Petrusek: A Clanging Cymbal. Also, Could This be our Opportunity for Reformation?
“If I speak in the tongues of humans and of angels but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” (1 Corinthians 13:1)
I couldn’t help but think of this verse when reading Matthew Petrusek’s book, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture. In his book he tries to make the argument that “the hyper-politicization of society constitutes an opportunity for evangelization. The Church has a unique opening to re-enter the sociopolitical fray, re-engage the secular mind, and call the culture back to Christ – provided we can effectively understand and respond to the contemporary ideological battlefield,”[1] which of course, Petrusek believes he can. But as I (tried) to keep reading his book, I kept hearing this noisy gong, this clanging cymbal. So, then I tried his videos (thank you?? to John Fehlan for alerting us to them?). Nope. Those were maybe even worse.
From the very beginning of his introduction, Petrusek tries to be funny but instead sounds snarky, like he’s making fun of those with whom he disagrees. In his second paragraph he reveals from what side of the social and political divide he is clanging his cymbal. In what sounds like a fake ploy at empathy, he is making the people who wrote sexually harassing or racist or otherwise demeaning tweets the victim when he wrote, “Fear and suffering lie just beneath the surface. Those who have lost their businesses to riots or their jobs to decade-old tweets don’t find the politicization of the culture funny.” I’m not saying these tweeters should definitely lose their jobs, but I find his victimization of their sin just plain wrong.
In his lectures and in many parts of his book, Petrusek sounded like a frightened, upset, rambling dude who is terrified his white male Christian status is losing some social capital. I tried, I really tried to have an open mind and even an open heart to his point of view, but as soon as he began his Idolatry of Identity video and his chapter on Progressivism by launching into this diatribe:
Imagine possessing the power to advance your political goals simply by incanting a spell-like litany of endlessly-ambiguous terms that supply immediate and unquestionable moral supremacy over your ideological rivals… Imagine being able to assert that mere disagreement with your self-defined “community’s” political position is itself proof of your critic’s intellectual confusion and moral corruption…. Imagine a world with no objective rationality below and only a utopian intersectional sky above, a world in which winning an argument is as simple as silencing your opponents, and silencing your opponents is as simple as calling them dirty names.
I was out. This diatribe, coming from the demographic that owns the Supreme Court and has carried all the power in the Catholic as well as other churches for way too long. Sorry but your cymbal is clanging, and it is giving me a RAGING headache. Not to mention, I’ve heard from too many post-Catholics and post-Evangelicals who have felt the same way about their own religious communities – that all it takes is to believe differently and say it out loud to be effectively “canceled,” a “non-person” as former Evangelical now Episcopalian Diana-Butler Bass Ph.D. puts it in her article, “Some Things Can’t Be Saved.”[2]
I haven’t agreed with everything we’ve read in this class, but I have been able to listen to and learn from the authors because they have all filled their pages with love and respect. Petrusek, does not. His pages and his videos are basically a demand for old school sexual and racial supremacy, for even as he lifts up giving women the vote and ending slavery as a moral and evolutionary advance I am reminded that he is speaking for an institution that continues to relegate women to subservient positions keeping them out of the priesthood.[3] He continually refers to “morality” (see chapter 3 as well as his entire book) to which I have to ask, “Who gets to define morality?” because as a Christian, I define it completely differently than Petrusek, who also claims to be a Christian.
I could go on and on and on about how Petrusek’s “lectures” and book are just snark and fear, egging on more snark and fear, the rantings of a toddler who isn’t getting his way, but what might be more productive is examining his claim that the very political climate in which we find ourselves is an opportunity for evangelization.[4]
Because on this, I agree with Petrusek as do other theologians. In her book, The Great Emergence, Phyllis Tickle makes the argument that the contemporary Church stands in the midst of a once-every-500-year re-formation.[5] And Diana Butler-Bass Ph.D, and award winning author and church historian argues in her book, Christianity after Religion, that we are at a “critical stage in a completely new spiritual awakening”[6] In March 2018, The Reverend Nadia Bolz-Weber welcomed us to the apocalypse, writing,
As a clergyperson, I’d like to welcome you all to the apocalypse. Pull up a chair and make yourself uncomfortable. If, when you think of an apocalypse, you picture a scary, doom-filled, punishment-from-above type of thing, you are not alone. Originally, though, apocalyptic literature — the kind that was popular around the time of Jesus — existed not to scare the bejeezus out of children so they would be good boys and girls, but to proclaim a big, hope-filled idea: that dominant powers are not ultimate powers. Empires fall. Tyrants fade. Systems die. God is still around. An apocalypse is a good thing, and I’m delighted to welcome you to this one. In Greek, the word apocalypse means to uncover, to peel away, to show what’s underneath. That’s what this country has been experiencing in the past six months.
Yes, perhaps we do stand at the crossroads of a reformation or maybe it’s an apocalypse, or as Petrusek might call it, an opportunity for evangelization.
But, I daresay, not Tickle, nor Butler-Bass, nor Bolz-Weber, nor myself, nor a whole host of other faithful Christians would agree with the social, theological, or political positions Petrusek thinks he will capitalize on for evangelization, nor with his fear-based shock tactics.
Instead, I wonder if in this time of “hyper-politicization,” the Church has an opportunity to lead the way in standing with people of color who some of us have long oppressed, listening to their experiences, learning how we can do better. I wonder if God is inviting the Church to stand with and listen to the LGBTQIA+ and trans community, especially those of us who have never had to be afraid for our lives because of who we love or how we dress, or have never felt uncomfortable in our own bodies. Could God be calling us to trust women, (they were the first to meet and tell the male disciples about the resurrected Jesus after all), who are sick of being sexually harassed by men who think “it’s just a joke!” trusting women to take pro-creation seriously but to also choose the best medical interventions for their own bodies. Might we care compassionately for those who have experienced trauma, find themselves, triggered, and need support?
How might we be spacious and expansive in our love, assuming we have much to learn from those who have different “lived experiences?”
Bolz-Weber continues in her article, “Real, lasting change requires an understanding of why gender inequality (and other inequalities) are a reality in the first place. To do that, we must take that peeled-up corner and pull, even if it hurts. If we look as deep as we can stomach, we will find heresy at the center. Nineteenth-century theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher defined heresy as “that which preserves the appearance of Christianity, and yet contradicts its essence.”[7]
John Pavolitz writes, “Jesus was heretical to the religious folks of his day who had drifted so far from the essence of God that they were oblivious to it when it was in their midst.”[8]
I would hate for the divisiveness we are living in to continue indefinitely but I don’t think healing can happen unless we are willing to do as Bolz-Weber suggests and pull up the corner, understand why people are angry and separating themselves into “identity groups,” and then apologize – really and truly, humbly apologize. This is where I think the Church has an opportunity, a chance, if you want to use Petrusek’s idea (I do not), to evangelize. It is our opportunity for reformation.
[1] Matthew Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture. 6 (Kindle).
[2] Diana Butler-Bass, Some Things Can’t Be Saved, Feb 2022, https://dianabutlerbass.substack.com/p/some-things-cant-be-saved.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] https://sydneyanglicans.net/news/the_great_emergence_phyllis_tickle
[6] https://dianabutlerbass.com/books/christianity-after-religion-the-end-of-church-and-the-birth-of-a-new-spiritual-awakening/
[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/03/14/were-in-the-midst-of-an-apocalypse-and-thats-a-good-thing/
[8] https://johnpavlovitz.com/2022/12/13/the-woke-liberal-leftist-movement-of-jesus/
About the Author
Kally Elliott
Mom of four. Wanna-be Broadway star. PC(USA) pastor. Wife. Friend. Sometimes a hot mess. Sometimes somewhat together. Is this supposed to be a professional bio?9 responses to “Petrusek: A Clanging Cymbal. Also, Could This be our Opportunity for Reformation?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I can feel you, Kally, in this post. That’s what I like about your writing. You put your heart in it and for that I am grateful.
In full transparency, I don’t hold to some of the stances that, I assume, you take regarding a few of the issues brought up, but that’s OK. You are my sister in the Lord and we’re co-laborers. I can only hope that the collective “we” could be more compassionate and understanding of, wait for it…one another (lots of ‘one anothers’ in the Bible that we seem to overlook).
I too could sniff out the snarky tone of Petrusek, and it didn’t sit well with me either. Even the videos gave off that “us vs. them” vibe. I just don’t think it serves the Body of Christ, and certainly doesn’t advance the cause of evangelism. Far too often the ends don’t justify the means.
This may be a tough question to answer, but did you have any positive take-aways? Maybe not, and that’s OK. Just curious.
Hey John, you ask if I had any positive take-aways. Honestly, while reading the book I did not…except for that we are possibly in a critical time for evangelism (even if I might not use that exact word or his methods.)
However, after reading Todd Henley’s post, I saw some positives that I had overlooked before. If you haven’t read Todd’s post – go and do it now – it’s humbling and amazing. I learned so much from him.
More and more I appreciate this doctoral cohort for their willingness to let me be me, even if they don’t always agree with everything I say or hold in my own beliefs/stances. Your recognition that we are co-laborers speaks love and respect to me and I so appreciate that. I feel the same way about you.
Kally,
This was a tough read for me and the video seminar was difficult also. Thank you for being able to articulate in a way that I was unable to. I appreciate your writing and your voice. I was triggered in so many ways by this week’s reading. I know that I won’t agree with everything that we read…I expect that.
On another note, I read your short bio above. Please tell me more about your aspirations of being a Broadway Star.
Jonita, you’re right, we won’t agree with everything we read and Petrusek was one of them! One thing I did learn about leadership through his book was how NOT to win people over. Lol.
So, about wanting to be a Broadway star…
I’ve always loved musicals and being in them. However, I’m not really musical star material. I can sing but not well enough to star on Broadway – or off Broadway. BUT, the thought of it, well, that would be a dream come true!
When we are in DC…I’m thinking we can at least tape a scene from Hamilton!
Kally,
Thank you for sharing your perspective and the Petrusek tones that you picked up on in the book. I didn’t get to watch the videos yet. I agree, that the Church has an opportunity to love like never before.
I do agree with Petrusek that we have an opportunity for evangelism right now – but it has to be evangelism through LOVE, like you say, and not through being “morally” correct or arguing for our position…which is what I think I heard when inspectionally reading him.
Next time tell us how you really feel and don’t hold back ok! lol Seriously though, I really appreciate the honesty with your posts. Like you and John, I picked up on the “snarkiness” which is NOT a great strategy for effective dialogue. Much of his focus for engaging others is reasoning and persuasion in order to “win” while missing the spirit in how you talk with people. If it comes across that you already have the truth and have your mind made up its hard to convey openness and curiousity which he, many times, does not come across as having. I don’t think it is a good sign that several people picked up on the same tone and it was a turn-off.
So one thought I also noticed from the book that didn’t make it into my blog was his critique on boycotts, right after he was talking about the “correct changes” of women’s vote and slavery abolishment. I think behind all of this is money who has it and who wants it. Power. I think for those without power in a capitalist society our only power is in what we consume. We have power when we can choose what we spend our money on and more strategically choose what not to spend money on. There is power in what we consume! Good post Kally!