If you have followed my blog for any length of time, you know that I have written often on the theme of migration (aliens, foreigners, sojourners, and strangers) as it appears in the Bible. Now that I am aware of it, I am amazed at the amount of time devoted to it in God’s revelation to us. It is a rich and deep vein of gold with significant Gospel implications.
I began reading to determine how God views immigrants back in 2014 during the Syrian refugee crisis. I wrote Immigration: The Strangers Among Us in the fall of 2014 to share what I found.
Since then I have noticed how central this thread is to the Gospel and the whole biblical narrative from the beginning (the exile of Adam & Eve from the garden) to the end (the gathering of people from every nation, tribe and tongue before the throne of Jesus in Revelation 7:9). In my daily reading recently, I noticed another segment of that thread involving David before he was king. When you see it, it’s obvious.
David Was a Refugee
David rose quickly to prominence after killing Goliath. He was initially taken in by King Saul because of that success, but Saul became jealous of David as he had more and more success in battle andas a leader of men. God rejected Saul, though he remained King, and David was anointed as his successor.
Jealousy drove Saul to want to kill David. His first attempt is chronicled in 1 Samuel 18:10-11. Saul tried to pin David to the wall with his spear twice, David dodged him and escaped. Saul tried a different tactic – to send David into battle after battle, hoping he would be killed by enemy forces. (1 Samuel 18:17, 25) When those efforts failed, Saul ordered his son, Jonathan, and his attendants to kill David, but Jonathan would not do it. (1 Samuel 19:1-2)
With Jonathan’s help, David fled into the wilderness to preserve his life, but Saul pursued David with an army of men. David was on the run from Saul from 1 Samuel 19 through 1 Samuel 26 until Saul died in battle with the Philistines.
Today, we would call David a refugee because he was displaced due to violence. Over 123 million people have been displaced today because of war, armed conflict, persecution, human rights abuses, and generalized violence, according to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). About 60-70 million refugees are displaced inside their own countries. The other 40+ million refugees have crossed country borders to escape the violence that threatens them.
In 1 Samuel 21:10-15, David fled across the border to the Philistine city of Gath, which ironically was the hometown of Goliath, the giant that David killed. The Philistines were obviously enemies of the nation of Israel, but David was desperate.
Not surprisingly, the Philistines recognized David and were suspicious. David feigned insanity to save himself from potential hostility (1 Samuel 21:10-15), and he returned to hiding in the wilderness of Israel.
Being a refugee is a desperate circumstance. Like David, many people are caught up in local, regional, or national violence and do not have safe places to go in their home country. They face danger at home and abroad. People in David’s position are vulnerable. They look for safety, protection, and welcome wherever they can find it.
The things David experienced as a refugee and asylum seeker play out for millions of people in our world today. In fact, more people are displaced today because of violence than ever before, according to the UNHCR Global Trends Report published in 2024. That number doubled in the last decade, leaving 1 out of every 67 people in the world displaced today!
This is obviously a sad state of affairs, but I am more interested in what God has to say about these things. There was a time when I didn’t know. Since 2014, I have become increasingly aware of the way scripture views people in refugee status, and today I will trace what can be found in the life of David when he became a refugee and asylum seeker.
I think most people are skeptical of other people’s experiences. It’s only natural to be skeptical of experiences we have not had and do not share. When people have had experiences in common with or similar to us, we are much less skeptical. It’s also natural to assume the validity and legitimacy of experiences that we share in common or similar to the experience of others.
We have an affinity for people with whom we have shared experiences and for people whose experiences are similar to ours. Shared experiences bind us together. Those shared experiences affirm us and become part of our individual and common identities.
We let our guards down with people with whom we have shared experiences, and we can “be ourselves” with them. We want to affirm them because they affirm us.
These are all good things in and of themselves, but the affirmation is not always positive. Shared experiences can form the basis of co-dependency that is unhealthy and even destructive.
If we spend all our time with people with whom we share experiences, we can become insular and narrowminded. If we don’t venture beyond those circles of commonality, we may find ourselves in an echo chamber of conformation bias that blinds us to the false stories we tell ourselves and reinforces our narrowmindedness.
Common experiences can also have the opposite effect. People who spend significant time in other countries and with people not like them tend to be more openminded, more humble, and more accommodating of people who see the world differently.
As Christians, the common experience of being “in Christ” with people who are very different from us in ethnicity, native language, economic strata, age, etc. is mind and heart expanding. The usual commonalities that define us – like Jews and Gentiles, male and female, slave and free – give way to a greater identity that we find together in Christ.
Being in Christ should be a defining commonality for Christians, though we often default back to commonalities that are of lesser significance. We need to guard against that.
Jesus challenges every Christian to stretch ourselves in these things – to strive to make our shared experience in Christ the commonality that is preeminent in our lives. That commonality should be the one thing that unites us, though we may have little else in common.
Jesus also urges us to stretch back from that one commonality to engage a world that does not share that one common, all encompassing identity that unites Christians around the world. Jesus bids us to go out into the world to share the Gospel with people who do not yet share that common identity.
In doing that, we need to use other, lesser commonalities to bridge the gap, to make connection, to open doors to sharing the Gospel. Jesus is our ultimate example. In Jesus, God became flesh so that He could share in our humanness and, therefore, to connect with us so that he could share the good news with us.
We often become insular in our Christian community, however. It’s comfortable there, and the effort to connect with people who do not share the most important aspect of our lives is hard work.
We sometimes vacillate between the groups of people with whom share certain commonalities like chameleons, fitting in where we go. It’s hard to maintain our distinctiveness as Christ followers among people who do not know Jesus. Yet, this is our calling.
The religious community in the first Century was insular. The religious leaders criticized Jesus for making those human connections with the world – the tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners of his day.
If Jesus was born today, I am convinced he would be criticized for hanging out with the LGBTQ community, Muslims, and atheists. The people in those communities would be just as critical of Christ followers as they were in the 1st Century, yet our commission is to bridge the gap to share the good news. I don’t think the dynamics were any different when Jesus walked the earth in the flesh than they are today.
We cannot let our experiences define how we operate in the world. They can be good and bad, positive and negative, helpful in living out the Christian life and unhelpful, depending on our perspective. They can define us and bind us in our closedmindedness, or they can be tools for making critical connections in furtherance of the plans and purposes of God.
My thoughts today are inspired by something Preston Sprinkle said in response to a questions posed by a listener to his podcast, Theology in the raw. Sprinkle gets much criticism from within the Christian community for his efforts to bridge gaps with the modern world – especially the LGBTQ community.
I appreciate his heart and his attempts to make connections with the “sinners” of the world. Of course, we are all sinners. We know that, but we have a hard time putting it all in perspective. It’s difficult and sometimes messy work trying to remain pure and undefiled in the world and to “go into” the world at the same time with the Gospel.
One thing that he said seemed important enough for me to write it down. He said:
“I don’t determine my theology from other peoples experiences. You can’t. Which experience are you going to choose to determine it? .. . But I do think listening deeply to other people’s experiences should shape how we think theologically, how we hold on to our theology. Listening well to other people helps us put our theology into the conversation with real people.”
If you will indulge me, I am going to try to break down what I think he is saying. I think it is critical to our role as ambassadors of Christ to get this right.
I recently heard Tim Alberta say that some modern evangelicals have picked up a sword, and that sword is Donald Trump. Such a sword is needed for success in a culture war, and a culture war mentality drives the politics of many, if not most, of evangelicals today.
Many evangelicals are concerned, if not fearful, of current cultural trends. People are pulling away from and rejecting traditional Christian values in the US. The change has been rapid (as far as cultural trends go). American society is going the way of Europe and Canada in letting go (and outright rejecting) Christian labels, overtly Christian thinking, and church attendance.
Perhaps, nothing demonstrates the cultural movement away from Christianity in the United States like the book, The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going, by Ryan P. Burge. The author says that only five percent (5%) of Americans claimed “no religion” in a 1972 poll. That number rose to over twenty three percent (23%) by 2018. This made “nones” as numerous as Catholics or evangelicals in the US in 2018.
Nones are predominantly young Americans, but this trend does not just affect the nation’s youth, and it has picked up momentum since COVID. Robb Redman reports from various sources on community trends and culture for worshipleader.com, including the following:
70% of Americans were church members in 1999 (Gallup);
Less than 50% of Americans were church members in 2023 (Id.);
45 million Americans have stopped going to church in that time;
41% of Americans 39-57 went to church regularly in 2020 (Barna);
28% of Americans 39-57 went to church regularly in 2023 (Id.).
Ryan Burge partnered with Jim Davis and Michael Graham to explore the reasons for this precipitous decline in church membership and attendance and the rise in self-described nones in their recent book, The Great Dechurching. This book has become the topic of much conversation in the short time since it was published. I haven’t read the book yet, so I posed the question, “What are the top five reasons people have stopped going to church, listed from most common to least common”, to two different AI platforms. The results from Bing Co-Pilot are as follows:
Judgmental attitudes (87%)
Distrust of organized religion (74%)
Too focused on Money (70%)
Busy schedules (67%)
Loss of Habit (58%)
The Co-Pilot response summarized studies done by the Pew Research Center, Gallup Polls, the Barna Group, the Public Religion Research Institute and various academic studies to generate this list. I note that the first three reasons people have given for not attending church are issues with the Church I am referring to the Church (capital C) because I don’t know how this breaks down among denominations. The other two main reasons are unrelated to the Church; they reflect personal and societal lifestyle issues.
Chat GPT reported different results, citing some of the same sources (Pew and Barna) and some different sources (General Social Survey and books and articles, generally, including Sociology of Religion by Diana Butler Bass, an academic book). The Chat GPT list is not as straight forward:
“A growing disconnection with church teachings or religious beliefs” (about 60%-70%);
“Negative experiences, such as feeling judged or encountering hypocrisy” (about 30%-40%);
“A perceived irrelevance of church” and disconnectedness of the church to modern issues (about 25%-35%);
Busyness, lifestyle, time constraints, and changing priorities (about 20%-30%); and
Exploring alternative spirituality and religious practices (about 15%-25%).
Again, the first three (3) (and the most prominent) reasons for not attending church deal with the Church, itself. Worldviews are shifting away from the views held by the Church (which seems to indicate we are losing this “culture war”). The Church is perceived as disconnected from modern life and the modern world and not relevant to it, and the Church is perceived as overly negative and hypocritical.
The one area of overlap is the high percentage of people who list judgmental attitudes, including negative experiences and hypocrisy) as major reasons of not attending church. This is obviously a key issue (ranking 1st and 2nd respectively).
I find this to be highly problematic for the Church because the Paul plainly said the Church should not be (presently) judging the world (according to Paul (See What Business Do We Have Judging the World?)) And, Jesus said we should be known by the love we have for each other.
It seems pretty obvious to me in my own anecdotal experience that the American Church, generally, has some significant issues in this regard. We are not following Paul’s instruction not to judge the world, and we are failing to love each other well.
I recently watched a Gavin Ortlund critique of fundamentalism in the Church today that focuses on these issues. He says it well when he describes a segment of the Church that is focused more on what followers of Christ should against, rather than than what we should be for. When our focus is on the negative, our positive message is likely to be eclipsed and obscured and it lost in the noise.
I realize, of course, that this “indictment” of the Church generally, is a very broad brush. The church I attend does not fit this mold. Most of the Christians I have close relationships with do not fit this mold. We don’t have to look very far or deep on social media, however, to see evidence of judgmental attitudes, hypocrisy, and negativity.
It’s interesting to me that resources Co-Pilot pulled from identify more negatives (distrust of organized religion and too focused on money) in the top three reasons for not going to church, while the Chat GPT sources identified “growing disconnection with church teachings or religious beliefs” and perceived irrelevance of church” and disconnectedness of the church with modern issues. Distrust and money-focused have nothing to do with message, but disconnection with church teachings and a perceived irrelevance with modern issues has everything to do with message (theology).
Exploring alternative spirituality and religious practices (the 5th reason noted by the Chapt GPT response is related to the disconnection responses. I don’t know whether these things are causal or just symptomatic. If people were finding what they were looking for in church, they wouldn’t disconnect and look elsewhere. If their church experience wasn’t negative, they might still be connected.
On the other hand, both sources identify other things that are going on. Busyness, lifestyle, time constraints, and changing priorities are “neutral” pressures that are affecting not just churches, but service organizations, fraternal organizations, and other traditional ways people have gathered together.
We see a spike in this trend of disconnection from Church membership and attendance after COVID (pun intended). COVID seemed to supercharge changes that were already in the works in many areas of life. People were already disconnecting from face-to-face contact with other people with the proliferation of hand-held devices and social media going back at least to 2012. COVID isolated people even further.
Sociologist, Jean Twenge, finds sharp changes in teen behavior and mental health starting in 2012, which she attributes to teen use of smartphones and other hand-held devices. Her findings about the changes in the behavior of teens is a yardstick to measure the pulse of society.
A published interview with Twenge as Time Magazine’s Person of the Week, reports that “Gen Z is in the grips of a historic mental health crisis, with teenagers struggling with record levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness.” Twenge, who has studied many generations of teens, discovered “big and sudden” changes in Gen Z starting around 2012, when hand-held devices became normalized among teens.
Those changes included, among other things, a doubling in the diagnosis of clinical depression among 12-17 year-olds from 2011 to 2019. At the same time, teens reported significantly less face time with other people corresponding significantly with more screen time. I have heard her say that teen pregnancy is down (which seems to be a good thing) because teens spend more time on their phones in their bedrooms alone than spending time with each other (which is problematic).
So, what does this have to do with Donald Trump and Christians fighting a culture war to try to preserve their power and influence in a society that seems to be pulling away from us? I seem to have wandered far afield, but now I am going to pull it in and get to the point.
It seems our culture needs Jesus more than ever. At the same time, people are do not see the benefits of knowing Jesus. At the very time when people need the grace and love of Christ most, people are being pushed away by judgmental attitudes and negative experiences. As people are struggling with isolation, polarization, and mental health issues, the Church is becoming more irrelevant, disconnected, and inaccessible to them.
Ironically, it seems to me, we are not only losing this culture war, the culture war seems to be the very thing that is pushing people away and isolating them from us. As we are circling our wagons defending ourselves against these “outsiders”, and attacking them from behind our theological walls, we have lost sight of the fact that Jesus sent us out into the world to bring the Gospel to the lost.
I recently heard someone say that apologetics is not good for anything because it is just about proving to other people that you are right. The statement was made by a Christian who is vocal about sharing his faith. So, this was not an excuse from someone who is ashamed to defend the reasons for his hope in Jesus Christ.
Indeed, some people approach apologetics as a kind of intellectual game of one-upmanship. Some people seem to think that apologetics is a kind of silver bullet or kryptonite to combat skepticism and atheism.
I have been drawn to apologetics over the last 12 to 15 years as I have gone through a renewal of my faith. I became a Christian in the academic setting of college, so apologetics was attractive to me. The intellectual exercise is invigorating and stimulating.
Along the way, I developed expectations similar to the ones criticized by my friend on social media – that apologetics has all the answers and engaging in apologetics will turn skeptics and atheists into believers, but it doesn’t necessarily work that way.
Just watch a debate and listen to the responses of the people who observed it. Most skeptics are going to walk away skeptical, thinking that the atheist won, and most believers are going to walk away believing, thinking that the Christian won.
We might call this confirmation bias. It’s human nature. We are naturally inclined to identify with the things we already believe in and to find the arguments that align with our beliefs to be compelling.
Debates tend to promote the kind of one-upmanship that my friend criticized. After all, that is traditionally the point of debate. For me, this seemed to be the wrong format for sharing the Gospel.
Therefore, I dismissed debating as an effective apologetics “tool”. It seemed to me that debates were not an effective way of delivering truth. Therefore, I gravitated toward platforms like the Unbelievable? Podcast hosted by Premiere Christian Radio in Great Britain where dialogues between theists and atheists are carried on civilly (usually) in a dialogue format.
But, I am not sure how much more effective dialogue is than debate in convincing people of the truth of Christianity. Most people remain convinced of their own views most of the time. Human beings are stubborn that way.
Many modern people see themselves primarily as rational beings, so we think apologetics reaches them where (they think) they live. I am skeptical that so many people are such rational beings. I have to question my own rationality sometimes. We are motivated by many things other than reason, and we use reason to cover up ulterior motives.
This is the thesis (more or less) of Jonathan Haidt in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. He argues that we reach our fundamental moral judgments about right and wrong at a gut level – not at a rational level. We turn to reason to defend our positions, but our positions are formed at an intuitive level.
I have not read the whole book, and I don’t recall his data and evidential support for the conclusions he reaches, but the general proposition rings true to my own experience and observation, limited as it is. What good is apologetics, then?
If Jonathan Haidt is right, then apologetics is not going to reach people where they actually live – in their gut. If we are aiming at the head, we are missing the mark, perhaps.
The title to this blog article is a question that doesn’t come from me. It comes from Paul, the Apostle. The question is rhetorical, meaning that Paul assumed his audience would know the answer, though he doesn’t leave them guessing. He provides the answer.
His audience was the Corinthian church in the 50’s AD. The larger context in which Paul asked this rhetorical question is also instructive. This is that context in which Paul asks the question:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
1 Corintihans 5:9-11 (emphasis added)
Then Paul asks the question,
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?God will judge those outside.
1 Corinthians 5:12 (emphasis added)
I am reminded of this passage today because of a comment posted by someone on Facebook about how we should treat people who seem to be “acting against God.” The poster expressed the opinion that something should be done by Christians about the “open immorality … being accepted in society.”
I don’t want to suggest that biblical morality should not instruct how Christians vote and engage politically in the world, but Paul’s question about judging the world should affect how we interact with the world in politics and other ways. At the same time, we need to know how to model Paul’s instruction not to judge those outside the church.
Christians are often accused of “forcing their religion” or morality on others. Simply voting and engaging politically based on biblical values is not forcing religion or morality on others any more than others voting and engaging politically based on their own values is forcing their views on us. We can vote our consciences without judging.
This is where we may need some nuance, however, as some Christians seem to think they have a biblical obligation or mandate to make the world conform to a biblical morality. I have to admit that I have shared this confusion in my past until I began to take seriously what Paul said to the Corinthians in the passage quoted above.
Judging by Paul’s words, I used to view this exactly backward! I judged the world by biblical morality, but I often gave myself and fellow Christians a pass when it came to strict adherence to righteous behavior. After all, we are saved by our faith and not be works, right? If I mess up, I can confess it and be forgiven – even as I demand that the world acknowledge and follow the law.
As I meditate on Paul’s words, I see that Paul’s instruction aligns with what Jesus said about judging. I think you will see that as I unpack what Paul and Jesus said and try to work out why they said it and what it might mean for us in the way we conduct ourselves in the world.
Navigating by Faith 