The worst thing about Donald Trump.

I was recently reminded of a quotation from Sir Winston Churchill. “The price of greatness is responsibility.” The third word put me in mind of Donald Trump  who ceaselessly touts both his own greatness and America’s lack of greatness.  In a flash, Churchill provided me with the word I’ve been seeking that encapsulates my fears and disappointments for America under a  Trump presidency. IRRESPONSIBLE!

Like much of America I watched in horror as a fringe of the  population that I had mistakenly assumed to be small and insignificant muscled their man into the White House. This man’s entire life has been a study in shirking responsibility. After dodging the draft he repeatedly exploited the legal provision of bankruptcy as a gimmick to build his inherited wealth while dodging the responsibility of paying his debts. 

He flaunted his marital infidelities and bragged about his skills at sexual assault, But still they voted for him.

Not surprisingly Trump brought his irresponsible ways to the presidency where he has fraternized and flirted with sworn enemies of the United States, even taunting and goading a maniacal dictator who threatened nuclear retaliation. He has ridiculed war heroes and undermined the people’s trust in their own government even claiming that he is above accountability while obstructing the investigation of his conduct. He lives like a freeloader, seemingly spending more time on taxpayer funded golf outings than he does in the Oval Office.

Like most Americans I have my nostalgic moments. I remember, as a boy, the Pride I felt in America’s noble reputation as a good,  strong and responsible neighbor to the global community. We would be the ones who came to the aid of the vulnerable and offered sanctuary from oppression and violence. That America had an indomitabl spirit of abundance and hospitality, not the spirit of scarcity and fear that has taken hold under Trump.

You can wear your MAGA hats and shout Trump’s catchphrase all you want but, speaking for myself, every time I read or hear make America great again  I will be thinking  Make America Responsible Again. That is the kind of greatness that is worth recovering. 

on narcissism, individual and collective

Throughout my 27 years of teaching graduate courses in personality, psychopathology and psychotherapy, certain topics and ideas emerged as among the most salient and foundational for understanding the complex and intimate exploration of the human psyche.

In the daily life of a mental health professional, it is difficult to think of an issue that permeates ones work more ubiquitously than the developmental problem of narcissism. In addition, there is no other subject that comes up more frequently in informal conversations with friends, acquaintances and family than that of understanding, surviving and coping with narcissistic parents, spouses, bosses, children, coworkers, etc. In this piece I will bring together theory, research, and clinical experience from my own work with narcissistic patients over the years.

The extent to which the word narcissism and its variants have become part of casual and public conversation in recent years has been completely unprecedented. When Donald Trump entered the race for the 2016  presidential election, mental health professionals across the country banded together to educate the public about the dangers of electing a severely personality disordered individual to the White House. The ensuing animosity, division and political power struggles have torn the nation apart raising questions about what led such a significant percentage of the public to make such  a choice.

During the debates about Trump’s narcissism it was common to hear people say “aren’t all politicians narcissists?” And “isn’t everyone narcissistic to some extent?” There is truth to both statements. Narcissists are indeed drawn to positions of prominence and power and their arrogant self-assurance can be appealing to people who feel vulnerable and weak, making politics an attractive fit for narcissists.

Everyone begins life in narcissism, making it somewhat universal. The world  of the infant almost literally revolves around her, with those in her orbit focused largely on meeting her needs. It isn’t until the second year that a child has separated and individuated enough to recognize other people as having their own needs apart from and competing with  her own. Until that time others are seen primarily for their usefulness at satisfying felt needs for food, comfort companionship and security. Once the process of separation and individuation begins the focus of a child’s life becomes largely about mourning the loss of those feelings of being the center of the universe with others focused on meeting her needs.


One of the various uses of the word narcissism, therefore, refers to this earliest stage of human development in which the infant is incapable of such things as sharing or caring for others or, for that matter, of love which sometimes requires voluntarily sacrificing her needs or desires for the sake of another. No one has ever definitively identified the combination of nature and nurture that  leaves those with severe personality disorders essentially hobbled in this early stage of development so that, although chronologically adult, they remain relationally infantile, with a primarily utilitarian view of  others.

Although this use of the term refers to a developmental stage of narcissism we carry around inside us every “self” we have ever been. Everyone, therefore, is capable of regressing or at least using psychological tools or defenses from earlier stages of development. Since no ones needs are met perfectly at any stage we can remain “hungry” for certain kinds of relationships throughout our lives.

Consequently when I use the term narcissism or refer to a narcissist I might be referencing a person who has regressed to an extremely immature style of relating to others and not just to someone who has a personality disorder. Some people are “situationally” narcissistic in that they have been socialized to see others for their usefulness in certain contexts or the context itself facilitates regression to narcissistic needs. For example in life-or-death situations regression to narcissism would be somewhat normal.  This particularly makes sense because in the infantile stage of narcissism survival is literally dependent on others meeting one’s needs.  One could be forgiven for being narcissistic when their survival is at stake but consistently using other people to satisfy one’s desires in normal life circumstances must be labeled as an inappropriately immature and dysfunctional way of living. Toddlers in adult bodies leave pain in their wake.

This broad use I am making of the concept of narcissism is by no means universally agreed upon and can be frustrating for those who desire a more exacting, scientific definition.  Attempts at quantifying a definition of narcissism have been somewhat successful in the form of the diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) but even then there is room for variation and disagreement. Some people and groups exhibit a narcissistic style of relating without meeting criteria for NPD so identifying the characteristics of narcissism is still useful.

In my opinion the single most salient quality of narcissism is a complete inability to seriously value any perspective but one’s own. This can also be a characteristic of limited intelligence but I think most people can tell the difference between a narcissist who is interpersonally very shallow versus someone with a developmental or neuropsychological disability. Assuming at least average intelligence someone with a narcissistic personality disorder should be capable of coming to self awareness at least enough to acknowledge the need to understand others’ perspectives. NPD is typically not amenable to treatment. This is not surprising—how do you fill in the gap left by stunted years of emotional development? Research and personal experience have shown that one of the best prognostic signs for NPD is the co-morbid presence of depression. This makes sense because psychological theorists have traditionally connected depression with inhibited mourning. Psychological pain is a very good sign for a narcissist because they compulsively avoid all emotional discomfort. Emotional pain is also necessary to develop empathy which, by definition, narcissists lack. Within the mental health professions there is a longstanding debate as to whether narcissists are incapable of empathy or merely unwilling to empathize. Either way the lack of feeling another’s pain is an indicator of narcissism.

Oblivious vs. hyper-vigilant narcissists

I have found it extremely helpful over the years to divide narcissists into the two subtypes proposed by Gabbard. The oblivious narcissist is the arrogant, obnoxious loud mouth always demanding the spotlight. He is oblivious to the feelings or reactions of others. His ego is so inflated he assumes that everyone else either similarly admires him or enviously wants to destroy him. There is no middle ground. Contrast the oblivious type with the hyper-vigilant narcissist. This type is very much aware of the reactions of others and has learned to be exquisitely skilled at reading others so that he may meticulously work to maintain their admiration. Unlike the oblivious type who depends on intimidating or manipulating others for his own ends the hyper-vigilant type tends to be more introverted and can be quite winsome and charming. Both types of narcissist feel a sense of emptiness and loss of identity when they lose a previously dependable source of admiration.  At an unconscious level both types also experience the pain and dread of the never-ending search for admiration which numbs the absence of unconditional love which they have self-pityingly concluded is tragically unavailable to them.

 Qualities of Narcissism

Splitting

As infants we begin sorting our experiences of ourselves and our world using a simple binary method, things that make us feel good and things that make us feel bad. With maturity we gradually learn that nothing is one or the other but good and bad are intricately tangled. We mourn the loss of that simplicity and move on. The narcissist, however, retains the use of splitting in regard to his fragile ego. Those people or experiences that cause him to feel inadequate, sad or imperfect cause him to feel shame and are entirely bad. Those that make him feel adored, admired and successful a and are good he feels  elated.
Admiration is not an Adequate replacement for love because it must constantly be renewed through the facade of perfection. The threat of that facade failing is a constant unconscious stressor to the narcissist, the potential for the crushing shame of being exposed as an imposter.

Splitting is most evident in close relationships in that the narcissist functionally communicates “You either love me or hate me, there is no in between.” He surrounds himself with a select few from whom he demands absolute “loyalty” which means unquestioning admiration and support of his perspective and defense of anything he says or does.

Grandiosity

A narcissist is completely unable to find fault or imperfection in himself. He believes, in fact, that he was created unique, gifted, superior to normal humans. This quality, especially, is attractive to weaker personalities who hope to feel more significant by attaching themselves to him. It will also make him attractive to other narcissists and antisocial personalities who admire his ability to get away with his attitude and hope to profit from and share his power or influence. His grandiosity can also be mistaken for actual capacity to accomplish the things he believes he can achieve thus ensnaring some optimists, idealists and dreamers, especially those naive about human nature. If confronted, a narcissist’s greatest weapon in relationship is to be unaffected by the other or even to be a bit “amused” that they are upset.

It should be noted that although a narcissist is usually capable of saying virtually anything to get what he wants, even fabricating facts,  this is not necessarily the same as what most people understand as lying. He knows the difference between right and wrong, at least intellectually, and since it is inconceivable to him that he could do wrong, his mind simply does a transformation and makes anything he did synonymous with good. If cornered with proof of wrong-doing he will draw on his inflated sense of uniqueness and superiority which, he believes, gives him a “bigger picture” than others so that he can see how something they call “bad” can actually be good. I have even seen narcissists twist reality to the extent that they believe that they are doing others a favor by lying to them since it would take lesser people too long to get to the truth they understand, assuming they are even capable, so a lie is a merciful shortcut to what they feel certain is the truth. Their feeling of certainty can be quite convincing to healthier people who cannot conceive of such audacity.

Anosognosia

Anosognosia, roughly translated lack of self-awareness, is a qualitative symptom usually found in brain injury cases, especially those involving the right cerebral hemisphere. While narcissistic anosognosia has not been connected to neurologic deficit it is functionally similar. Most narcissists are, literally, incapable of forming the conscious thought of themselves being wrong, flawed, or unethical. While this does not reduce culpability it can be of some comfort to others who have tried to remain in relationship with them. It also explains why they can gravitate toward fringe groups that do not confront arrogant insistence on one’s superiority but rather reward the “courage” to stand up to “nonbelievers.”

The narcissist’s blindspot in the area of self awareness usually includes an inability to recognize the fallibility of his own emotions. This is particularly true of the emotion of certainty. He cannot take a step back to see that certainty is not something he “has” but, rather, something he feels. Any attempt to prove him wrong will be perceived as an attack. He will become enraged not because the other said he is wrong but because they are “calling me a liar.” Since the narcissist believes he cannot be wrong,  proof otherwise would make him a liar.

COLLECTIVE NARCISSISM

Cultures and subcultures that value humility and self honesty usually have little patience with narcissists. At the opposite extreme, some groups foster narcissism in individuals or even collectively take on the qualities usually seen in narcissistic individuals. This often takes the form of tribalism: literally the good “us” vs. the bad “them.” Nationalism, for example is the mass equivalent of narcissistic personality disorder.

American Exceptionalism

It is difficult to imagine a slogan that better demonstrates narcissistic splitting than “America: Love it or Leave it.” Nationalism, unlike patriotism, demands the maintenance of a facade of perfection over a collective identity. A collective cloud of anosognosia wipes away the memory of the evils done in the name of the country’s pursuit of its entitled destiny and those who want to discuss the ongoing effects or presence of such evils are shunned as disloyal. When people invest their individual identities into a collective image of perfection they experience any criticism of that image as a personal attack.

White Fragility, White Supremacy and misogyny

No group mindset could be a clearer evidence of collective narcissism than the belief that one’s own race or sex is superior to others. The inability or unwillingness to value and empathize with an entire race or gender requires an extraordinary level of grandiosity.

Collective Narcissism and its anosognosia cause white fragility

*****

The reader will note that when discussing narcissism I have used masculine pronouns rather than the generally expected gender neutral language. I have done this intentionally to highlight the fact that my culture hates and vilifies narcissism in women while rewarding and glorifying it in men.

LIVE READY TO LEAP

My spiritual life has been punctuated by mystical experiences
of the presence of God which leave me with a deep sense of
God communicating as “deep unto deep.” One of these experiences
is a vision that has recurred since I was very young.

This vision has come infrequently but always when I am in a
crowd facing a stage or other point of group focus. In the vision
I suddenly see, above and to the right, a rope, several
feet long, dangling in midair as if from nowhere. No one else
seems to see it but the rope, with its tip a foot or two over
people’s heads, begins to slowly float from side to side winding
its way back and forth across the crowd. As I watch I have
a powerful sense that when the rope comes over my head I
will have one chance to leap up and grab hold and be carried
off for some adventure. The most salient feeling, however, is
not the excitement at being whisked away but, rather, the
sense that even though no one else can or will see the rope I
must not hesitate, regardless.
Over the course of my life this vision has taught me that moments
to act on my beliefs may be rare and I must be vigilant.
The film, Same God, documents such a moment when I saw
the way that the administration  at Wheaton College treated
me much better than they treated my black female colleague,
Larycia Hawkins, despite the fact that we were both
tenured and both reprimanded for making what they called
equally inappropriate comments on social media. When a
journalist asked if I would speak out publicly about this I asked
for a few minutes to pray and think about the decision. She
acknowledged that I would likely be fired for such an action so
I should take my time. When I discussed it with my wife she
had similar fears and asked “why does it have to be you?”
When I stilled my heart to listen to God I immediately remembered
the vision of the rope. As I told my wife and the journalist
the administration can’t see what they are doing but I can
and this opportunity will only knock once.
What I have learned about embodied solidarity is that it usually
sneaks up on us in the form of moments. It is difficult to
teach our eyes to see what others refuse to see, especially
when they will hate us for it. But if we keep our eyes open we
can live ready to leap so that when moments of injustice
present themselves we can seize them before they disappear
forever.
Despite many painful repercussions and lost relationships I
have never regretted seizing that moment and I am thankful
that I had the privilege of acting in Embodied Solidarity with
Larycia and with the muslim women she supported.

Matthew 19 paraphrase

Matthew 19 paraphrase

While enjoying Lectio Divina meditation on Matthew chapter 19 I imagined the following paraphrase for our time.

Some religious leaders came to Jesus and asked “is it lawful for the church to reject a member who loves someone of the same sex?“

Haven’t you read, he replied, that “love comes from  God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God?”?And also “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."

Why then, they asked, does the Bible say that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman?

Jesus replied, the Old Testament purity laws were given to you in your moral infancy so that you might grow in wisdom to understand beyond simplistic binaries of clean and unclean and how something makes you feel, but it was not so from the beginning. Also why do you not note that the Bible says that "it is an abomination to sow dissension among the brethren. " you pick and choose what you believe.

I tell you that you must not send away anyone that I have invited to my table.

Whose enemy are you?

Three years ago, my colleague and friend, Dr. Larycia Hawkins, displayed embodied solidarity with persecuted Muslim women. In a now infamous Facebook post that was heard ‘round the world,’ Larycia wore a hijab and acknowledged her respect for fellow human beings of devout faith. I was supportive of her gesture and told her that, but, knowing the rampant Islamophobia in the evangelical subculture and at Wheaton College, I was concerned about her wellbeing. I commented on her post, “If you get any grief at work, give me a heads up because I’ll be teaching Islamic prayer in my spring class.” While this was technically true, I also knew that it could attract the same animosity as Larycia’s post. I know well the speed and intensity with which that animosity can appear.
I was born and raised in a small church in a tiny farming community in northeastern Montana. I say “church" instead of “family” because that congregation easily had as much influence on my development and formation as did any relatives, and in many ways, much more.
This was the era in which evangelicalism was evolving out of fundamentalism. Evangelicals, in their response to the dangers of modernism, sought to draw a line between themselves and their legalistic, anti-intellectual fundamentalist cousins. Anyone who lived through that transition, however, can tell you that the line was only ever blurry, at best. It is no surprise, therefore, that in the current crises of our culture, evangelicalism is regressing toward its fundamentalist origins in tone and temperament. This is especially evident through the resurgence of tribalism.
Fundamentalism depends heavily on tribalism. I like Brian Zahnd's definition of tribalism, "An us vs. them scapegoating groupthink.” A fundamentalist worldview requires an enemy to maintain cohesion of tribal members’ beliefs. In my early years, growing up in a "fundagelical" church, there was never any doubt about who the enemies were. I heard innumerable sermons and rants spitting out words of contempt that named those outside our tribe who meant to do us ill. Words like liberals, progressives, mainline, ecumenical, communist, secular humanist, pro-choice and homosexual. These words were often spoken in hatred.
Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:42-44 NIV) No one in the church would have admitted that we were being encouraged to hate our enemies. In fact, the list of enemies often came with the uniquely evangelical form of gaslighting, “Love the sinner but hate the sin.”
However, actions speak louder than words and, even as a child, I understood that hate resides in the heart and simply denying it doesn’t make it go away. I am reminded of the
Supreme Court Justice commenting on a case involving a charge of obscenity. He refused to try to concretize an objective definition of hard core pornography, choosing, instead, to quip, ‘I know it when I see it.’
In the same way, I know hate when I see it and when I feel it.
Despite insistence to the contrary, I knew growing up that I was being taught to hate my enemies. When an expert in the law tried to make himself look good by challenging Jesus to explain who is his neighbor, Jesus responded with the parable of the good Samaritan. As a youth, when I heard this story, I wished someone had asked Jesus “Who is my enemy?” But I have come to realize that Jesus answered that unasked question as well in the parable. I can imagine his listeners’ surprise when Jesus introduced the Samaritan into the story. They must have thought “Why are you bringing our enemy into the tale? We asked who is our neighbor.” Jesus shows us that enemies exist only in the heart. To eliminate your enemies, do as the Samaritan did and change your heart perspective. The Samaritan didn’t see his enemy lying on the ground, a Jerusalem Jew who would likely persecute him, he saw a man, like himself, dying and in need of help.
Jesus was quite literally addressing tribalism here since the Samaritans (like the “Jerusalem” Jews hearing the parable) descended from the sons of Jacob. In that situation, Jesus was making everyone uncomfortable because in addition to expounding on the commandment to love your neighbor, he was showing that tribalism asks the wrong question. The question is not "Who is my enemy?” but rather, "Whose enemy am I?”
Loving my neighbor doesn’t only include showing mercy to someone I thought unworthy of mercy, it also means acknowledging that others have reason to consider me unworthy.
When I was young, Jesus’ command to love our enemies was rather confusing to me. I didn’t really think I had enemies. Oh, there were the bullies at school that I’d avoid running into in the hall, but I knew that it wasn’t really me that they hated, I was just an easy target. Besides, they had no reason to hate me that I could think of. I heard the message loud and clear in church that there were enemies “out there” that I should hate. Homosexuals were, for some reason, a frequent example, but it all seemed rather abstract since I wasn’t aware that I knew any. It was especially confusing to try to understand why someone should consider me an enemy since I didn’t give anyone a reason to hate me. Everything in my world taught me that as a white, American, evangelical, male, there was nothing about me to dislike.
So, while I grew up in the church learning there was an abstract enemy “out there” that was not in my tribe, I never saw the opportunity to show them love. Besides, if anyone in the church did suggest that we should love them, it was in the form of harshly warning them they were bound for hell.
Growing up evangelical meant having a constant sense of safety in the assurance that I was a member of the superior tribe. I even remember a sermon explaining that American evangelicals were God’s new chosen people with the guarantee of His blessings.
Being part of the “us” and looking down on “them” did not prepare me for what could happen if my tribe turned on me.
I was able to attend the world premiere of Same God a few months ago at the Los Angeles Film Festival. That experience was so healing for me that I have tried to attend every screening since that night. The healing has come from finding a new tribe. The film tells the story of what happened to Larycia and me in the aftermath of the controversy over her statement that Muslims and Christians worship the same god. The Evangelical subculture went ballistic over that statement as people reacted reflexively without taking the time to even read what she was intending in the statement.
Likewise, when I supported her and criticized our employer for not treating her fairly and, in fact, for treating me very well while treating her terribly, the reaction was extremely hostile. Both of us were shocked at the hatefulness and even violence of the messages we received from the “Christian” community, especially from Evangelical leaders. We were effectively cast out of the Evangelical tribe and, though both of us were tenured professors, we both lost our beloved classrooms.
After 50 years in Evangelicalism hearing about the enemy “other,” I found myself on the outside being treated as the enemy. The lessons are still unfolding but this is what I have learned so far:
When I first heard Larycia speak of embodied solidarity I imagined it, like most people I suspect, from the perspective of someone with abundance gifting to someone in poverty. One might call that condescending “generosity.” Far from embodied solidarity, that kind of “giving” is hateful and violent because it makes me one of the superior tribe of “haves” and an enemy of the poor, disadvantaged “have-nots” because it denies our shared equal humanity. God’s command is not to love anyone as “other” at all. It is to love them as I love myself. As part of me or perhaps as the rest of me. To see anyone as “other” is to hate them and be their enemy in God’s eyes. To see myself in them, to put my body right next to theirs, is to begin to live the kind of love that God showed in Emmanuel, God with us. Anything less is not worthy of the name Christian.
From Larycia and from the way God is redeeming my recent experiences, I am finding that I may have lost my evangelical tribe and become an enemy to some, but I have joined a much bigger tribe of sojourners, many of whom have also followed Jesus out of former tribes that were neglecting his profound example as the one we once treated as estranged enemy, yet who stopped on the road to tend our wounds.
Whose enemy are you?

Please learn more at . thttp://samegodfilm.com/

Same God, Three Years Later

Three years ago, today, my colleague and friend, Dr. Larycia Hawkins, displayed embodied solidarity with persecuted Muslim women. In a now infamous Facebook post that was heard ‘round the world Larycia wore a hijab and acknowledged her respect for fellow human beings of devout faith. I was supportive of her gesture and told her that, but, knowing the rampant Islamophobia in the evangelical subculture and at Wheaton College, I was concerned about her wellbeing. I commented on her post “if you get any grief at work give me a heads up because I’ll be teaching Islamic prayer in my spring class.” While this was technically true I also knew that it could attract the same paranoia as Larycia’s post. 

Within hours I received a phone call, a text message and an email from the college provost, panicking about the way these two “equally innocuous” social media posts were being misinterpreted by media outlets and donors. Having studied authoritarian systems and worked in an authoritarian institution for nearly thirty years I immediately “groveled,” figuratively rolling over to expose my belly and throat. I know that in such systems one is expected to be  submissive when confronted by authorities. Within hours I had edited and approved the explanation the provost requested to have available for dissemination to media outlets or angry donors. I felt trusted, valued and supported. But over the next few days I watched in horror as the college administration shamed and ostracized Larycia, eventually scapegoating her and throwing her under the bus. 

At a faculty meeting to discuss this fiasco a female colleague asked, “Does anyone know of a time when a white male faculty member with tenure did something similar but was treated differently then our black female colleague with tenure?“ I said “yes, that would be me.” And I told everyone about the events I have just described. When a journalist asked if I would confirm the account I had shared with the faculty I agreed. The administration had already released information about the events to the media with their version of the narrative. While I was reluctant to fuel the media frenzy, I felt the injustice of their actions and the betrayal of the governance process moved beyond the level of “in house” solutions. I could not be silent when it seemed so obvious that Larycia’s image as a black woman in a hijab led the administration to respond so differently to her than they did to me. It is common in American Evangelical institutions, which are overwhelmingly white, for people of color to have to prove that they are not “too different “ for the institution.  I have witnessed this many times for Dr. Hawkins and for other colleagues of color. 

The administration confirmed my interpretation of the rules of patriarchal authoritarianism when they issued a press statement noting that “Unlike Dr. Mangis' immediate apology, retraction, and collaboration” Dr. Hawkins did not immediately put to rest all their concerns. 

As I said to the press then and still believe, an educational institution that stops learning and refuses to change is essentially dead. The purpose of diversity is to deepen and change the institution. When you ask someone with a fresh perspective to breathe new life into the community with the promise that they will be valued and supported, it is unacceptable to then punish them for not sounding like the stale old voices that have never changed. Dr. Larycia Hawkins brought a depth of thought and passion to her teaching that inspired her students to learn and to live out the call of Jesus Christ in the public square. I stood by her and stand by her still. Sadly we must both stand anywhere but at Wheaton College. 

The details of these events have been Documented in the Film Same God

Strongman Jesus

Has anyone else noticed a trend of Christians inventing a new Jesus more to their liking?

This strongman Jesus is very “manly” and doesn’t let anybody push him around, especially not women or foreigners. This new Jesus is white and proud of it. He backs winners” and shames “losers”

Strongman Jesus has no qualms about taking power and using it to influence politics and economics. He is wealthy and getting wealthier. He doesn’t talk about loving your enemies or turning the other cheek. Strongman Jesus carries a gun in his back pocket like Junior Falwell to shoot those who refuse to bow to him. 

I can understand the desire to be more in sync with the world in these ways but this fabricated Jesus does not come from the Bible and certainly bears no similarity to the real Jesus who flatly rejected all those things and said you’d recognize his followers because they will reject them, too. 

I am expecting the usual responses from my Evangelical friends who will say “where are you seeing this? My church is wonderful and no one says anything like this. So, if I am imagining this I would love to be wrong. I love the real Jesus too much to let “peer pressure “ lead me to invent a more culturally palatable version. Do you see this happening too? Share examples