The news waves are buzzing with reports of summary deportations with a mixed reaction of angst and anger on the on hand and zeal on the other hand. Social media is overtaken by the reports and the opposite reactions in a vortex of swirling vitriol.
I am as guilty as the next person of the desire to post knee-jerk reactions, I realize we need cooler heads to prevail if we are going to find a positive way forward as a nation.
The same swirling vortex of reaction is evident in the Church, even in the evangelical church, which is my “tribe”, and the same need for cooler heads to prevail exists. We also need biblical grounding and direction if we are going to maintain any sense of unity in Christ.
The latest news involves the visit to the White of El Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele. The staged meeting of the two presidents comes in the wake of the mass deportation on March 15, 2025, of hundreds of men to a notorious Salvadoran prison known for its harsh and inhumane treatment of prisoners.
The deportations happened so fast that an emergency motion filed in court and an emergency order blocking the deportation came too late as the plane rushed off the runway just as the order was handed down. The White House maintained that every one of the several hundred men were violent criminals, though about half of them had no criminal records, and none of them received even a cursory hearing.
Homeland Security insisted to the trial judge that the plane had already left the runway when the order was issued. According to the Supreme Court, however, “The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal,” suggesting that the order was in place before the plane took off.
The court found further that “[t]he United States represents that the removal to El Salvador was the result of an ‘administrative error.’” Thus, Homeland Security admits they made a mistake in deporting him. One of the reasons for “due process, which I will get into, is to avoid such mistakes.
Nevertheless, Homeland Security justifies the action taken by claiming that Abrego Garcia “has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public.” They maintain they have done nothing wrong.
The subject of this post is due process, so I will ignore some of the other elements of this case, such as the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the order to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, the fact that the decision was 9-0, and Donald Trump’s insistence this was a victory for him (perhaps because he got away with it with no repercussions – yet).
While the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for clarification, the Court did weigh in on the substance of the issues in various ways. The Supreme Court said:
“The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”
“To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it.”
The government is bound by a 2019 order effectively granting Abrego Garcia legal refugee status in the United States.
“Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an ‘oversight.’”
The government’s request to be able to allow them to leave Abrego Garcia in El Salvador is based on “no reason recognized by the law.”
“The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong.”
“[T]he Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with ‘due process of law,’ including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings.”
“Federal law governing detention and removal of immigrants continues, of course, to be binding as well. See 8 U. S. C. §1226(a) (requiring a warrant before a noncitizen ‘may be arrested and detained pending a decision” on removal)….”
“In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.”
These are direct quotes from the Supreme Court ruling. As you should be able to discern easily, this is not a victory for the Trump Administration, and it is not a vindication of what they have done (and continue to do) in detaining, arresting, imprisoning and deporting people without due process.
The story of Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez, an Orange County couple who were deported to Colombia after living in the United States for 35 years, raises concerns about the complexities of U.S. immigration law and the human cost of its enforcement. The Gonzalez’s case exposes the tension between the rule of law and the values of compassion and mercy, values that lie at the heart of Judeo-Christian ethic.
Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez fled Colombia in 1989, seeking asylum from violence, drugs, corruption, and instability. According to news reports, the couple hired attorneys to help them, but those attorneys were eventually disbarred. (See Fox News LA) The news reports don’t provide details on the disbarment or on the long and winding process that came to an impasse in 2021.
During this time Nelson Gonzalez (59) found work in a laboratory as a phlebotomist, and Gladys (55) remained home to care for three daughters who were born and raised here: Gabby (23), Stephanie (27), and Jessica (33). They paid federal and state income taxes for 35 years. They paid into a Social Security and Medicare system that would never benefit them. If they owned a home, they paid real estate taxes, and they paid sales taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. over that time period.
Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez regularly checked in with ICE, and they were granted extensions. They didn’t hide, and they faithfully stayed in contact. Gladys had just been granted another extension when ICE showed up for what seemed like a routine check in, and everything changed. As reported by the local news outlet, KTLA:
“They were put into handcuffs by their wrists and ankles and treated as criminals before getting to these detention centers,” Stephanie Gonzalez told KTLA. “All they said is they extended their stay, even though every year they’ve had permission to be here and they’re law-abiding citizens who show up and are doing their duty to check in with immigration and say, ‘Hey I’m here. I’m not hiding or doing anything wrong.’ Then they just arrested them like that.”
A spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told The Orange County Register simply that the couple had “exhausted all legal options to remain in the U.S. between March 2000 and August 2021,” and they were in violation of immigration law. The news reports don’t explain the details of the legal process or why the attorneys were disbarred.
As an attorney myself, I can say with some degree of confidence that the attorneys they used were not good attorneys. Attorneys don’t get disbarred over mere incompetence, though attorneys who get disbarred are often incompetent, too. Attorneys get disbarred for taking their clients money and doing nothing, missing deadlines and court dates, embezzling client funds, violating court orders and other serious professional misconduct.
Immigrants like the Gonzalezes who leave their home countries because of desperate conditions usually have meager resources. Many of them spend their life savings just to get here. They seek asylum because they don’t know any other way forward, but proving eligibility for asylum is often very difficult. Without a competent attorney, the path is fraught with danger.
To be eligible for asylum, a person must be present in the United States. Such a person, by definition, doesn’t have legal status (yet), but petitioning for asylum requires a person to be present in the US.
Therefore, they must come here at the mercy of the process. They risk everything to seek asylum. It is the desperate path to legal status.
Eligibility for asylum requires evidence of persecution or “a well-grounded fear of future persecution“ from the government of their country of origin or from a group the government is unwilling or unable to control. The persecution must also be based on race, gender, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
For most asylum seekers, the only evidence they have is personal testimony. Other evidence is left behind in the country of origin. Most people without resources don’t have access to medical records of injuries or psychological trauma, police reports, court documents, or other official records that remain in their home country. The witnesses to their trauma are also not present to testify for them.
Attorneys charge upwards of $500 an hour. Costs can run into the thousands, but most asylum seekers have limited resources. They spend spent their life savings just to get here, often falling victim to the coyotes who prey on the vulnerable.
The immigration system provides no help. Asylum seekers do not have a right to attorney, so many people try to navigate the unfamiliar bureaucratic maze alone. Others are exploited by people who don’t know what they are doing and/or are just in it for the money.
People who are “only” escaping violence, corruption, poverty, and drug culture don’t qualify for asylum, even though no person I know would want to raise a child in such an environment. Run-of-the-mill desperate circumstances do not qualify a person for asylum. A person must be persecuted or face a well-grounded threat of persecution based on race, gender, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group to qualify for asylum.
People who manage to escape actual persecution or threats of persecution without injury maybe found to have insufficient proof. A judge may deny asylum because they suffered no harm or because the judge didn’t find their testimony credible enough. Language barriers don’t help.
The process is complex and can take years, and everything hangs on one determination. The movie, Between Borders, streaming now on Amazon. etc. does a good job of depicting the problems of proving eligibility, even by people who qualify. The outcome of the movie is heartwarming, but that outcome is nothing but fiction for many asylum seekers.
If a judge denies the petition for asylum, deportation is the result. An appeal is possible, but an appellate judge will only reverse the decision (generally) if the trial judge didn’t follow the process or made some other technical error. Appellate judges almost never overturn a trial judge’s factual determination. Handling an appeal, is a technical and unforgiving process, and many people fail because they do not understand the process.
You can theoretically obtain an order withholding removal, but only if you prove “certain harm” would occur if you return to your home country. If your couldn’t convince the trial judge of a “well-grounded fear of persecution in the future”, you aren’t likely to prove “certain harm” on appeal after asylum is denied.
Other countries won’t take you, so must go back to your home country. Typically, you must wait ten years or win the lottery before you can come back and try again.
Other paths to legal status exist, but they require luck or years of planning and legal resources. Without a sponsor (who generally must be a parent or spouse and have sufficient resources), a person must rely on the “Green Card Lottery.”
Only people from eligible countries (which change from year to year) can apply for the Green Card Lottery. “Winners” are chosen at random. Millions apply for the lottery each year, but only 55,000 visas are awarded. My research indicates that the number of lottery applicants has exceeds 22 million, depending on the year. At 22,000,000 applicants, one quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the applicants obtain a visa this way.
The details of the Gonzalez case are not reported in the articles I read. All we know is that, despite their efforts and the appeals they filed, they were not granted legal status. Despite that, they had been granted extensions, and they were given an extension immediately before they were suddenly and summarily deported.
Their case highlights a fundamental problem with current immigration law: it is inflexible and lacks common sense. It is cumbersome, bureaucratic, and full of pitfalls. Without good legal counsel at the start, the an immigrant is often unable to navigate the course well.
They system also fails to account for the human reality of people who come here seeking asylum. They don’t typically have resources, or they would try another way. They don’t have knowledge of the system. They have to pass a gauntlet of crooks who only want to take advantage of them.
If they make it into the country, the process can drag on. Even for 35 years. Meanwhile, people like Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez have children; they find jobs; they pay taxes; and they become productive members of American society. This is where common sense prevail.
Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez had no notice they would be deported. They had just received an extension when ICE showed up for what they thought was a routine check in. Instead, they were handcuffed and shackled in front of their children and grandson and hauled off to a prison in Louisiana.
The Gonzalez story is not unique. Many immigrants live in the shadows, contributing to their communities, paying taxes, and raising families, yet they remain vulnerable to deportation due to complications and missteps with the process to obtain legal status. We don’t usually see their faces, and we don’t usually hear their stories, other than the occasional news report with minimal facts and an impersonal tone.
I met a young woman a number of years ago who volunteered in the legal clinic I run. She dreamed of going to law school from a young age. She is one of the most exceptional people I have ever met, so I have maintained contact with her.
She explained that her parents traveled fluidly back and forth from Mexico to the US for stints of work. They didn’t need a passport to cross the border at that time, so they came and went to obtain temporary work and return home.
She was born in Mexico. Her parents were in the US when 9/11 happened. They were caught on this side of the border when travel restrictions were imposed, and they couldn’t foresee how things would change. They had a son; they continued to work, and to wait, and to hope things would go back to the way they were; and years went by.
Her father is entrepreneurial and started several businesses. The IRS was happy to give him a tax number and to receive his taxes. He employed many people, and he became a mentor to other would-be business owners.
This young woman knows no other home but the US. She has no connections in her home country. She is as Americanized as you and me, but she grew up under a dark cloud with the specter of deportation hanging over her head.
She knew she had to keep her head down. She could not call negative attention to herself. She excelled in school with a purpose, knowing that she would never qualify for a scholarship. Her parents would never receive Social Security or Medicare, though they paid into it for decades.
She graduated high school in three years with a perfect GPA, and she was on a pace to graduate from college in three years with a perfect GPA when I met her. Since that time she has graduated from college, and she graduated from law school.
In Law School, she worked in immigration clinics. She landed a job with a high-end estate planning law firm, but her heart was in doing immigration work. Even though she took a significant pay cut, she left the posh position and became an immigration attorney.
She is a “Dreamer” – children born out of the country who are raised here. She has married a US citizen, but the immigration landscape is dangerously potted with landmines, especially now. Even birthright citizenship (which is in the US Constitution) is up in the air. Her parents still live under a cloud of deportation that grows darker with each passing day.
I write this blog mainly for Christians and people who sense Jesus knocking at their door. I find myself increasingly writing to the Church in America, and specifically to my tribe – evangelicals – in recent years as the polarizing vortex of politics is blowing the country apart. Evangelicals and other segments of the American Church are not immune from the polarizing forces.
I might have remained in my own ignorance of God’s heart for the stranger if I had not decided one day in 2014 (during the Obama administration) to do a deep dive into Scripture to develop a biblical view of immigration. I realized at that time that I didn’t have a biblical view of immigration as I struggled to find solid footing in the gale of the political winds at that time.
Since then, the gale has increased to hurricane force winds. If you are a Christian, and you don’t have a solid, biblical view of immigration, I implore you to do your own deep dive. A study around the time I wrote my first article indicated that only 13% of Evangelicals said the Bible is the source of their views on immigration. My own study changed my mind in 2014.
If you do your own reading of Scripture, you may not come out where I have, but I believe every Christian who takes his/her faith seriously should ground their views solidly in the Bible first, and not in the politics, culture wars, and social media influences of the day. If you want to consider what I have I found focusing on “strangers” and “sojourners” in the Bible – words in the Bible that describe people we call immigrants today – a link is in the image below to the articles I have written describing what I found.
Let’s lay politics aside for a moment, and just consider the Word of God. Politics, of course, is the backdrop to this article. A person cannot be completely apolitical, no matter how hard one tries, but political positions shift, evolve and change, while the Word of God is eternal. Therefore, we should put the Word of God first over our political inclinations.
If you believe your Bible, the Word of God existed before God made the universe, and all of creation was made through the Word of God. (John 1:1-3) God spoke the entire universe into existence (Genesis 1) and made all things by His very command that are seen from what cannot be seen. (Hebrews 11:3)
Of course if you are a Christian, you believe that the Word of God became flesh. (John 1:14) The Word of God who became flesh is Jesus: God with us; God incarnate; God who became man. He proved himself by what he said, by the miracles he did, and by rising from the dead after he was tortured, crucified, and buried.
The Word of God (at least some of it) is preserved in writing for us as it was spoken to and through people who heard God’s voice and responded in faith by preserving it. Jesus, Himself, quoted extensively from the books of what we call the Old Testament as authority for what he said and did. (Interestingly, he never quoted from apocryphal texts.)
Thus, Jesus, who we believe was God who became man and who rose from the dead, treated those Old Testament writings with great deference – as the word of God.
Jesus quoted Scripture often from Genesis to the Prophets. When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, he quoted scripture, including Deuteronomy 8:3: “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” When Jesus began his ministry, his first public statement and description of his ministry according to Luke came from the prophet, Isaiah, which he told the listeners was fulfilled by him that day in their hearing (Luke 4:18-19):
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
After Jesus had risen from the dead, he explained how the Scriptures from Genesis through the Prophets were about him. (Luke 24:27). Jesus was both the Word of God through whom God made the universe, and he honored the word of God preserved in the Bible – calling it his daily bread. It defined his purpose; and it is all about him.
With that set up, my theme today is the Prophets and what they said about how God’s people should act in the world, especially rulers who wield governmental influence and power. Our political views, how we conduct ourselves in politics, and who we champion as our rulers should be informed and driven by God’s Word.
Concerns about “Christian nationalism” have been raised in recent years from the political left. Some people in Christian circles, and specifically conservative Christian circles, have pushed back on those concerns and criticisms. At the same time, however, concerns about Christian nationalism have been voiced from within Christian circles, even from within conservative Christian circles.
The conversation has arisen, perhaps, because of the way that Donald Trump has courted Christians in his campaign to “Make America Great Again”. Many Christian voters have embraced Trump and his campaign slogan.
I am thinking about this in the context of a question raised about Christians being patriotic to John Dickson on a recent episode of the Undeceptions Podcast. (See Question Answer XIII at abut the 42 minute mark.) The person who raised the subject referenced the Bonhoeffer movie, observing that the issues for the church seemed to come when the church stopped thinking what it means to be a Christian and started thinking about what it means to be a German Christian.
The question is, “Should Christians be patriotic?”
Putting the question in terms of patriotism, rather than nationalism, presents a slightly different twist on this conversation. “Christian nationalism” has become a pejorative term, but patriotism is seemingly more neutral and non-pejorative. At the same time, many people accused of Christian nationalism would likely say they are only being patriotic.
So, is patriotism ok for a Christian?
I like the fact that this question was put to John Dickson, an Australian who has no dog in the American political fight. Though he currently teaches at Wheaton College in Illinois, he approaches the issue from outside the roiling turmoil of American politics.
The question was also posed by a non-American listener to the podcast who was concerned about the way patriotism “potentially dehumanizes others and makes them seem lesser because they are not of our race”. He expressed concern about the mistreatment of refugees and others of different background to our own.
The “glaringly obvious” theological view proclaimed by Jesus and the New Testament writers, responds Dickson, is that Christians should view themselves fundamentally as citizens of a kingdom that is not of this earth. (Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (Jn. 18:36); Paul said, “[O]ur citizenship is in heaven.” (Ph. 3:20); and Peter called Christians “sojourners and exiles” in this world. (1 Pet. 2:11) In my view, that means that none of us have a dog in the earthly political fight – ultimately.
Thus, we should “be shaped by the values of God and not the values of any particular nation”, according to Dickson. He observes that this admonition is everywhere in the teaching of Jesus, beginning with the first public words spoken by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, which we call the Sermon on the Mount. He summarizes,
“Everything in the Beatitudes [in the Sermon on the Mount] seems to stand against the nationalistic mindset of dominating others…. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are the merciful; blessed are the peacemakers; blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of heaven [paraphrasing the Beatitudes]. The contrast with the nationalistic spirit of the day couldn’t be more striking.”
JOhn Dickson in Episode 146 of the Undeceptions podcast
Dickson urges us to consider the Beatitudes in light of the Roman domination of the world at the time and the Jewish expectations at that time. These are some song lyrics written in the 2nd Century BC by a Jewish author:
“See, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, At the time known only to you, O God, that he may reign over Israel your servant. Gird him with strength, to shatter unrighteous rulers; To purge Jerusalem of the nations that trample her down in destruction; To expel, in wisdom and righteousness, sinners from the inheritance; To smash the sinner’s pride like a potter’s vessel….”
Psalms of Solomon 17:21-23
This Jewish author’s sentiment is full of what we might call nationalistic pride. Contrast that sentiment with the words of Jesus. The meek inheriting the earth seems like a far cry from shattering unrighteous rulers. As John Dickson explains,
“Jesus is demanding that his followers live by the values of the future kingdom over the values of any particular present nation.”
JOhn Dickson in Episode 146 of the Undeceptions podcast
Everywhere Jesus went, he proclaimed the coming of the kingdom of God. (Luke 8:12) The kingdom of God (and being ready for it) is the subject of most of the parables Jesus told. He also announced that the kingdom of God is here now (in our midst), but he sad it is like a mustard seed, the yeast in bread, or a treasure buried in a field.
The kingdom of God now is not (yet) the ruling authority. It is here, but it has not taken over. It is emerging, but it is not yet what it will be. When that time comes, however, everyone will know it; and people need to be ready for it, or they will miss it and be left out.
The message of the kingdom of God – that it has come, but is yet to come fully – is consistent with the instruction of Jesus that the meek will inherit the earth. We do not rule in the kingdom of God presently with might and power; we “rule” by denying ourselves, but taking up our crosses, and by allowing God to rule and work in our hearts to conform us to Himself.
The Jews who expected their Messiah to come at the time of Jesus did not recognize Jesus because they thought he would be their champion, empowering them to shatter the nations that oppressed them and smash the pride of (more) sinful nations. They failed to recognize their own sinfulness and the promise to Abraham, which was to bless all the nations through Abraham’s descendants. (Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:18)
They were too full of nationalistic pride to see what God was doing, consistent with the very promise God made to the them – to bless all nations. As we will see, this is a key issue, and it is something we need to contend with, lest we enter into the error of the First Century Jews
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.
Navigating by Faith 