What does it mean to “be a Berean”? Take a look at Acts 17:11:
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (NIV)
When Paul was on his missionary journeys one of the main ways he did his teaching and preaching was that he went to the local synagogue in each city.
He was “a Pharisee of the Pharisees” and well qualified to read from the Hebrew Scriptures and then expound them. (Remember, no New Testament yet.) He’s preaching the Gospel from what we now call the Old Testament.
So what did the Bereans do? Two things. First, “they received the message with great eagerness.” That is, they were receptive to the Gospel. But they did a second thing: they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Be sure to pay attention to this second action, because it is crucial. They were checking out the theology of the Apostle Paul. And he praises them (by way of Luke, the author of the book of Acts) for doing so. Paul doesn’t say, “You should just take my word for it.” He doesn’t say, “How dare you question a minister of the Gospel?” Instead, these Bereans were called “noble.” And what happens? As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men (v. 12 NIV). Many precious souls are saved because of the wise and thoughtful attitudes of these people, who, by the way, are never mentioned in Scripture again. But ask yourself how many churches you can think of that have the word “Berean” in their names. There are many. The Thessalonicans, however, who have two books in the New Testament named after them, have none that I can find, although I’m sure that there’s at least one in the city of Thessalonica itself.
Here’s the thing: specific Biblical principles usually have a larger application. In this case it’s clear what that is: Check things out for yourself. Don’t just take the word of some authority figure who’s saying something that sounds wonderful. Go back to the sources he uses. Look things up. Make up your own mind.
During this past election season, and continuing on until now, there has been far too much non-Berean behavior from evangelical Christians, far too much unquestioning acceptance of very questionable statements, some of which came from pastors and other spiritual leaders. Because of my anti-Trump stance I was sent several of these statements by well-meaning friends. One video was of John MacArthur, a pastor and teacher for whom I have a lot of respect, basically telling his congregation how to vote and using rather specious arguments. Both candidates were pretty bad, he said, so his listeners should cast their votes based on the party platforms. No caveats were issued about the fact that the candidates were not bound in any way by those guidelines. There was also a reference to Donald Trump as being problematic in his behavior and character, but in a way that brought titters from the audience. “Oh, that Donald,” or words to that effect. This was after the Access Hollywood tapes were released. I was appalled. (There was no nonsense of this sort from the pulpit of the church we attend, I am glad to say.)
Here’s what evangelical pastors should have told their congregations:
“Some of you have asked me about how you should vote in this upcoming election. And I will answer that question by saying that saying that you shouldn’t be asking it in the first place. It is not my job to tell you how to vote. It is my job as your pastor to preach and teach the Scriptures as faithfully and accurately as I can. It is your job to take those Bible truths and apply them to your daily lives, and one aspect of your lives right now is this upcoming election and your responsibility as American citizens to cast your vote in the way that you see fit. I would encourage you to read widely and think deeply. Ponder this decision logically, and don’t just accept what lands in your inbox or show up on your Facebook feed. Follow the admonition to be as wise as serpents as well as being harmless as doves. Take the long view. Consider the character and tone of the people you listen to. And when you go into that election booth, vote your conscience.”
Something like that.
But it didn’t happen. To their everlasting shame, white evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, relying on spurious reasoning and unquestioning acceptance of authority figures who were telling them how to vote. I have said before and am saying now that I will never again use the term “evangelical” to describe myself. I would be ashamed to do so.
Here’s a good example of the kind of claptrap that was used to justify voting for Trump, garnered from an article by Erick Erickson, a solid conservative and Christian who runs a news website with the great name of The Resurgent. He says that a woman sitting next to him in church earnestly told him that since God forgave King David for his sin of adultery Christians should forgive Donald Trump for his. As my husband would say, that statement isn’t even wrong. It falls into the category of the utterly senseless. It would take me paragraphs and paragraphs to totally break down its senselessness; I will just say that it contains elements of Roman Catholicism (a church in which human beings can grant forgiveness of sin to other human beings), “sloppy equivalency” (in which two people or ideas are seen as having the same meaning when in reality they are very different; see also the ridiculous idea that Donald Trump was the modern equivalent of King Cyrus), and an utter failure to ask the question, “Do these words actually hang together into any kind of coherence?”
Let’s face it: It’s hard to think for yourself. It’s easy to read some forwarded e-mail and get all riled up. It can be time-consuming to check out the truth of a story, but often I find that30 seconds of googling can give me a pretty good feel for what’s what.
Here are some of my recommendations for what and what not to read or listen to. I’m no authority, and these are just my opinions. But I’ve done a tremendous amount of reading over the past year and come up with the following:
Don’t bother with the bottom-feeders:
I’m not including links to any of these sources as they’re so bad. Stay away from Alex Jones at InfoWars, Michael (Weiner) Savage at SavageNation, and anything and everything from Ann Coulter. The Gateway Pundit and WorldNetDaily (which carries Savage) are known for their fabrications. I’d put the Drudge Report in this category, too.
Ignore or combat the plague of forwarded e-mails and facile Facebook posts;
Don’t re-forward or re-post them. People have pretty much learned to quit sending me stuff, as I tend to check it out and send blistering replies. As my husband would say, though, I probably haven’t changed any hearts or minds by doing so.
Be cautious and skeptical about the Water Carriers for Trump.
I put these people at a slightly higher level than the bottom-feeders, as they may or may not have something worthwhile to say in amongst all the Trump cheerleading. Sometimes it’s good to be able to say, “Yes, I heard what Rush Limbaugh had to say about that, and here’s where I disagree with him.” So I’d include Rush (who’s pretty much an entertainer rather than a newsman) and Laura Ingraham (who has at least issued some mild criticism of Trump here and there). Sean Hannity is pretty much a bottom-feeder, but he’s at least on a national news outlet that tries to rein him in periodically. I wouldn’t take anything he says at face value, though. Dennis Prager is pretty problematic, as he seems to think that the “Left”–a term he doesn’t define—is our worst enemy, so anyone who claims to be “Not Left” is better for the survival of American values even if he violates those values repeatedly. Again, sometimes it’s helpful to know what he’s saying if you’re talking to one of his fans. If your time is limited, though, feel free to skip all of these.
Try to follow at least one of these writers:
GW has been writing a twice-weekly column for over 40 years, with the original appearing in the Washington Post and then syndicated across multiple outlets. He is Jewish, pro-life, and intellectual. Not always an easy read, but always worthwhile. I list him first because it was his exit from the Republican Party in May 2016 that got me really interested in this whole political firestorm. He has the courage of his convictions and I respect him greatly.
When I first started getting interested in the 2016 election I googled “conservatives against Trump,” and the estimable Jonah came up right away. He is a staff columnist for National Review, the news outlet founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., for whom I have a soft spot in my heart since my dad was a big Buckley fan. I look forward to his “G-File” every Friday, but that specific column may not be to everyone’s taste. He writes other articles during the week, though. Fair, even-handed, and funny.
Another staff writer for the Washington Post, Rubin writes several short posts a day on her RightTurn blog which I check obsessively. Interestingly, the estimable Jonah says that she gets too far out over her skis at times, so not everyone agrees with everyone else on this list.
Founder of the conservative website The Resurgent. A true Christian conservative, Erickson has written what I consider to be the best article I’ve read about the consequences of electing Donald Trump in “Here Comes the GOP Bloodbath.” If you don’t read anything else from anyone else on this list, read this one piece.
Start with these four authors and see if you don’t start getting some real challenges to your thinking. Then branch out. There are so many solid commentators and analysts out there that I hesitate to start listing them, but you’ll see a wide range if you scroll back over my previous Facebook posts. Pick one or two that sound interesting and see what they have to say.
Above all, keep your thinking cap on and your tinfoil hat off.