It was shocking. It was shocking. Like being there. A scene reminiscent of the woman who was brought to Jesus and accused of adultery: “what should we do about her, master? She was caught in the very act.”

In the situation I witnessed, a young woman was publicly humiliated in front of us by one of her peers. Why? Because she had been living with the father of her own child—her daughter—outside wedlock. They weren‘t married, and they had not been allowed to marry because he was not a member of our church, the very church that was now judging her. The absurd irony of that situation seemed to escape her accusers. That in wanting to parade their zeal for the Lord before the community, they were being profoundly unjust.

Why did they behave like that? I’d like to suggest that they were in fact in the grip of something that today we would call ‘groupthink’— views of the world and attitudes that they consider to be Holy and by which they dismissed all others who did not share those views. As far as they were concerned, people outside the group didn‘t exist. They didn‘t count. And if they found such behaviors difficult to understand or problematic, then that was their problem, because they were not the elect of God.

September 11th, 2001, and the attack on the twin towers in New York. Who would do such a thing, murdering three thousand people? What justification led that group of men not only to resolve to commit genocide, but be prepared to die in the process themselves? Were they fanatics? Extremists? Or freedom fighters? What moral compass were they using? Did they have one? How did they regard the people that they attacked? Whether we agree with their justification or not, just think that again, the men who did that did it in the name of God. They were men of faith in the grip of a body of ideas, values, and beliefs that allowed them to dismiss all others who didn‘t share their ideology. They dismissed them as apostates, as heretics, and unbelievers.

I’ve deliberately put these two examples together to illustrate an important point: that whether we’re talking about a personal tragedy in a house church, or cataclysmic events that led to years of war in the Middle East, religion can be one of the most heartbreaking and dangerous things in the world. That having a zeal for God, “without knowledge”, as Paul says, can be a deeply destructive thing. It was the same group of men who brought the woman accused of adultery to Jesus that then conspired to end Jesus himself. The hypocrisy and the groupthink that organized religion is capable of, should never surprise us. As John chapter 11 records,

And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year said to them, ‘you know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people. And not that the whole nation should perish’.

It seems at the moment, religion is allied to a community, culture, or power. It is compromised. Because the group’s approval—what the group thinks—is more important to us than God’s approval, than what God thinks. Jesus was perceived as a threat to national security. But rather than take a leap of faith, they humiliated him and deprived him of justice.

Religion has to be hypocritical to be useful. It has to turn a blind eye to what is just and right, and distract people with empty piety and arcane distinctions in order to serve the interests of its group. The men who crucified Jesus were more concerned with Passover regulations than with the immoral act of condemning an innocent man. Is our religion a genuine force for good in the world, or does it simply fuel hypocrisy, suspicion, xenophobia and conflict?

Richard Dawkins, the British evolutionary biologist and trenchant critic of religion said, “many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. September 11th changed all that.” This echoes the sentiments of many people in the world today, whether they are atheists or agnostics, or indeed even religious.

Let’s just think about religion and its problems in a bit more detail. It would be very easy to make a list of conflicts, situations and groups that have used religion as cover to justify their actions. In fact, it seems that religion, hypocrisy and conflict have always accompanied one another. Conflicts such as the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Bosnian war in Yugoslavia, and the current conflict in the Caucuses—like the 9-11 attacks—illustrate just how persistent the DNA of religion is in fueling and justifying hatred. Yes, hatred. How powerfully religion can be mobilized within a conversation, a discourse of identity, politics, and territory to sacralize the murder of those who are outside the group.

As a community, Christadelphians have always been conscientious objectors, and they have historically resisted calls to take up arms to defend the state, or avoid occupations where the use of violence may be required. This is as it should be, if we are serious about being the disciples of Jesus Christ. But taking a lead from Jesus, we need to attempt a more penetrating examination of our motivations with regards to these matters. Are we doing it for the right reasons or are we too in the grip of groupthink?

In 1862 brother Robert Roberts wrote,

Only a certain class of mind is influenced by the word of truth. There are people on whom the preaching of the word is wasted effort. Jesus terms such ‘swine’, and says ‘cast not your pearls before them. Give not that, which is Holy unto dogs.’ A much larger results attends the proclamation of the truth among the English, for instance, than from among the Caribs of South America or the Zulus of Africa. The soil is better. Both as to quality, and culture.

We may be embarrassed or even shocked by these opinions today, particularly in the context of current discussions around race and the Black Lives Matter movement. Apart from being completely incorrect (native British or English people have had a little appetite for the gospel for a long time; it‘s countries in Africa and Asia that have shown the sharpest growth in the Christadelphian community throughout the world), this curious exposition of the parable of the sower—because that‘s what Robert Roberts is actually talking about—and his evocation of a class of mind and culture, is a very clear example of the seeping of culture into religion, and the sleight of hand often employed by religions that wish to generalize and focus on groups of people rather than individuals. Jesus is clearly talking about individuals. Brother Robert Roberts’ comments, at the very least, display an astounding degree of English exceptionalism.

Exceptionalism is an attitude that one’s community, society or country are special. Set apart from the rest, or blessed even, through a particular history, culture and religion. It’s a prevalent attitude throughout the world. In many countries. The exceptionalism that we are historically familiar with, and would acknowledge, is Jewish exceptionalism as God’s covenant people. But, feelings of exceptionalism developed in Britain as a result of King Henry VIII’s break with Rome 500 years ago, and its then subsequent ascendancy as the “Empire On Which the Sun Never Set”. (Well, That worked out well, didn‘t it? I‘m sitting here talking to you.)

We may regard exceptionalism as harmless nonsense—that if people need a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? But we need to appreciate that the soft underbelly of exceptionalism is an attitude found in many supremacists groups around the world that denigrate others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The Ku Klux Klan in America, and the RSS in India for instance, are tangible examples of this type of thinking. Durga Vahini is the women’s wing of the RSS—a Hindu nationalist group. Under India’s pro-Hindu nationalist government, violence against Muslims and religious minorities has spiked. But Durga Vahini’s manifesto is to provide solid support to Hindu society and culture by ending all types of insecurity, unrighteousness, immorality, and inequality among Hindus. Religions often parade their good works as a way of blindsiding and giving legitimacy to their other less palatable deeds. Groups like Hezbollah, for instance, provide health care facilities, schools, and youth programs in Lebanon, while remaining resolutely committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.

Robert Roberts was a man of his time, but the attitude of British exceptionalism that underpinned the beginnings of the Christadelphian community, strangely still persist in certain sections of it today and colors their reading of scripture. The same sections that wish to believe that Britain is Tarshish and will stand with Christ when he returns. The same sections that believe that it is only white brothers and sisters in the Anglosphere—Britain, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—who can understand the truth. These attitudes are not just conceited, but frankly racist, and surprisingly ill-informed, to think that we learned nothing from the experience of the Jews. To sublimate our personal relationship with God and our responsibility to all those made in his image within a group or racial identity is not enough.

Let’s just think about the Bible as a critique of organized religion. Many of the criticisms that I’ve outlined here are actually old. In fact, one could argue that the Bible is in reality, a critique of religion with the prophets Christ and the apostles as reformers. Here’s a quotation from the book of Amos, from the reign of King Josiah. Sentiments, similar to these can be found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and indeed the other minor prophets as well. Amos 5: 21-24

I hate, I despise your feasts days. And I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them, nor will I regard your fattened peace-offerings. Take away from me the noise of your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your viols. But let justice run down like water, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

In Amos and Isaiah’s time, Judaism has simply become a hollowed out shell. Just a culture, a way of life. The superstructure of ritual feast days and offerings, hymns and prayers had no foundation in righteousness and justice. No foundation in what God Himself actually cared about. Their religion had become a system of signs that signified nothing. Sacrifices, hymns and prayers are always easier to bring than yourself. And that‘s why they were ripe for hypocrisy.

John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were very much in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets, as they challenged the dying moribund Judaism of that day. And that sense of Jewish exceptionalism as the descendants of Abraham. But that belief in bloodlines, family and ancestor worship are still profoundly part of the idolatry that runs throughout the whole of the human race right across the world today. Perhaps we are not so exceptional after all. Matthew 3:7-9:

But when he, John the Baptist, saw many of the Pharisees and the Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore, bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

The Jewish people could claim to be exceptional as the descendants of Abraham, but that itself placed an obligation on them to be righteous and just. To produce the very fruit that God wanted when he called Abraham. Belief that a particular history or ancestry is enough is the lazy, and frankly juvenile, preoccupation of those who regard God as tribal, who regard religion as equivalent to supporting a football team.

God cares about righteousness and justice. And He’s not on anyone’s side. Knowing Him is what He desires. And yet going even further, Jesus asked the penetrating psychological question about whether we ever consider how we appear to God Himself. Do we care what God actually thinks? Luke 18:9-12:

And he, Jesus, spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and they despised others [rv: they set others at naught]. Two men went up to the temple to pray. One, a Pharisee, and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, “God, I thank you that I‘m not like other men, extortioners, or adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I possess.”

Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and publican neatly illustrates the ‘us and them’ attitude of groupthink that seems to have become the hallmark of religion, dividing the world into the good guys and the bad guys, with ourselves or our group as the good guys. We’re always the good guys, aren’t we? He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and set all others at naught.

The Pharisee has a strong sense of entitlement. Based on the deeds he lists, comparing himself with others, a profound sense of entitlement. But this is profoundly ironic because he has no idea just how far off the mark he is. They had, according to Jesus, shut the kingdom of heaven against themselves and those others who wished to go in. Groupthink involves remembering certain things in certain ways. Jesus accused the Pharisees of devouring widows’ houses. Did the Pharisees forget that when he declaimed his good deeds before God? Did they realize that their preaching was actually frankly, a waste of effort, when all they wished to do was to perpetuate themselves, but not bring people to a true, real knowledge of God? Where they simply obsessed with arcane distinctions, while neglecting justice, mercy, and faith? Did they ever ask, what does God himself consider to be important?

Jesus accused them of cleansing the outside, but being full of extortion and self-indulgence in their hearts. Were they so cynical, or just frankly, foolish to think that you can fake it until you make it? Jesus accused them of being whitewashed tombs. Was respectability—fitting in with their community; their groupthink—all that they cared about? Groupthink is not the same thing as holiness. Jesus was into holiness. But this is how religions end up defining and distorting what is right and wrong to suit their own ends. Was this a righteousness defined by God or their own group’s righteousness? One that they had defined themselves; their own righteousness? And would we have recognized these attitudes as being wrong if Jesus himself hadn‘t told us?

Luke 18:13-14:

… and the tax collector standing far off would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner.” I tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other, for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled. And he who humbles himself will be exalted.

The truly subversive and terrifying point of this parable is that it isn’t the religious man who’s right with God, but the sinner. Wouldn’t it be ironic based on this, if we ourselves were excluded from God’s approval only to find that some ordinary Joe whose life had broken down and had come to God in a state of desperation was actually more acceptable to God than we were? Wouldn’t that be ironic?

Jesus is beyond religion. It’s difficult for us to really appreciate the impact of parables like this in their original context. Jewish society was deeply fractured and divided. Most ordinary people were poor, and they suffered under the pressure of offerings to the temple, taxes to the Herodian kings, and tribute to the Romans. And for that reason, tax collectors were regarded as the lowest form of male life. They were hated as traitors collaborators, unclean, and extortioners. They were regarded as predators. They were the lowest of the low. But Jesus uses the example of the tax collector to showcase an attitude—the attitude—that God requires from us. This is what God wants from us. In contrast to the Pharisee, the publican has no feelings of entitlement. He stands afar off as though he felt he had no right to be in God‘s presence, and cannot bring himself to look God in the eye. Luke 18:14, Jesus says:

And yet I tell you that this man went down to his house justified rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

In saying this, in saying, “he who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Jesus is taking us right back to an attitude that was first expressed in the book of Isaiah, in chapter 57. That it is in fact, the contrite, the humble, or the poor in spirit—these are, in fact, the people that God privileges, that God recognizes, that God chooses to dwell with.

And so, right at the beginning of his ministry in Matthew 5, in his opening words, Jesus announces God‘s favor towards these very people,

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The subjects of the kingdom of God are not defined by race, class, sexuality, or gender. They’re not identified by what religious labels they wear, but simply by an attitude of complete dependence on God, because they have no sufficiency in themselves. They know that they’re sinners. There’s no pretense with them. And in their abject need, they’re actually on the starting blocks of the track that leads to the kingdom of God, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, Jesus says. And in fact, these very same ones are the ones who mourn. And they’re the ones who will receive comfort, Jesus says. They mourn because of their condition. They know that they fail to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and that they fail to love their neighbor as themselves. They know that they’ve missed their mark. And that that mark, the one of love, is the only mark that matters.

And they’re the ones who are meek. They’re the ones who will, in fact, inherit the land. In recognizing their own insufficiency, they fully recognize the sufficiency of God. And that’s why this is a gospel of grace. They will not fret themselves because of injustice or hurt that they or their group has suffered, or take matters into their own hands. But rather, they will look to God to vindicate them. And will continue to privilege others, to love others, before themselves, by turning the other cheek. And they’re the ones who hunger and thirst for righteousness and they will be filled. They’re the ones who hunger and thirst for righteousness for real life, living in the continual presence of God. And so they’re ready to receive the words of Jesus and build on the foundation of that rock, that teaching of Jesus himself. It’s the beginning of a process, actually. A process of transformation that is gifted by God Himself, that leads to being merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, and indeed being persecuted for righteousness’ sake. All we can do is ask, seek, and knock in a continual communion with God Himself.

This good news remains the most radical program in history. The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ keynote address. Jesus is its message. Matthew 5:17, Jesus says,

Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

But to make them full. As far as Jesus was concerned, the Law and the Prophets were incomplete. They were unfinished business, and he came to teach us what they really meant. Just like today, Jesus was aware that his message stressing a personal relationship with God—with the Father, without a Holy place, without sacrifices or rituals, without a recourse to national identity, living without any precondition in the world—would be so radical as appear to be unrecognizable. And because of that, it was beyond religion.