At their recent conference, the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s executive committee produced a report on civility, or more specifically, how evangelical Christians can use their faith to make democracy work. It is hard to imagine a more clear usurpation of the Church’s function, which is to glorify God… not to create or support a specific type of society. Chinese, Indians, Italians and Americans can all make Christian societies that retain major cultural differences from each other.
But “Democracy” is so special that supporting it is a major goal of SBC leaders. Let’s dig into the report, archived here for your convenience and because I don’t expect the Cloudfront server I found it at will be accessible long-term. It’s rather long so the excerpts I select for fisking will include page numbers.
Faith and Healthy Democracy
by Paul D. Miller, lead researcher
I see warning signs, especially in the eyes. His background is… huh, he’s a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University. The Jesuits have been coming up in the news a lot lately, and not in Christ-friendly contexts.
That’s a huge red flag: a non-Christian studying how Christians should behave… for the benefit of democracy? On behalf of the Southern Baptist leadership?
In June 2017 a gunman opened fire on a group of Republican Congressman, nearly killing one. Just over a year later, several pipe bombs were mailed to prominent Democratic officials, including former President Barack Obama. In recent years Americans have attacked and killed fellow Americans at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, a gay nightclub in Orlando, and a church in Charleston because of political, religious, or ethnic differences. In June 2018, 31 percent of respondents in a Rasmussen poll believed civil war was likely to break out within the next five years.
One of these is not like the others. One of these involves ordinary Americans AND is peaceful AND a polite yet justified complaint of pessimism about the future… AND is what the ERLC has a problem with. It wouldn’t do to condemn all Muslims for one guy shooting up a gay bar, now would it?
Some observers warn that democracy cannot survive a wholesale loss of faith in one another, in public persuasion, and in the rules of democratic politics.
Yes. They are absolutely correct for obvious reasons. ALL group interactions become hostile, if not impossible, in the absence of mutual trust.
That conclusion might be overdrawn—the United States did, in fact, survive the 1790s and 1960s (and, barely, the 1860s)—but it is also unnecessary. We do not have to believe that democracy is on its last legs to want it to see better days.
Don’t change the subject and don’t claim an answer to an existential criticism is unnecessary. Are those “some observers” right or wrong, Miller?
Waiting for an apocalyptic crisis is a dereliction of the duties of citizenship, a form of national procrastination that is both cause and evidence of the state of the public square. Christians can and should desire a better public square, and we can and should bear public witness for that goal. Christians are called to love our neighbors; we are called to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” in which we sojourn (Jeremiah 29:7) [similar verses omitted]
Dumbass. The reason anybody looks forward to a civil war at all is because we have become non-participants in our society. We have no say in the government, in the corporate-dominated marketplace and our SJW-infested church who thinks it’s a Christian problem that our society might not continue its democracy-fueled death spiral.
I think this was JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolt impossible make violent revolt inevitable.”
[p2]This report was supported by the Fetzer Institute to contribute to a healthy democracy in America. The Fetzer Institute is devoted to “helping build the spiritual foundation for a loving world.” It is not a Christian organization, but it shares with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) a concern for a healthy public square, which we both believe is informed by the unique resources of faith communities.
Why did this ERLC production partner with a non-Christian organization to research a new Christian policy? No God-fearing Christian ever uses the phrase “faith communities”.
The Fetzer Institute is…
…a Satanic organization dedicated to the creation of the World Religion. Zero hyperbole in that statement. Let’s segue to their brochure on Theory of Change:
The bottom sentences read “aligned narratives grounded in particular paths” and “building blocks of the New Narrative”
By providing a rationally and emotionally compelling personal and global vision, the New Narrative will become a powerful force drawing new members into the global
[p12]THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GLOBAL MOVEMENT AND THE FAITH TRADITIONS
“Faith traditions” meaning currently existing religions.
The global movement’s strategy for engaging the faith traditions must be informed by three realities of our current world. First, each of the traditions provides practices and paths that lead to profound life-affirming personal transformation. Second, each of the traditions also contains extremist, dogmatic, and life-denying paths that contribute to many of the world’s most intractable problems and conflicts. And third, for the foreseeable future, a solid majority of people in the world will be on spiritual paths within one of the traditions. Two key conclusions follow:
• The movement will never reach critical mass to drive significant global transformation without broad participation from within the traditions. Thus, the movement must have an energetic and effective strategy to engage large numbers of people within the traditions.
I’ve never heard Convergence stated so clearly.
• To increase the traditions’ positive contribution to life-affirming personal and
societal transformation, the movement must support those within each tradition, and particularly those leaders within each tradition, who are trying to shift the tradition’s
center of gravity away from extremist and life-denying dogma toward the direct,
transformative experience of Spirit.
I hadn’t yet found the words to explain Greear’s Gospel heresy. Any path to God’s power that doesn’t go through Christ is an obvious heresy but the details escaped me… there were threads I wasn’t holding. But using ‘Gospel’ as a synonym for the Fetzer Institute’s global narrative of “Spirit” explains the heresy perfectly. Greear is not just a resource-sucking parasite, he’s twisting the work of God into the New Narrative, the work of Spirit.
The ERLC is devoted to, “engaging the culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ and speaking to issues in the public square for the protection of religious liberty and human flourishing.” The Fetzer Institute sought to learn more about how American evangelical Christians might contribute to healing political and cultural divides in America. Secondly, and relatedly, this initiative also aims to identify gaps in Americans’ civic education and civic practice and to suggest ways to fill that gap. We hope to engage Christians on what healthy democratic participation looks like: how do we love our neighbors politically, and how might our faith lead us to advocate for human flourishing in the public square?
Our “faith” is going to get a lot of people killed in the near future. Us Christians first, for rejecting Satan, and then the rest of humanity for rejecting Christ.
The ERLC commissioned a public opinion poll (see Appendix B). A team of researchers conducted several dozen interviews with evangelical thought leaders (see Appendix C) and consulted academic and historical work on evangelicals and American politics (see Appendix D). This team talked and debated amongst one another. And we prayed for wisdom.
Again, one of those things is not like the others.
“Thought leaders” is a phrase straight from the Fetzer Institute literature.
[p7]Civility is not the most important virtue of public life: justice has a good claim to that. As several of our interviewees told us, there is a time and place for incivility when fighting injustice (war is uncivil yet, sometimes, just).
That’s right, you bitch. Sometimes justice is more important than being civil.
But civility is a proxy variable, an indicator of the health or illness of the body politic. “The essence of civility is not spinelessness but self-control,” according to Bruce Ashford, professor, dean, and provost at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, “it is the capacity to show love and grace particularly when we disagree with others and even when we dislike them.”
A proxy variable? So, not a virtue at all, just an indicator of mob psychology? Then you should not be trying to affect civility directly at all. That ruins its value as an indicator as surely as wiping your fingerprints off a knife ruins its value as evidence in a criminal trial.
And civility not being a virtue, is not a Christian priority.
I checked on Bruce Ashford. He writes very Tradcon; hates Marxism, which is good, but at best he doesn’t understand what’s going on.
Civility is especially important because we live in a pluralistic democracy: we share government with people with whom we disagree. In normal times, we can and should expect civility from our fellow citizens. The absence of it is a warning, a symptom of some broader and deeper ailment. Civility is the proverbial canary in the coalmine: when it dies, we know there is poison in the air. The point is not the canary, but what its demise tells us. The goal of this report is not to perform CPR on a dead canary, but an autopsy. What killed American public discourse?
Elites locking us normies out of the halls of power killed American discourse. When our opinions, votes and donations ceased to influence the behavior of our institutions and leaders, we got cranky about it and started wishing for an alternative. Seriously, Miller, you wonder why the little people are pissed these days while authoring a paper on how to manipulate our political behavior?
Another worrying feature of today’s public square is evangelicals’ felt need to mask or disguise their beliefs in public. Over half of evangelicals report that they do not reveal their political beliefs in environments where those beliefs are unpopular. Over a third said they simply ignore disagreeable political comments in conversation rather than engaging them. David Kinnaman, President of the Barna Group, shared that his own research found that evangelicals are “least likely to say that they could have a natural, normal conversation with someone who is different than they are,” compared to other religious groups. Interestingly, hiding one’s political beliefs was associated with higher levels of incivility in LifeWay’s civility index (see below), suggesting that evangelicals’ habit of hiding their beliefs actively harms their public witness and the public square.
…Incidents such as Brendan Eich’s resignation as CEO of Mozilla in 2014 after a public pressure campaign highlighted his views against gay marriage likely shape evangelicals’ perception of the dangers of expressing their beliefs.
Blatant indicators of Christian persecution in USA flew straight over the head of this mouthpiece for the freakin’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
[p13]One reason we so readily immerse ourselves in our media bubbles is to find reassurance amidst a morally confusing world, which points to another major factor in the breakdown of the American public square: the loss of moral consensus in American society. The United States has experienced a profound religious and cultural shift in the past century or so. Earlier in American history, the United States could be seen as a kind of Christendom, broadly understood as a civilization shaped by the norms, symbols, and rhetoric of Christianity. That is not to claim all or most people were Christians, that official Christianity was necessarily correct or heartfelt, or that Christianity superseded secular cultural sources (like the Enlightenment). We simply recognize that Protestantism used to have an undisputed place as the privileged religion in the United States and that it provided much of the framework for moral and political discourse. (This raises the fraught question of whether the United States is or ever could be usefully described as a “Christian nation,” which we address in the closing pages of this report).
A Christian would not write that. There is ONE standard of morality, written by God our Creator. All others are fabrications or approximations.
The Constitution was written by God-fearing men to implement Christ’s teachings upon the limited roles of government and sanction for men to worship Christ (not all religions) free of government interference. This very paper turns that on its head.
Whether or not the American version of Christendom was good, bad, or a hypocritical façade is beside the point.
I can’t believe this paper is written by and for the Southern Baptist leadership.
Some celebrated the ways that a Christianized public culture helped create a presumption against some forms of injustice. Others argued that it just as often functioned to excuse or bless other kinds of injustice (especially slavery and racism)—and, besides, confused the gospel with political theory. For our purposes, we note that public Christianity played an important social function: It provided a point of moral consensus. It contributed to the public a common language with shared meanings (alongside secular sources, such as Enlightenment thought).
Good luck creating a pan-religious world government that offers anything like a moral consensus. On second thought, we already know what this looks like. For the atheist, moral consensus is twofold:
- Whatever the government says you should do. (Applies to other people.)
- Whatever you can get away with. (Applies to you.)
Scholars and statesmen could debate justice because they had a common heritage defining what the word meant, or at least offering a shared history of a debate about its meaning. No longer: today, neither Christianity nor the Enlightenment provides a common frame of moral reference for public discussion. As Michael Wear, a former Obama administration official and Founder of Public Square Strategies, told us, “we don’t even share a common moral language anymore.” We not only disagree on which immigration policy is most just; we cannot agree on what “justice” means, or even if there is such a thing.
Yes, because we have abandoned God. So much for secular Enlightenment principles.
[p18]Human beings are social and political animals. We are made for community. When we lose one kind of community, we invent others to take its place.
[p19]Polarization in voting behavior and among elected officials is only one part of the tribalization of American politics. More worrying is our tendency to sift ourselves into geographically-distinct, politically- and culturally-homogenous neighborhoods and even states in what amounts to “the Big Sort,” as journalist Bill Bishop dubbed it.16 It is good civic hygiene to know and befriend people of a different race, religion, and income level, but Americans are increasingly choosing to live in neighborhoods and go to schools and churches where we never have to meet them. Such homogenization has political consequences.
…no? Dumbass, that’s normal human behavior BY YOUR OWN OBSERVATION! We want to live among people we have common ground with, in order to have nice things like moral consensus.
Miller outlined the globalist agenda of miscegenating humanity physically, politically and culturally, so that we’ll be at each other’s throats unless Big Brother tells us how we should live. He agrees with the social experimenters who are INTENTIONALLY destabilizing societies across the world… mass migration is a major step in that plan.
In this report, we want to discern how evangelicals can help improve the public square. Before we can do that, we need to take the temperature of American evangelicals, to put our finger on the pulse of our community, especially regarding our political beliefs and behavior. We need to establish a baseline of what our co-religionists feel and believe about politics and religion and what sort of behavior these beliefs foster.
Evangelicals are comfortable with the idea that their faith informs their politics. Between 75 and 85 percent said the Bible informed their political views; that they look for biblical principles to apply in political issues; and that their faith influences how they engage others politically. Over half said that the teachings of their local church or a prominent Christian leader influenced their political views. But these are, again, self-reported figures. Some of our interviewees suggested they saw little evidence that we evangelicals are truly or rightly influenced by our faith in the public square.
Again, I can’t believe what I’m reading in this official Baptist publication. Since when did Bible-Belt Christians, of all people, ever prohibit God’s will from influencing their politics?
The Fetzer Institute believes the purpose of religion is self-actualization and positive vibes. Father God has a rather different opinion.
[p27]In this section, we begin to sketch out the outlines of an approach to politics that we hope can appeal across these divides. What should a Christian public witness look like? How can evangelicals work to improve our public witness, love our neighbors politically, and seek the prosperity of our city? …
First, it is extremely difficult to forge a consensus among evangelicals on specific political issues. It is not terribly difficult to find consensus among white Christians, or among black Christians—but it is extraordinarily difficult to find consensus across racial and ethnic lines.
Miller, do you even read what you write? You have discovered that the most natural way for people to live is among the like-minded and genetically similar. Yes, it will be very hard to impose unnatural behaviors upon people… by definition. But hope for twisting human nature into arbitrary shapes springs eternal!
[P30]Third, the problem is not that we lack a proper political theology, or that we need more academic theological work done. Theologians and Christian scholars have done an extraordinary job of exploring the intersection of Christianity and politics (see Appendix D). But the lived political theology in the pews does not reflect the academic theology taught in our seminaries and published by our presses. There is a disconnect between what scholars and theologians are writing about politics and what is practiced in the pews. Evangelicals are taking their political cue from elsewhere.
I… I can’t even… I CAN’T EVEN FACEPALM THIS LEVEL OF ARROGANTLY OBLIVIOUS, IVORY-TOWER BULLSHIT!
Our interviewees regularly returned to the idea that human dignity and human flourishing should be the central organizing concept for Christian politics.
That is blasphemy. More than that, it’s the Fetzer Institute again. The resources of Christianity must be Converged away from worship of God to the self-actualization of humanity.
About 90 percent of the survey respondents agreed that their political views are informed by the idea that every human being has equal and inherent dignity. God made humanity uniquely in his image. He desires our life and our flourishing; and so should we. The biblical idea of love (agape) means working for the good and flourishing of another.
No. Being made in God’s image does not give us dignity. In fact, nowhere in Scripture is dignity a virtue. And don’t get me started on ANY kind of suggestion that God wants us to think highly of ourselves.
God does not even desire our life. He has sworn to kill us: “It is appointed to men once to die and then to face Judgment.”
[p32]Centering our political thought on justice understood as human flourishing helps us guard against the political idolatries of the left and right, for whom equality and liberty are the central organizing principles, respectively.
That’s Phase 1 of the Revolution. I quote Robespierre for Phase 2: “If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie [homeland, fatherland].” Or the democracy, one supposes.
Miller has abandoned Christ for a 200 year-old abomination of Enlightenment humanism. But he’ll succeed where his predecessors failed because THEY didn’t believe enough! Didn’t try hard enough!
[p47]The institutions of democracy depend on certain social, cultural, and economic conditions to thrive, like respect for the rule of law, honesty, an ethic of voter participation, and more. Unfortunately, American Christians have often operated under a misguided theory of what those preconditions are. This is where the second issue comes in. There is a long tradition of American Christian thought that argues the preconditions of democracy are either British culture or Protestant Christianity, or both. That viewpoint confuses the origins of liberal democracy (in 18th century Protestant Britain) with its necessary preconditions. Neither Britishness nor Protestantism are necessary for democracy to exist, to which a widespread and robust tradition of non-western democracy attests. And the viewpoint is not only wrong, it is damaging: at its worst, this line of thinking exaggerates the importance of (white) British culture and can lead to white supremacy, as we’ve already discussed.
Et tu, Protestant? I notice Miller said Protestantism wasn’t necessary for democracy but stopped just a little shy of saying we’d be better off without it… while saying we WOULD be better off without white
Our own people hate us whites. Why? What was our crime?
I agree that democracy is not a Western Protestant invention; it began in ancient Greece for us and was surely practiced earlier. And it failed, every single time. As soon as the people begin voting themselves money out of the tax revenue, kaboom.
[p47 cont.]But even the more benign form of this argument, emphasizing Christianity rather than British culture, results in a kind of Christian nationalism that ends up harming, not helping, democracy in America. It is harmful in several ways. This viewpoint can end up harming the principle of religious freedom by trying to give Christianity a legal preference—which is helpful for neither the church nor the state. This view can also devolve into a form of identity politics for Christians, which is a fundamentally selfish form of politics: if Christians should be known for loving their neighbors and working for the common flourishing of all, asking for privileged status for ourselves does the opposite.
Unbelievable. Christianity MUST be given a privileged status in society because we are correct and all other religions are wrong! If we do not insist upon the truth then we will get nothing but lies! We can tolerate the existence of those other religions, at least to a point, but the very first Commandment is that Christ comes FIRST! No other gods are His equal and we shall never claim so, on pain of divine Treason!
[p48]Setting history aside, a political agenda of making America into a Christian nation is politically counterproductive. It is simplistic to assume that our various political issues would be easily or smoothly resolved following a revival of Christianity in America, especially considering how rarely Christians agree among ourselves about politics. There are far more, and more complex, dynamics at work (as covered in this report) that have brought our current political crisis about than a simple tale of America’s spiritual decline and fall.
In the meantime, trying to root American democracy in one particular identity, even a Christian identity, fundamentally misunderstands the ideals of the American experiment.
YOU have misunderstood that experiment, Miller. It was never about democracy. Mob rule. The lowest common denominator of the human soul’s corrupted urges.
It would serve to undermine, not strengthen, democracy in America by exacerbating our culture war and trying, fruitlessly, to work against the established pluralism of American life in favor of an illiberal, “Christian” solution. A healthy culture for democracy in American will include Christians who are comfortable with and supportive of “confident pluralism,” and “faithful presence.”
Nobody who talks like this can possibly believe that Christ Jesus is the Son of God.
[p53]FOR THE FAMILY AND THE INDIVIDUAL
1. Get news from print media.
It is good civic hygiene to stay informed about current events. TV and social media are very bad at this. They seem better suited to entertainment and superficial connection with friends, respectively. Avoid TV news and talk shows, subscribe to a newspaper or news magazine, and do not debate politics over Facebook or Twitter. Do not use late-night comedy or YouTube shows as your primary sources of news. Print media do not avoid bias, but they do engage our minds more actively, helping us to assess and filter out bias.
Text is also less emotional and less sensational than the image-based media of TV and most social media. Debate politics with passion, but do so face-to-face with your friends, colleagues, and neighbors, not over the internet.
Because people have appropriate politics when they can be punished for what they say.
2. Put down your smart phone, and don’t give them to kids.
While good advice on its own, in the context of “don’t listen to alternative media” it gets sinister quickly.
3. Teach your children the importance of gracious social interaction, even if it seems old-fashioned.
Lessons such as “remember your manners,” “be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry” (James 1:19), “a gentle answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1), and “be kind” (Ephesians 4:32) are preparing children not just for kindergarten but for interacting with social media and for Christian political engagement.
Standard Cult of Nice thinking. I used to be like that. Then I got tired of being easily and constantly ignored.
4. Get involved locally, and drop roots, for however long you can.
Shall I pay off the national debt while I’m about it, milord?
Go to your local parent-teacher association, city council, or home owner’s association. Join a veteran’s group, a bird-watching club, or a neighborhood chess night. Join or coach a sports team.
Join and pay your dues and be very nice to everybody and be played for a chump forever.
Do something that physically gets you out of your house and into face-to-face contact with people who live in your immediate vicinity.
Well, if I learn Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese and Vietnamese then I can actually do that. That’s another reason people prefer homogeneous communities. You don’t have to research how to say hello.
5. Seek out difference.
If your friends are of the same race or ethnicity, the same political party, or the same income and education level as you are, you live in a bubble and are depriving yourself of the opportunity to grow. Go make friends and seek out those from whom you might learn something new.
Which is it? Does God believe we’re all exactly equal, or is there value in “seeking out difference”?
6. Try not to have opinions about everything.
We are blessed to live in a country where we can believe and say anything. That doesn’t mean we should. Nor does it mean that whatever we say or believe has automatic validity. Learn and study before forming an opinion; if someone disagrees, ask why and listen. Do not rush to ascribe malice, foolishness, or stupidity to someone just because they disagree with you.
I don’t. Thanks for asking, you stupid, blasphemous, humanist fool. I rush to ascribe malice and stupidity on the basis of your own words, aired publicly.
7. Join a church, pray for the nation, and remember they are different.
Our churches are our most important communities outside of our families because they are the company of saints helping us along our pilgrim path to the Celestial City.
The workplace does that much better than your banal, obsolete lectures in a giant wooden box. And unless you’re an intern, you don’t have to pay for the privilege!
[p55]FOR THE CHURCH AND SEMINARY
1. Seek out difference.
If your church members or seminary students are all of the same race or ethnicity, the same political party, or the same income and education level—and especially if your demographic makeup is disproportionate to your neighborhood or your city—you have created a bubble and are depriving yourself and your members of the opportunity to grow.
That’s what the Lutherans in Minnesota did. Result: Mogadishu-on-the-Mississippi. Any church that follows this advice will be repeating their mistake and advancing the globalist agenda of destroying all natural human ties to their fellow man.
2. Talk about politics—but talk about it holistically.
The gospel has political implications. Do not avoid politics and do not avoid controversy. Doing so only cedes the ground to secular sources of commentary.
Translation, “only talk about politics because if you don’t then the Little People will get badthinks”.
When you address controversial issues, you are likely to be the only or the best place that models to your congregation how to talk about such issues with truth, grace, wisdom, and compassion.
Because like God, pastors should never share the reins of power. It’s the example Christ set when He sent out the Seventy disciples to preach in His name… oops.
Be especially attentive to teaching about human dignity and human flourishing. Teach
a full, complete political theology, one that reminds us that we will never achieve complete or perfect justice in this world.
Teach a political theology? Shameless, just shameless. If identity politics is a bad idea then why is the SBC now recommending specific political positions to its churches? Isn’t being different important?
Why preach that perfect justice cannot be achieved, except to discourage efforts to pursue that perfect justice?
3. Don’t just talk about politics.
The mission of the church is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, to reflect the character of God, and to carry out his mission of reconciliation and renewal to the world.
Not anymore in the SBC. And for the record, it never was. We preach Christ crucified and resurrected, not Greear’s “the Gospel of Jesus”. If you don’t believe that a dead man came back to life by His own power then you are not a Christian, whatever else you might believe.
4. Experiment with different methods of teaching.
Skip. Any pastor who needs to be taught that, needs to be defrocked in shame.
5. Foster civil society in and around the church, but don’t let it replace the gospel.
Form partnerships with local organizations, or create your own, like veteran’s groups, scouting organizations, neighborhood schools, tutoring programs, prison ministries, homeless shelters, and others.
As Miller himself mentioned earlier, the state of Christianity in the United States is such that we’re increasingly afraid to be publicly identified as Christians… and for good reasons. But that’s not a concern of Greear’s New Baptists. No, his leadership wants us to serve the very “civil society” that has hated Christ Our Savior since the Johnson Amendment.
How about defending the next Brendan Eich, Miller? Maybe something like that would promote a civil society, instead of something safe like letting the Boy Scouts sodomize each other in your spare cathedral?
6. Model the life of the mind.
Teach your members what it means to love God with our minds. Preach against anti-intellectualism. Hold up wisdom as a model and an aspiration. Have a bookstall or library stocked with quality books. If you have the resources, consider programs to fund seminary studies for your members. Invite members in your congregation whom God has gifted in this area to speak or to organize an event.
Education is always a top Socialist/humanist priority. Let me close, at the end of all this talk about leadership and civil service, by remembering that Christ ordered his disciples to SERVE the people in His Church, not to lord their authority over us for selfish gain. And then He demonstrated it with foot-washing, a dirty job for slaves and toe-headed stepchildren.
That was the exact moment when Judas, the false shepherd, decided to betray our Savior.
Because if there’s one thought these Ivory Tower SJWs can’t stand, it’s the idea that after all their rent-seeking and jockeying for status and power, they’re supposed to give a damn about the people of God sitting in the pews.