteen years of daily posts). For example, every time I left an argument with my Trump-loving father, I drove away patting myself on my back because I was on the side of “truth.” As a result, our relationship was damaged for several years. (Things are better now). My relationship with my father was more important to me than making sure he knew the “truth.” Every time I appeared on television or in print “telling the truth,” I alienated people in my congregation and the larger evangelical world–brothers and sisters in Christ– making it very difficult for me to reach them with such truth.
Truth-telling is important. Many times it is absolutely essential. I’ve tried to do a lot of it over the years. Sometimes I’ve done it better than at other times. I want to continue to do it. Indeed people like Kristin Kobes Du Mez and others should be commended for such truth-telling. But truth-telling doesn’t always exist in a vacuum and to raise questions about the pundits, scholars, and influencers who have chosen to “tell the truth” to Rob Reiner’s audience is not a failure to be a truth-teller.
John, maybe what you’re writing about here is nuance. Decades ago I hosted a talk show on our local Christian radio station and as I tried to make a point (it might have been about evolution and not politics) the negative response from a very conservative audience helped me realize that adding nuance to the conversation just wasn’t working. Most documentaries skip nuance as well and it’s frustrating when the documentary is about something I know.
Maybe you’ve experienced the same issue in being a “talking head” yourself? A book can present the nuance, making appropriate distinctions, that a talk show or documentary can rarely get at. So perhaps the problem here is less about one truth harming another, more important truth; perhaps it’s more about the venue not allowing the full truth to be told, nuance and all?
So true, Dan. I don’t expect much nuance coming from Rob Reiner and friends in the same way I don’t expect much nuance coming my critics on social media. This is why I wrote posts here and have stopped engaging or arguing on Twitter.
Human beings and the way they act in the world are quite complex. I learned this as a parent of teenage when my girls told me “not to put them in a box.” Social media has many positive features, but thoughtful reflection on the human condition is not one of them. Of course social media DOES reveal the human condition. (How’s that for a Calvinist take!) Social media is about tribalism. Say something negative about your opponent and then let your tribe (followers) do the rest. And since social media is not conducive to civil discourse, whoever has the largest number of followers wins. It’s a power game. And the powerful shape the narratives we live by. It’s a terrible way to sustain a democracy. It has caused me to rethink a lot of my own approach to platform punditry.
I’m not entirely sure what the problem is you’re delineating here. Perhaps some concrete examples would help?
At some places it sounds as if you’re saying it’s the way we share the truth that can create a problem, in others it sounds like you’re saying merely speaking the truth to those who don’t want to hear it can be a problem.
Or, maybe it’s both? I’ve experienced each, certainly. Sometimes I’m to blame, because, out of impatience or whatever, I cut to the chase and say something blunt.
Other times, when people have a commitment to a position that’s grounded in something other than it being demonstrably true (eg, their position professionally or socially depends on them believing a certain thing) there’s just no way to have a discussion–because it’s not open for discussion as far as they’re concerned.
To what extent does going on a Rob Reiner movie and speaking the truth about Christian nationalism hurt the church? Does it accomplish anything in terms of advancing the Kingdom of God? To what extent does a Christian’s loyalty to their brothers and sisters in Christ (even if they hold really bad views such as Christian nationalism) trump teaming-up with Rob Reiner to call attention to the Christian nationalism of their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? Again, people will come down differently on this, but its a question worth asking. Some might say we must speak the truth all the time, even it is in an environment hostile to Christianity and even it will result in us damaging our relationships with other believers. Maybe they think Rob Reiner might be God’s agent to help them remove the wheat from the tares, so to speak. In other words, you always speak truth regardless of the context. Others might take a “don’t cast your pearls before swine” approach and say “truth-telling” about Christian nationalism in a Reiner movie is a sell-out to one’s bothers and sisters in Christ and these kinds of things should be handled “in-house” so to speak. I think that these are both legitimate Christian positions and both should be taken seriously.
OK, that’s helpful. It’s the forum that’s at issue here.
I’n curious about the concept of “a Christian’s loyalty to their brothers and sisters in Christ.” What is this loyalty, how does it work?
Suppose I was asked to come on a Reiner movie and said, “Let me be clear: Jesus is Lord. Every knee shall bow to him, every tongue shall one day confess. Meanwhile, my task is to preach his Lordship and win willing converts. It’s not my job to enforce it.”
Would it be wrong to say “Jesus is Lord” in a Rob Reiner movie? Would any Christians who objected to my saying it on that patform be right to object?
Or would they only be right to object at the places where I said things they disagreed with on a Rob Reiner movie?
But don’t they get offended and upset whenever I disagree with them on these matters–Reiner movie or no?
Does my loyalty to them mean I can’t say “Jesus is Lord” on a Rob Reiner movie? Can’t share the Gospel there?
Does it mean I can’t speak other truths?
I think I understand–and affirm–both Johns here. Forum and audience matters. And truth telling matters–certainly as opposed to lying, and often (but not always) as opposed to silence.
Having only seen the trailer, and only the twitters that John F has posted, here’s a question (that arises from my own experience as an evangelical in an anti-evangelical academic environment): what do those of us who agree with Du Mez and Moore et. al about Christian Nationalism (as I do) have to say to Reiner and Reiner’s audience?
That Christian Nationalism is bad? They already know that.
That it’s not Christian? Now THAT could help them (not politically, but in having a chance to maybe really understand the gospel).
That some of us are evangelicals but not Christian Nationalists? That could be helpful too–if they have the integrity to acknowledge the implications for their own rhetoric.
I hear traces of these (potentially helpful) things even in the trailer. Of course those interviewed don’t have editorial control over the final presentation, and that may be some of John F’s concern.
Let’s avoid currying favor with the movers and shakers of our world by taking sides with them against the church (and I’m not saying any of these folks are, though I am sometimes tempted to do it). Let’s use every means at our disposal to convey the true gospel of Jesus Christ, which is more important than any nation or political movement. And let those of us who follow Christ love each other, and lay down our lives for each other. What if that’s the way that everybody will know that we are disciples of Jesus?
I’m not sure I understand your questions, John. But let me take a shot at Christian loyalty: Let’s say that you were member of a congregation for decades and then Trump and COVID-19 landed and divided the congregation. People in the congregation who you have worshipped with for years become Trumpists or say vaccines are bad or start preaching Christian nationalism. What responsible do you have to them as fellow believers in a community of worship and faith? Or do you just go out and critique then in Rob Reiner movie? If you are a Christian who believes that one day there will be a new heavens and a new earth defined by peace (among other things) and these people will be there, does that change your thinking about criticizes them, no matter how wrong their views? Just asking. My position so far has been to go out in the media or on my blog and criticize them. I would rather criticize them “in house” and settle the issue there. Perhaps I should start thinking about how to do that. So I am trying to think through this.
And should we go on Reiner’s movie and proclaim “Jesus is Lord?” Why not? It would probably be cut anyway. I once told a secular Georgetown professor in front of a group of hundreds of secularists from around the world that I wanted to sit down with him and share the Gospel in an attempt to convert him to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I didn’t want the government to do it, but I saw this conversation as a way of proclaiming “Jesus is Lord” in public. Of course the awkwardness in the room was palpable and the professor was good natured about it. You can watch that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjm9ULEu0eI&t=113s Start at the 55:00 mark.
I think it’s probably best to wait and see the movie and how it is rolled out. I am sure places like Salon and other progressive outlets will have a field day with this movie. Most people will hear what they want to hear and take what they want to take from the movie. That’s why I am not sure how productive this might be. Do David French, Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Russell Moore, Phil Vischer, Skye Jethani, Andrew Whitehead and others really think that the people who need to hear what they have to say in this film are going to listen? How much long do we keep preaching to the choir? I am working this all out myself, but I think its time that Christian thinkers, pundits, and scholars start coming-up with other ways of engaging the church, if they do indeed care about it. I speak from experience. While my book Believe Me helped a lot of evangelical Trumpers know they were not alone, and did convince a few people not to vote for Trump in 2020, I don’t think it made much impact in the pews. Or if you want to think about this politically, what does going on a Rob Reiner movie and talking about Christian nationalism really do to convince people not to vote for Trump again in 2024? Not much. But hey, people can say they were in a Rob Reiner film! Just look at what is happening on social media right now. The people who like the Holy Post, David French, Kristin Kobes Du Mez and Russell Moore are singing their praises for participating in this film. The people who don’t like them are doubling down.
One more thing I should add to my last post, Storm. As we now know, Du Mez, Vischer, and Whitehead (these were people I engaged with) did not know this was a Reiner film when they signed-up. Which then leads me to ask this question:
If Reiner was involved from the beginning, would you still do it?
Would we get different answers to that question if we asked Moore, French, Du Mez, Whitehead, Vischer, or Jethani?
Your questions and ruminations about all this are well-worth pondering, John Fea. I’ve seen arrogance on both side of the aisle on topics such as COVID vaccines and Christian nationalism. I think I know myself pretty well and can see myself as committing the same errors as the deniers and nationalists in reverse. I believe I see ALL the truth so clearly and can hardly wait to have an opportunity to put them in their places. In my heart I begin to see them as my enemies. No longer am I interested in speaking the truth in love in order to grow up to be like Christ. I want to be proven right.
So I have to constantly examine my motives for truth-telling. Do I come bearing a sword or am I wearing the shoes of the gospel of peace? Would I go on Reiner’s movie because it’s my opportunity to smash these nationalist heretics, put them in their place and make a plug for my latest book? Can I even begin to see, for example, some of what has been motivating them to become nationalists and why they are afraid? Is my heart breaking?
That was an honest confession about your father and Trumpism. I can certainly relate to that. Some of my relationships have been deeply affected because of my hostility to MAGA. Again, I commit the same error as those I oppose. Politics, and not our common brotherhood in Christ becomes the measuring rod of whether a person is acceptable to me to enjoy my fellowship. A bit arrogant of me, I must admit.
Is it possible that we have also forgotten the admonition to “encourage the disheartened, help the weak? (I Thessalonians 5:14)?”
How is my association with folks like Reiner “preserving the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3?” Note also maintaining unity requires diligence. Am I working at it and not healing the wounds of my people superficially?
Too often we forget where our true citizenship lies and it is not in America. Just as I am very, very careful not to air family disagreements in public, I should be just as careful with issues within the body of Christ. Perhaps if I can see the American church as family and community intimately connected to Christ I can really care about healing it from the inside out.
How did healing process take place between you and your dad, John? Perhaps if practiced on a macro level, we may have a model here.
Ultimately, I have to analyze my motives and, as you said in another post, the motives of the folks using the media to expose cancers within the church. Are they acting as physicians and care experts or do they want to just tell the world “Shame on you! You should be more like us!” Are they weaker brothers or professional weaker brothers like the Pharisees? Discovering their motives may be difficult but not impossible if we know their track record.
Thanks for this, Chris. Maybe one day I will tell the story my MAGA family in full, but not now. These are all tough questions and there are not easy answers. I’ll keep addressing them here at CURRENT and specifically The Way of Improvement Leads Home blog. I remember a few years ago when some folks were accusing people like me of being “evangelical elites” who were only pandering for approval by the secular media, the academy, etc. At that time I made the same case you are making about motives.
I think of that famous quote from Cyprian, “He cannot have God for Father who does not also have the Church for his mother.” Do we really want to diss our mother in public in front of strangers? On display is the attitude Americans typically have of the Church – it is just a nice-to-have place for Christians but not really necessary beyond a vague concept of fellowship often far removed from koinonia. What a far cry from Paul’s statement in I Timothy 3 that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the Truth.” I am thoroughly Reformed in my faith but I think my two Orthodox sisters have it all over us Protestants in their view of the Church. Political independence may have ruined America which also saw itself as a “Novus Ordo Seclorum” in religious matters.
“Do we really want to diss our mother in public in front of strangers?”
Frederick Douglass did. See pp. 9-13 here:
https://masshumanities.org/files/programs/douglass/speech_abridged_med.pdf
I haven’t thought all this through as systematically as some, but several things strike me:
1) I doubt it’s possible to come up with a single abstract rule that will adequately cover all cases. In such matters, it would seem that we need rules and principles, but we also need community and prayer and discernment about each potential engagement and how to carry it out.
My own feeling–born of what I’ve read and experienced–is that Christians should not want other Christians to trim their sails when it comes to truth-telling. God himself speaks some very hard truths using very harsh words about his people–individually and collectively–and does so publicly, in the Bible.
If someone is offended because I’m speaking truth–whether because they don’t like it, or they’re afraid of the consequences, or whatever–it means they’re putting other values beside the truth, and are worried those values can’t be sustained in the face of the truth. I don’t think that’s Biblical. God is not afraid of the truth, and neither should we be. There may be some humiliation in having it said, but I suspect there should be a lot more humiliation, of all sides.
If someone is trying to manipulate me–by, say, holding our friendship hostage and threatening to harm it unless I be quiet–that’s even worse. I need to consider how to deal with that–and so do they. This is, let’s be frank, what a lot of Christians do when they can’t convince someone of the rightness of their position. There’s a lot going on that’s wrong there, but let’s be clear: If someone breaks our relationship because I’ve spoken honestly about something I think is important, then the broken relationship is on them. They are the ones elevating agreement with themselves above the relationship, not me. As Lincoln put it at the Cooper Union speech: “That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'”
2) I don’t want to play the “Your privilege is showing!” card, but I wonder how much our likelihood of being harmed by the implementation of Christian Nationalist policies (which I’ve elsewhere argued is very unlikely to happen) affects our attitude towards speaking out abouut it? Most of what they’re calling for wouldn’t touch me (I don’t have Muslim family members trying to immigrate here, eg) or I would actually be happy to see (I think it would be great if 10-year-olds couldn’t access porn on their phones, and I suspect it might be good if service workers weren’t forced to work on the Sabbath).
But am I not like the typical white American living in Vermont in the 1850s, absorbed in my own life and affairs, and therefore not so concerned about my church’s lukewarm response to the Fugitive Slave Law?
It seems to me that, as we try to discern what’s right on these issues, we need to hear from those who would be possibly harmed (Jews, Muslims, etc.), and I’d like to hear what they’re attitude towards Christians pulling their punches and staying silent out of a desire not to rock the church’s boat is.
“their”
Edit-button, please.