Christianity is splintering along racial and ethnic lines in the U.S. It's fair to say that President Trump and his policies are particularly unique in history, and so it's hard to be neutral or nonchalant about him and his administration. So it is particularly interesting to see Christian positions on Trump because it reveals us--Christians--to ourselves, particularly when we accept or disapprove of the Ethics of the Trump administration.

Ethics reflect values, and values reflect belief systems or religion. When there is a divergence in how we assess ethics among Christian demographics, it means that our values are different, and divergent values imply religious differences. This is another way of saying that though we all may call ourselves Christians, we can't all be Christians and feel so differently about Trump's ethics. Either one side is wrong and the other right, or maybe "Christian" is a meaningless term and Trump has exposed that.

The Pew Research Center has some numbers on Trump's approval among Christians.
Trump's approval among adults: 59% Disapprove and 40 approve
72% of White Evangelicals approve of Pres. Trump compared to 10% of Black Protestants.
51% of White Catholics approve of Pres. Trump compared to 26% of Hispanic Catholics.

Now, approval can very much be about politics, economy, and culture, and so not necessarily an issue in itself. But here's the troubling data.

They asked about the ethical standards of top Trump administration officials. Let's refer to it as "Trump."
34% of White Evangelicals rate "Trump's" ethics as excellent and another 35% rate the ethics as good. That's 69%.
4% of Black Protestants rate "Trump's" ethics as excellent and 5% as good. 63% see it as poor.
For White Catholics, 23% see "Trump's" ethics as excellent and 26% as good. (49%)
For Hispanic Catholics, 10% see "Trump's" ethics as excellent and 15% as good.

There is a clear divergence based on race and ethnicity (these categories work differently in other countries). The assessment of ethics is key. If there is a divergence on how we all view the ethics of the Trump administration, it has to go far beyond simple politics, culture, or economic issues. Differing assessments of Trump's ethics imply different values and religions. There are no longer transcendent values that fundamentally hold the Christian community together. What's disturbing is that because of the influence of the US, these forms of Christianity are being exported around the globe at an alarming rate.

Denominational differences have defined the landscape of Christianity in the past few centuries. But, in the past few decades, there are new differences that have emerged that seem to cut just as deep. All this does raise the question of Christian unity. The issue of Christian unity is a pressing issue for only one reason: Jesus prayed that his disciples be one. But what does that mean? Or maybe the question is who really are his disciples (those who are to be one)? Does discipleship identification rest primarily on self- identification, or is it that those who are true disciples and are the ones who are unified in perhaps some unidentifiable way known only to God? The stats above, coupled with denominational differences, show that Christian unity or the prospect for unity is virtually impossible.

President Trump has driven the kind of wedge in Christianity that may be impossible to overcome. Or maybe he is exposing a wedge that was there all along. Maybe we all just have to admit that our differing ethics reflect differing values, which in turn reveal that we "Christians" aren't all of the same religion. Maybe "Christianity" is simply some sociological umbrella term that masks the canyons between vastly different religious streams that make some claim to the Christ figure. Maybe we who claim to follow Christ should realize that the true disciples who should be those (whoever they are) are bound together in spirit and transcend these differences (but we are not all the true disciples). If so, then all that's left to us is to strive for righteousness and pray that we are among the true disciples.  (P.S. "true disciple" as I speak of it, is not the equivalent of not going to Hell)

Luke 24:15 says that Jesus was "taken up into heaven." Mark 16:19 says the same. Acts 1:9 also says, "he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight." Jesus' bodily ascent into heaven is an essential belief in Christianity. The creed states it as one of its propositions: "He ascended into Heaven." 

For clarity, let's see, Acts 1:11 "They said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.”" Here it is clear, Just as Jesus is going to one day physically return, so is he ascending into heaven where he will "sit" at the "right hand" of the Father (Rev 3:21; Mt 22:44; Acts 2:33) and the Nicene Creed says, "he is seated at the right hand of the Father."

A lot of things get Christians squeamish about their faith, but one that seems to really get Christians, maybe Catholics in particular, is that Jesus physically ascended into Heaven. Why is this troublesome? Well, for one, the universe is 93 billion light years. That means it would take light that long to travel from one end to the other (or something like that). So did Jesus keep floating up and up and up . . . (if there is an "up" in the universe)? Sure! Or it could have happened in the blink of an eye. The other issue is that this physical bodily ascension seems to imply that Jesus is currently at location (x,y,z), or that Heaven is at that location. Yes. He is at a location, and heaven is at a location. What that means, we can't understand, but he is there, sitting . . . or standing or whatever he is doing.

Some people think that the ascension and the current existence of Jesus is more spiritual than the alternative. But then, what exactly was the point of the resurrection? There is zero point in a resurrection if only two weeks later, he reverts to spiritual form and glides away.

One issue for Catholics is that the current bodily existence of Jesus complicates the Eucharist, the elements of which are the body and blood of Jesus. It is true. Jesus is alive. The Eucharist is not a substitute for his being, person, and presence. All one has to remember is that it was Jesus, who was very much alive, who distributed bread and wine to his disciples and said, "this is my body."

Now, of course, the manner of existence of Jesus, a physical man who is God, is beyond anything we can think or comprehend. So it is not reductive to think of Jesus as a bodily existing man. We only have to give up the parameters of our thinking and rely on faith to make sense of whatever new reality awaits us.

So Jesus is alive. He is resurrected. He is a body and is somewhere. Now . . . so . . . if Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father . . . so . . . is the Father . . . 

Is being ethical the same thing as being a good person? Is being a good person the same as being ethical?

Does being religious imply that one will be good and or ethical? I think we can answer this one quickly. No. Being religious does not in itself mean that someone is good or ethical. The proof is in the pudding. Religious people the world over and over the centuries have shown that there isn't a necessary coupling between religiosity and goodness or ethicalness. Many religious people are very good people, but many not very good people are deeply religious. But, perhaps, that's not the point . . . or is it?

Can someone be ethical and not good? Ethics is not easy to define. But it has to do with principles of action, society (however, one construes that), and human flourishing (whether in a broad quasi-eschatological and teleological sense, or whether in an individualistic, granular present sense).

The first problem always is what exactly is good? There are many goods, satisfying hunger, laughing, peace, justice, engaging in fulfilling work, enjoying art, etc. Why are these good and is there an intrinsic ordering to them? Satisfying hunger is good but is undermined if to do so, I take food from someone else who needed that food to satisfy their hunger. So the greater good there would be abundance and solidarity so that there is enough for both of us and it is my aim to ensure we both get to satisfying our hunger and we don't try to hoard the abundance or excess. As we game it out the greater goods become intangible conditions we set so that we can optimize justice, peace, and the like so that we can all share resources fairly.

Ultimately, though, we need to plant our flag on the greatest possible good. Only such a good may be the true north star for any practical earthly conception of good.  Such a good must be a good in and for itself. It cannot be a good in any way dependent on it's utility--how useful or good it is for something. Such a good that is good in itself demands recognition as such and this is what we sense as the holy and the sacred. The Holy is the transcendent good beyond all practical conceptions of good. It is visible in this world, but not of this world, and cannot be accessed as a thing in the world. 

The irony then is it is the religious who necessarily preserve the sense we have the sacred and the holy, even when they fail at being good themselves. Though it then becomes the ultimate scandal when the ones who see the Good as the Holy fall short and bring scandal. Even worse, if goodness in itself is, at its root, distinct from utility, then there's an aspect of holiness that may seem divorced from the practical goods that we all appreciate. For instance, the holy person on their way to pray may be impatience and rude to the person interrupting them. 

The only way those who seek holiness can also reflect ultimate goodness is if they partner with those who seek goodness even at the expense of holiness. It seems like folly to expect any single human to be wholly holy and wholly good (in the practical sense). But as a corporate body of Christians, the tasks can be distributed as long as everyone understands their roles. That those who pursue practical goods understand that they do so at the expense of true devotion to the holy. And those who seek the path of holiness understand that their quest blinds them to the necessary practical goodness that should define the Christian. I suppose, though, in the long run, the true Christian strives not to neglect either holiness or goodness.

Someone once asked me about reading an introduction to the Bible. The book she showed me was a very nice-looking book. I glanced in it, and it looked like it had a lot of really good information. She asked if it would be good. The bible is always good--necessary--to read for one's spiritual journey. However, reading the bible with the aid of academic experts, whether through books, commentaries, etc, is something else. Academically, scripture study is criticism, i.e., it reduces the bible to a combination of history, sociology, and literature. 

(Image--Thomas Waterman Wood 1874)

The world has learned so much from scholars who decided to evaluate the bible, not as a spiritual, divine book, but as a work of history, and also through literary and sociological lenses. The insights have been invaluable in the sense that we can't imagine living in a world prior to this knowledge. In a way, it's like imagining how people could have lived fulfilled lives in the 9th century AD without wifi, books, cars, and hygienic products. But those people lived very full and happy lives, no more or no less than we do. So also, Christians thrived without the burden of this academic approach to scripture.

For some types of Christians, including myself, entering into the world of biblical study with academic experts is a faith-destroying, soul-sucking enterprise. The academic overlay and telescope become a blight and varnish on the scriptures--a maze, a rabbit hole that once you go down, you never get out.

On the other hand, the academic approach to the bible is a major breath of fresh air for many other types of Christians. For one, the bible then makes sense. The cultural context, literary structure, and historical notes categorize things in a neat enough way that remove obstacles to faith.

Everyone needs expert help. Reading the bible is not a solitary thing but a community venture. The scriptures are given first and primarily to the people of faith as a whole, to the Church, and next to us as individuals, in a secondary sense. I think wading into the world of academic "criticism" and context is not the worst thing in the world. But it is eating the forbidden apple. After you enter this world, you can expect to realize that you are naked, you'll start hiding from God, Cain will kill Abel, we build towers to climb to the heavens, and darkness floods in such that God will despair and consider another ark. But in all this darkness, we still get grace, the Messiah, and a savior. What choice do we have? We can't ignore all the insights of the past few hundred years. Yet, we pay dearly for every morsel of this analytical food we eat.

In sum, there has to be an initial time of self-reflection and assessment. It helps to understand what kind of person you are--what kind of Christian you are. Do you lean more toward the affective or more toward the analytical? But ultimately, at the end of the day, there is one real injunction: Fear God and do his commandments. If we stick to this, we can hope to be guided aright.

The agony, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus were no laughing matter. But there seemed to be a significant amount of mocking around his death. First, when Jesus is questioned by Herod, a man who had desired to meet Jesus for so long and see a sign from him, he--Jesus--is mocked.

"[Even] Herod and his soldiers treated him contemptuously and mocked him, and after clothing him in resplendent garb, he sent him back to Pilate.i" (Lk 23:11)

Matthew's account is more graphic:

"27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. 28 And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him, 29 and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” 30 And they spat upon him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. 31 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe, and put his own clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him." (Mt 27:27-31)

It is in the midst of the mocking that Jesus is beaten, spat on, and then given a garment that is later  stripped off him.

At the crucifixion scene, the rulers then sneer at him (Lk 23:35), followed by the soldiers (Lk 23:36), then the inscription, "This is the King of the Jews" (Lk 23:38) is meant to be something of a taunt and mockery, and then there's the one criminal (Lk 23:39).

All these indicate the apparent extent of Jesus' failure. This man who was to be king now hangs here, a spectacle. It does little good to make Jesus over godlike and suggest all the while he had secret knowledge and would, if he could, wink at the camera because he knows what's coming. The abjectness of the failure, such that all this taunting makes sense, must be appreciated.

It is then that we see the faith of Christ in his patience. He had failed, and his kingship and dominion hung on the cross as a spectacle. He responded to none of the taunts. But finally responds to the criminal who reaches out to him in faith. The criminal proclaims Jesus' innocence, which was also apparent to all. He asks Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom. Whatever that meant, it was pure faith that this weak, defeated Messiah still had a kingdom and had the power to save. So when Jesus says, "today you will be with me in paradise," we can understand that that is similarly Jesus' own statement of faith. 

The mockery and taunting of Jesus tell us one thing: that Jesus' kingdom and perceived political aspirations were a real thing. This is what people, even his disciples, expected of him--a kingdom. For Jesus' sacrifice to be really meaningful, he had to feel the full weight of that failure. Thus, the fact that in the lion's den of failure, he declares the salvation of the criminal, is a testament to the faith of Christ.

One moment in history that haunts me is the death of the great scientist (proto-scientist), Archimedes (287-212 BC). Archimedes was one of the most brilliant humans ever to live. He famously solved a volume displacement problem in the baths an ran through the streets shouting "Eureka!" He also uncovered physical laws about and speculated about things like levers, screws, mirrors, and a whole lot more. He said to have said, "Give me a place to stand and I'll move the earth," referring to his law of levering. 

I'd always heard that Archimedes was killed by a drunken Roman soldier. Maybe the soldier wasn't drunk. Either way, he was killed by a soldier. The armed man was either angered by Archimede's refusal to follow him to the king because the thinker was working on a problem in the dust. "Do not disturb my circles," he said. Or the soldier thought Archimedes's instruments were valuable plunder and killed for them. Either way, one of history's most brilliant men died at the hands of a man with limited education, who by a sword and by the state, weilded power, and who did not appreciate the genius before him.

("Death of Archimedes" 1766, by François-Philippe Charpentier, after Ciro Ferri, in the National Gallery of Art)

Well, the world has gone on and Archimedes has slipped into historical legend along with many greats in our intellectual history. However, one wonders what brilliant thing might he have envisioned if he lived longer. Does it matter? Does the life of any one man matter? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But what if history and human flourishing is contingent on nodes of development and insight that spur new ways of thinking? A special insight at just the right moment in history could change the course of peoples, nations, public health, public education, science, international policy, ethics, etc. We would never know. But to have such hope die because of common rage feels like throwing pearls to swine.

(Btw, who knows how many Archimedes, Einsteins, Da Vincis, are dying or suffering or being turned away at the border; or wasting away in impoverishment. To be clear, each and every life wasted and underdeveloped is a crucial opportunity cost for the world.)

The elite class (intellectual and cultural elites, not the societally and financially wealthy class), I see as a version of Archimedes. They are arrogant and perhaps too self assured. But human history is driven by these people because ideas have consequences. For instance, it is not an exaggeration to say that Alexander the Great changed the course of world history . . . with his sword. Yet, the lesser know fact is that he was the pupil of one of the greatest philosophers, Aristotle. Christianity flourishes because educated elites (Paul, Luke, Matthew) wrote things down. Karl Marx, some say, "lived" in libraries studying and writing, and the world has been shaped to dangerous effect (but some good) by his ideas.

The populist purging of intellectual elites (scientists, academics, artists, writers, etc) makes for a good talking point. Idea factories and concept generators produce nothing tangible. But eliminating the intellectual and cultural elite destroys a certain kind of hope. We all live in the present, struggling to meet our daily needs. These elites live in a different world, anticipating the forms that structure reality and that determine the future. To be sure, elites are dangerous (see Marx), because they are unaware of the power of their ideas, nor do they seem able to see the world but in the way it appears to them. And they quickly lose touch with what it means to not live in an ordinary world because their heads are in the clouds. They should circumscribed with means that prevent them from directly pouring their ideas and notions into general society (easier said than done). Nonetheless, it is vital that the intellectual and cultural elite flourish in the institutions designed for them. In our day, these are universities and other academic or intellectual outlets.

It does no good to human and societal flourishing for enraged drunken soldiers to yet again, disturb elite circles written in dust and again, kill Archimedes for his insolence. Without Archimedes' fulcrum, we don't move the earth. 

The Gospel of Luke has interesting sibling tensions. There is Mary and Martha in Luke 10:

38 Now as they went on their way, he entered a village; and a woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me. 41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; 42 one thing is needful.[f] Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”” 

There is the person in the crowd in Luke 12:

13 One of the multitude said to him, “Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” 15 And he said to them, “Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” 16 And he told them a parable, saying, 

These two cases seem to highlight similar things. Focus on the the better part that cannot be taken away. In the case of Martha, it wasn't serving that was the problem. It was that she was "distracted with much serving." For the other man, the request leads to the parable of the rich fool who stored up wealth for himself. That in itself is fine. It was that he was not also "rich toward God."

Then there's our friend, the prodigal son in Luke 15:

25 “Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what this meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”


The wayward son spends his inheritance, while the dutiful son/brother remains faithful and works hard. The prodigal gets rewarded with a party, the brother doesn't. Two of these sibling stories have to do with sharing inheritance. In the other case, the one calling out to Jesus felt an injustice was done to him. His brother was not sharing the inheritance. In this case, the older brother felt and injustice was done when in fact there was no injustice, just mercy.

Fairness is a persistent concern among family members. And in the presence of Jesus it is easy to call on him as a judge. But Jesus' response in all cases is to accept the perceived unfairness and focus on the one thing needful--the better part that shall not be taken away.

When Jesus' disciples asks him to increase their faith, he gives the following parable (Lk 17):

"7 “Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? 8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink’? 9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”"

I wish Jesus could be just a tad clearer. But whatever the message about faith is in all this, there is something interesting about being a servant. The Greek for servant is "doulon" so it might be better thought of as "slave." So in this parable, when a slave comes in from a hard day in the field, would one ask the slave to sit and rest or demand they do their duty to serve the master? Well, one would expect the slave to serve, not be served. And then after one has worked all day in the field doing back-breaking work, and then comes in  and serves the master, the slave says "we are unprofitable servants" as the King James Version puts it. We've simply done our duty.

Now here's the flip side of being a parable slave. (Lk 12)

"35 “Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning, 36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the marriage feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes; truly, I say to you, he will gird himself and have them sit at table, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those servants! 39 But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would have been awake and[e] would not have left his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”"

and a few verses later:

"42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44 Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions."

So the Luke 12 slaves have to be vigilant and awake to serve the Master. But there is a reward for their faithfulness. The Master will have them eat at the table and serve them! He will give them their portion in proper time and they will be set over all his possessions. Doing one's duty here comes with inordinate and disproportionate rewards.

There is a bit of whiplash, but one might lead into the other. After all, what slave would strain to be awake through the midnight watch and even until dawn? Who would be constantly alert and vigilant for his master's coming? It would have to be the slave who saw it has his duty and not for the sake of reward--the unprofitable servant.