Skip to main content

Response to Article in The Atlantic

I wrote this in response to an article in The Atlantic titled "Some of the Most Visible Christians in American are Failing the Coronavirus Test," found here: 



To Whomever at The Atlantic whose eyes this might reach:

I was saddened to read Jonathan Merritt's article about the attitudes of Christians about the coronavirus and President Trump. As a Christian in the evangelical world, I can speak for many when I say that the attitudes Merritt describes are the very ones many Christians are so sensitive about. We are very aware of our sullied reputation among nonbelievers, and many of us do everything in our power to share Christ's love for the world with both our actions and our faith. Merritt admits as much toward the end of his article when he acknowledges that "Most Christians...are trying their best to live a life consistent with their faith." While I don't know the believers Merritt mentions enough to defend their words (with the possible exception of John Piper), I think it's important to note that the notion of God's judgment for sin is a logical one that results from our knowledge of the Old Testament. I don't say this to support the idea that God is using the virus to judge us. I simply worry that Merritt may have misrepresented the attitudes of some of these men, whom Merritt casts as cold toward those who might suffer or die (although Reno's "demonic" quote, seems pretty clear). Instead, they may be interpreting it as best they know how. Personally, I believe that Romans 8:20-21 applies to the virus: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in the hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Nature itself, which at the beginning God pronounced was "very good," was warped by man's decision to sin. If anyone is responsible for the virus, it is us.

With that said, I understand and certainly agree with the choice to highlight the evangelical support we see for Donald Trump in an article critical of American Christians. It surprises me, too, and as someone who does not support Trump for the reasons Merritt mentions, I was just as shocked to see such support among believers. Still, the ugliness of the church was never a reason to reject the one who formed it. Christ is always our model, and while the church is indeed filled with hypocrites, like me, many of us nevertheless--again, as Merritt acknowledges--strive to be Christ-like. It seems to me that the echo chamber of our culture today is perhaps all the worse now due to social isolation, among Christian and non-Christian alike; but while stereotypes about Christians have shades of truth to them (we are all judgmental and hypocritical at times, and there are those among us who are homophobic), they are--like Satan's tempting of Adam and Eve--a twisting of that truth, in this case by measuring the whole by the few.

Merritt writes that Christians, on the whole, try to live by Christ's values, that they "run soup kitchens and homeless shelters, hand out water bottles at summer community events, and are more likely than the average American to donate to charity." I have seen this time and again inside and outside the church's doors. I am simply asking that you get to know us on an individual level. The apostle John writes in his first epistle that we should not "believe every spirit," but instead should "test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." Just as John implores believers to watch for false Christians, so I ask that you measure us by our lives. "Anyone," John continues, "who does not know love does not know God." This is the test of Christian faith.

Finally, I am sorry. I am sorry for all of the harm we have done--that I have done-- that would serve to dim the light of Christ, if that were possible. Gratefully, Christ's glory cannot be dimmed, and that glory is reflected in his words to a world in need of him: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Thank you for reading. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your articles and your willingness to hear me.

Tony Sciarini

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Savior

This wasteland cold and dark runs free Its fearful creatures speak to me One fateful day one nudged my hand To set my eyes upon a tree He knew I could not understand For I was in his native land His signs became our common speech To lead me through the deadly sand Now stuck I saw him me beseech He could not lift me out to reach The firm foundation of a cave Outside the boundaries of this beach Withal, the beast became more brave To risk his own my life to save To carry me, its life it gave To carry me, its life it gave. This poem was inspired by Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening." That poem, like this one, has four four-line stanzas of eight syllables per stanza. Its rhyme scheme is AABA BBCB CCDC DDDD.

Soul and Spirit

As a friend told me about a conversation she had with one of our pastors about whether animals go to heaven, she told me about the Hebrew word nephesh ("soul"). I wondered, then, what the difference was between soul and spirit. After a little research, I came across what many seem to agree is a main difference. The soul of a person is that person's being--personality and life--while the spirit is that part of us that connects with God. There are several verses that refer to spirit in this way:* "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:1) "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly p...

Evil, According to Republicans and Democrats

Please note that the following thoughts are only my observations. Please consider the evidence you see in the behavior of both parties for yourself. In our politically polarized climate, I was thinking about how Democrats and Republicans are different, and where those differences come from. Democrats seem to place more hope in institutions, and seek to reform those institutions when there is something wrong in society. Hence, there is more willingness to levy taxes to offer more social services as a support to those with less than others. They see the state as a way to equalize society. Thus, evil, to Democrats, seems to be a social issue: if there is a problem in society--poverty, racism, climate change, etc.--it is a problem with the structure of society and must be addressed as such: repair the system, and you will solve the problem. They are generally accepting of a larger state bureaucracy because they believe that increased accountability within a state structure will prevent evi...