Author: Andy Rowell

What does it mean to be as shrewd as snakes?

Post author By Andy Rowell
Post date September 19, 2018
1 Comment on What does it mean to be as shrewd as snakes?

A key emphasis in the leadership and management literature is planning and preparation. Sometimes Christians worry about such "business practices." Why not just trust God? Why not just operate in the world in a childlike fashion? Indeed, Jesus says we are to "become like little children" (Matt 18:3). Then again, Jesus himself certainly operated in rather subversive and surprising ways. He criticized religious officials. He did not answer the questions posed to him directly. He said not to throw one's peals before swine (Matt 7:6). He used dramatic symbolic gestures. He appeared in public but then also spend time with just a few of his disciples and also went off by himself. He knew what he was doing when he entered Jerusalem and was arrested. Jesus has served as an inspiration for Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. in their mass movements to bring societal change. When one considers this context of subversive, savvy leadership, it should be less surprising that Jesus says to be as "shrewd as snakes" (Matt 10:16).

The Greek word for shrewd or cunning is φρόνιμος phronimos. It is also praised elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels and translated as "wise:" Matt 7:24; 24:25; 25:2, 4, 8, 9; Lk 12:42; 16:8. The context has to do being prepared. It reminds me of the Scout motto: Be prepared.

Though this word is praised here in Matt 10:16, it is qualified with "innocent as doves" and that is crucial. Good preparation should not become scheming or expedience or cutting corners–doing whatever it takes to get something done regardless if it is right. We are to think ahead and anticipate with might happen. But we are not to manipulate (trick) and deceive. We should be appropriately cunning, shrewd, wise, prepared, and proactive; but we as Christians should also absolutely be people of integrity ("innocent"). If people were to see what occurs behind closed doors via a hidden camera or our email messages or text messages, they would not see anything amiss. They would see us making plans, having meetings, considering what might happen, doing training, taking precautions. They would not be scandalized by our scheming to do things in underhanded, sketchy ways.

Phronimos is also used by the apostle Paul (Rom 11:25; 12:16; 1 Cor 4:10; 10:15; 2 Cor 11:19). When he is using it pejoratively, the sense is that they are "conceited" in the sense of overly wise or overly confident in their own intellects or overly confident in their own plans. They think they have arrived and do not need to learn anything new. This too is a distortion of what it truly means to be shrewd, cunning, wise, and prepared. Someone is not wise if they are so confident they are wise that they are unteachable and arrogant.

In summary, we are to be prepared but not scheming. And we are not to get so confident in our preparation that we think we have nothing else to learn.

So, what does this mean in terms of application? We are to make careful plans but not trick the person we are trying to reach out to. We are to market our programs but we are not to lie about numbers or exaggerate our credentials. We are to appropriately save money but not to build up our barns with massive amounts of savings because we are living in fear. We are to take appropriate precautions about being among outsiders but being shrewd does not mean refusing to leave the comfort and security of home because it is safer. There are people who live utterly in fear for their lives, the lives of their children, and about their financial future. We should be prudent, sober, wise, cautious, prepared but we do not need to live in anxiety and fear.

Proverbs 16:9 reads "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps." This verse puts preparation in perspective. There is sometimes an exaggerated application of this passage that suggests the more naive and less business-like, the more authentic and organic and spiritual. It is a zero sum game. The more humans beings plan, the more God is crowded out. But God's plan has always been to utilize human beings to do his work. Consider God's promise to Abraham to bless him that he might bless others. In this work, it is good for human beings to be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves.

Church Growth Evangelicals Megachurches Politics Trump

Megachurch pastors supporting Trump should be worried about driving the college-educated away

Post author By Andy Rowell
Post date September 3, 2018

The phenomenon of a couple of pastors publicly defending Trump

It is surprising that Jack Graham and Robert Jeffress have been the main spokespeople and defenders of this event between "evangelical leaders" and Trump at the White House that I have described extensively at my post: Evangelicals meeting with Trump at the White House August 27, 2018

Both pastor Southern Baptist Convention churches. That is not surprising. Many of those represented were Southern Baptist or from independent churches or from other non-church organizations. The Southern Baptist Convention has very little control over its pastors so these pastors are largely independent agents who can do as they choose.

Theologically it is odd because they are among a small number of seminary-trained pastors who were present and therefore one would think they would be more nuanced in their support of a president who 49% of Americans think should have impeachment proceedings brought against him. It is one thing to praise Trump's support of conservative judges because of pro-life. (As stated in my previous post, this has been the rationale for evangelicals voting for Republicans since at least 2000 and probably farther back to Reagan in 1980.) It is another to praise Trump's work as president more generally. Many within the Republican party publicly object to many of the things Trump has done even though they may cooperate with him on specific issues like conservative judges. These Republican critics of Trump include many conservative columnists like George Will, Michael Gerson, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, David Frum, David French, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, and Peter Wehner. Recall too no Republican senators except Jeff Sessions supported Trump in the primary and very few readily praise him except when it is helpful for their re-election or if there is some narrow issue they agree with him about. (Senators tend to be more nuanced than their House counterparts since they have to win state-wide elections). Consider the implicit criticism of Trump by other Republicans all week in light of John McCain's death. It is strange that these pastors are not more circumspect in their praise of someone historians currently rank as the worst president in history.

Finally, as we will see, it is interesting that both Jeffress and Jack Graham are in the Dallas, Texas area, which is not as uniformly Trump-supporting as one might think.

One has to wonder what the congregation members think of their pastor's support of Trump. Are they unaware of Jeffress on Fox News and Jack Graham in the Christian Post or are they supportive of their pastor's vocal support for Trump?

I have argued in my previous post that there are good theological, biblical reasons not to support Trump. I think there are also practical, statistical ones–that a pastor is likely driving people away that they want to attract.

A statistical argument why most megachurch pastors should not vocally support Trump.

(1) megachurches are often in highly educated and wealthy zip codes

Typically, to have a very large church (17,000 weekly attendance) like that of Prestonwood Baptist Church where Jack Graham pastors, it helps to have a prosperous surrounding area. If an area is hurting economically or losing population, churches like other organizations such as businesses typically also have challenges. A church planted in a rapidly growing zipcode does not automatically grow but a church located elsewhere has a much more difficult time.

Rick Warren recounts, "During the summer of 1979, I practically lived in university libraries doing research on the United States census data and other demographic studies . . . One afternoon I discovered that the Saddleback Valley in Orange County, southern California, was the fastest-growing area in the fastest-growing county in the United States during the decade of the 1970s . . . As I sat there in the dusty, dimly lit basement of that university library, I heard God speak clearly to me: 'That's where I want you to plant a church!'" Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church: Growth without Compromising Your Message & Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub., 1995), 33-34.

David Olson writes, "Growing churches were more likely to be rural and less likely to be small town, suburban, or urban. While the common assumption is that rural churches are under the most stress, the research supports the opposite . . . Only one [other] external factor was significant in the growth or decline of the church—the change in the population of its zip code. Fast-growing churches—those that increased by more than 20 percent in attendance—were more likely to be located in zip codes where the population growth was higher than the national average. If a church declined or was stable, it was more likely located in a low-growth zip code where population growth was lower than the national average." David T. Olson, The American Church in Crisis: Groundbreaking Research Based on a National Database of over 200,000 Churches (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 132-133.

Scott Thumma and Dave Travis similarly note that "We are now seeing a rapid rise in the number of churches reaching megachurch proportions that are located in more exurban, formerly rural counties." Scott Thumma and Dave Travis, Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America’s Largest Churches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007), 26.

Prestonwood Baptist Church's main campus started in a cow field and yet now finds itself among the 95% most educated and richest zip codes in the nation.

(2) more educated voters disapprove of Trump

In the 2016 election, of the 15 best-educated districts in the country, Trump won only one. Moreover, on average, Trump performed 13 points worse than Mitt Romney in the best-educated districts. "Republicans in well-educated but traditionally conservative areas now shoulder the burden of Mr. Trump’s weak performance. It suggests that previously safe Republican incumbents in Orange County, Calif., or the suburbs of Dallas and Houston could face serious challenges next November." Generally, if a white neighborhood was more than 65% college-educated, it voted for Hillary; less than 65%, it voted for Trump. This was not the case with regard to 2012 where many more areas with college-educated voters voted for Romney.

Moreover, a poll came out this week saying, "He’s at new lows among college-educated Americans (albeit just by a point; 29 percent approve) . . . The single biggest shift is among college-educated white women – just 23 percent now approve of Trump, down 17 points from the peak in April 2017, with disapproval up 20 points, from 55 percent then to 75 percent now."

This suggests that few people surrounding the megachurches, in these highly educated areas, approved of Trump in 2016 and even fewer now. Likely, this is also true of attenders.

(3) more educated people are more likely to attend church

In addition to the fact that more educated voters might be able to contribute more financially and bring specific talents to a congregation, more educated people are more likely to attend than less educated. More education tends to correlate with more religious participation. "Millennials with grad degrees attend about 15 percent more than millennials who dropped out of high school. Educated young people are not leaving religion, just the opposite. The relationship is also positive for Gen-X and Boomers, but smaller." And, yes, many people are still attending church. "Young people are just as likely to attend church as their parents. More educated people are actually more likely to attend than those with less education. The percent of people who attend weekly is unchanged in the last 20 years."

Thus, statistically speaking, it does not seem like a good strategy for a pastor to be a vocal supporter of Trump in an educated zip code. Only 29% of college-educated Americans approve of the job he is doing. And these college-educated people are the most likely people to attend church.

(4) Even in Texas, there are precincts in the suburbs that did not vote Republican

But, you might say, "This is Texas. This is the south. The college-educated vote Republican. Everyone votes Republican." And yes, the precinct where the main campus is located voted 58% Trump, 38% Hillary. The black-lined box in the center of the map is the precinct where Prestonwood Baptist's original campus is located. But look at the map of the area surrounding the precinct. There we see some blue (Democratic) precincts on every side of the light pink precinct.

Here is a different map from the local Plano newspaper, where the district is numbered 123 in the southwest corner of the map.

So, often very large churches are located in relatively wealthy, educated areas. Educated people tend not to like Trump. Educated people are the people most open to attending church. Even in Texas, there are suburban precincts that did not prefer Trump. Therefore, it does not make a lot of sense statistically for pastors of these congregations to be vocally pro-Trump.

First Baptist Dallas is likely in worse trouble

The black-lined area in the center of this map is the precinct where First Baptist Dallas Church is located. Robert Jeffress pastors First Baptist Dallas. They are likely to have more severe problems. This church is located in a very blue Democratic area: 75201. That precinct voted 68% Hillary, 26% Trump. With his touting of Trump on Fox News, it seems likely that many attendees drive in to the church from other areas. There are Trump-voting precincts north of the church building in University Park but that is a relatively small geographic area to draw from. There is a lot of blue all around the church's location.

But pastors should not make decisions based on statistics but rather on what is right.

Of course Christian pastors should not make decisions based on what is expedient. I wrote elsewhere:

for Christians, statistics are descriptive, not prescriptive. While helpful in the decision-making process, statistics do not tell Christians what they should do. The church deliberating under the Scriptures tells us what to do. A statistic which seems to indicate that a Christian response is inadvisable does not mean a Christian should jettison it. As Karl Barth defiantly said in 1933 after Hitler's party had been elected into power in Germany, "The decisive things which I seek to bring to these problems today is to carry on theology, and only theology, now as previously, and as if nothing had happened." In other words, in the tumult of seemingly discouraging events, Christians need not be dissuaded from doing what they know to be right. In Numbers 13-14, ten spies reported that the people in the land were so strong that the people of Israel seemed like grasshoppers. Joshua and Caleb saw the same data but insisted the interpretation by the spies was flawed. The minority faith-full report was vindicated.

But I think the statistical argument above may give someone pause who thinks that the way to keep their "evangelical" congregation or reach outsiders is to defend Trump. Be more principled. Be more thoughtful. Disagree where you should. This is what thoughtful people expect and want from their pastors.

If a pastor feels the need to please the base of Trump supporters in their congregation, they are likely losing the educated members of their congregation (and also probably the younger members and people of color and female members though we didn't get into that in this post). It is not worth it. Many of these large megachurches are going to struggle regardless as economic forces are volatile and people's opinions are fickle. It is better to go down sinking or swimming in the raging waters with an emphasis on truth and integrity.

Update November 2019: Jim Garlow, the third "evangelical leader" who gathers with Trump who has a seminary degree (besides Robert Jeffress and Jack Graham), left Skyline Church in November 2018.

Additional analysis of Jentezen Franklin: November 2019. Above we have analyze Trump-supporting large-church pastors who have seminary degrees (Robert Jeffress and Jack Graham).

Jentezen Franklin does not have a seminary degree as far as I know. He is a Trump-supporter and leads a megachurch in an area with lower income and education. It is also far from any Democratic-leaning areas.

Reported to have a high attendance:

Free Chapel Worship Center

Jentezen Franklin

Gainesville GA

Attendance: 13568

NONDENOM

It's zipcode 30504 is in an area that is in the 26 percentile in terms of education and in income.

Evangelicals Politics Trump

Evangelicals meeting with Trump at the White House August 27, 2018

Post author By Andy Rowell
Post date August 28, 2018
7 Comments on Evangelicals meeting with Trump at the White House August 27, 2018

The first part of this post is a roundup of information including a partial list of which "evangelical leaders" attended a meeting with Trump at the White House, and the second part of this post is a theological reflection on whether a Christian should attend such a meeting.

Summary of what happened and who attended

Last night Donald Trump met with some "evangelical leaders" at the White House. Many of those who attended have been vocal Trump boosters. Those include especially Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr., Robert Jeffress, Eric Metaxas, and Paula White.

Jeffress writes and says, "Evangelicals remain enthusiastically supportive of President @realDonaldTrump—and they are not going to turn away from him any time soon!"

There is a White House video and transcript for part of the evening. It begins with what appears to be a standing ovation for President Trump.

We see at the end of the transcript that there was a presentation by Paula White of a Bible signed by a number of pastors and with a flattering inscription for the president. (J.D. Greear reports that he did not know about this, nor sign it).

The Christian Post interviewed Jack Graham and James Dobson about what occurred during the open mic time.

Jack Graham, the senior pastor at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, who has served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Christian Post that Trump opened up the mic during dinner to allow evangelical leaders in the room to speak their minds.

What ensued, Graham said, was about 35 to 40 minutes of pastors expressing their appreciation for what the Trump administration has been able to do to progress a socially conservative agenda in the last 18 months. While Christians are often called to speak "truth to power," Graham said the leaders in the room felt called to speak "love to power."

"They were getting up and saying what we appreciate and care about, expressing our faith and our love. It was very similar to a meeting that you would have at a church," Graham said, adding that it was like a testimony meeting. "With that many preachers and Christian leaders in the room, we believe the spirit of God was very present. Scripture was shared, verses were given to the president. The truth was delivered and love was delivered."

However, some who spoke during the open mic session warned that evangelicals must keep up the "vigilance" because a negative outcome in the 2018 midterm elections could put the gains of Trump's first 18 months in jeopardy.

"We need to maintain our vigilance in the upcoming days. The concern is that this is a spiritual warfare, this is a battle and ultimately battle is won on our knees," Graham said. "It is very clear, we voiced to the president that we need to pray, pray for him, pray for our country."

Graham noted that many prayers were offered throughout the night.

In a statement provided to CP, Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family and Family Talk radio, said the dinner was "wonderful" and unlike any event he has attended at the White House before.

"I have served five presidents in the past 38 years and this was perhaps the most exciting event in that time," Dobson said. "The president spoke first and thanked us generously for the support we have given to him and his Administration since his inauguration. At least 15 ministers and leaders then rose to thank Mr. Trump for keeping his promises during the campaign and since his inauguration."

Franklin Graham was photographed at the podium so he seems to have spoken.

Greg Laurie says he gave the final prayer.

On the afternoon of the day after the dinner, there were reports from the New York Times and NBC News about a leaked recording of Trump speaking to the group after the media left. Robert Jeffress responded.

J.D. Greear issued a statement about his attendance the next morning. (Later note 9/2/2018: Greear had also been to the White House meeting with Trump July 27, 2017 as well).

Here is an attempt at a partial list of who attended based on photos and reports

"Before the dinner, Trump met privately with a small handful of evangelical leaders and their wives." These people are listed first in bold.

Jack Graham
(and Deb)
Franklin Graham
(who attended with daughter Cissie Graham Lynch)
Jerry Falwell Jr.
(Becki Falwell)
Tim Clinton
Paula White-Cain
son of Paula White
Robert Jeffress
Greg Laurie
(and Cathe)
Eric Metaxas
J. D. Greear
Ronnie Floyd
Samuel Rodriguez
Kenneth Copeland
(and Gloria)
Jim Garlow
Darrell Scott
(Belinda Scott)
Malachi O'Brien
Jentezen Franklin
Robert Morris,
(and Debbie)
James Robison
(and Betty)
Marcus Lamb
Joni Lamb
Darryl Strawberry
(Traci Strawberry)
Harry Jackson
David Crank
Timothy M. Hill
James Dobson
(and Shirley)
Johnnie Moore
Ralph Reed
(and Jo Anne)
Gary L Bauer
Tony Perkins
Kelly Shackelford
Tim Wildmon
Michele Bachmann
Alveda King
Lester Warner
Donald Trump
Melania Trump
Ivanka Trump
Jared Cushner
Ivanka Trump
Mike Pence
Karen Pence
Sarah Sanders
Kellyanne Conway
Ben Carson
Alex Azar
Sam Brownback

Corrections and additions welcome. See photos linked to below to identify additional people.

Sources for attendance:

See White House photos and FLOTUS photos These photos are high quality and you can see a lot of the people who I do not recognize.
Emily McFarlan Miller's Twitter moment.
John Fea, who coined the term "court evangelicals," and profiled many of them in his new book Believe Me also identified some attenders.
David Brody's reporting.
Others tweeted photos from the evening
Warren Throckmorton helped me add some more (Added 8/31/2018).
Tim Wildmon Facebook (Added 8/31/2018).
Here is an RNS January 2018 article about people who were involved in similar meetings with Trump. I don't know if any of them were at this meeting: Jennifer Korn, Mac Brunson, Skip Heitzig, Tony Suarez, Rodney Howard-Browne, Frank Page, Mark Burns, Jordan Easley, A.R. Bernard, Eric Thomas, Gary Frazier, Mac Brunson, Danny Forshee, Jay Strack, Michael Brown, David McKinley, Stephen Rummage, Dave Stone.
Someone would be welcome to look up the position / title, education, organization / church, denomination, and location for each person and I would add it to the above names. There are a lot of SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) people and people from independent churches.

Another good overview of this event was done by Emily McFarlan Miller and Jack Jenkins.

See also this Twitter thread by Jack Jenkins the following day for additional things he thinks are important to note.

_________________________

Reflection on whether someone should go to a meeting like this between evangelicals and Trump

I share the information above because there has been much dialogue on Twitter today about whether or not someone should accept an invitation to the White House. Many Christians say, "Yes! We can be a good influence in the meeting and speak up stating our concerns. What's wrong with going to a meeting? We want our leaders to be using their positions to use their influence." However, there are a couple of questions to be put to this.

(1) Will there really be dialogue and discussion? The person responds, "Yes, while they were chatting and mingling, I'm sure they raised important issues with the president and with one another. There was an open mic time too." But, by watching the video and seeing the Twitter photos and learning about the president's remarks and hearing that all of the 15 remarks during the open mic time were what Jack Graham called an appreciation for what the Trump administration has accomplished, there are no traces of vigorous discussion. Moreover, there are troubling things that the president and Paula White said that a Christian likely would want to probe further if this was a meeting that was designed for discussion. I know people have trouble imagining turning down an invitation to the White House but note that some sports teams have done just that because they did not want to endorse or associate with the president and there would not be opportunity for a give-and-take discussion. It is an honor to be asked to share your opinion in a meeting with the president; it is another to be invited to be a prop giving him a standing ovation or praying with him.

(2) A second question to ask is "Who is coming and what does that tell us about the nature of the meeting?" It is important to note that this meeting was not designed for religious leaders, Republican religious leaders, Democratic and Republican evangelical leaders, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christian leaders, Republican evangelical leaders. This is not the National Prayer Breakfast. This is rather some of the only pastors who have been publicly supportive of Donald Trump–along with some other religious right activists. There are many evangelical leaders who are publicly non-partisan or even Republican who were not invited because they have at some point spoken up against things President Trump has done. Surely there are others who decided that one week after Michael Cohen testified under oath that he paid off porn stars at the direction of Trump, it would be inappropriate to accept Trump's offer of a gift of a party thrown on behalf of evangelicals. Though this was planned months ago, clearly the plan was to solidify Donald Trump's support with "the evangelicals" for political purposes. This became absolutely clear when the leaked audio of the private time with the leaders was released. The president made clear in his remarks to the leaders to ignore traditional restrictions about advocating for specific candidates from the pulpit and to urge the election of Republicans because if the Democrats were to take over "violence" would occur.

It should also be noted at this point that the figures present at the White House do not represent evangelicals. Few who were present have ever been thought of as a nation-wide evangelical leader. Franklin Graham for awhile was respected for his organization Samaritan's Purse but his consistent advocacy for Republican ideology has weakened that respect in other parts of evangelicalism. James Dobson was once an influential voice on parenting matters as the founder of Focus on the Family but he has been retired for a number of years. (Samuel Rodriguez is another possible national leader but I have investigated his background in this thread in May when he last appeared at the White House and have some questions. May 27, 2019: I see he is no longer on the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary despite his bio though he is still on Christianity Today's and NAE's. See also a new thread from July 2019 about Samuel Rodriguez). J. D. Greear is legitimately an influential leader as the head of the Southern Baptist Convention but he has distanced himself from the meeting today. Ronnie Floyd and Jack Graham are also past SBC presidents. Jack Graham, Floyd, Greear, along with Jeffress and Garlow are the only ones I saw with a seminary degree. This is subjective but the other figures that we have heard about thus far are not well-known, respected voices in evangelicalism. These are not writers of influential books, leaders of large congregations, denominational officials, people who sit on boards of respected institutions, professors, publishers, editors, and people with a respected educational background. Some like Robert Jeffress, Jerry Falwell Jr., and Paula White have become famous through their association with Trump rather than being well-known before it. Typically respected leaders within evangelicalism do not latch on to campaigning for a specific candidate or even to a specific party. Rather, they criticize and praise both Republican and Democratic politicians. The most obvious example of this is the National Association of Evangelicals which literally advocates on issues around which there is an evangelical consensus. The people invited were not invited because they were recognized as a highly respected leader by evangelicals. Rather, they were invited because they have expressed support for Trump.

So, why do some "evangelical leaders" work with President Trump? Evangelicals who support Trump tend to argue quite explicitly that they are using a flawed instrument (Donald Trump) to get what they want done. They may also admit that he is using them. They primarily want conservative judges because they want to slow the drift of cultural norms that permit abortion, gay marriage and adoption, and other GLBTQ rights. They worry that all hell is breaking loose. The more thoughtful Republican concern is with religious freedom where there is fear that society and the government will impose more and more restrictions on Christians practicing their faith how they wish (such as not discriminating against GLBTQ equality in hiring). These Republicans supporters of Trump approve of the way Trump is appointing who he is told to appoint by evangelical and Roman Catholic advisors like Leonard Leo and facilitated by Don McGahn (update: who it was announced 8/29 (two days after the meeting with evangelicals) is leaving the White House). It is for this reason that many evangelicals voted for Donald Trump (in this sense just a generic Republican who would appoint conservative judges) over Hillary Clinton (a generic Democratic appointee who would appoint liberal judges). This group is strongly tempted to embrace an ethic that says: the ends justify the means. They define the ends as conservative judges and any means Trump uses that leads to that end deserves their support and cheers. They may argue that Joseph assisted Pharaoh (though of course eventually Moses protested against a later Pharaoh's brutality and injustice). They may also argue that they are like Esther speaking up to the king though they are certainly only being listened to about one issue (conservative justices).

So what is the critique of Trump-boosters by other evangelicals? Evangelical critics of this approach think that the ends defined here as "conservative justices" are much too narrow or short-sighted and the means being employed are the exact opposite of what Jesus teaches. They argue that the "common good" is a better end. It focuses on the good of everyone rather than retaining white evangelical values of the past in society. They are appalled about the values, behavior, and many other policies of Donald Trump. They are very concerned that "evangelicals" are being associated with these immoral aspects of Donald Trump. They worry about what this pact with Trump is doing to the reputation of evangelicals and Christians. Moreover, it is also possible that utilizing wrong means will do long-term damage to the long-term ends. For example, it is possible that the number of abortions may not be reduced or religious liberty stabilized if one pursues these ends with any means necessary. There is likely to be a vicious backlash.

So does that mean that a Christian never attends a dinner at the White House? It seems to me that one answer is from an obscure passage in 1 Corinthians 10. The apostle Paul writes,

²⁷If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.²⁸But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice [to an idol],” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience.

Christians are to eat with outsiders when there is a sincere exchange of ideas (1 Cor 10:27) but not if the person is trying to get you to celebrate an idol (1 Cor 10:28).

If the person is naive or intrigued about a conversation, when there is a budding friendship, then engage in the dialogue. They can try to persuade you. You can try to persuade them. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors.

However, if the person is trying to bribe you or use you to cover over corruption, you should decline to participate. First Corinthians 10:28 is a biblical admonition against being a pawn if someone is trying to ceremonially use you. A vivid depiction of this is Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refusing to bow to the idol in Daniel 3. You assert the truth and what is right like Daniel, Esther, and Nehemiah did. John the Baptist criticized Herod the tetrach's behavior and lost his head for it. We are not to fall for the offer of power and influence.

Proverbs 23

23 When you sit to dine with a ruler,
    note well what is before you,
²and put a knife to your throat
    if you are given to gluttony.
³Do not crave his delicacies,
    for that food is deceptive.

My point is the evangelicals should seek to understand when and how they truly can engage in dialogue and influence the Trump administration. However, they should also make clear that they do not support things that are demonstrably unJesuslike.

——————