Spare the Rod? Why Christians Spank Their Kids.

Young me was spanked very infrequently, a smattering of spankings probably numbering less than 10 my entire childhood.

My home was also Christian in the sense that my parents were devout believers, raised my siblings and I to know Jesus, and took us to church every Sunday.

However, in my estimation, fatigue, not faith, made the difference between the few spankings I received compared to my siblings (as the last of six children, my parents were simply spanked-out and lenient).

Indeed, according to the data, evangelical Christians like my parents spank more than the non-Christian population, suggesting a positive correlation between this dynamic, biblically-based brand of Christianity and corporal punishment.

Yet and still, spanking itself has taken a hit in the past few decades due to stigma and study after study failing to find any benefits of this trusted form of correction.

Particularly significant is a 2016 meta-analysis of 75 studies ranging over 50 years which found “no evidence that spanking is associated with improved child behavior.”

So if the data suggests spanking does not work, why do Christians continue to spank, and that at a rate 15% higher than non-believers?

As an evangelical “insider”, I offer three possible reasons:

First, tradition.

Any "Fiddler on the Roof" fans ("Tradition, tradition..." )?

Spanking with its long history is embedded in our cultural psyche.

Furthermore, a quick inductive observation suggests spanking runs in the family.

If you were spanked, it is likely whichever parent spanked you was also spanked and that whichever parent spanked them was spanked and so on.

The common refrain is “I was spanked and I turned out fine.”

Fair enough.

The aforementioned meta-analysis did find spanking “associated with increased risk of…detrimental outcomes”, but noted that such associations were “small” and cannot be said to alone account for the outcomes they were associated with.

As long as we’re not talking about beating a child (think Adrian Peterson) or otherwise inflicting injury, I assume most Christian anecdotally draw on their experiences having been spanked and whatever benefit they perceive came from them and simply make their decision to spank on that basis.

Second, a perceived association between non-spanking and culturally conditioned or liberal forms of child rearing that challenge biblical thinking.

Highly regarded preacher and former seminary professor John Piper (who is very pro corporal punishment) had this to say about the origins of no-spanking thought:

“The heart of the issue is: Why does this person feel this way? What worldview inclines a person to think that you shouldn't spank a child? Where does that come from? Well it comes straight out of this culture…”

Reformed New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner, reviewing a book on spanking, “wonders” if the no spanking author (himself a Christian) “is prone to domesticating the Bible to fit modern conceptions”, adding “God’s Word does not necessarily fit the cultural mores and thought conventions of our day.”

He further cautions the author against "land[ing] in the lap of liberalism.”

Examples can be multiplied, but as long as the case against spanking can be linked to liberalism and cultural accommodation in the minds of Evangelicals, they will most likely stick to their...spoons?

Third, (as implied above) the Bible.

No less than four biblical texts speak positively about corporal punishment, each located in the book of Proverbs.

While some (including myself) question a literal application of these passages, surely these proverbs would have been understood literally by the ancient community that received them.

And with a similar understanding in place, present-day evangelicals have paddled away.

Writing for Focus on the Family, Chip Ingram states, “[r]egardless of the method, the Bible's word on discipline clearly demands that parents be responsible and diligent in spanking, but strongly prohibits physical abuse of any kind.”

Dr. Paul D. Wegner, professor of Old Testament at Phoenix Seminary, makes a nuanced and more scholarly case for corporal punishment in his article subtitled “To Spank or not to Spank” published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

John Piper writes plainly, “If Jesus were married and had children, I think he would have spanked the children”, citing the teachings in Proverbs.

When it comes to their children, evangelicals prioritize the Bible, which has meant prioritizing spanking.

I don’t desire to debate the merits of spanking or the biblical case for it here.

I plan on not spanking whatever children I have because I was hardly spanked (the power of tradition!) and I don’t think it has any compelling benefits.

Furthermore, paddling or swatting blurs the line between force and violence too much for this pacifist.

I mean, would Jesus spank the children?

Forever.

In a moment, my life was over and yet had only just begun. 

From black to light in an impossible moment everything changed and the first thing I beheld: his face. I’d never seen him before; I’d seen him a million times. In the days of my fears, in the days of pain, loss, and sin—great sin—I’d seen him.  

A laugh catches in my throat and the tears pour. How do I move? Where do I go? Do I reach for him? Do I just stay here on the green grass of Paradise melting? 

He doesn’t wait. For me to decide. He never did. The only thing louder than my sobs, the beat of his heart. The heart that stopped for me. When he said it is finished. How long were we there? A minute? A lifetime? He says my name. My name. He knows my name. I could stay here forever. Forever. 

Learn War No More: Christians in the Military as Proof of Apostasy.

When the Church sends its young people off to war, that is apostasy and it should concern all of us.

The U.S. Department of Defense issued a report on the religious affiliation of Active Duty personnel serving in the U.S. armed forces, revealing "[a]bout 7 out of 10 (69.8%) active-duty service members identified as Christian in 2014, according to the Defense Department. They range from 345,888 non-denominational Christians to two members of the European Free Churches

The survey was voluntary, so one can expect the number of religious personnel in any religious demographic to be higher than reported.

Of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ: 10,700 service members.

Of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ): 7084 service members.

Of the Church of Christ: 10,776.

That equals 28,550 service member from the Restoration Movement tradition, a reality that grieves my heart deeply.

While a simple survey fails to gauge the spiritual depth and maturity of any Christian, what bothers me is that be the numbers an accurate reflection of Christian commitment among military men or not, the evangelical, Bible-believing churches of America have decided that to serve a worldly government in its army, the pinnacle of national idolatry, being willing to serve and die for one's country, is tolerable if not laudable.

This is a strange and twisted irony for the followers of the Prince of Peace.

In many Christian circles, few things are more sacred than the soldier.

A soldier can get a congregation to its feet quicker than a praise song or a baptism in some places.

I grew up in church hearing things like, "only two people were ever willing to die for you: Jesus Christ and the American soldier."

I stood inside a giant scaffolding flag erected inside of a church building to honor a service which Jesus Christ did away with when he told Peter to put his sword back in its place.

We drape the American flag on the cross of Christ and send our young people off to military with a prayer and our blessing.

We valorize and lionize military service while reading over the Bible's admonishment to live at peace with everyone, to not return violence for violence, and to love one's enemies.

While the willingness of a person to die for a cause may be admirable, the practical working out of that willingness is not necessarily so.

Such is the case with followers of Christ in the military.

Jesus refused to kill or take up arms against his enemies, as did the apostles and other New Testament Christians, the apostolic Fathers, and other early church fathers up until around the fourth century..

They viewed themselves as a separate people with a different calling.

As late as the Council of Nicaea in 325, re-joining the military after conversion could mean 13 years--yes, years--of church discipline (see Canon 12 of the Council of Nicaea).

You can scour the New Testament for every verse that explains how Christians should treat their enemies and you will come up empty for any verse justifying military service and all that entails.

On the contrary, Jesus tells us that his Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), which is under the immediate rulership of Satan (1 John 5:19) through his temporary ownership of all the world's earthly kindgoms (Luke 4:5-7).

We respect earthly government as God's way of preserving order and justice (see Romans 13) but it lies outside of the "perfection of Christ" and is not an option for Christians.

For professing Christians to make up the majority of the U.S. military and for the majority of Christian denominations to tolerate if not approve of military service for Christians is to our deep shame.

Indeed, is is my shame because this sin is my sin.

I sang the patriotic songs.

I stood to my feet in praise of soldiers and soldiering.

I pledged allegiance to the flag.

I believed and spread the lie.

This apostate form of Christianity is as much my problem and fault as anyone else.

I carry that burden.

But it does not have to continue this way.

The Church always has and will always have the ability to return to sound doctrine--up to a point.

It starts with personal repentance followed by congregational accountability and solidarity.

Even while some Christians are feeling more comfortable than ever with the current state of politics,  I see a remnant who are saying no to nationalism, militarism, politicism, and seeking to understand what it means to pray "they Kingdom come."

May their tribe increase. Before it is too late.

How Long? The Choice Conservative Christians Must Make.

In the Hebrew Scriptures is a concept known as "strengthening the hands of the wicked."

The idea is that our actions, wicked themselves, serve to embolden and empower others who are wicked.

Six men are dead in Quebec City, Quebec and while you nor I pulled the trigger, I feel some of us may have strengthened the hands of the man who did, holding them steady as he aimed his weapon at the backs of a crowd of men gathered to pray.

Since 2001 and the September terrorist attacks, the conversation about Islam among political conservatives has been dominated by negativity, if not prejudice.

Taking real concerns posed by aggressive forms of Islam and projecting them upon innocent Islāmic Americans who simply wish to live their lives has created a power keg of tension to the extent that when the word "Islam" is uttered, some people automatically hear "terrorism" and act accordingly.

Take, for example, the enduring lie that our President is secretly Muslim, a lie used to explain his supposed softness on terrorism.

Or take the spectacular opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque", in reality an Islāmic Cultural center blocks away from site of the fallen Twin Towers, a twisted irony from folks priding themselves on "religious freedom."

And, most recently, President Trump, who as a candidate for president vowed to ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States “until we can figure out what’s going on”, whatever that meant.

No matter whether he would fulfill that promise (he did not), by making it in the first place, he did that much more to brand Muslims and Islam as enemies of the United States and to stoke the hornet’s nest of prejudice in the US and in the Middle East.

I understand this latest attack did not take place by an American on American soil.

Indeed, Canada, while also a relatively diverse country, leans more to the left than this nation.

Yet, this brand of bigotry has no borders and early reporting is already drawing the connections between the murderous gunman, right-wing politics, and president Trump.

So what’s my point?

I have no dog in the political fight.

In fact, every time I open my Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube accounts, the seething hatred in my heart for the entire rancid political system in this country and abroad only intensifies.

I don’t care what Republican Party or conservatives do with one important caveat: to the extent that Christians, followers of Christ, have made themselves participants in their dangerous foolishness, they have betrayed Christ.

People like Franklin Graham who proclaimed that "Islam has declared war on the world, and it's high time we acknowledge it and respond decisively."

Or Christian apologist Robert Morey suggested we could end terrorism by nuking the Kaaba.

Even more common are the unsubstantiated reports from "Christian" news sites of horrible things Muslims have supposedly done. 

Jesus refused to slander his accusers or bring a charge against them as they hurled lies at him, spit on him, beat him, mocked him, tortured him, and finally nailed him to a cross and watched him die.

And yet some Christians cannot afford to trouble themselves to even get to know the very people they are sure want to harm them.

Everyone not blinded by their own ideology understands that inside Islam exists violent factions and that even among moderate Muslims are religious doctrines and political opinions that do not cohere with what we have come to appreciate as Western values.

These are honest and legitimate conversations we can have.

But the shameless fear mongering, sharing of misinformation about the Islāmic religion, name-calling, and general lack of charity is simply unacceptable.

I say this not sitting in some ivory tower in Boston or San Diego; I have lived my life in the Midwest.

I am intimately acquainted with the convergence of Christianity and conservatism, from within and without, both in its best and worst forms.

This is not a pot-shot from the outside.

Conservatism seems to have hitched its wagon to the horses of populism and nativist nationalism and it is time for Christians to come out and be separate.

Indeed, what we are seeing is simply the fruit of politics: hateful division.

Politics forces us to take sides, create enemies, and consolidate power.

It can accomplish good, often in spite of itself, but it is inherently contradictory to the standards of God’s Kingdom built on service, patience, charity, and truth.

Understanding this, here is my plea: stop dragging the name of Christ through the mud by linking arms with those who do not care about Christ’s life and teachings.

And if a plea will not work, here is my warning: to the extent that you bear false witness against your neighbor, spread hate and fear, refuse to submit to Jesus’ Kingdom authority, and continue to strengthen the hands of the wicked, know your actions will not escape the eyes of God.

Care enough about your neighbor to care less about your politics and perhaps we can truly witness for Christ.

Catholic Distinctives in the Light of the New Testament: Head-Coverings.

For most of Christian history, women covered their heads for corporate worship in observance of the apostle Paul's instruction in his first letter to the church of Christ in Corinth. 

Keeping in mind the exceptions, as written Christian history and, notably, Christian art evince, covering was practiced generally across the Christian spectrum into the modern age. 

Indeed, the Catholic Church once required women to celebrate the Mass with veiled heads:

"Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord." (1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262)

What changed?

In 1983, Pope John Paul II issued an ecclesiastic pronouncement that replaced the 1917 Canon Law, the updated 1983 Law including no such command regarding head-coverings. 

Here I will repeat the argument of the Catholic Answers that (1.) further Catholic law states that any law not re-issued in the 1983 update is "abrogated" and (2.) since the 1970's the official Catholic doctrine has essentially been that "these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value" (see Inter Insignories). 

Indeed, that it is no longer required for Catholic women to veil their head is not the controversial point (though women must veil in the older form of the Catholic Mass) and does not bear further evidencing.

So, while Catholic doctrine has changed, what of the Bible's teaching on the subject? 

Paul straightforwardly commends the Christian congregation in Corinth in Ancient Greece for "remembering me [Paul] in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

Yet, he has counsel for them, which must be presented in full:

3. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 

4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 

5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 

6. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 

8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 

9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 

10. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 

11. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 

12. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

The problem is that of the teachings the Corinthians have held to, they have otherwise neglected that women should cover their heads when praying and prophesying.

As a remedy, Paul re-emphasizes the importance of following this teaching, giving two arguments about woman being the glory of man and a further argument "because of the angels."

The first point is relevant insofar as the head-covering serves as a fitting veil of the glory of man in woman and the glory of a woman's hair (v15), so God's glory may be all the more clear when a woman is praying or prophesying. 

The second point about angels is open to endless speculation, but it must be noted these points are not "customs of the period", but extra-cultural concerns.

The issue is not whether a woman's hair is her covering, (previous Catholic teaching contradicts this idea), or a where a woman should cover (just in the congregational assemblies?), but is Paul's command here a normative rule still in force for all Christian women (and men, who should not cover) everywhere today?

The answer is yes because Paul roots Christian covering in factors independent of the passage of time or changing of cultural contexts.

Furthermore, while the Catholic Church may think Paul's command was "of minor importance", the fact he included it in his letter, taking the time to develop an argument in its favor, suggests it was of more than minor importance, despite its widespread neglect today.

I wonder if women had arrived for Mass in the 10th century with uncovered heads making this same argument if they would have been received well. 

Most Protestants, also ignoring this command, may miss the casualness with which this Bible teaching has been cast aside by the Catholic Church, especially in light of its insistence that Paul's commands about women teaching and having authority over men in the church, and speaking in the assembly are "of a different nature", thus not cultural in nature, and in full force today (see the previously linked document).

Paul mandated that the Corinthians obey the Christian tradition on the subject, which was in place in all the churches (v16), and grounded in extra-cultural concerns.

While we should never "major in the minors", we should be careful about which Bible teachings we brand as "minor" and thus freely abrogate with the stroke of an ecclesiastic pen. 

Fr. Raymond Burke, a high-ranking Catholic clergyman, in defending this change by the Catholic Church, reasons that because head-covering had lost its significance, that it could mean different things to different people (i.e., send mixed messages), and "because we find that in all areas of the Church's life not requiring a distinction of sex, men and women today participate equally in the Church as baptized persons", we can further affirm the prudency of the Catholic Church on this decision. 

The problem with his logic is that the very same things could have been said in Paul's day.

Head-coverings were common in the first century Ancient Near East, so the "sign" of covering for a female Christian would have meant nothing to a non-Christian outsider unless it was explained to them.

Moreover, not covering was apparently an issue when Christians were coming together (thus the issue of praying and prophesying), so if the sign was losing significance, it was among Christians!

And Paul's response?

Keep covering!

In addition, the "different things to different people" argument is what allows groups like the Salvation Army to forgo baptism and communion totally to avoid the problematic, modern connotations they see in these "signs" and to replace them with other things.

Also note that the early church was pegged as sexually debauched because of pagan misinterpretations of their "love feasts" and as cannibalistic because they ate the "body and blood" of their founder.

Yet, they continued on.

The reality is that being a Christian, with all that entails, will often run counter to culture and the proper response is never capitulation when an issue of inspired doctrine is in the balance.

Finally, men and women can be equal but different (as in regard to one wearing a covering and one not), a fact which Burke concedes when he mentions that Catholic women cannot serve in the priesthood of their church.


In the end, the Catholic teaching on head-coverings, when weighed, comes up wanting and we are reminded that while the doctrines of men may change, God's Word is settled forever in Heaven (Psalm 119:89). 

Pro-Life Answers: #1 What About Rape?

Objection #1: Abortion should be permissible in the case of rape. 

This is perhaps the most emotionally compelling argument used by pro-choice advocates in defense of the right to an abortion.

Rape is an absolutely evil act, meaning no possible situation exists morally justifying it. 

The pain a raped person endures is deep and long-lasting. 

Understanding this, how can the anti-abortion crowd hold it morally impermissible for a woman to obtain an abortion even if she conceived in the violent act of rape?

Let me offer 5 reasons why I believe abortion is morally impermissible even in the case of rape.

Reason #1: As mentioned above, rape is an absolute moral evil, but no necessary logical connection exists between the statement "rape is immoral" and the statement "abortion is moral". 

Rape, the violent act of sexual violation, and abortion, the violent act of killing, can both be immoral at the same time and in the same way. 

Thus, whether abortion is justified or not, it cannot be justified simply because rape is legitimately awful.

Reason #2: Nothing about being conceived in rape invalidates the right to life of the unborn child. 

Human rights are the property of members of human community by virtue of their humanity. 

One of those rights, which happens to be enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, is the right to life, a normal right to live and continue to live. 

Thus, if the unborn can be shown to be a full member of the human community, it too would be the rightful property bearer of the right to life and thus not a morally viable candidate for an act like abortion, even if conceived in rape.

Reason #3:  A fetus, even one conceived in rape, has some moral claim on her mother's body (despite the invocation of bodily autonomy). 

Imagine I am out on my sailboat and an unnamed seafarer passes by me and drops a bassinet with a baby inside of it on the starboard deck. 

"It's your responsibility now", he shouts before sailing away.

 This unnamed seaman has violated my time and property, by saddling me with something I do not want. 

Few would suggest I am now morally obligated to raise this child as my own. 

But even fewer would suggest I could justifably throw the baby overboard. 

This child, unwanted as it is, has a relative right to not be killed by me, even if not an absolute right to every part of me (the next 18 years of my life spent raising it, etc.). 

In the same way, abortion in the case of rape due to bodily autonomy ignores the relative right of the child to not be killed by the woman carrying it, even if she did not consent to taking care of it initially. 

Reason #4: While pro-choice advocates often rely on our assumptions about what victims of rape who conceive in rape want, the data suggests we should not assume women who are raped de facto want an abortion or that abortion is necessary to treat the trauma of rape.

For a little background, rape-related pregnancies account for no more than 5% of pregnancies among U.S. women of child-bearing age (1) and 2% of U.S. abortions (2).

It is the case that no study has been able to show that more than 50% of women who conceive in rape elect to abort (3). 

This is significant given pro-choice advocates often talk as if the choice to abort her baby conceived in rape is a forgone conclusion for a raped woman. 

Furthermore, if someone wants to say factors outside the woman's control may inhibit her ability choose abortion (a true statement), such as late-detection and exorbitant costs, similarly, outside factors may inhibit her ability choose life, like partner abuse or family pressure. 

Suffice to say, abortion does not automatically appeal to women conceived in rape.

Reason #5: When a women conceives a child in rape, she and the unborn child are victims. 

Yet to make abortion morally allowable because of rape is to treat the fetus worse than the rapist.

In the West, rapists do not generally receive the death penalty for their crimes, so why should an unborn child's life be held in a lower regard? 

Indeed, even if we did execute rapists, a practice in some countries, it would not follow that the child, which has committed no crime, should have her right to life abrogated.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have any more reasons why you believe abortion, even in cases of rape, is wrong? Comment below!

Sources Cited:

1. "A Natural History of Rape" [1987]; "Rape-related Pregnancy" [1996]; and "Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation" [2008].

2. "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries" [1998 study looking back to 1987 to 1988]; "Induced Abortion Facts in Brief" [2000]; "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions" [2004]; Understanding why women seek abortions in the US [2013].

3. “Sexual Assault and Pregnancy” in Thomas Hulgers, Dennis Horan and David Mall, “New Perspectives on Human Abortion” [1981];  "Victims and Victors" [2000]; "A Natural History of Rape" [2001]. 

A Tree Uprooted: Why I am Leaving the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

When I entered college at a Cincinnati Christian University, I expected to spend my life ministering in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

I enrolled in a university associated with this fellowship of churches (we avoid the word denomination) to prepare me for that future.

I was baptized in this brotherhood, as were my parents, my mother's grandparents, and virtually all the family on my mother's side.

I grew up in an independent Christian Church and deeply identified with our history, the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement.

Indeed, I read our histories, studied our leaders, attended our conferences, played Bible Bowl, am attending one of our institutions of higher learning, and attempted to understand our doctrinal trends.

This was my home.

But no longer.

And that hurts deeper than words can express.

In the past two years, I discovered the teachings of the Anabaptists, a 16th century restoration movement born in reaction to the Magisterial Protestant Reformers and the Roman Catholics.

As a general rule, they stressed non-violence, the separation of Church and State, cultural non-conformity, and the church as a covenanted community.

This manifested itself in refusing to serve in the military, shying away from political offices, plain dress and head-coverings for women (though the latter was common for all churches at the time), a serious cautiousness to worldly entertainment, and the exercise of shunning and disfellowshipping as a means of church discipline.

This tradition is alive today in the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, some Brethren groups, the Bruderhof, many independent churches, and more.

Similar groups include the Schwarzenau Brethren and their descendants, and the Quakers.

As I studied this history, the more I saw the similarities between it and my own.

Reading folks like David Lipscomb, Alexander Campbell, Tolbert Fanning on war and politics had convinced me that I could be a pacifist and politically neutral and remain in the Christian Churches.

There was a place for me despite these radical shifts in doctrine.

Yet there were still issues.

I loved how the Anabaptists had a distinctively Christian way of viewing the world, a robust Kingdom framework that didn't simply terminate in one's own personal salvation, invaluable as that is, and helped generate a consistent Christian way of life.

In contrast, the Christian Churches have fully adopted a Constantinian approach to the acceptability of war and the goodness of political involvement just like the rest of evangelicalism.

In addition, the issue of divorce and re-marriage had begun to haunt me, as well.

As I studied the issue, listening to the voice of the early church along the way, I came to believe that when Jesus said "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery", he meant just that, precluding any remarriage after divorce as licit in God's eyes.

Sadly, I watched the elders of a Christian Church sit on their hands when a couple in their congregation, who had ministered in that congregation, divorced, only to have the brother involved promptly begin dating another sister in the congregation before the legal divorce was even final.

This spectacle unfolded as mature Christians who I had respected and thought better of fawned over this relationship as though nothing was wrong.

 "We didn't even mourn for that marriage", one sister said to me.

Not all Christian Churches are like this, but how many of our churches on the landscape would be willing to exercise church discipline if a couple was un-biblically divorced and refused to submit to some kind of counseling?

How many would want them to?

Furthermore, I realized after going off to college that I was one of a few young people who cared about the Restoration Movement and thought it important and relevant.

But it wasn't just that, I became jaded to churches and ministry programs that seemed to encourage young men to use preaching as a way to advance their fame, with our largest conferences being a who's who of the largest churches in our Movement.

The view of ministry held by the young men was totally centered on getting internships at the biggest and best churches, making connections and networking, and advancing personal ministry careers.

The concern for the universal church, the brotherhood, the evangelization of the world, and how our little lives fit into that big picture was few and far between.

And it is not that there weren't exceptions, but for those who did seem self-motivated, their M.O. seemed less like an aberration of the general approach to preaching and the pastorate taken in Christian Churches, but a logical consequence of it.

The approach is that the preacher serves as the face of the church and the great burden of the ministerial tasks, rather than being spread evenly, are put squarely on his shoulders.

We've seen this unfortunate trend borne out as pastors/senior ministers simply burn out and quit left and right.

The thriving mega-churches are the fittest who have survived where others have not and, even then, at what cost?

There were other issues like head-coverings, modesty, and women teaching Christian doctrine to Christian men, but up to the present, I had hoped I could plant a church with like-minded individuals from the Christian Churches where we could have and champion these distinctives while remaining a part of the larger Christian Church family.

I had zero intention of leaving. It wasn't even on the radar (I had been encouraged to join the Mennonites two years ago and wonder what would have happened if I had).

 What changed everything was the election.

We had a choice to be a different voice from above the fray of the most contentious election in our nation's history and we blew it.

When arguably the most influential and well-known preacher in our movement, as well as an even more well-known theologian all but baptized a vote for Donald Trump, the question was no longer "is there a place for me here?", but "could I stay here if there was?"

I finally answered the question no.

 In conversations with Catholics, Mormons, Witnesses of Jehovah, and secularists, I found myself able to dialogue as to why I disagreed with their community of choice, but unable to offer them an alternative community in good faith.

That stuck with me and was hard to shake.

 I wanted to be a part of a community that stood for something.

It was Rick Atchley of the church of Christ (a cappella) who cautioned the Christian Churches against becoming some watered down form of  non-distinct evangelicalism.

When I read that caution at the North American Christian Convention several years ago, I took it to heart, and now I fear we are far too late.

One Anabaptist author encouraged converts to Anabaptist thought to live out their convictions in their own faith communities.

I love that advice, but at some point I had to be honest with myself: I didn't want to.

 As I look at the (independent) Christian Churches, I cannot see myself here at age 50.

I cannot see the changes I so desperately want to see that would give me an excuse, any excuse, to stay.

 Attending the International Conference of Missions last month reminded me of all the reasons I loved the Christian Churches and it melted away much of my cynicism.

 I still believe that what that conference represents is the best hope for our Movement.

 However, I cannot wait.

If I was stronger, more hopeful, I'd fight it out and do what I could to point us back to our roots and suggest a place for people like me.

But my faith has suffered so much. I have felt alone and disconnected from what used to feel like home.

 I prayed and prayed for God to show me the way forward.

A Group of German Brethren at their Annual Conference

 And, as of now, I believe that way is the German Brethren (New Conference).

This decision has been one of the most difficult I have ever made and will change the course of my life majorly, from my career (there are no paid ministers in this movement), to whom I marry, where I live, and so much more.

 I will always be a child of the Restoration Movement and will always draw wisdom from its leaders, leading lights, and voluminous writings.

Yet, I am ready to move on, carrying with me all that it has taught me.

 Pray for me as I do so.