Offend Me Not
When Christians demand an apology from a media organization, are they defending the faith, or simply taking offense?
On February 28, Fox News published a story about a Politico reporter who’s comments about Christian nationalism went viral and led to at least two prominent Christian organizations to demand an apology from the media group. The reporter, Heidi Przybyla, a national investigative correspondent for the news organization Politico, was talking about the perceived rise of Christian nationalism in relation to the political movement around Donald Trump and others in his political sphere. This is what she had to say:
The base of the Republican Party has shifted, right?” Przybyla said on Thursday night. “Remember when Trump ran in 2016, a lot of the mainline evangelicals wanted nothing to do with the divorced, you know, real estate mogul who had cheated on his wife with a porn star and all of that. So what happened was he was surrounded by this more extremist element. They’re gonna hear words like ‘Christian nationalism,’ like the ‘New Apostolic reformation.’ These are groups that you should get very, very schooled on because they have a lot of power in Trump’s circle.
The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists - not Christians, by the way, because Christian nationalist is very different - is that they believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don’t come from any earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, they don’t come from the Supreme Court. They come from God. The problem with that is that they are determining- man, men, it is men are determining what God is telling them,” Przybyla continued. “And in the past, that so-called natural law is, you know, it’s a pillar of Catholicism, for instance. It has been used for good in social justice campaigns, Martin Luther King evoked it in talking about civil rights, but now you have an extremist element of conservative Christians who say that this applies specifically to issues including abortion, gay marriage, and it’s going much further than that.
These comments led to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Brian Burch of Catholic Vote to pen a letter demanding an apology from Politico for Ms. Przybyla’s “smearing of the Christian faith” and failing to acknowledge that “our own Republic was founded on the belief that our rights come from God, not earthly kings or government”.
There’s a lot to unpack here. For starters, I’m not seeing much “smearing of the Christian faith” in Ms. Przybyla’s comments. She’s talking about a view of some in the Church that Christians are called to have dominion over government in order to enforce biblical values in policy and governance. This is sometimes referred to as a hallmark of what is known as the New Apostolic Reformation. It’s worth noting that the NAR is a doctrine that is not held by a majority of Christians, including myself, and is a matter of debate within the Church at large. It is hardly a bedrock of the Christian faith. Ms. Przybyla was talking specifically about a topic of some debate within the greater Christian community and something that is both topical and relevant to the current election cycle given that candidates are running on these issues.
The part that seems to stick in the craws of the Family Research Council and Catholic Vote appears to be where Ms. Przybyla makes a point about how adherents to Christian nationalism or the NAR are claiming that God is telling them what rights Americans do and do not have. The issues of concern here tie into abortion and LGBTQ interests, but could extend into other areas such as birth control or education, for example. What is often referred to as “human rights” could perhaps be better described as respecting the dignity and inherent value of people.
There is no question that God has created us to rule and reign with Him (Gen. 1:26), and that He has a covenant with us through the blood of Jesus. That covenant comes with rights of inheritance. And from these we derive things like the rights of speech, religion, assembly, the press, etc. So it is correct, I believe, to agree with the view that our rights come from God in the context that they come through our covenant relationship with Him. Those we commonly refer to as the “founding fathers” drew reference from these rights in their drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of the Constitution.
Now, generally, when someone who could be fairly considered to be left of center uses language like what was used by Politico, it’s intended to create alarm in the general populace about how the Christians could be coming for your bodily autonomy with their policies and censorship. So there is good reason to take that factor into account in considering her words. But I feel it’s fair to ask the question of whether we can always trust those who claim to hear from God about how a nation should be governed. It’s easy, after all, to say that “God says this so that’s what we must do” when what is really being communicated is your own agenda based on your own opinions about how policies address a social issue. And that agenda could be influenced by your personal interests as well, such as the desire to win or retain your office, expand your base of power, or increase your financial assets.
Often enough, even within the Church, there are disagreements on what God has to say about certain issues. Take women preachers, for instance. Ask John MacArthur about whether a woman should preach, and he has already given his answer: go home. Ask Joyce Meyers, and well, you’ll get a very different answer. Who is correct? Both would likely tell you that their view is based on what God taught them on the subject. Spoiler alert: I have no problem with women preaching, and I feel comfortable saying that even though I know there are a lot of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who would say I’m wrong. Those who agree or disagree on this issue might feel that their position is backed up by Scripture, but is it also possible they have skin in the game in some way that allowing or not allowing women to preach serves their own interests? It can be hard to separate these personal stakes from the interests of serving in the kingdom of God.
In the end, Ms. Przybyla issued an apology about using words she described as “clumsy”. That’s fair, and there are some reasonable arguments to make against her original word choice and even her stated position on the issue. What I’m calling into question here is whether it is wise to demand an apology at all. Seeing the response from Perkins and Burch, there’s a tone that extends well beyond merely stating a position that disagrees with the Politico segment. Demanding an apology is stating you are offended. And that is where I have to diverge in my response. Because I don’t want to be offended.
Taking offense is antithetical to what Jesus did during His ministry. He was accused of blasphemy by religious leaders, and rejected by his own hometown and people of Nazareth to the degree that they fully intended to throw Him off a cliff. He was accused of being in league with Satan, even while He was casting out demons, healing people and raising the dead. He was eventually unjustly arrested and charged with crimes He did not commit by the ruling religious leaders, and condemned by a Roman governor who was primarily concerned with avoiding another riot on his record over sparing the life of a man he recognized as innocent. He was savagely flogged and brutalized by Roman soldiers and then forced to carry the instrument of His death through the streets to the execution site, and then crucified by having large iron nails driven through his hands and feet. If anyone had cause to be offended, it was Him. Yet, among the last words he uttered on the cross were to call upon His Father to forgive those who were killing and mocking Him.
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NKJV)
1 Corinthians 13 tells us that love “is not provoked” and “bears all things”. Demanding an apology seems like allowing ourselves to be provoked and hardly would appear to be bearing offense with patience or love. Of course, I understand the godly desire to stand for truth, and there is nothing wrong with responding to what a reporter says about the role of Christians in government if you have reason to disagree with her stated view. But maybe we should frame our response as a respectful disagreement rather than demanding an apology for an offense. After all, we’re a country that considers rights such as freedom of speech as among the foremost rights we possess. Is that supposed to look like us demanding an apology every time someone says something we consider offensive?
The exchange I’m citing in this piece hardly stands alone as an example of how Christians, including myself, have often felt offended by something someone says or does, and were driven to demand some way of making it right. It seems sensible, at first glance, to demand an apology from someone who we feel has wronged us in some way. An offered apology communicates that the offender acknowledges their wrongdoing, and is seeking to make amends. It confers a degree of power upon the recipient to either accept or reject the apology and restore a relationship into good standing once more. And I’m all in favor of offering an apology when we do wrong. It’s the right thing to do. But demanding an apology seems out of step with how Christ operates, and yet it does seem like it’s the default position we turn to when someone says or does something that offends us.
We’re not called to be doormats, but neither are we called to take offense. We can stand on truth without demanding a retraction or an apology. Is it more important to be seen as right, or to be seen as being like Christ? I’ve sought to be seen as right often, but I’ve come to a place where bearing witness for Christ seems more important than being right. It’s enough, perhaps, that we can trust God to be right in all things.
Lord, please help me to avoid taking offense. When I feel slighted or wronged by someone, I would ask you to remind me how you taught us to love others, and to respond with blessing and prayer for those I feel hurt by, and to speak the truth when appropriate. Thank you for your example of patiently bearing all things in love.