There is no Christian justification for preparing to kill agents of your own government

 

For years I have been disturbed to hear again and again from those who claim to be Christians, or representing a Christian background, that they need various weapons, armor, and technology to defend themselves against the government of the United States.  In essence, they are saying that they need to be capable of killing representatives of the government if/when 'they' are threatened in some way by them.  It shocks my how casually people contemplate killing police officers, FBI agents, even members of the American military over issues of taxation, land use, various rules and regulations.  The thing is, there is ZERO theological justification for this attitude in the Christian Worldview.  Sadly, rather than leaning toward pacifism and making violence a resort only of protecting the weak against the strong, the Church for much of its history has tended toward militance and only used non-violence as a fallback position.  The passive resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement should have been a tried and true tactic of Christian efforts to achieve Justice rather than an aberration, it should have had precedents going back to the Early Church which was non-violent, but it did not.

The Apostle Paul led a Church that faced an increasingly hostile Roman Empire, a government more powerful compared to its contemporaries and those living within it than the American government is to its citizens, and far more willing to use violence against those people, even enslaving more than a third of them.  And yet, one looks in vain in Paul's voluminous letters for any hint that Christians should be gathering weapons and preparing to kill Roman administrators and soldiers.  If any group of Christians were going to be told to 'fight fire with fire' and 'kill in Christ's name' it would have been those who would soon face the lions in the arena, but they were not.  What command, from God, did Paul offer to them?

Romans 12:14 (NIV) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Romans 12:17-21 (NIV) Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Where is the militant attitude?  Where is the warning to prepare to fight?  The Word of God commands Christians to do the opposite from what large numbers of Americans who profess to be Christians have, by word and deed, declared their intention to do.  This is not an esoteric point of theological debate, but a core tenant of the Christian understanding of our world and our role in it.  God is the Judge, God is solely responsible (with governments deputized to protect the innocent as stewards, see Romans 13) for violence (wrath).  We, as Christians, have no legitimate reason to 'take matters into our own hands'.  When we do so, we demonstrate a lack of faith in God's sovereignty, in God's promise to reward good and punish evil, and in our commitment to judge the next life as more important than this one.  In other words, when Christians become militant, individually or collectively, embracing violence as a means to an end, they abandon the heart and soul of faith, choosing power in this life over devotion to the next.

It isn't just Paul whose words we should be following, Paul is but echoing Jesus when he told the Roman Christians, living in the very heart of the Empire that would soon be persecuting them, to "overcome evil with good."

Matthew 5:38-48 (NIV) “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How do we go from this radical teaching of Jesus that flies in the face of our default human attitude, to "I need a stockpile of guns, ammunition, and body armor to protect myself against the government"?  Where is the love of our enemy? {Side note: that the American Government is 'the enemy' worthy of a violent response is itself a frightening thought}  Where is the willingness to sacrifice rather than respond with violence?

That our nation has those living in it so opposed to its laws that they would be willing to kill rather than follow them is nothing new, nor is it terribly surprising, most nations have at least some people violently opposed to the society they live in.  What is shocking, disturbing, and another sign of an unhealthy Church, is how little pushback is given to self-professed Christians who fall into this camp.  This is not a call for unthinking acceptance of any and all governmental policies.  In fact, the non-violent protests of the Civil Rights Movement illustrate how one can combine a Christian passion for Justice with a Christian ethic of loving one's enemy.  It is, however, a warning that the path of militancy, in the name of Christ, is stain upon the Bride of Christ, a detriment to Gospel witness, and a direct violation of the Word of God.

Thou shalt not murder is still in the Ten Commandments, being upset at the government in no way erases what God has written.

Your stockpile of weapons is a refutation of your claim to be living by faith.

There have been too many days like today...

On days like today, there have been too many, far too many, days like today...

I kissed my daughter as the school bus pulled up, we hugged each other, and I told her, "I love you", she's young enough still that she says it back, "love you."  That's our daily routine at the bus stop.

Today nearly two dozen families in Texas will never again have the chance to hear their child say, "I love you."

One of the reasons I am steadfastly non-partisan in my public commentary (I know some will disagree with that self-assessment, so be it) is that I don't hear any voice in American politics today that is holistically pro-life.  I have two thousand years of Church history and an entire Bible of commands and obligations that have convinced me that nothing less will satisfy what God requires of me, so to whom should I turn?

Congress has 535 members, but not one speaks from the position that all life is made in God's image, is thus sacred, and as such their task is to protect and support to the best of their ability every permutation and segment of humanity, not just in our nation but around the world.  There are always caveats, groups left behind, forgotten or deliberately excluded (sometimes with venom and glee no less).  There are always reasons of expediency and tribalism that supersede the needs of real people, excuses why party loyalty rates higher than principled morality.  It isn't even really close, politics misses the mark of what God has called his people to embrace on so many levels.  To think that any party, past or present, could be a 'Christian' party would be laughable if it weren't such a dangerously blasphemous idea.

I honestly don't expect change, not on a national level.  On many of the holistically pro-life issues that matter to me, as a Christian and as a minister, we're not even able to have the conversation about HOW to best solve the needs we can all see in healthcare, education, poverty, criminal justice, racism, the environment, foreign policy, violence, and on and on.  We're too entrenched in our positions to even be willing to talk about anything beyond how 'we' can stop 'them'.  The task confronting the politician isn't easy, there isn't any one solution to any of these endemic issues, and I wouldn't expect everyone to agree on the best way to confront complicated problems with multi-faceted roots, but hope doesn't come from partisanship.  

So I'll continue working with local elected officials, local non-profits (like the one that I'm the President of), local churches (like the one whose leadership I've been entrusted with), and people who care about the needs of people here in our community.  At least here we can make a difference, at least here people are willing to put the us vs. them partisan hatred aside and focus on how to actually help people.

Don't expect me to believe in anyone running for Congress or the Presidency, don't expect me to mold and shape what God's Word has taught me to fit their far more narrow and targeted belief systems.  I've lived through too many days like today.

Moral Clarity: God help us if we can't see that Vladimir Putin and his war are Evil.

Commenting on the social media feeds of others is "like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get."  I recently wrote in support of a post from a fellow minister (who lives outside PA) who had shared a story from The Gospel Coalition regarding a statement released by ten seminaries that were formerly behind the Iron Curtain against Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. {10 Seminaries from Post-Soviet States Issue a Joint Statement - The Gospel Coalition}.  The response to that posting from an individual that I don't know anything about (other than we have one mutual FB friend) was shocking, to me.  This individual called the Gospel Coalition's story propaganda, "TGC has a tendency to push the accepted narrative, and in this case they're apparently declaring which side God and the Church is on and/or routing for. It reads like propaganda."  After further discussion, with myself and the clergy member who posted the link, he wrote, "I don't believe Putin is trying to harm civilians—he certainly has more important locations in mind. There's going to be wars and rumors of wars until the Lord returns, and I don't plan on falling for the cookie cutter narrative pushed by the mainstream media and big tech any time soon."  In the end, I walked away from the conversation (and that of another commenter on the post who shared Russian posts and claimed it was a 'civil war'), as there seemed to be no common understanding of the facts that allow a fruitful discussion to take place, if the video of residential buildings on fire and refugees fleeing don't make an impact, neither will my words.

As the war in Ukraine unfolds, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, displacing millions of refugees, wrecking cities, destroying the Ukrainian economy, and of course maiming and killing countless innocents, it seems clear to most, myself and every clergy person I know included, that this war and the person primarily responsible for starting it is Evil.  Yes, the capital 'E' is on purpose.  It pains me to think that there are Americans, hard to say how many, who could look at the actions of Vladimir Putin over the last two decades, the litany of murdered dissidents, journalists, and exiles killed in the countries they had fled to, plus the cities leveled in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine without being able to call this evil.  It should disturb us all if some claiming to follow Christ can only view this war through their own American Culture War glasses {the dig at the 'mainstream media' being my clue as to that motivation, I don't know the writer of those words at all, but he claimed to be a follower of Jesus}  If this litany of bloodshed, if this repetition of violence isn't evil, what is?

Isaiah 5:20 (NIV)

Woe to those who call evil good

    and good evil,

who put darkness for light

    and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet

    and sweet for bitter.

This is indeed an ongoing danger to the Church, one that has reared its ugly head many times in Church history, when those who claim to follow Jesus at the same time embrace for themselves, or others, doing acts that are exceedingly immoral whether in service of 'the greater good' (The Crusades, Inquisition) or enslaved to their own sinful desires (such as Putin's dream of a new Russian Empire for which he is willing to kill many thousands).  

Should we pray for Vladimir Putin?  Certainly not for his success or the continuation of his autocratic rule, for his desires are evil, and actions causing suffering on an epic scale.  For the salvation of his soul?  Absolutely, the same as we pray for the Lost the world over, for by the fruit of his actions he has repeatedly declared himself to be in need of repentance.  God can forgive the vilest of sinners, but not until they turn from their wickedness, of that we have yet to see any sign.

The Holocaust was Evil, and so were the actions of everyone who aided it.  Anyone who cannot see that, who either denies that it took place, or attempts to minimize or justify it, is living in darkness of heart and mind.  There is no comparable action in human history to the Holocaust, it is the ultimate example of the depravity of humanity both singularly (Hitler) and collectively (his willing executioners).  I dislike both as a student of history and a minister, attempts to compare people to Hitler and events to the Holocaust.  To say that something is less egregious, or less evil, than the Holocaust is a given, but sadly there are still many others things that rightly deserve the label, they may not be the ultimate example of evil, but evil they are.  Unless Putin unleashes nuclear weaponry and threatens the existence of life on this planet, he will remain a notch below Hitler, but with every passing day that this war continues, he moves further down that path.

We may not always agree on what ought to be, on what the best path forward is (and that disagreement can be, to an extent, healthy for the Church), but God help us as a Church if we can't see evil for what it is and denounce it.  

We ignore "repay evil with blessing" at our peril: the Culture War, politics, and 9/11

In a recent interview on the Holy Post podcast (with Phil Vischer), Wheaton College New Testament professor Esau McCaulley makes the case that the United States (and the Church within it) missed a golden opportunity after 9/11 to "repay evil with blessing" rather than with greater destruction.  Admittedly, there was zero political will in the country, and very little opposition of any kind, to the idea of crushing the Taliban to get to Al Qaeda as justice/revenge for the lives lost on that horrific day.  I live through 9/11 as a young man, an educated Christian man, and my own thoughts were primarily of our military response.  Like so many other times in history, the way of peace, the forgiving of enemies, was not tried.  In the interview McCaulley also makes the point that what the Church needs is more Christian politicians willing to lose spectacularly.  In other words, willing to advocate for principles that while unpopular with the American people, are consistent with a Christian worldview.  What we need to do is prize morality above power, obedience to God above 'winning' in the here and now.  The Church would be far healthier, he believes, if those claiming to be Christian politicians lost more elections.  I found McCaulley's honesty to be very refreshing as it echoes much of my recent seminar: The Church and Politics , which was itself largely derived from the writings of Pastor Gregory Boyd in The Myth of a Christian Nation {The Myth of a Christian Nation by Gregory Boyd: summary and response}, the practical experiences of Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson working for the Moral Majority, as outlined in Blinded by Might, and the worldview underpinnings of Harry Blamires in The Christian Mind, all of which can trace foundational theological heritage back to the Apostle Peter's words in 1 Peter 3:8-17 (among other biblical passages on the topic including: Romans 12:14-21, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, and of course the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-48).  The point is, there is a tremendously powerful and convincing theological case to be made in favor of choosing forgiveness over wrath, mercy over justice, especially if we are truly going to model our behavior after the life of Jesus himself.  But, and this is the important conjunction, most Christian throughout history have preferred Realpolitik to living by the teachings of Jesus in these matters.  And that has consequences.

1 Peter 3:8-17     New International Version

8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,

“Whoever would love life

    and see good days

must keep their tongue from evil

    and their lips from deceitful speech.

11 They must turn from evil and do good;

    they must seek peace and pursue it.

12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous

    and his ears are attentive to their prayer,

but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

The interview with Esau McCaulley from the 26-54 minute marks is highly recommended

Can we 'take America back for God'?  Gregory Boyd's book explains why such a goal is impossible, because no such thing as a 'Christian nation' was ever intended by God, Thomas and Dobson illustrate in their book that a concerted effort sustained over a decade by the Moral Majority failed to move the country any closer to that supposed goal, and Blamires made the case back in 1963 that modern Christians were largely incapable of such an effort (even if it were possible) because they don't THINK like Christians.  Now Esau McCaulley is adding a modern example, the American response to 9/11, to further illustrate the point.  That his suggestion, sending aid to Afghanistan after 9/11 rather than planes loaded with bombs, would have been widely mocked, and someone suggesting such a course of action would have been accused of being 'soft on terrorism' or even a traitor, just illustrates how far from the mirage like goal of being a 'Christian nation' America truly is.  The Right does not offer a Christian worldview, and neither does the Left.

So, what will the consequences be when a nation that is majority Christian (by every poll and form of self-reporting) acts with little difference than a nation that is majority Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc?  At the very least, evangelism will be negatively affected.  Throughout the world what America does is conflated (fairly or unfairly) with Christianity.  The Pope or other ecclesiastical authorities may speak in opposition to American choices acting upon the world stage all they want, to the billions of people around the world, American foreign policy and culture speaks much louder.

For the Church in America, when those inhabiting it reject Christian morality in favor of American priorities, our own discipleship and transformation toward Christ-likeness is delayed, even derailed.  In this we are no different than the British Imperialists of generations past, or of the Pope's more interested in the wars of the Papal States than the spiritual health of the Western Church.  We cannot compartmentalize our lives, behaving as Americans on the one hand and Christians on the other.  As far as our national values are misaligned with our spiritual ones, those values are to us immorality, and as much as individual Christians (self-proclaimed or genuine) reject the calling to imitate Jesus, preferring Might to Right, we will be tolerating a cancer within the Church.

Is the battle lost?  I wouldn't be typing this if I thought so.  We know that the Church itself, global not national, will triumph at the end of history.  We don't have any idea how many years or even millennia before that day comes, but we know it will because God proclaimed it.  We know that voices like McCaulley, Vischer, Boyd, and smaller ones like my own, continue to proclaim the need for the Church to let go of the chimera of worldly victory through power and embrace the promise of spiritual victory through servanthood. At this point, these voices sound more like John the Baptist, people look at them like a crazy person wearing a camel hair shirt, eating locusts and wild honey.  But then again, God vindicated John (although he lost his head in this life standing up for morality against a corrupt system).

Some of my previous thoughts on this topic:

Deals with the Devil don't get any better

Why would we celebrate the death of the wicked?

How a Christian must respond to adversaries

The 'lesser of two evils' an anti-Biblical viewpoint

Satan loses in the end, why are we so scared?

A related topic that illustrates the lack of Christian thinking in other areas:

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

And this: 2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

Josh McDowell's folly in addition to racism: Claiming that the Bible only talks about individuals

In a recent speech author and apologist Josh McDowell caused a significant commotion by proclaiming the the primary cause of inequality for Black families in America is that Black households don't prioritize education and hard work.  That he was doing so in the midst of a speech lambasting Critical Race Theory as unbiblical because it sees oppression in systems and not just individuals made his statement ironic in addition to its casual racist stereotypes given that Josh McDowell is blaming the systems of Black families and culture rather than the individual young people he claims are growing up to not value education and hard work.  Here is the quote:

"I do not believe Blacks, African Americans, and many other minorities have equal opportunity. Why? Most of them grew up in families where there is not a big emphasis on education, security — you can do anything you want. You can change the world. If you work hard, you will make it. So many African Americans don't have those privileges like I was brought up with,"

After the uproar McDowell attempted to backtrack claiming that his statement didn't reflect his own beliefs, but much damage has already been done to his reputation.

Josh McDowell apologises for race comments, by Jennifer Lee of Christian Today

Josh McDowell steps back from ministry after controversial remarks on black families By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter

That racism is indeed a structural problem, and not just the actions of individuals is not a difficult proposition to establish, although it is anathema to a significant portion of Evangelicals in America today to say so.  I've already written against such rampant Individualism:

When the shameful past of Racism hits close to home {An analysis of The Color of Law, an incredible book}

The Prophet Amos: What provokes God's wrath? - Injustice and False Worship {Amos had no trouble seeing Israel's problems as being more than individual choices}

Especially this: Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"

And this: "What does the Bible say about systemic racism?" by WWUTT.com - an error filled and shameful tragedy that only makes things worse

Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong

Systemic Racism: The casual racism of the phrase "Black on Black crime" {Also contains links to Phil Vischer's videos from the Holy Post, very helpful}

So yeah, I've written a lot in the last couple of years against the notion that systematic racism doesn't exist and against the over-dependence of Evangelicals today on Individualism.  It turns out that a false individualism is at the heart of Josh McDowell's theological error as well.  Also from that same speech is this fiasco that is being overshadowed by the racist stereotype that went with it:

During his talk, McDowell also criticized critical race theory (CRT) which he claimed "negates all the biblical teaching" on racism because it blames systems instead of individual sin.  "There's no comparison to what is known today as social justice with what the Bible speaks as justice," he said. "With CRT they speak structurally. The Bible speaks individually. Make sure you get that. That's a big difference." {quoted from the Christian Today article}

Wait, what??  The Bible speaks individually ONLY and NOT structurally?  The prophets don't excoriate Israelite society, its government and rulers because of their unjust laws and practices?  Jesus doesn't flip tables in the temple, upbraid the power structures in Jerusalem time and time again?  How Josh McDowell came to a place in his worldview that he would believe and teach this nonsense is itself a hard question, but there is no doubt that he is in deep error here, and that he is not alone.

My rebuttal (link above) of the PragerU video goes into much detail against this false individualistic version of the Gospel, this is a political gospel, one rooted in Ayn Rand style individualism, but antithetical to the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview.

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

When is governmental action morally justified? The morality of COVID-19 responses to protect less than 1%.

2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

Another example of rampant Individualism: A Moral Hierarchy: A refutation of William Barr's, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

The response of many Christians to the COVID-19 pandemic has put into plain view the paucity of Individualism, the utter failure of an ethic based on the needs/wants of the individual and neglecting community responsibility.  McDowell's dismissal of systematic racism (as part of his political assault on CRT) is equally foolish, and equally unbiblical.

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

 

Actually, it doesn't count for either of you.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20     New International Version

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Much of the Church in the modern West is wandering astray in a sea of Individualism.  Our Culture is so thoroughly inundated with the idea that our Rights rise above our responsibilities that we often don't even notice when we, as Christians who are called to live by a far different standard, go along with the flow.  Abortion and vaccine refusal are just two instances that happen to also be political cudgels using the same flawed slogan, there are many others including: euthanasia, alcoholism, drug addictions, gluttony, and sexual immorality.  In addition, we have also readily accepted the parallel lies: "My money, my choice" with all of its economic implications (gambling, wasteful consumerism, lack of charity) and "My time, my choice" (laziness, lack of direction and purpose, unwillingness to help our neighbors).  None of these individualistic perspectives conform to our calling as the people of God.  In the end, Satan does not have to lessen our devotion (emotionally, but also prayer and worship) to God if we've already placed severe limits on what we're willing to give over to God because we've declared both everyday activities and many of life's most important decisions to be 'my choice'.  Thus millions of Christians, who if they examined their own hearts would consider themselves to be fully devoted to the Lord, are in fact holding back from God's purview much of their lives in the name of personal freedoms.  This attitude is incompatible with the Covenants of both Judaism and Christianity, foreign to the Biblical narrative, and dangerously destructive of the mission of the Church in our world today.  Long story short: our Individualism is a cancer within the Church.

This isn't a Red/Blue or Left/Right issue, self-professed Christians from many different political perspectives offer up rationales (excuses) for their behavior built upon the notion that personal freedom is more important than group responsibility.  However one interprets the text of Genesis, the moral lesson of the Fall of Adam and Eve is that human autonomy apart from God is not only against God's explicit direction, but a really bad bargain.  We can cry 'Freedom!' all we want, but in rebellion against God that word is pitiful.  From its first chapters the Bible is the story of God restoring humanity to its proper relationship with its Creator, a relationship that cannot be built upon autonomy.

God our Creator

Hard for it to be 'your body' when you're not responsible for the fact that it exists.  That gift can be traced back to your parents and keeps going on and on until we arrive at the question of human origins.  While Christians may not all agree on how God brought about creation, we all acknowledge God as Creator.  The Apostle Paul emphasizes this by saying,

Romans 9:19-21

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

As Paul discusses the intersection of human freewill and the sovereignty of God in Romans he is far removed from 'my body, my choice' precisely because he has a clear view of God as Creator and is more focused on God's right as the one who made us than on our rights as the ones made.  This may not sit well with Christians flying their 'Don't tread on me!' flags, but it is biblical, and it is reality.

Not only were we made by the hand of God, we were made in the image of God (Imago Dei in Latin, Genesis 1:26) and this too has implications that refute Individualism.  Because God is trinitarian, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those made in his image are likewise designed to exist in community.  The Genesis account emphasizes this truth when God says, "It is not good for the man to be alone.  I will make a helper suitable for him." (Genesis 2:18)  That need for mutual benefit between man and woman is subverted when Adam and Eve assert their independence from God, disobey the one (symbolic) rule in the Garden, and subsequently Adam blames God for putting Eve there with him for their failure (Genesis 3:12).  Instead of mutual help, the Fall reveals the human tendency in this state of rebellion toward 'every man for himself', in this case literally.

God our Redeemer

Given that we were designed to live in community, it is no surprise that when God begins to unfold his plan to restore humanity by calling Abraham he does so with the express intention of building up a people/nation (Genesis 12:2), one that will be a light shining in the darkness for all of humanity to see and seek.  The Law of Moses, instituted at Sinai, follows up on this intention by giving both broad and explicit instructions as to how these people, whom God has chosen, can live together in a just and righteous community in fellowship with each other and with God.  If you don't think God intended the Israelites to look out for each other, and be responsible for each other, just study the Year of Jubilee {Sermon Video: The Year of Jubilee (1st service at Franklin) Leviticus 25} or {Sermon Video: "The Year of Jubilee - Leviticus 25 (last sermon at Palo)}

This community-based plan is further developed beyond ethnic/national boundaries when the Apostle Paul writes just prior to his celebrated chapter on Love,

1 Corinthians 12:12-31     New International Version

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

As members of a local church, and the universal Church, we are a people called out of Darkness into the Light for the purpose of taking our designated place within the Body of Christ and thereby contributing to the purposes of God here on earth.  When people tell me that they worship God on their own, apart from a connection to the Church, or that they don't need to participate in corporate worship with God's people, what they're really saying is that they as a hand, wrist, or spleen (to use Paul's body analogy) have no need of the rest of the body, thank you very much.  I understand that the church (locally or denominationally) may have failed you, it is comprised of redeemed by fallible human beings after all, but you cannot fulfill your purpose in this world apart from that community.  In fact, according to the Apostle John, you cannot even prove your salvation to yourself apart from demonstrating that you love other brothers and sisters in Christ, something that belonging to a church makes a weekly necessity. {For an in-depth analysis of John's 3 fold test of true Christianity, try my 'book': Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John}

As much as God loves you, the one lost sheep he was willing to seek and to save, he didn't save you so that you can elevate your 'rights' above your obligations to serve the people of God and the community in which that church is called to be salt and light.

If we claim Jesus Christ as Savior, why would we continue to live our lives as if we are still the master of our destiny, the writers of our own story?  When you bow the knee before the Lamb of God that life ends, and a new one begins.

Galatians 2:20     New International Version

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

God as Lord

Philippians 2:10-11     New International Version

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

    to the glory of God the Father.

This is the vision of God triumphant that we, as Christians, proclaim, but also one that we struggle in this life to reflect.  If God is Creator, Redeemer, AND Lord, what limits are placed upon God's authority in our lives?  What prerogatives do we retain, what points of privilege and political preferences are we allowed to hold apart from the Lordship of Jesus Christ??  None, none at all.

A slave in the Roman Empire may have had less trouble with this topic, they were already being forced to bend their will to that of another.  When the Gospel proclaimed to them freedom it was not freedom free of obligation to a master, but a change of master to one whose love for them sent the Son to die on the Cross.  It was not an illusion of freedom in this life, but true spiritual freedom which only exists under the Lordship of God.

Colossians 3:22-4:1     New International Version

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

As modern Americans we rightly give thanks to God (and those people who have sacrificed for freedom's sake) that we are not under the thumb of an earthly master, but often it seems we forget that we, just as the Roman slave, have been called to serve a Heavenly Master.  Our bodies, our money, our time, our very lives, to not belong to us; remember, you were bought at a price.

Abortion

From the Christian perspective life is sacred because it was given as a gift by our Creator and reflects the image of God.  Thus while it is indeed a woman's body that is used to nurture that life from conception to viability, neither her own body nor that of the unborn child belong to her (nor by extension do they belong to the baby's father).  The protection of that mother-to-be by society, and the choices she makes that affect the future health of her child (for example: not smoking, drinking or doing drugs, plus having access to healthcare) are not questions of her 'rights', not simply because her choices affect a helpless and innocent child, but because those same choices were not her 'rights' before the pregnancy, nor will they be after.  God is the giver of life, to waste it through foolish or dangerous choices is to insult God, and to take it from another (except in clear cases of protecting against evil) is likewise an affront to God, a sin.  Note: Women who have chosen abortion in the past, like any other person who has sinned against God (and that means everyone) can be forgiven, the Blood of the Lamb is capable of washing away any stain from those who repent and believe.

Vaccine refusal

Our willingness to be given medicine, in this case vaccines, that will help stop the spread of communicable diseases, is likewise not a personal choice, not a matter of 'rights' at all, but also a question of community obligation.  I, as a Christian, do not have the right to waste my own life as it is a gift from God the use of which I must answer to God about, I also do not have the right to put the lives of others in danger.  This same perspective would apply to cases of drunk driving, the making of unsafe products, weapons in the hands of dangerous people, and many other instances when the actions/inaction of one person harms another person.  Intent to harm others would certainly increase the judgment of God against a person, but negligence also entails responsibility.  

There is a secondary related issue at work here as well.  The wisdom and talent necessary to create a vaccine, any vaccine or other treatment, is likewise a gift from God because the men and women working to develop it are using the talents, wisdom, and time that God has gifted them to help others. Were they not made in the image of God, they would be unable to unravel the mysterious of this created world.

The Christian Mind

These words were written in 1963, but they have become more relevant, more necessary as a warning,

“There is no longer a Christian mind.  There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality…But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization.  He accepts religion – its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, the view which relates all human problems – social, political, cultural – to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 3-4,)

Are we considering the issues of the day from a Christian Worldview?  Not if our priority is our own rights above our community obligations.

“We have inoculated ourselves against sensitive realization of the world’s evil…for we have now sufficiently secularized our minds to be in the habit of viewing the social and political set-up in which we are involved as something wholly, or largely, good in the eyes of God.  We have kept alive our Christian urge to discriminate between good and evil by the convenient device of labelling our own institutions good and those of our past enemies, or potential enemies, as evil…We complacently absolve ourselves from passing judgment on the set-up which nourishes us so comfortably.  We lean back in our armchairs, toast our toes by the electric fire, turn on the radio or the telly, and indulge in the righteous pleasure of learning how much evil there is in the world – elsewhere.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 86-87,)

This speaks to our comfort with our own hypocrisy of demanding our own rights, when it suits us, and seeking to diminish those same rights when enjoyed by our political enemies.  Regarding 'my body, my choice' both the Left and Right invoke it, when it suits them, and both do so in defiance of God.

“Take some topic of current political importance.  Try to establish in your own mind what is the right policy to recommend in relation to it; and do so in total detachment from any political alignment or prejudice; form your own conclusions by thinking Christianly.  Then discuss the matter with fellow members of your congregation.  The full loneliness of the thinking Christian will descend upon you.  It is not that people disagree with you (Some do and some don’t)  In a sense that does not matter.  But they will not think Christianly.  They will think pragmatically, politically, but not Christianly.  In almost all cases you will find that views are wholly determined by political allegiance.  Though he does not face it, the loyalty of the average Churchman to the Conservative Party or to the Labour Party is in practical political matters prior to his loyalty to the Church.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 14, emphasis mine)

I feel this loneliness on a regular basis.  I read what self-professed Christians write on social media and shake my head wondering where in that opinion is God acknowledged as Creator, Redeemer, and Lord.  Too often, our thinking (and thus our words spoken and written) is entirely self-centered, pragmatic and political, but hardly Christian.  For the sake of the Church's future in America, for the sake of our own local churches, and for our sake as those called by God to a higher purpose, this needs to change.

Earlier things I've written along these lines:

2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

This post is in many ways a follow-up to: "You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

The Purpose of Freedom: A Christian Viewpoint

For a similar example of a Christian Worldview in conflict with American politics/culture: Christianity has always been a self-imposed Cancel Culture, on purpose

Christianity has always been a self-imposed Cancel Culture, on purpose

Few ideas are as controversial in this moment in American history as the notion of a Cancel Culture.  Firebrands and pundits on both the political Right and Left are up in arms either calling for those on the opposite side to be 'cancelled' or decrying that someone on our 'team' was cancelled by 'them'.  Both sides seem immune to the irony that they're playing the same game while yelling that the game isn't fair.  That being said, and without making any particular recommendation as to how we as a country get out of this ever deepening Culture War (aside from an Armistace where both sides agree to stop fighting, which seems unlikely given how much power and money is to be made on both sides by those who wage it), it occurs to me that this moment could also be instructive regarding the nature of the Church in particular, and Christianity in general.  You see, it may come as a surprise to some, but the Word of God, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, repeatedly calls for the people of God to 'cancel' their own involvement in immoral culture by not participating in it.  God was calling for boycotts long before anyone considered them as an economic/political tool.  This is not a call for seperation from the culture, for both Israel and the Church are called to be a light to those 'living in darkness', but a call to voluntarily avoid those aspects of culture that lead to temptation, particularly temptation to lessen our commitment and devotion to God.  Examples abound, here a few to illustrate the point:

Deuteronomy 18:9-13  When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the Lord your God.

One of many places where God emphasizes to the nation of Israel that they must not be like the Canaanites, that in fact God's judgment upon the collective culture of the tribes that inhabited the land at the time of the Exodus was to purge the land of them lest their evil practices become a snare of imitation to the his covenant people (which in fact it did in future generations, repeatedly).

Leviticus 18:24-28  Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

How serious was God about this warning?  Very serious.  If the Israelites failed to maintain a culture, using that term as a catch-all for the collective behaviors and choices of the people, that honored and pleased God while avoiding the very things that their neighbors did which caused judgment upon them, God would drive evn his own people from the Promised Land.  In the end, the ten northern tribes, known at the time as Israel, where conquered by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. and dispersed among that empire's peoples, and the two southern tribes, known as Judah, were sent into a seventy year exile in Babylon in 586 B.C. precisely because they continued to indulge in idolatry, sexual immorality, and failed to provide for the unfortunate among them (typically referred to as widows, orphans, and foreigners as they were the most likely to need charitable help).  God took the requirement of a much more pure people than those living around them very seriously, when his own people failed to live up to this standard he judged them and didn't hold back.

When Christ founded the Church and set forth the New Covenant, it was clear that he intended his people to be 'in the world but not of the world' a phrase inspired by Jesus' answer to Pilate:

John 18:36  Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

How could they do that if they lived scattered among the nations, in many cases as a minority?  The answer was to be 'salt' and 'light' wherever they happened to be, acting as both purifying and illuminating agents.

Matthew 5:13-16  You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.  14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

How then can that 'saltiness' and 'light' be maintained?  How can Christ's followers be different?  The presence of the Holy Spirit as a counselor is of course key, as is the renewal of the hearts/mind/spirits of God's people known as regeneration.

Titus 3:5  he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

2 Corinthians 5:17  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

Romans 12:2  Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

The work of God in us is the beginning, a necessary beginning, but moving forward Christians are called to avoid the things in life that lead to temptation.

Colossians 3:1-8  Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

And what are Christians, individually and collectively, supposed to replace the immoral aspects of the particular culture in which they happen to find themselves with?  The answer isn't specific, but a set of principles and qualities that should occupy our hearts and minds.

Philippians 4:8  Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

As this quick examination of relevant scriptural passages indicates, Christians and Christianity were intended to be discerning of participation in culture, an exercise in self-control and restraint that does not end when Christians went from being a minority to being the majority in a culture, or vice versa.  What particular aspects of culture one chooses to participate in and what one chooses to abstain from is an ongoing conversation that requires both a knowledge of God's Word and a discerning heart to apply it to the present day.  This conversation takes place on an individual basis with our own conscience, and on a collective basis as a local body of Christ or Christian community in general.  Our response to culture is not achieved through a list of rules, which will be obsolete as soon as the ink is dry, but by teaching ourselves and others to evaluate our choices according to Christian principles, shunning that which is immoral and embraces that which is righteous.  

The Roman Empire utilized worship of the emperor as a means of unity within their diverse and far flung empire, but Christians refused to participate in this behavior because it violated God's commands against both false worship and idolatry.  As a result, during the first few centuries of the Church, Christians faced both sporadic and organized persecution, sometimes resulting in imprisonment or death, that tried to force them to join in.  Some gave up their beliefs to save themselves, others held firm and became martyrs.  In the end, after Constantine, the Church was on the road to creating the rules, not defying them.

As Christian Americans, whether aligned with the political Left or Right, we need to ask ourselves an important question: If 'they' came for 'us' and forced us to abandon or 'Christian culture' what would they really be taking?  What do we think, say, and do that is distinctively Christ-imitating?  How much of what we take in and put out through our hearts and minds reflects the Fruit of the Spirit, and how much is just our preferred portion of the culture in which we live, not really Christ-reflecting at all?  These are hard questions, and many of us wouldn't have much that is distinctively Christian to give up if 'they' forced us to.  Here's the thing, 'they' shouldn't have to force you to walk away from the immoral aspects of our culture, Christ has already commanded you to, the Spirit has already convicted you of it, and your ability to be 'salt' and 'light' depends upon it.  A Christian 'Cancel Culture'?  Yes, its called self-control.

Is the 'Cancel Culture' coming after racists?  That shouldn't have anything to do with us.  If it hits one of 'our people' shouldn't we want to know why?  Are they coming for expressions of sexual immorality or greed?  Why is that hitting so close to home?  Maybe we need to be asking ourselves how 'Christian' the culture we've embraced really is.

A Moral Hierarchy: A refutation of William Barr's, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Speaking at Hillsdale College on September 16th, Attorney General Willaim Barr responded to a question about religious freedom and COVID-19 restrictions with the following, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history." {Barr under fire over comparison of virus lock-in to slavery - by Eric Tucker, AP}  I will not evaluate the legal aspects of that statement, which would require examining the COVID-19 restrictions put in place by 50 governors, hundreds of mayors, and thousands of municipalities, each operating under 50 separate state constitutions.  The vast majority of challenges to the restrictions have been denied in court, so let the lawyers argue that point. {In 5-4 Split, US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to California's COVID-19 Restrictions on Religious Services - by Cheryl Miller of Law.com}  I will also not examine the restrictions from a medical standpoint, preferring to take my medical advice from the likes of Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, Dr. Birx and the collective wisdom of the medical profession, rather than that of a lawyer like William Barr.  Instead, I will examine William Barr's statement from a moral perspective.

The Christian moral hierarchy is reflected in Jesus' response to the question of which of the commandments in the Law of Moses (the rabbis counted 613 of them) was the greatest? 

Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Christianity is not alone in considering the question of moral hierarchy, virtually every philosophy and religion contains inherent within it (stated in a variety of ways) a moral hierarchy.  How we define Good and Evil, and how we view relative grades of both, is a question of utmost importance.  For the United States, our national moral hierarchy is reflected in the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The order of the unalienable Rights in the Declaration is no accident, Life comes before Liberty, which comes before the pursuit of Happiness.  The reason is simple: Life is more valuable than Liberty which is more valuable than Happiness (a catch all for things such as property rights, workers' rights, etc).  As such, if a government were to deprive its citizens (or anyone within its power) of Life, that would by necessity be a more egregious violation than if that same government were to deprive those same people of Liberty (for example through imprisonment), which would in turn be more egregious than if that same government were to deprive those same people of the pursuit of Happiness.  It would thus follow that in order for a government to be acting in a morally acceptable way, it would need a more compelling reason to take a life than it would to take liberty than it would to take property.  This basic understanding of morality is enshrined in American jurisprudence and is reflected in our laws at every level.

Thus we see a government could be morally at fault on three ascending levels.  It is on this basis that the actions of a government should be evaluated when comparing one (potential) violation against another (and also when weighing the cost vs. benefits of laws and policies).

The COVID-19 restrictions were designed to protect Life (a highest order) at the expense of Liberty (home 'confinement') and Happiness (loss of business, loss of work, loss of entertainment).  On the surface, this is what we want from our government, protecting Life above other concerns.  But let us for a moment concede {although I certainly do not} that William Barr is correct and that the COVID-19 restrictions (he didn't specify which ones from which governors, cities, etc) were unconstitutional and an 'intrusion on civil liberties'.  Even if we concede William Barr's assertion, from a historical perspective, there have been many examples, other than slavery, of the American government (federal, state, or local) violating rights that would be more morally significant than the pandemic response.

The following are offered as examples, it is sadly far from an exhaustive list:

The Trail of Tears

The Sand Creek Massacre

The Wounded Knee Massacre

The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre

Japanese-American internment during WWII

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

4,743 Lynchings between 1882 and 1968

100 Years of Jim Crow Laws

The denial of GI Bill benefits to a million Black WWII veterans

Decades of deliberate federal housing racial discrimination

Police Brutality during the Civil Rights Movement

The exoneration of 172 former death-row inmates since 1973

For a more comprehensive list of massacres in American History: Massacres in US History

It would not do each of the examples I've listed justice if I tried to summarize them in a few sentences.  The links provide the horrific details of each of them, all of which were morally far more significant than any restrictions that have been put in place in response to COVID-19.  In case you're wondering, similar restrictions were put in place during the Spanish Flu pandemic, these also were not mentioned by William Barr.

I don't know why William Barr ignored these far more significant examples of 'intrusion on civil liberties', only allowing that Slavery was more significant than the COVID-19 restrictions, but in doing so he made an assertion that is demonstrably morally false.

When we elevate deprivations of property above purposeful and deliberate massacres we not only weaken our moral compass, but denigrate those who lost their lives. (Scale matters to an extent, taking property from a million people weighed against taking liberty from a thousand, versus taking life from one, for example.)  This same principle holds true with Holocaust Denial, the refusal to call the killings of Armenians during WWI a genocide, or the downplaying of the horror of South African Apartheid, to highlight a few examples.  The way in which we morally evaluate history impacts the way in which we act in the present.  No matter how unnecessary or unconstitutional a person may view the restrictions put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic {again, conceding a point that has not been proven}, there is no morally justifiable way to view these as more significant than a long list of times when the government of the United States deprived large numbers of people of life, nor of the times that it deprived a large number of people of liberty, nor indeed even above many other instances of the government depriving people of property.  William Bar is wrong.

Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way.

This trend has been a long time coming within American Evangelicalism, and we have seen similar claims before, but Pastor John MacArthur, one of Evangelicalism's most noteworthy leaders, has declared that in 2020, in order to be a "real true believer" you can only vote for one political party. {John MacArthur interview, quote at 5:44 mark} {John MacArthur says 'true believers' will vote for Trump, can't affirm abortion and trans activism - by Michael Gryboski, the Christian Post}

The question, as John MacArthur is framing it is not, "Which candidate/party more closely adheres to Biblical principles and Christian ethics?"  But rather, "Are you a real Christian or not?"  These are monumentally different questions revealing a significant difference in Christian Worldview.  The first is a position of Grace that realizes that in this world we have no perfect choices, that every vote taken by a committed Christian is an act of compromise, for no candidate, and no party, can truly represent the leadership ideal embodied by Jesus, nor the fullness of his command to us, John 15:12 (NIV) "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."  In other words, a position influence by Grace and Christian Liberty will recognize the anguish felt by many Christians, both now and in generations past, when choosing between two imperfect choices, and would even recognize the possibility that a Christian might, in obedience to his/her own conscience and with principled understanding, choose to vote on the basis of other moral issues than the three or four MacArthur considers to be primary, might vote for a third party candidate, or even to NOT vote at all.  The second position reflects a binary (only two choices) position of Law: "either you're with us or against us."  There is no room here for discussion, debate, or nuance.  The choices are light and dark, good and evil, only a fake Christian (still then, presumably NOT redeemed and still headed toward Hell) could think otherwise.
This is not the first such binary choice that John MacArthur has embraced recently.  Following the controversial reopening of Grace Community Church for in-person worship {links to my two responses below}, Pastor MacArthur declared that churches that obeyed government mandates were not real churches, their leaders not real shepherds. {Excerpt from 1st sermon after reopening: “There has never been a time when the world didn’t need the message of the true church,” he said. “I have to say, ‘true church.’ I hate to think of that, but there’s so many false forms of the church. Let them shut down.” Evangelical pastor John MacArthur suggests churches that remain closed during COVID-19 are not “true” churches}.  A pattern of adding to the list of things that differentiate, in John MacArthur's opinion, true Christians/churches/pastors from false one is growing.
1. How any Christian votes is NOT a test of faith.
I know that John MacArthur takes Martin Luther's Five Solae seriously, in this case Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, so why is he (inadvertently?) adding to the Reformation's declaration the need for 'real true' Christians to vote the way he believes they must?  Instead of judging John MacArthur's intentions, let me simply observe that it has becoming increasing evident that he believes that the Church is on the precipice of a cliff, that America is lurching toward oblivion, and that these increased stakes have seemingly resulted in increasingly politically partisan stances. 
Here's the thing, even if everything John MacArthur believes about the Democrat Party is true, even if the Republican Party are the saviors of America, even if there is only one morally acceptable way for Christians who respect the authority of the Bible to vote, that would still fall far, far, far short of being a way to determine who is a genuine Christian and who isn't.  One of John MacArthur's regular emphases is (rightly) the sufficiency of Scripture {Sola Scriptura}, but where in Holy Scripture does it tell us that we can judge the sheep and the goats by how they vote?  Matthew 25:31-16 contains a dire warning from Jesus that God will separate the true believers from the frauds on the basis of acts of charity toward those in need, for these actions (or lack thereof) will be sufficient to demonstrate who is living by faith and who is not.  What Jesus doesn't mention, nor does any other NT writer, is a civic test of faith.  The reason for this is pretty straightforward:
2. Our citizenship is in Heaven.
One of the inconsistencies of John MacArthur's very public, and very partisan insistence upon opening up his church's 3,000 seat sanctuary without any social distancing and without masks {John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation} {John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response} is his very clear repudiation of the idea that Church and State have overlapping jurisdictions.  He even went so far as to write, "the church does not in any sense rule the state."  And yet, at the exact same time that he is fighting the state of California in court, and doing interview after interview in support of that fight, John MacArthur is also declaring that every "real true believer" in America is required to vote for one particular political party.  You can't have it both ways, either there is separation of Church and State or there isn't.  You cannot posit simultaneously time that Christians must be allowed by the government to do their own thing, without any restrictions, and that Christians should be intimately involved in the way in which government is run.  How can we be on the outside, and in charge, too?
In the end, whoever wins in November will have ZERO impact upon whether or not you, me, or John MacArthur is welcomed into heaven with the phrase, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" (Matthew 25:23). 
Why can't our civic responsibilities be the basis of judging our faith?  Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.  That I was born an American has nothing to do with my standing before Almighty God.  It doesn't help me or hurt me in any way.  That 95% of the world's population was not given this blessing at birth, has nothing to do with their standing before Almighty God.  Each and every genuine follower of Jesus Christ has a superseding citizenship, has been adopted into a heavenly family.  The Word of God has chosen to define its own tests of faith, to tell us how we can judge ourselves, and how we can evaluate others.  We have no right to add to that list.

Rejecting Idolatry: No, Mike Pence, we will not, "Fix our eyes on Old Glory"

Jesus and Old Glory are not interchangeable 

This post has nothing to do with who you should, or should not, vote for.  It has nothing to do with whether I like or don't like Mike Pence.  It has everything to do with the nature and future of the American Church and its proper relationship to its government.  Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, a socialist or a libertarian, this issue is the same: The Church and America are not one in the same.  They are not equal partners, they are not co-recipients of the New Covenant.  What we owe the Church, as Christians, is NOT the same as what we owe America, as citizens.  As Christians, our duty must always first be to our faith, to our calling as disciples of Jesus Christ.  If following that calling happens to coincide with our civic duty, we follow our faith, if following that calling conflicts with our civic duty, we follow our faith.

Vice President Mike Pence swapped out "Jesus" for "Old Glory" in his RNC address - by Relevant magazine

Mike Pence’s Heresy & the New Cult of Caesar - by Daniel Waugh

During his RNC speech, Vice President Mike Pence said the following, 

My fellow Americans, we are going through a time of testing. But if you look through the fog of these challenging times, you will see, our flag is still there today. That star-spangled banner still waves over the land of the free and the home of the brave. From these hallowed grounds, American patriots in generations gone by did their part to defend freedom. Now, it is our turn.

So let’s run the race marked out for us. Let’s fix our eyes on Old Glory and all she represents. Let’s fix our eyes on this land of heroes and let their courage inspire. And let’s fix our eyes on the author and perfecter of our faith and our freedom and never forget that where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. That means freedom always wins.

The text of Hebrews 12:1-2 and 2 Corinthians 3:17 is below for comparison.

Hebrews 12:1-2  (New International Version)  1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2 Corinthians 3:16-18  (New International Version)  16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

So, what's the big deal?  Aren't biblical allusions and quotes a good thing?  Shakespeare is full of them, nobody's calling out Shakespeare for idolatry.  American politicians have long interwoven biblical references into their speeches, famously with Abraham Lincoln's A House Divided Against itself speech.   Biblical literacy is definitely a good thing, and great speeches can certainly utilize biblical quotations and allusions, great literature can utilize Christ typology (think Tolkien's Frodo or Rawling's Harry Potter) without stepping anywhere near idolatry or blasphemy.  What makes what Mike Pence said different?

Rather than allude to Hebrews 12:1-2, and say something like, "Just as Christians are commanded to fix their eyes upon Jesus, all Americans can look to our Constitution and Bill of Rights to find common ground", Pence replaced Jesus as the object that Americans must affix their eyes upon with Old Glory.  One is a perfect example to aspire to (by God's grace), the other is not; it can't be.  Instead of using Jesus as  the greater example of devotion to encourage the lesser devotion to our nation, the two were made out to be in some way equal.  As Christians, we are commanded to have Jesus (God) as the head and goal of our lives, as the standard for holiness and the sole recipient of worship.  To put anything else in the place of God, the place of devotion and worship, of inspiration and guidance, is idolatry.  Perhaps this is just sloppy speech writing, but the way in which Pastor Robert Jeffress rushed to defend it seems to indicate that the choice was deliberate.  If Jesus and Old Glory are interchangeable, if our devotion to them are in the same realm, we are lost as a Church. {Mike Pence faces backlash for replacing 'Jesus' with 'Old Glory' flag reference during RNC speech - Christian News}

Exodus 20:3-4  New International Version 3 “You shall have no other gods before me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

The Early Church was persecuted (sporadically but viciously) by the Roman Empire for (among other things) the refusal of Christians to say, "Caesar is Lord".  They believed, rightly, that only God could lay claim to the title of Lord.  That while they owed obedience to earthly authorities, they would only give worship to God, and God alone.  While some recanted and make sacrifices to Caesar in the face of persecution, for those who refused, their loyalty was undivided, and they paid for it, often with their lives. {Christianity and the Roman Empire By Dr Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe, BBC} From the reign of Constantine onward, Christianity moved from persecuted outside influence, to empire dominating force in the span of a few generations.  It became increasing difficult to separate being a good Roman citizen from being a good Christian.  This tension, between citizenship on earth and citizenship in heaven was a consistent them throughout the period we generally refer to as Christendom, where kingdoms and empires were ruled, ostensibly, by Christian principles with favor and reward shown to Christian institutions.  This marriage, however, of Church and State was not an equal one, nor healthy.  As Lord Acton famously put it, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."  The power of the State allowed Christians to persecute dissenters, (some heretics, some earnest reformers, many innocent) but in doing so, the purity of the Gospel was corrupted, the appeal of God's Love replaced (or at least obscured) by Law and Justice.  The Church's response to heretics is excommunication, the State offered a tempting alternative, execution.

Christian Nationalism, has been, and continues to be, a significant danger to the Church.  That nationalism fueled the dueling claims of God's blessing as Europeans slaughtered each other during WWI, and it was co-opted to horrific effect by the Third Reich, leading to the flight of Bonhoeffer, Barth, and others to the Confessing Church, and the eventual martyrdom of Bonhoeffer.  The Nazis replaced the head of the German Lutheran Church with a Nazi party functionary, and sent the Gestapo to listen to ministers preach so that they could arrest any who spoke against the government, all while millions of 'good German Christians' cheered at Nazi parades.  To invoke the Nazis is no small rhetorical device, and I do so NOT to call Mike Pence a fascist, but simply to illustrate the fallibility of the Church, of how far the Church can fall from its original intent and purpose. This is also the logical end of Nationalism, the merging of Church INTO State, and the bending of the Church to the will of the State.  This is the dark side of Christendom.  The Church may think that it has the tiger by the tail, but it will always learn that it can't let go.  When being a good Christian is defined by what the government demands of its citizens, it is only a matter of time until those demands run contrary to the Word of God.  Perhaps the Christian Nationalism that is ascendant in American Evangelicalism today will remain moored to Bible principles, but if it does it will be the first such example {Calvin's Geneva, for example, couldn't maintain the union either, as the city burned a Christian heretic at the stake}, and there is every indication that devotion to God has already been compromised by the needs of power, wealth, and politics.  The Word of God says one thing, but the need to win the next election says something else.

A secondary fault of Mike Pence's position is its use of Replacement Theology.  To make a long story short, this view sees America (and the British Empire before it, where the view was similarly popular) as the New Israel, the heir to the Abrahamic Covenant's promises, unique and special in the eyes of God.  This common error is both an insult to the physical descendants of Abraham (a subtle form of Antisemitism), those to whom the promises were actually given; it also erroneously elevates America to a 'no-fault' position that obscures the real problems we face as a nation (like racism) behind veils like Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism.  If America is God's chosen nation, our faults must be minor.  This is, at the least, bad theology.  Bad theology is not idolatry, but it contributes here to the worldview that gives birth to it.

In the closing allusion, to 2 Corinthians 3:17, the Apostle Paul is speaking of our freedom from Law that we have because of the Grace of God that is in Christ Jesus.  Mike Pence swaps that out for American civic freedoms, a pale imitation of the true freedom that we enjoy because Christ has set us free.  The accomplishments of America in the realm of political freedom, and they certainly are historic and considerable, are nothing in comparison to the spiritual freedom from sin and death accomplished by Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection.  IF we turn from the greater freedom, in an effort to embrace the lesser, we will be great fools.  The Church's offers to the world freedom from sin, for all peoples regardless of nationality, the Bill of Rights cannot compete.  The last line, "That means freedom always wins." is certainly not what Paul was trying to say, not even remotely.  Political freedom won't always win, human oppression will continue to ebb and flow until the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of His kingdom.  The only kind of freedom that "always wins" is the freedom purchased by the Blood of the Lamb.

In the "fog of these challenging times" Old Glory is not our guiding light, nor is it our anchor.  That may work for an appeal to American citizens, but coming from a professed Christian, using Scripture as a framework, it is heresy, a form of idolatry.  Our guide is the Bible, the author and perfecter of our faith is Jesus, ONLY Jesus, the witnesses which inspire us to live righteously are the heroes of the faith from Hebrews chapter 11 and the rest of Church History, whether or not they are American heroes.  The freedom that we cling to, that we have placed all of our hope and faith upon, is given to us by Jesus Christ, alone.

My message is not for Mike Pence, he's not an ordained minister, nor has he been chosen by the Church to a position of leadership.  My cry is to those in leadership within the Church of Jesus Christ.  Christ is our head, Christ is our hope, Christ is above all.  This Word of hope has been placed in our care, if we do not make this clear, if we do not reject the siren's call of Nationalism, the blurring together of Christian moral with American civic duty, and the foolishness of replacing the Covenant of Abraham with American Exceptionalism, who will?

Love America for its blessings, appreciate the flag and honor our country's heroes, but don't for a moment place country before God.

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus.