This piece will briefly overview the concept of re-enactments and then discuss how a concept of God could be understood in light of this phenomenon.

It is often perplexing to watch those around us place themselves repeatedly back into the same circumstances which have wounded them. And when we have the insight, so watch ourselves as well. For example: a girl who repeatedly finds herself in romantic relationships where she is mistreated. Or a man who seems to somehow move from job to job always fired or failing in predictable and seemingly preventable ways. Why do we tend to move towards situations where we will fail or be hurt in the ways that seem obvious and foreseeable to those around us?

One explanation is that we are creating re-enactments. We are unconsciously setting up a situation in which we will be in the same position as the one where we have been hurt. The man who was never accepted by his father finds himself in jobs where he will not live up to the employers’ expectations. A woman finds herself attracted to men who will use and leave her so that she is re-experiencing the way her own mother abused and abandoned her. The obvious question is why!? Why don’t we learn? If we’ve been hurt in this situation before, why do we return over and over? And not just “return” but often seem to go to great lengths to find these dynamics again. I don’t pretend to know, and certainly not everyone is the same. Still, two explanations that seem helpful in understanding re-enactments are:

1. Imprinting

If we are imprinted as children to know “love” as something that is violent and painful through parent figures use their authority in violent ways, then it may be that we seek out violent authorities later on as it feels familiar. In this way, the imprint of the trauma creates an attraction to a painful circumstance as it will resonate with our earliest experiences of being cared for. The man who was physically abused as a child may feel at home in a church where the leadership is overbearing and authoritarian. It’s painful, but it feels like “home.” He has learned that this is the shape of love, and he moves towards those shapes throughout life without realizing it.

2. Reworking

Another explanation for the question of why we so often set up re-enactments is that we are trying to achieve mastery over something which has hurt us, trying for a new result. A man who never connected with his mother as a child due to her coldness finds himself attracted to a romantic partner who will treat him the same way. Some parts of us seem to believe that if we can just get another chance and try harder this time, we’ll be able to resolve the disconnection and pain of our childhood. So the goal is to find a new “mother” and this time to figure out to get her to love. And in doing so to heal the pain of this rejected child. This man may unconsciously set up this re-enactment over and over, relationship and relationship hoping to rework the pain and resolve it. This often does not work, to say the least.

When we set it down in words, it seems obvious enough, silly even. But we all do this. In some ways I think it’s accurate to say that we often continue re-enacting unresolved pain for as long as remain unaware of it. This is the perspective of Freudian and psychodynamic theories, and I think it’s quite a helpful way of seeing. The goal then of therapy is to bring these unconscious processes and tendencies to our awareness so that we can choose to make new, better choices, and heal.

So what does any of this have to do with faith or God?

Re-enactment and Faith

It has been occurring to me, slowly, for quite some time that our concept of God is deeply tied to our experience of our parents and caregivers. And this is true totally regardless of whether we want it to be or not – you don’t get to just “forget” or easily move past your earliest concepts. I think our faith, our view of how the world is set up, is inextricably linked to our experience of that world in early childhood. The earliest picture we were handed of how good/bad, nice/mean, dependable/unpredictable, kind/malicious, plentiful/scarce, merciful/vengeful, fair/arbitrary, accepting/judgmental, the universe and its players are is a picture we carry with us for a long long time.

1. Faith as Imprint

If we are raised by parents who used physical punishment (e.g. we got hit when we behaved badly), it is not a stretch to believe that God is the sort of force who would also cause physical harm as a response to bad behavior. If the physical punishment we got as children was harsh, as in getting hit by an angry parent or getting left alone by a parent who was very angry and used isolation as a punishment (emotional or spatial), it’s not a stretch then to think about a God who would do the that to people who disobey him. If we were young and experienced those whose responsibility it was to take care of us as harsh and quick to punish, it makes sense to me that we’d be set up to believe that version of God when it’s presented to us.

My examples here are somewhat drastic. Personally, I remember being in worship services which were performed very differently than how I was raised and feeling extremely disconnected and out of place. It’s hard to describe how odd it felt – one was in California at a conference and the other at Toccoa Falls College during a chapel. I had been given an image of a worship service which was pretty consistent from childhood on. Trying to participate in a setting with different sounds, size, motions, and vibe felt really really strange. It took a while before I got to a place where I could recognize it as a legitimate way of connecting to God. I had been imprinted with a very different expectation, not better or worse, just different. Seeing God approached and presented differently felt foreign and unwelcoming.

2. Faith as Reworking

Faith as a reworking of trauma could look many ways. One would be a woman who experiences neglect and disconnection from her mother to a high degree as an infant and young child. For this little girl, nothing she does is ever enough, no matter how loud she cries or how good she tries to behave. She does what nearly all children do, and she assumes the reason for her mother’s absence and neglect is the fault of her as the child. This is a way of hoping: if I’m the problem, if there’s something wrong with me that makes me unlovable, then I could someday fix that and Mother would love me. The other option is despair: Mother, my only chance at survival and my whole world as a child, is wounded and unfit to parent. There is something wrong in her which is why she doesn’t care for me. Children pretty much always choose option number one – there’s something wrong with me.

Children do not come out of childhood with great self-esteem and confidence because they realized their parents were the problem. Quite the opposite. They come out hating themselves and “acting out” the pain they believe is their own fault. For the child for whom this is the reality, what would it look like to get back into this situation again, this time with God, to try and rework the trauma to achieve a different outcome? Presumably, you would be drawn to a version of the most important person in the universe, this time “God” not “Mom” who is distant, vindictive, and who does not love you the way you are. This way, like the child, you will be able to believe the reason God hates you is your failure (your sins) and that by overcoming your sin you might one day feel the love of God.

Like Mother, who hit you when you didn’t do what she wanted and then locked you into a dark room, this God is one you believe will physically torment you in the darkness of hell if you do not say you are sorry for your misbehavior. It’s important to remember here that I am not arguing for any particular picture of God – I am wondering how the pictures we choose for God might be attempts to figure out our earliest life experiences.

What the woman has set up here by choosing a picture of God who has the emotional acumen and relational logic of her mother is a very clever way to try and rework the trauma of that early experience. Will it work? That’s a very hard question since we don’t know that happens in the afterlife. But will it work in this life? It seems fair to say it will work about as well as it worked for the child to try and earn her mother’s love by purging her bad behaviors. For that child, it’s clear she will only get a real emotional connection if her mother changes. For the woman it seems the same. She will only get a real connection if her God changes. And God doesn’t change – though certainly her picture of God could.

I want to conclude with a nod to a book which has just come out from Geoff and Cyd Holsclaw called Landscapes of the Soul. In it they explore how early experiences inform our faith from an attachment-focused perspective. I am about halfway through, and I really appreciate the pictures they carefully build of faith in the anxious jungle, the avoidant desert, the chaotic war zone, and the peaceful pasture. They argue that there are advantages and disadvantages to each of the first three “places,” and that they each produce a different vision of God and how to relate to God.

Whether we take a psychodynamic perspective which focuses on re-enactments or a more attachment focused perspective, it’s important to recognize that we do not come to faith as blank slates. We do not step into the study of scripture, relationship with God, or life in the church as scientists who have built a picture of God though facts. We were all children. We have all been wounded and had to figure out how to survive and keep going. I believe an authentic faith is one that acknowledges and embraces this truth about ourselves and others. I also believe that God is not surprised when our faith uses these lenses of struggle and survival and builds pictures of God that look like our early experiences. I believe God wants to love us like a good mother and a good father. We make God in our own images as a way of figuring out how to make our way in this world, and God loves us still.

---

cover image source: https://www.getty.edu/visit/cal/events/ev_2398.html

One way of seeing things is that Jesus being crucified was a surprising event. That it was a real pity that the son of God should find himself rejected by the ones he came to. That this was a tragedy which could have been avoided if other, better people had been in charge when he showed up.

This view sees the Romans as really screwed up – they killed the guy they should have listened to. It supposes if Jesus came again, this time maybe to America, he’d be treated better He’d gain a following who would get it, and he wouldn’t be imprisoned by the government, humiliated, and even killed. After all, 62% of Americans say they already believe in Jesus!

You can sort of imagine a video game type scenario in which Jesus enters the world as a baby at various times in history and into various parts of the world. Rome in the first century, Brazil in 1962, Russia in 1993, Spain in 1493, USA in 1889. There is one way of seeing things in which some of these entrances go well. He’s accepted, the movement gains momentum, Christianity is adopted by everyone in the country, and even the government becomes Christian. Mission success!

There is another view, one espoused by Kierkegaard, in which Jesus is never accepted, always disgraced, and that he would be thrown out by every government across all times and places. This is summarized nicely by Immortal Technique in his song “Sign of the Times.”

Imagine the word of God without religious groupies,

Imagine a savior born in a Mexican hooptie,

Persecuted single mother in a modern manger,

You’d crucify him again like a f*****’ stranger,

The first time I remember considering this view was around 2020 – I remember where I was standing. Consider with me the words of Søren Kierkegaard writing in the mid 1800s from Denmark.

---

“The crowd is untruth. Therefore was Christ crucified, because he, even though he addressed himself to all, would not have to do with the crowd, because he would not in any way let a crowd help him, because he in this respect absolutely pushed away, would not found a party, or allow balloting, but would be what he was, the truth, which relates itself to the single individual.“

Kierkegaard suggests that Christ came to the world and “addressed himself to all,” and yet he wanted no part of becoming popular or winning favor with large groups of people. This view is a direct challenge to the one which sees Jesus as coming to preach as many good sermons as he could and build as big a following as he could so that one day everyone on earth would be a Christian as the movement spread bigger and bigger. Kierkegaard claims that Jesus “pushed away” and actively rejected attempts to make him a political figure who gained influence through being accepted. This runs totally counter to the modern evangelistic perspective that it was Jesus’ (and should be our) goal to convert as many souls as possible through clear teaching and persuasive words. Consider John’s account:

“On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?…From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6)

The gospel of Matthew records:

And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (Matthew 13)

Jesus’ strategy is to speak in veiled ways, using parables and sometimes very confusing stories when speaking to crowds. His own disciples often don’t even understand what he’s saying. Jesus will then explain the meaning once the crowd is gone and he is alone with the twelve. If the idea is to spread the message and get the crowds on board, you’d think the son of God would have a better game plan. Kierkegaard claims that Jesus didn’t want the acceptance or help of the crowds, that he was doing this on purpose. The decision to accept the teaching therefore had to be an individual one, not one along with the crowd.

There is a view of life which holds that where the crowd is, the truth is also, that it is a need in truth itself, that it must have the crowd on its side. There is another view of life; which holds that wherever the crowd is, there is untruth, so that, for a moment to carry the matter out to its farthest conclusion, even if every individual possessed the truth in private, yet if they came together into a crowd (so that “the crowd” received any decisive, voting, noisy, audible importance), untruth would at once be let in.

Here, Kierkegaard goes a step further. Not only is Jesus not interested in gaining approval from the crowd as his strategy, Kierkegaard says there is a “view of life” in which wherever the crowd is, there is untruth. This is to say that if you want a sure-fire way to get the “untruth,” hold yourself an election and see what the crowd decides. What is most popular is always the un-truth. The truth is that which is never collectively accepted.

Where the crowd is, therefore, or where a decisive importance is attached to the fact that there is a crowd, there no one is working, living, and striving for the highest end, but only for this or that earthly end; since the eternal, the decisive, can only be worked for where there is one; and to become this by oneself, which all can do, is to will to allow God to help you – “the crowd” is untruth.

I think the context in which Kierkegaard is writing, 19th century Denmark, makes his work all the more relevant to the modern American reader. Kierkegaard was writing to a society in which virtually everyone said they were Christian – even the government was Christian. Aaron Edwards describes Kierkegaard as a “missionary to Christendom” saying, “he came to re-emphasize precisely what this ‘Christian’ society was supposed to have known all along and yet did not seem to know at all.” In his thesis paper, Robert Jones describes Christianity in Kierkegaard’s Denmark saying “For most people at the time, becoming a Christian was not a matter of faith but more so a matter of being born to Christian parents, observing the religious rituals, and getting a feeling of solidarity from church attendance. This was especially true of the Protestant Lutheran churchgoers in Denmark, who were also required to be members of the State Church.” Kierkegaard became known as a vicious critic of this church which he viewed as stale, lifeless, and even predatory.

To me, this seems deeply relevant considering the state of the American church and society. Our leaders constantly invoke Christian language. Consider the recent post made by the Department of Homeland Security which pairs scripture from Isaiah with images of soldiers in full battle rattle hunting down immigrants. The current presidential administration has declared they are “bringing religion back,” and while I have no idea what that means, it is indicative of a state that openly embraces Christian language. Doing so certainly gains them popularity points in a nation where 62% of people and 72% of 2024 Trump-Vance voters say they are Christian. This is certainly not new and US presidents have long invoked faith in God and scripture as they carry out their agendas. Particularly striking was the president’s recent faith-laced language while dropping bombs:

“And I want to just thank everybody, and in particular, God. I want to just say we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them.” (source). Trump’s tweets are often similarly laced with appeals to Christianity and faith and his speeches do so “at a higher rate than any president in the last 100 years.” He knows who he’s talking to.

“The crowd is untruth. There is therefore no one who has more contempt for what it is to be a human being than those who make it their profession to lead the crowd.“

It is perhaps no secret that I have no admiration for our current president. And I do not consider myself a part of the “Christian” he talks about. But more importantly for this conversation, I do not consider myself part of the “Christian” which could be proclaimed from the office of any nation’s president, liberal or conservative or in-between.

I think Kierkegaard is right – the crowd is untruth. The state, the government always rejects and tramples on the son of God. The light comes into the world, and it is always rejected by the masses. Not once way back when in a fluke, when backwards people missed it. No. The power of the gospel, the kingdom of the heavens, this is always rejected by those whom it does not serve – these are the rich, those in political power, the state. It is good news to a few, to a minority, to some outliers. We currently see the rich and powerful co-opting the words of scripture to try and appeal to the masses, the poor, and their voters. This is the untruth.

To take Jesus and his teaching seriously is not a good political strategy. It does not allow for the accumulation of political power, oppression of the poor, violent or coercive use of force, or really any of the things required to run a government. So when I hear the richest, most powerful, most armed-to-the-teeth government in the world clucking on about faith and God, it means nothing. To accept the kingdom of God and the way of Jesus would literally be their undoing.

I was moved when I recently saw the below image from Everette Patterson titled “José y Maria.” He says it is “depicting Jesus’s parents in a modern setting.” Ours is a world where Jesus was given a sham trial and crucified by the mob. And ours is a world where our neighbors are being rounded up and brutally deported without even sham trials, where “Alligator Alcatraz” is a real prison camp, and where our tax dollars are spent on bombs to wipe out a brutalized, starving population in Gaza. Ours is a world where the crowd is the untruth and where the kingdom of the heavens is between the cracks, not on the billboards.

---

Kierkegaard quotes taken from: “That Single Individual” – Soren Kierkegaard

This post was written by Jackson Locke. Jackson and I both chose communication studies as our major at Toccoa Falls College – me a few years earlier. Reading some of his writing brings back a lot of my own memories of similar “shifts” which happened during the college season of my life. Jackson was kind enough to allow me to post some of his recent work here about changes – I hope you enjoy it.

---

Study Abroad Course Paper

I know for certain that the Jackson Locke, who came to Toccoa Falls College two years ago, would
have judged this trip quite negatively. My thoughts probably would have consisted of something like,
“You’re telling me a Christian college went on a two-week trip and didn’t evangelize? We didn’t
spread the gospel? We didn’t have group Bible studies? None of that?”

When I arrived at TFC, I held tightly to a rigid sacred/secular divide. I even remember a conversation with Dr. Wanner where he said something positive about an R-rated movie, probably his favorite, The Godfather, and this fact made me uncomfortable, as the only R-rated movie I was willing to vouch for at the time was The Passion of the Christ. At the time, I was unable to view any other such-rated movie as something that could be beneficial to me or an artifact that could teach me something new.

I say all this to show that my views have changed. I no longer see the world as two separate streams,
one sacred, one secular. In fact, in some ways, I struggle more now than I did then because it was
easier when I could categorize the world: if something was sacred, I accepted it; if something was secular, I disregarded it or attempted to make it sacred. This way of seeing the world also shaped how I viewed people: they were either in or out, Christian or not, saved or damned, right or wrong. Again, that’s an easy way to view the world, which led me to view people as either part of my group or
not. If they aren’t, they either need to be converted immediately or loved so that they can be converted.

Now, my perspective is more nuanced. I seek to find the good in all people, to see the imago Dei in everyone, and to understand the presence of common grace in all of creation and humanity. Do I think I now have a perfect epistemology? Absolutely not. But in a strange, and some might argue humble way, I think acknowledging that I don’t have all the answers is more faithful than holding to a rigid, two-kingdom approach. Will my thoughts continue to change in the future? I hope so. Sometimes I feel like I’m just swimming in wishful thinking and perhaps just what I want to be true, but right now, this is where I am.

All of this is to preface one part of the trip that I found especially meaningful: the table. We moved constantly on this trip, from place to place, landmark to landmark. We were always on the move. However, our shared meals gave us the chance to slow down, reflect, rest, get to know each other, and offer gratitude to God. Our meals served as a liturgy. Reading [a post made on this blog] I came across a post where [Javen] described a new coffee shop his family had opened. Reflecting on the coffee shop, Javen wrote:

“I don’t see this as a vehicle or a segue to something spiritual and sacred – it is in fact that
thing. This is a table. This is a cup of cold water (and milk and syrup and espresso). This is to
taste, to see, to touch. It is a communion. It is a liturgy. Certainly, not everyone who comes sees it that way, and they are just as extremely welcome as anyone else. To me, that’s really fun – I’m so grateful to get to be a part of this.”

The tables where we shared meals served as a meeting place, with ourselves, each other, and God. Javen said it best, I am so grateful to be a part of this indeed!

---

*Jackson was named the 2025 communication scholar of the year at Toccoa Falls College*

---

Things could be stranger but I don’t know how
I’m going through changes now
I’ve spent a lifetime trying to figure it out
I’m going through changes now

And I’ve just begun
Under a purple sun

There’s many reasons we are what we become
I’m going through changes, ripping out pages
I’m going through changes now

“Changes” – Langhorne Slim & The Law

---

I haven’t been a therapist for very long. In fact, I’m still in my internship. And this was written while my kiddo watched Bluey beside me. So there are your disclaimers.

I had a thought recently: on a meta level therapy might be both more and less necessary than ever – depending on what is meant by “therapy.”

---

*type your email below if you’d like my writing to be sent to your inbox*

---

An Anxious Culture

In one sense, we could say that therapy is more necessary than ever due to the massive anxiety of the culture. Everyone is anxious; everyone is distracted. And not just young people. The 24/7 access of parents, adults, and most kids to social media and the digital entertainment (think YouTube, Instagram reels, and Facebook) means that at the slightest twinge of boredom, anxiety, loneliness, or any other discomfort, we’ve all got a quick fix. And it’s really no “fix” at all, just another hit of numbing pleasure. In this way, we are wiring our brains for escape, always ready to get away from discomfort.

This is affecting pretty much every aspect of life for many/most people. Kids and adults are having a hard time sleeping and relaxing, and the sources of our constant anxiety are rarely addressed. Our quick fix habits, like doom-scrolling, eating, and watching are formed and solidified, and they don’t lead to wellbeing. So in this sense, as participants in this sort of culture, we are anxious and depressed. We struggle with interpersonal interactions and are not inclined to try new hobbies or other activities which would connect us to other people. A therapist can be a really helpful resource.

The Therapist as Educator

In another sense, the language of therapy has saturated the culture. In these short videos and social media posts we’re watching for hours each day, therapy-speak is commonplace. Whereas 20 years ago the average person coming into the therapy room probably hadn’t every heard much about “boundaries” or “trauma” or being “overstimulated,” many of the clients coming in now use all these words as they are a part of the language of social media. Since these concepts are no longer contained only in classrooms and counseling offices, one might say the insights of psychotherapy have made it into the popular culture. And therefore therapy is less necessary. If the goal of the therapist to teach clients concepts, called “psychoeducation,” then maybe this is true. But I don’t think so.

While the therapy-speak saturates the popular culture, this doesn’t mean too much in the way of people being healthier. Kind of like how I know the words “keto” and “probiotic,” but I am not changed because of it. Even if social media types use the clinical-speak accurately, which is not always the case, this doesn’t mean it’s doing any good. A great example from pop culture is The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. I’m a bit ashamed to say I know this from watching. The folks in this show toss around therapy-speak constantly. And it comes off with an air of having insight and understanding. Yet is is painfully clear that no matter how many times these wives and husbands say “triggered” or “projecting” or “self care,” their insecurity and dysfunction is significant enough to fill two seasons of TV (with another on the way?). It seems very unlikely that knowing more about clinical terminology would be helpful here.

Speaking on a cultural level, if the average person knows the therapy words already, then what sort of work with a therapist might be helpful? What sort of work could be done with those who know all the fancy words and still have all the usual problems plaguing our modern lives?

Therapy as Presence

Very simply put, I think what is needed is often presence, sustained attention to our pain and confusion – that is, someone to be present with us in a new way.

One of the hallmarks of our time is the ability to escape. If we don’t like a church or a food or a video or a friend, we are often able to go elsewhere, swipe up to the next video, or swipe left to the next person. We carry access to laughs, info, pleasure, food, communication on our person all day, morning to night. Our phones are always there. I think we’ve been conditioned to run away. Therapy can be a place where someone invites us to stick with the pain, stick with the confusion, stay with a memory. And more than lengthening our attention span, it is a place where someone is committed to sticking be present with us while we pay attention.

One of my favorite quotes is from Gabor Maté who says (paraphrasing here) “Children don’t get traumatized because they get hurt. They get traumatized because they are alone with the hurt.” That seems true to me, and not just for children. The therapy room can be much more than a place to learn new words, it can (and should) be a place where another human being sits with you in your pain. And in this way, perhaps we need therapy more than ever. We seem to be more without people to sit with us in our pain than ever before. We are often scared of each others’ pain, and scared of our own pain. I sure am.

Therapy can be a place where the trauma of having been left alone with hurt is transformed though someone else paying careful, compassionate attention. Ryan Kuja says “When love touches a wound, the lead of pain alchemizes into the gold of wisdom…When love touches a wound, an ancient ache is slowly digested.” Therapy can be many things: education, presence, routine, questions, answers, confrontation, insight, and more. Certainly though, good therapy is about presence.

So then: does this culture and this moment call for more or less therapy? I’d say we need more attention, awareness, and presence, to our pain, our internal world, our soul. These often come to us through trusted friends, pastors, family members, or time spent in nature. And sometimes, it comes through a person trained specifically for this work and these questions – through the therapy hour and the careful presence of a therapist.

---

*cover image from: https://www.taubmanmuseum.org/event/community-conversation-trauma-healing-and-art-postponed-to-february-4-2024

---

Here is a bit of humor – it is satire.

—

|| In a long lost manuscript, another version of the gospel of Matthew is recounted. This newly found document contains many important details the other ones leave out. ||

---

Jesus takes his place and begins to give the Sermon on the Mount. Huge crowds are gathered around him. He begins to speak. As this is his first major public appearance, there is a scribe holding up large cue cards for him while he preaches.

Jesus: “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven! Uh, let’s see. Uh, yeah. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted…unless…uh, ok then. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”

Jesus signals for the scribe to flip the cue card over – he looks unhappy. Instead the scribe moves on to the next card.

Jesus: “Heh heh, alright then. I guess blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled… (pause)…hmmm ok yeah. Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.”

Jesus finishes his sermon and quickly darts through the throngs of people and out of sight.

—

The disciples are gathered in the upper room of a house in Capernaum. They are murmuring. There is a sound of someone running up the stairs. Jesus comes storming in, mad as hell.

Jesus: “What in God’s holy name was that?!”

Phillip: “Lord, I can explain.”

Jesus: “You had one job today, Phillip. ONE JOB!”

Phillip: “Lord, on the way here I was in a hurry. Running through the market, I tripped on a pothole and fell, totally wiped out – these Roman roads! Your slides, my Lord. They uh, well they went everywhere, landed face up though! They only got wet on the back side. The crowds at the mountain were terrible, and I couldn’t get to you in time to tell you.

Jesus (still fuming): “So you had the scribe hold up half the slides?!”

Phillip: (exasperated): “I didn’t know what else to do!”

Jesus: “You left out all the caveats! This is my first big sermon, so I don’t have it all memorized yet. Oh, the Father is going to be pissed!”

Peter (nodding slowly): “Ahhhhh, so this explains it then. The whole thing didn’t sound at all like our run through yesterday. It was totally lacking in the nuances and loopholes.”

John: (places a hand on Jesus’ shoulder): “Lord, I know you’re angry. Perhaps you could try to remember the second parts, and then we can work to correct the errors with the crowds tomorrow.”

Jesus stomps over to the middle of the room to give the sermon again, glaring at Phillip from time to time.

Jesus: “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Unless of course they use government welfare, then curse them and cut them off.”

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Unless they are crying about being deported, then sorry, there is nothing we can do about it.”

“Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth. Unless your party can grab power, then just dominate the earth and take what you want.”

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. This one only applies if times are good. If times are not so good, vote for whoever makes your life easier.”

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Unless it starts costing your country, then just double down on law and order. I want my followers to be comfortable, fat, and happy!”

Jesus’ voice takes on a calmer cadence, and he begins to smile while he speaks.

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Yet, don’t hesitate to support extremely sinful politicians, you gotta do what you gotta do here.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. This only applies up to the point when it starts to hurt economically. At that point, just make deals and drop bombs as needed.”

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs in the kingdom of heaven. But don’t hesitate to put your country and allies first and call ‘righteous’ whatever it takes to stay number one!”

Jesus finishes the sermon, takes a bow, and returns to his seat. The disciples all applaud excitedly.

Matthew: “My Lord, during the live sermon, I was transcribing for your book release. This will totally change the meaning – I didn’t get any of the caveats added in. But that was my last parchment…”

Jesus: “You know what, Matthew – don’t even worry about it.”

Matthew: “Umm, are you sure about that? My Lord, this is a very very different message. People could really get the wrong idea about this whole movement.”

Jesus: “Yeah, we’ll take care of it. Once I’m done with the speaking tour, we’ll send someone to come through and clear things up a bit – smooth it out over time and guide the people into all truth.”

Mark: “Ah, you mean the comforter, Lord? The Spirit?”

Jesus: “No sir. I’ll send them politicians. A long line of them. They’ll figure out the caveats. A whole big, beautiful line of them. Boys, let’s get some drinks in here. I’ve had a very long night.”

---

In 1970, Merle Haggard released a song called “The Fightin’ Side of Me.” It had been 10 years since he’d been released from San Quentin Prison where he’d been an inmate when Johnny Cash played his famous concert. Haggard’s life had taken a turn since being released from prison, and in 1972 he received a presidential pardon from Republican president Ronald Reagan. Angered by seeing hippies and anti-Vietnam War protests, Merle Haggard pens a very patriotic song which will become a huge hit called Fightin’ Side of Me. In it, he warns those who criticize his country and the way it’s run that they’re making him mad enough to fight them. Here’s a bit of it:

When they’re runnin’ down my country, man
They’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me
Yeah, walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me
Runnin’ down a way of life our fightin’ men have fought and died to keep
If you don’t love it, leave it
Let this song I’m singin’ be a warnin’
When you’re runnin’ down my country, man
You’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me

The message of the song is straightforward. Stop criticizing the U.S.A.’s decisions and the wars it fights. When you “talk down” on the country and the things it does, you anger me to the point of fighting you. You can here in his voice and see on his face in the 1970s video the deep pride he takes in being an American and how upset he is when people criticize his country.

In March of 1973, Merle Haggard heads to the White House to play a special concert for president Richard Nixon to celebrate the first lady’s birthday. As he comes on stage, an American flag raises dramatically behind the band. The second song of the set is “Fightin’ Side of Me.” There in front on the president and a large crowd, he sings about how much it riles him up to hear anyone talk bad about the country and things its leadership does. Nixon applauds with the rest of the audience.

In between songs Haggard says, “I don’t know what to say except that this will probably be the greatest evening of my life.” He shares a short poem written to the first lady – later Nixon comes up on stage and tells a beaming Haggard how much he loved the show.

Just a few months later, In October of 1973, president Nixon’s impeachment will begin as it comes to light that he’s done some very illegal things and has been unsuccessful in covering them up. By August the next year he resigns from the presidency rather than be removed after the Watergate scandal has been uncovered and its clear he will not be able to remain in office. One can only imagine how disappointing it must have been for Haggard. Here’s a man who would just as soon fight you as listen to you criticize America and its leaders. He goes from having the night of his life playing for president Nixon to realizing he, like the rest of America, was being lied to.

Some years later in 1981 Merle Haggard releases another hit song called “Are the Good Times Really Over.” Here he’s lamenting the “good times” being on the way out and the snowball headed for hell times coming in. He writes,

I wish coke was still cola
And a joint was a bad place to be
And it was back before Nixon lied to us
All on TV
Before microwave ovens
When a girl could still cook
And still would
Is the best of the free life behind us now?
And are the good times really over for good?

Haggard laments that Nixon was not the man he said he was, that he “lied to us all on TV.” The protests against Nixon and the war which had ignited Merle Haggard’s rage are no longer the focus of his discomfort. He’s actually agreeing with them – Nixon wasn’t a great leader. He lied to us all.

Fast forward some more years, Haggard will continue to develop his own views. In 2003, he’ll describe himself during the 1970s when he’s writing songs like “Fightin’ Side of Me” and “Okie From Muskogee” saying “As a human being, I’ve learned [more]…I was dumb as a rock.” He would state explicitly that his views about those hippies had changed, saying:

---

I actually hadn’t heard “Fightin’ Side of Me” until a few days ago. I had posted on social media two questions related to the longstanding U.S. support of Israel through defense spending and policy decisions, even as Israel engages in perpetrating a genocide in Gaza.

Now here if you’re feeling angry or upset as I say Israel is committing genocide, this would be a really good time for you to take that accusation seriously and look into what is going on. You could start here with a fairly conservative Christian with a PhD doing interviews: interview 1, interview 2.

The two questions I asked in the social media post were: “Are we still proud to be Americans? Do we even have any idea what ‘we’ do”? In a response, someone posted the Merle Haggard song and let me know I had gotten onto their fightin’ side. It makes me think back to the evolution of Haggard, how he was able to move from the stance of being triggered by anyone who dared question the authority and decision of the US government (a very rigid and very blind position) to a stance of realizing that the country he loved had some really deep flaws which needed to be called out.

Friends, there is plenty to be anxious about in these times. Currently, I encourage you to look seriously at the way the USA is financially backing a genocide against Palestinians. Like Merle Haggard, we are being lied to on TV. Lied to by our current president and many who’ve come before him from both parties. Israel is working to cleanse a people group, and they’re doing it with US money. They’ve already killed more than 50,000 civilian people, at least 15,000 of those are children (they’ve injured another 100,000). They are purposefully bombing schools, hospitals, and refuge tents. Many Christians support this slaughter – even as our Christian brothers and sisters in Palestine are the ones being killed and displaced in God’s name for what is supposed to be God’s will.

It is Christians being bombed and driven out of their homes in the name of God. This morning was Palm Sunday – Israel bombed a hospital run by Christians and killed a little girl. Any god who needs his children to slaughter each other with bombs to accomplish his will is one confusing son of a gun. And if hearing that makes you mad, gets on your fightin’ side, I’d encourage you to consider the example of Merle Haggard. When our grandchildren study history, they’ll learn about the US’s senseless killing in Vietnam which the hippies of Haggard’s day were protesting. And they’ll learn about the senseless killing in Palestine that the US funded and Christians largely stayed quiet about.

Will we have the moral courage of Merle Haggard to admit we have been dumb as a rock in our blindness? Or will we keep quiet and keep blasting patriotic tunes to drown out the violence our taxes pay for?

---

I recently wrote an article which I then took down, and I issued an apology. I want to be really clear why that was: I had worked to guess at the emotional experience of those really like Donald Trump. My sensemaking did not land with some folks, and they felt very upset. So in this piece I take a different track – I will not be guessing.

---

I have personally reached a point where I’m not too thrilled to use the term “Christian” to describe myself. I think that for me, for at least a while, I will use “follower of the way of Jesus.” The term “Christian” originally meant little Christ. Over the years it has been co-opted and used to mean many different things. I’m thinking here of the Roman emperor Constantine becoming Christian and painting crosses on the Roman army’s war equipment. I’m thinking of the Christians who gleefully supported Hitler’s political rise and the movement of Nazism. I’m thinking of the white supremacists who wore white hooded masks on the weekends and a black suit to church on Sunday. Saying “Christian” has meant a lot of different things.

In our current American context, the president claims to be Christian. He says he was “saved by God to make America great again,” and it’s a fact that without Evangelical Christian support, he would not have risen to power. If you had told Christians ten years ago they’d be over the moon for a billionaire convicted felon who brags about how big his penis is, who was impeached twice, and who incited a riot against the Capitol, they may have scoffed. But here we are, and here they are. Trump bragged that he could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and they wouldn’t abandon him. He was not wrong. There’s a line in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar where Casca says of the crowds who adored Caesar, “If [he] had stabbed (had sex with) their mothers, they would have done no less [against him].” Shakespeare may as well have been talking about Trump who has bragged that he did “try and fuck” (his words) a married woman and also about grabbing women by their genitals. There seems to be no place that Christians will not follow Donald Trump. There is no bridge too far.

If pressed, those who like him tell me well we don’t like the man or what he says – we just like what he does. They like the way of Trump and what it can get them, how great it can make their country, even if it sounds a little crude. They like how it affects change in the nation, and they see their own lives and churches as separate somehow. I am here to argue that the way of Trump and the way of Jesus are incompatible for those who take Jesus seriously. And further, that if you think they are compatible, you are a superhero!

So here a quick note: why Javen, why do you need to write this? Why can’t you just pray in your closet and let people be how they want to be? A few reasons. One: Once Trump is gone and history details how he locked arms with his Christian base to rise to power and inflict the way of Trump on the world, I want my kids and my grandkids (and your kids and your grandkids) to know that I may not have done much, but I didn’t buy into it. Two: I want others who want to choose the way of Jesus over the way of Trump to know they aren’t alone. I am one of the only people I know who writes publicly on a regular basis, and folks often tell me they feel very alone and very sequestered in their churches and communities. They just don’t want to get badmouthed over the Sunday dinner table (neither do I by the way). Three: I have non-Christian friends, and I want them to hear me clearly that this is not what Jesus is about. And if I invite you to church, it is a different way that we aspire to.

I have grown really tired of Christians trying to blend Trump’s promise of America first- crush our enemies – deport the stranger – rise in power with Jesus’ teaching of others first – love our enemies – welcome the stranger – come die with me. In this way, I am a small bit thankful for Donald Trump. For many years, I think it was somewhat easy for many Christians to be aligned politically with a party and claim the way of Jesus. Trump has helped illuminate what a contradiction there is at the heart of this. Trump’s way and the was of Jesus are about as opposite as it gets.

---

[the poor] The way of Jesus says: Blessed are you who are poor. The way of Trump says the poor are a “parasite class.”

[foreigners] The way of Jesus says: God loves the foreigner residing among you, and you are to love those who are foreigners. The way of Trump says the sounds of people being chained and separated from their families is ASMR (it gives a pleasurable, tingling sensation when heard).

[strangers] The way of Jesus says: Whatever you do for the stranger you have done it unto me. The way of Trump says you are justified in turning the undocumented stranger away and having them arrested in your church.

[opponents] The way of Jesus says: If someone takes your coat, also give them your shirt. The way of Trump says, whatever they do to us we’re doing it back to them to make them pay.

[enemies] The way of Jesus says: love your enemies and do good to those who curse you. The way of Trump says, anyone who worked against us in the first term, we’re coming after with a vengeance this time.

[greatness] The way of Jesus says: whoever among you is the least will be the greatest, and you must become like a servant. The way of Trump says, I am the greatest and the best, and I deserve everything.

[truth telling] The way of Jesus says: tell the truth, do not bear false witness. The way of Trump says litigate and lie as much as needed because they deserve it.

[others] The way of Jesus says, love your neighbor as yourself, and consider others better than yourself. The way of Trump says protect yourself, your party, and your country at all costs.

[purity] The way of Jesus says, if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, and blessed are the pure in heart. The way of Trump says “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” (that is a direct quote).

[peacemakers] The way of Jesus says, blessed are the peacemakers. The way of Trump says “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

And so I will argue that if you are able to hold the way of Jesus in one hand, and hold the way of Trump in your other hand, you are a superhero. You are Elastagirl whose power is extreme flexibility. Even as these two things are brutally far apart and contradict one another at every single point, you are still gripping onto them both. Your two hands are remarkably far apart as you ultimately say you want the way of Jesus, and you use the way of Trump as a means of getting there.

When Jesus gave the command to give unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar’s, I don’t think he was talking about your moral decision making ability and what you think is right or wrong. Christians have been going to the mat for Donald Trump for ten years now. Since I have been old enough to vote, Christians have been defending him and making excuses for him no matter what he does and says. He may as well shoot someone on 5th avenue, I am confident he will have the support of Christians come hell or high water. And this is why I’m willing to give up the term, at least for a few years. Am I a Christian? I don’t know. I certainly don’t have the superpower I see around me. I want to be a follower of the way of Jesus.

As a young man, I stood in a really cold river and was taken underwater in my baptism with my church community standing on the banks. I was not signing up for what “Christian” seems to now mean. I was taught that the ends do not justify the means. You do not get to the things of Jesus without the way of Jesus. The way of Jesus I was taught actually involves the commands and teachings of Jesus – hard as they are. I did not sign up for Christianity molded in the way of a politician who seeks to make himself and America great again (again). I did not sign up for biting my tongue when politicians embed their way of doing things into Christian hearts and mouths. I did not anticipate a situation in which the Christians around me would be willing to wordlessly go along with anything their preferred politician decided to do or say.

To close a piece of writing which a few may find compelling, and which some will find very upsetting as it takes aim at their political hero, please hear me say this: If you do not claim to follow the way of Jesus, I have understanding for why you would endorse the way of Trump. Trump’s way is much more financially beneficial. Trump’s way is much better in terms of boarder security and American greatness. It makes a lot of economic sense to many people. The way of Jesus is not good public policy. It is not good for national security. It is not good if you want wealth and military might and to avoid death. The way of Jesus, inasmuch as it follows the footsteps of Jesus, leads to suffering and humiliation and becoming less in this life. I understand why that is not appealing. The way of Jesus is a terribly unpopular way of doing things that will not ever make America great.

If you do claim to follow the way of Jesus, and you have figured a way to support the way of Trump, I find that very perplexing. For me, supporting both of these ways, Trump’s and Jesus’, would require superpowers. And I’m just a regular guy who really wants to be caught up in the way of Jesus.

---