Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

These peoples had no single name for themselves but a variety of names, and sometimes no name. The use of the term Christian was very rare.

First and second century groups employed a range of names for themselves. Since these groups were very diverse their names were also different. They did not all call themselves "those belonging to the party of the anointed." It also is likely that many of these group names have been lost or never written down.

Although there must have been at least several hundred different names for Jesus peoples during the first 200 years of the Common Era, our research over the past two years of the seminar has identified only 24 in actual documents.

The one thing that unified all the groups of this movement was that they regularly dined with each other. ... Meaning and benefit emerge in meals when those of different classes, ethnicities, and social standing eat together. However, this attractive and compelling practice of diversity by groups of the anointed had some problematic examples as well. ... Both bathing and communal eating practices of Jesus groups during the first two centuries of the Common Era were important community activities. The bathing practices in particular had a strong effect across broad swaths of these communities.
As people strove against imperial pressure both of these practices healed and energized otherwise broken people and relationships providing them with a sense of belonging to a safe community.

No one in the second century would have proposed a collection of writings of 20 or 30 documents to act like a New Testament. There was little interest in a written religious authority in the second century. No one proposed it, and no one assembled something like a New Testament.

These first 200 years of the Common Era are not the territory of something to be called the New Testament. There's little organization or dogma as people and groups work on defining their identities in unsteady but creative times. The writings, the people, and the identities are fresh, free, and incomplete.

... a long silence follows his life when Paul was all but forgotten except in a handful of communities that remembered him as their founder. Nearly a hundred years after his death in the mid-second century he began to be name-checked by an aggressive group of partisans who had rediscovered his legacy. But others reacted either with hostility or with relative indifference to this obscure character from the past.

When we search these other second century writings for Paul's substantive or distinctive ideas, we typically do not find them. Even those who knew of Paul and mentioned him may not have known his writings. Acts purports to tell Paul's story, but notoriously, never once mentions him writing letters.

A century after his death. Paul held an ambiguous or even ambivalent status. The impression is not of an ancient and well-established authority stretching back to his own time, but rather of a recent introduction that various leaders feel compelled to stage manage and resolve. The flurry of literary activity, all dated approximately to the mid-second century bears witness to a significant adjustment of traditions to make room for Paul.

Throughout the first and second centuries we see not only a great deal of diversity but also fluidity and experimentation in all aspects of the life of the communities of the Jesus movements. Members of early Jesus communities grew up within Greater Israel and identified with Israel's tradition. Israel had long dealt with its diversity by orthopraxy, not orthodoxy, that is by correct practice and not correct teaching. The Jesus groups initially followed in this tradition, but competition between teachers for new teachings created new schools and began to shift the balance more toward teachings than practice.

The real situation is fluid exhibiting a great deal of experimentation. We do not have heresy and orthodoxy in competition but a whole series of schools and teachers engaged and interacting in conversation debate, and experimentation.

The movement of Gnosticism to the scholarly side removes a confusing category from our ongoing work of rethinking the history of early Jesus schools and associations. We are moving from an idea that Gnosticism was a real force, the primary heresy that threatened the pure trajectory of Christianity, to the actuality on the basis of evidence for the absence, the non-existence of Gnosticism. We must rethink the entire assumption that a unified, heretical Gnosticism played a primary role in how the first two centuries unfolded. Using Gnosticism as an analytical category seems to hide more than it reveals and if we really want to understand the writing called Gnostic we need to set aside that designation.

1. They Resisted the Roman Empire
A wide set of what we call Jesus clubs, movements for the Savior, communities of the Anointed, and schools of the Lord successfully resisted the Roman Empire. These peoples' resistance against Rome often kept violence at bay and gave their people courage and an experience of safety. A key dimension of their resistance to empire was invoking God's compassionate and strange empire, or kingdom, as later translators have it, in contrast to Rome's cruel and dominating one. These various groups made fun of Roman military power and mocked Rome's claim of divine power, even though they themselves had almost no power. The Empire of God challenged the Empire of Rome. Caesar Augustus as Lord conflicted with Jesus Anointed as Lord.

2. They Practiced Gender Bending
A wide range of Jesus peoples practiced gender bending-that is, gender roles were fluid and flexible. One of their primary identities was that they were neither male nor female, but all were "one" through different lived, experienced realities of gender pluralism. Women, and a significant number of men, rejected both male dominance and female passivity. A wide swath of Jesus groups rejected marriage and traditional families, with the envoy Paul often leading the way. Although some Anointed groups and individuals supported male dominance and demanded female obedience to men, many men shifted toward acting more vulnerable and less domineering. Women cut their hair and dressed like men. These gendered activities and actions brokered new possibilities for identity among various Jesus peoples, well beyond the regular masculine/feminine dichotomies of the first two centuries.

3. They Lived in Chosen Families
With traditional families increasingly broken and dispersed, a variety of Jesus groups started living in experimental family groups. These new family groups were voluntary; that is, they lived together increasingly outside of blood or married relationships. Whereas previously the primary relations for living arrangements were extended families of multiple generations with cousins, aunts, and uncles in the mix, Jesus people associated daily with each other according to mutual support and affection. More and more "supper clubs" became crucial and core associations of daily life. Economic sharing provided ways that members of these groups bonded. In some cases, larger housing arrangements came into play for the groups through a donor exhibiting compassion. Although most of these new kinds of families were small, occasionally a wealthy person provided larger space for bigger groups.

4. They Claimed Belonging to Israel
The largest and most common identity of Jesus groups was their allegiance to Israel, regardless of whether the groups or members came from Israel-based bloodlines. This bond applied whether they lived in geographical Israel or around the Mediterranean basin. Small and large groups understood themselves to be following the God of Israel, read Israel-based holy writings, prayed and meditated according to the various Israel-based forms, bathed ritually according to Israel's traditions, and—perhaps most of all—gave allegiance to their Israel-born teacher and leader, Jesus. Since Jesus belonged to Israel by blood and practice, the larger Jesus movements assumed and explicitly practiced Israel's ways. But after the Bar Kokhba War (132-136 CE), the second major revolt against the Roman
Empire of the people inhabiting the territory known as Roman Palestine, this allegiance was increasingly challenged.

5. They Had Diverse Organizational Structures
As was the case with larger Israel itself, the many different groups, schools, clubs, and Anointed communities had a variety of practices, beliefs, and organizational patterns. These peoples
had no central leadership and so had neither interest in telling nor the ability to tell the myriad groups how to practice or what to believe. The models for such organization were local and
occasionally regional, and so Jesus groups generally followed the diverse club organizational rules or the varieties of synagogue practices around the Mediterranean. The idea of Christian synods and ecumenical councils lay in the distant future. As occurred both in local clubs and in synagogue patterns, it was normal for different groups to dispute with one another about practices and beliefs.

6. They Had Persisting Oral Traditions
Writing did not dominate the life of the early communities of the Anointed to the same degree as surviving documents have dominated how we have imagined their life. There was nothing like the New Testament in the first two centuries CE. Throughout those centuries, Jesus peoples celebrating, arguing, and debating combined many forms of speaking and writing. Reading—as in all Mediterranean cultures� was done together publicly, especially when the few people who could read would read to a whole group. But often there was no reading. There was significant writing among the different groups, but this writing was part of a boisterous, complicated community dialogue, group reading, ritual practice, and—most of all—intense discussion. Much material overlapped Israel's developing readings of Torah, the Prophets, and Wisdom literature, the writings increasingly being set apart, designated as particularly meaningful for the life and identity of these peoples. Other writings were letters between communities, partially developed stories, and songs from within communities. Important writing was also done through a few words etched in stone and referenced as rules or statutes for Jesus clubs and associations.

... how a historical approach to the stories of and by Jesus, coupled with awareness of how these narratives have been understood over time, helps us see better what matters in his world, and ours. This book asks how Jesus and the Gospels can help us get through the minefields of today's culture wars in such a way that we bind up wounds rather than blow up bodies. (p.9)

CHAPTER I: ECONOMICS
CHAPTER 2: ENSLAVEMENT
CHAPTER 3: ETHNICITY AND RACE
CHAPTER 4: HEALTH CARE
CHAPTER 5: FAMILY VALUESy
CHAPTER 6: POLITICS

The parable of the sheep and the goats returns us to other chapters in this book. For the hungry, thirsty, and naked the Gospels speak to economic issues responsibilities and opportunities (Chapter 1). Though the parable does not mention those who are enslaved (Chapter 2) we can extend its concern for those who are in prison to those who are not free whether because of slavery or debt, or because of what the state sees as criminal behavior, or because they have been kidnapped or trafficked. For those who are sick and weak the Bible speaks to the importance of healthcare (Chapter 4). Further, speaking of those who are sick reminds us also of those who are enslaved who are sick, beaten, or flayed. When the sheep care for those who cannot take care of themselves they become the new family based on a common ethical code (Chapter 5). For the migrant the parable employs the category of stranger (Chapter 3). Salvation is not based on converting this stranger to the same beliefs or politics or rituals as the person providing aid. Salvation is based on care for those in need regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or any of those categories that today so divide us. For the first century and for the twenty-first, politics (Chapter 6) cannot be divorced from questions of economics, national identity and immigration, slavery, healthcare, gender and sexuality, and any other facet of life. Politics helps determine who can do what, who has access to resources, who can speak up and who is silenced. ... ...

... ... we can take the point of the parable to heart. If we do not see the face of the divine and the face of everyone else, even if we don't believe in a God that looks like us, we should nevertheless be able to see the human face, the face we share in everyone else. If we cannot we are lost. The first step may be looking in the mirror and seeing our own humanity. The next steps are to look at the faces, not just of those we love, but also of those we despise and move away from demonization. We may never get to love of enemy. I'm not there yet, and love of enemy is not on my bucket list. But human decency? That's obtainable. The Bible helps us get there. The Jesus tradition helps us focus.

3. Envisaging and engendering an open world
Human beings are so made that they cannot live, develop and find fulfilment except "in the sincere gift of self to others". Nor can they fully know themselves apart from an encounter with other
persons: "I communicate effectively with myself only insofar as I communicate with others".

4. A heart open to the whole world
If the conviction that all human beings are brothers and sisters is not to remain an abstract idea but to find concrete embodiment, then numerous related issues emerge, forcing us to see things in a new light and to develop new responses.

5. A better kind of politics
The development of a global community of fraternity based on the practice of social friendship on the part of peoples and nations calls for a better kind of politics, one truly at the service of the common good. Sadly, politics today often takes forms that hinder progress towards a different world.

6. Dialogue and friendship in society
Approaching, speaking, listening, looking at, coming to know and understand one another, and to find common ground: all these things are summed up in the one word "dialogue".

7. Paths of renewed encounter
In many parts of the world, there is a need for paths of peace to heal open wounds. There is also a need for peacemakers, men and women prepared to work boldly and creatively to initiate processes of healing and renewed encounter.

... it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a "just war". Never again war!

8. Religions at the service of fraternity in our world
The different religions, based on their respect for each human person as a creature called to be a child of God, contribute significantly to building fraternity and defending justice in society. Dialogue between the followers of different religions does not take place simply for the sake of diplomacy, consideration or tolerance. ... "the goal of dialogue is to establish friendship, peace and harmony, and to share spiritual and moral values and experiences in a spirit of truth and love".

I have held both these views at different times in my life, and I now think they are both wrong.

When you get to the Book of Revelation, there’s nothing about "giving and service." It’s about destroying the enemy. Forget "Turn the other cheek." Forget "Love your enemies." You hate your enemies and you hate what they do and you punish them.

The author is not at all sophisticated in his use of the language. Quite the contrary, his Greek is the worst of the entire New Testament. That itself is a rather low bar: the New Testament writings as a whole were notorious among the literati in the Roman world for their stylistic deficiencies. ... He is often clumsy and many times simply makes grammatical mistakes.

(view spoiler)[1. Christianity can be understood historically or culturally, as a legacy you are born into or enter by choice. To be a Christian is to inhabit a cultural or historical
tradition.

2. Christianity can be defined institutionally, as a power structure or hierarchy in which you participate. To be a Christian is to affiliate with an institution and accept its authority structure.

3. Christianity can be defined doctrinally, as something you believe. To be a Christian is to affirm a system of beliefs or teachings.

4. Christianity can be defined liturgically or pragmatically, as a set of rituals you practice. To be a Christian is to engage in some version of Christianity's rituals or practices.

5. Christianity can be defined spiritually or experientially, as something you feel or a conversion experience you've had. To be a Christian is to have, foster, and share a set of experiences.

6. Christianity can be defined moralistically, as a shared set of moral values or precepts. To be a Christian is to live your life by a moral or ethical framework.

7. Christianity can be defined missionally, as a program, plan, or movement for intentional action in the world. To be a Christian is to take on that mission as your own.

8. Christianity can be defined demographically, as a sociological or anthropological identity. To be a Christan is to identify yourself as a member of a recognized group.

9. Christianity can be defined politically, as a way of organizing people for political action (or inaction). To be a Christian is to act as part of a coalition with shared theo-political aims.

10. Christianity can be defined socially, as a community of people in whose presence you feel safe, welcome, needed, accepted, or supported. To be a Christian is to enjoy an experience of social belonging with others who identify as Christian.

11. Christianity can be defined linguistically, as a shared set of words and ways of communicating. (hide spoiler)]

I am not writing this book to convince you (or myself) to stay Christian. Nor am I writing this book to convince you (or myself) to leave Christianity identity behind forever. Instead, I want to think through the question of retaining or shedding Christian identity with you looking over my shoulder. And I want us to consider how we are going to live, whether or not we identify as Christian.

(view spoiler)[1. Because Christianity Has Been Vicious to Its Mother (Anti-Semitism)
2. Because of Christianity's Suppression of Dissent (Christian vs. Christian Violence)
3. Because of Christianity's High Global Death Toll and Life Toll (Crusader Colonialism)
4. Because of Christianity's Loyal Company Men (Institutionalism)
s. Because of Christianity's Real Master (Money)
6. Because of the White Christian Old Boys' Network (White Patriarchy)
7. Because Christianity Is Stuck (Toxic Theology)
8. Because Christianity Is a Failed Religion (Lack of Transformation)
9. Because of Christianity's Great Wall of Bias (Constricted Intellectualism)
10. Because Christianity Is a Sinking, Shrinking Ship of Wrinkling People (Demographics) (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[11. Because Leaving Hurts Allies (and Helps Their Opponents)
12. Because Leaving Defiantly or Staying Compliantly Are Not My Only Options
13. Because ... Where Else Would I Go?
14. Because It Would Be a Shame to Leave a Religion in Its Infancy
15. Because of Our Legendary Founder
16. Because Innocence Is an Addiction, and Solidarity Is the Cure
17. Because I'm Human
18. Because Christianity Is Changing (for the Worse and for the Better)
19. To Free God
20. Because of Fermis Paradox and the Great Filter (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[21. Include and Transcend
22. Start with the Heart
23. Re-Wild
24. Find the Flow
25. Re-Consecrate Everything
26. Renounce and Announce
27. Stay Loyal to Reality
28. Stay Human (hide spoiler)]

Postmodern thought is multi-faceted, involving countless esoteric interdisciplinary theses and debates about every aspect of life ... .(p.161)

Postmodern thought is considerably more nuanced, varied, and conflicted than I have presented it. ... [I] have identified these three themes as typically present in postmodern thought: (1) There seems to be no transcendental and ultimate grounding for claims to truth; (2) the world is fragmented by competing and conflicting interests with no universally accepted formula for mediating between interests; and (3) the power of domination is subtle and frequently "hidden."(p.162)

� while angels often appear in the Hebrew Bible, Satan, along with other fallen angels or demonic beings, is virtually absent. (p. xvi)

Many Christians, then from the first century through Francis of Assisi in the thirteenth century and Martin Luther King, Jr., in the twentieth, have believed that they stood on God’s side without demonizing their opponents. Their religious vision inspired them to oppose policies and powers they regarded as evil, often risking their well-being and their lives, while praying for the reconciliation—not the damnation—of those who opposed them.

For the most part, however, Christians have taught� and acted upon—the belief that their enemies are evil and beyond redemption. Concluding this book, I hope that this research may illuminate for others, as it has for me, the struggle within Christian tradition between the profoundly human view that “otherness� is evil and the words of Jesus that reconciliation is divine. (p. 184)

For centuries there were no rules for such endeavors (called "hermeneutics") because there was no source of independent information beyond the text itself. The Bible stood in splendid isolation, a unique monument from antiquity. But within the past generation or so we have had, at last, an independent witness to the world within which the Bible first took shape—archaeology. That means that we have an unprecedented opportunity to craft new authentic meanings of the biblical narratives, relevant for our time, with no less authoritative moral imperatives. That is what this book attempts.

... the grievous Egyptian bondage that the Israelites suffered did not take place in Egypt at all. It was rather in Canaan, in the Amarna Age ca. 1400-1300 BCE ... when local peoples were sorely oppressed by Egyptian authorities. That was really what was remembered, and it was the real-life context that influenced the story of liberation centuries later.

Many scholars look elsewhere for the pool from which we must draw, that is, among the settled population of Canaan. The most likely source would have been groups of refugees who were fleeing the decaying Canaanite enclaves along the coast and in the inland river valleys. These would have been urban dropouts; disenfranchised, landless people of all sorts; malcontents and social revolutionaries; adventurers and opportunists. The highland frontier would have been an attractive haven for all these peoples. If they do not seem to have had a lot in common, that should be no surprise.

In summing up, what did the kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon in the tenth century BCE actually look like? First, it was relatively small, about the size of New Jersey. It comprised approximately the area of modern Israel and the West Bank, excluding the Philistine coastal plain south of Tel Aviv and the Phoenician coast north all the way to Haifa and the Lebanon border.

But in fact, that Yahwism was largely a literary construct. What the masses of ordinary folks were actually doing instead was the real religion, if numbers count. This was not syncretistic (borrowed from and mixed with Canaanite religion), this was the real stuff. And ideal or not, it is unlikely that Josiah's reforms actually changed much. Folk customs die hard.

Another cave, a burial in the Valley of Hinnom, produced two tiny rolled-up silver amulets, designed to be worn around the neck, no doubt as good-luck charms. When carefully unrolled, one had the name of Yahweh in an inscription that reads almost identically to the famous priestly blessing in Numbers 6:24: "May Yahweh bless you and keep you . . .� Here we have preserved for us the oldest surviving fragment of biblical text, at least five centuries older than the oldest Dead Sea scrolls. And Scripture is not being read; in effect it is worn as magic. That is "folk religion.�

The effort to perceive the stories and perspectives of women in the time of Jesus in general, and who know him in particular, involves seeking what ancient male authors sometimes ignored and sometimes deliberately downplayed or omitted. The enterprise is thus at once historical and imaginative. It seeks to take the evidence fully seriously and be compatible with it, and yet by definition is required to go beyond it, to explore silences and omissions and details around passing mentions. (p.12 book, p.26 ebook)

It is commonly assumed that the early Christians were martyred mostly at Rome, but this is far from the case. Within the Roman Empire, fewer Christians were persecuted in Rome and Italy than in the North African provinces--Egypt in particular--as well as Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. ...
It is also widely assumed that most early Christian martyrs faced death heroically rather than surrendering their faith. Not only would this hardly have been possible realistically, due to human weakness, but Eusebius rather honestly shows us otherwise.

There are obviously numerous similarities between the voyages to the afterlife of Odysseus and Aeneas, but one cannot help but be struck especially by the impressive differences. Some six or seven centuries after the Homeric epics, Virgil does not populate Hades with shades that all experience the same boring and pleasure-free existence. He writes of hellish torments for some and heavenly glories for others. Most have to be punished for their sins before being given a second chance at life. Why such a change from Homer? What has led to this invention of heaven and hell?

It is hard to say what among the enormous changes in the political, social, and cultural worlds between seventh-century Greece and first-century Rome might have effected the shift in thinking. But it is relatively easy to see what happened in the realm of ethical thought. Equity had become an issue. Thinkers came to believe that no one can live a life of sin, hurting others, offending the gods, pursuing only self-aggrandizement, enjoying, as a result, wealth, influence, and pleasure, and then die and get away with it. No: everyone will have to face a judge. The wicked, no matter how powerful and revered in this world, will pay a price in the next. Those who have done what is right, however, will be rewarded. (p.78)

There is no place of eternal punishment in any passage of the entire Old Testament. In fact—and this comes as a surprise to many people—nowhere in the entire Hebrew Bible is there any discussion at all of heaven and hell as places of rewards and punishments for those who have died. (p.108)

As it turns out, it is possible to trace a trajectory in our surviving Gospels away from the deeply apocalyptic teachings of Jesus in Mark and Matthew, to less apocalyptic teachings in the later Gospel of Luke, to non-apocalyptic teachings in the still later Gospel of John, to anti-apocalyptic teachings in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, written a couple of decades after John. In short, the words of Jesus, over time, came to be de-apocalypticized. (p.229)

(1) A historical-critical reading of the text’s “original meaning�

(2) The appropriation of that text within the New Testament text and often by early Christian writers

(3) The appropriation of the same text by the early rabbinic tradition usually ending with the Mishnah but sometimes extending through the Talmud or even medieval commentators.

The ongoing interpretation of prophetic texts exemplifies the distinction between what a text meant and what the text means. As we shall see throughout this book the two can be quite different. One way to generate the difference is through proof-texting.

The term “proof-text" and the verb “proof-texting� exemplify Antonio’s “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose� in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Contributors
Prologue: When We Respond to God’s Calling Introduction: Our Common Commitment to Christ

Part I: ON TRUMP
1. Why “Mere� Words Matter
2. God Hates A Lying Tongue
3. Donald Trump’s Low View of Women
4. Race-Baiter, Misogynist, and Fool
5. Humility, Pride, and the Presidency of Donald Trump
6. The Trump Brand and the Mocking of Christian Values
7. 10 Reasons Christians Should Reconsider Their Support of Trump
8. President Trump and the COVID-19 Epidemic

Part II: ON EVANGELICAL SUPPORT OF TRUMP
9. The Deepening Crisis in Evangelical Christianity
10. Donald Trump and the Death of Evangelicalism
11. Will the Evangelical Center Remain Silent in 2020?
12. Voices from the Global Evangelical Community
13. “If You Board the Wrong Train . . .�
14. Hymn for the 81%
15. Trump, the Last Temptation
16. Immoral, Spineless, Demonic, Prideful, Blind, Stupid, and Lacking in Grace?
17. Setting Your Own Rules and Cognitive Dissonance

Part III: ON THEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES REGARDING TRUMP
18. Christ the Center and Norm
19. Evangelical Double-Mindedness in Support Of Donald Trump
20. What White Evangelicals Can Learn about Politics from the Civil Rights Movement
21. At Odds
22. Quo Vadis, America?
23. Three Prophetic Voices against Silence
24. An Anvil Which Wears Out Many Hammers
25. The Constitution and Faith

Afterword: On Returning to Christ
Recommended Reading

But evangelical support for Trump was no aberration, nor was it merely a pragmatic choice. It was, rather, the culmination of evangelicals� embrace of militant masculinity, an ideology that enshrines patriarchal authority and condones the callous display of power, at home and abroad. By the time Trump arrived proclaiming himself their savior, conservative white evangelicals had already traded a faith that privileges humility and elevates “the least of these� for one that derides gentleness as the province of wusses. Rather than turning the other cheek, they’d resolved to defend their faith and their nation, secure in the knowledge that the ends justify the means. Having replaced the Jesus of the Gospels with a vengeful warrior Christ, it’s no wonder many came to think of Trump in the same way. In 2016, many observers were stunned at evangelicals� apparent betrayal of their own values. In reality, evangelicals did not cast their vote despite their beliefs, but because of them.

John Wayne would capture the hearts and imaginations of American evangelicals. The affinity was based not on theology, but rather on a shared masculine ideal.

Liberal Protestants embraced the conflict (WWI) as a war to end all wars, a means of extending democracy and Christianity across the globe. Among fundamentalists, the response was more complicated.

Tellingly, when it came to the tactics of total war employed by the US military, it was liberal Protestants—many still chastened by the First World War—who expressed reservations. Ockenga, on the other hand, defended the firebombing of German cities in the pages of the New York Times. Evangelicals relished this role reversal, and their newfound patriotism and militarism would help them overcome their reputation as extremists and their marginal status.

The issue of inerrancy did rally conservatives, but when it turned out that large numbers of Southern Baptists—even denominational officials—lacked any real theological prowess and were in fact functionally atheological, concerns over inerrancy gave way to a newly politicized commitment to female submission and to related culture wars issues.

Cole had no use for “sissified� portraits of Jesus that failed to reveal his true character. “Christlikeness and manhood are synonymous,� he insisted, and to be Christlike, to be a man, required “a certain ruthlessness.�

Evangelical support for Bush (H.W.) was tepid, and the feeling was mutual. Bush, too, lacked the rugged masculinity of his predecessor, but fortunately for him, he was running against Michael Dukakis.

If conservative evangelicals needed one more thing not to like about the Clintons, there was the Lewinsky affair.

Among Clinton’s evangelical critics, it appears that their concern with Clinton’s predatory behavior was more about Clinton than about predatory behavior. Within their own circles, evangelicals didn’t have a strong record when it came to defending women against harassment and abuse.

Less abrasive than “male headship,� servant leadership framed male authority as obligation, sacrifice, and service. Men were urged to accept their responsibilities, to work hard, to serve their wives and families, to eschew alcohol, gambling, and pornography, to step up around the home.

Framing racism as a personal failing, at times even as a mutual problem, PK speakers routinely failed to address structural inequalities. �. In this way, the pursuit of racial reconciliation could end up serving as a ritual of self-redemption, absolving white men of complicity and justifying the continuation of white patriarchy in the home and the nation.

In 1996, for instance, 40 percent of complaints registered by conference participants were negative responses to the theme of racial reconciliation.

John Eldredge’s 2001 book, “Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul,� set the tone for a new evangelical militancy in the new millennium. Eldredge’s God was a warrior God, and men were made in his image. Aggression, not tenderness, was part of the masculine design. Wild at Heart would sell more than four million copies in the United States alone.

The Books by Wilson, Dobson, and Eldredge appeared in the months before September 11, 2001. When terrorists struck the United States, their call for “manly� heroes acquired a deep and widespread resonance among evangelicals. A very real, not merely rhetorical, “battle to fight� had suddenly materialized for American men. The success of these books, and their cultural impact, can be understood in light of the renewed sense of crisis.

Driscoll challenged men to either recommit to the mission of the church or leave, “because you can’t charge hell with your pants around your ankles, a bottle of lotion in one hand, and a Kleenex in the other.� Driscoll then handed the men two stones, telling them God was “giving them their balls back to get the courage to do kingdom work.�

Evangelicals hadn’t betrayed their values. Donald Trump was the culmination of their half-century-long pursuit of a militant Christian masculinity. � � He was the latest and greatest high priest of the evangelical cult of masculinity.

Was complementarianism “just camouflage for abusive males and permission for the abuse and mistreatment of women?�

Despite evangelicals� frequent claims that the Bible is the source of their social and political commitments, evangelicalism must be seen as a cultural and political movement rather than as a community defined chiefly by its theology. Evangelical views on any given issue are facets of this larger cultural identity, and no number of Bible verses will dislodge the greater truths at the heart of it.

Although the evangelical cult of masculinity stretches back decades, its emergence was never inevitable. Over the years it has been embraced, amplified, challenged, and resisted. Evangelical men themselves have promoted alternative models, gentleness and self-control, a commitment to peace, and a divestment of power as expressions of authentic Christian manhood. Yet, understanding the catalyzing role militant Christian masculinity has played over the past half century is critical to understanding American evangelicalism today, and the nation’s fractured political landscape. Appreciating how this ideology developed over time is also essential for those who wish to dismantle it. What was once done might also be undone.

Healthy-minded religion—characterized by contentment untroubled by the existence of evil and confident of salvation.

Sick souled religion—considers evil to be unavoidable and an essential part of human existence and must be dealt with through a conversion experience.

Mind-cure movement—believes in the all-saving power of healthy-minded attitudes and their efficacy of courage, hope, and trust.

Once-born religion—is an alternative term referencing healthy-minded religion that does not require a conversion experience.

Twice-born—is an alternative term referencing sick souled religion that requires a conversion experience.

One might therefore be tempted to explain both the humility as to one's self and the charity towards others which characterize spiritual excitement, as results of the all-leveling character of theistic belief. But these affections are certainly not mere derivatives of theism. We find them in Stoicism, in Hinduism, and in Buddhism in the highest possible degree. They harmonize with paternal theism beautifully; but they harmonize with all reflection whatever upon the dependence of mankind on general causes; and we must, I think, consider them not subordinate but coördinate parts of that great complex excitement in the study of which we are engaged. Religious rapture, moral enthusiasm, ontological wonder, cosmic emotion, are all unifying states of mind, in which the sand and grit of the selfhood incline to disappear, and tenderness to rule. The best thing is to describe the condition integrally as a characteristic affection to which our nature is liable, a region in which we find ourselves at home, a sea in which we swim; but not to pretend to explain its parts by deriving them too cleverly from one another. Like love or fear, the faith-state is a natural psychic complex, and carries charity with it by organic consequence. Jubilation is an expansive affection, and all expansive affections are self-forgetful and kindly so long as they endure.
(from Lectures XI, XII, And XIII. Saintliness)