Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #33 Acts 5:29

Acts 5:27-29     New International Version

27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

One of the things that has fascinated me as a parent is how silly words, phrases, even jokes, get passed down from one generation to the next.  My daughter Clara has come home from school with all sorts of things that I recall from my own childhood, it just goes to show that time-honored concepts like the cooties will never really die.

A phrase we haven't heard yet from our daughter, and don't care to, but one that teens have been using for quite some time is, "You're not the boss of me."  In the sitcom that ran from 1984-1992, we learned that Tony Danza's character Tony Micelli was the boss, sort of.  At the same time (1984-1990), another sitcom starring Scott Baio was telling us that Charles was in charge.  This is a fundamental staple of sitcoms, much of the humor of I Love Lucy, All in the Family, or Everybody Loves Raymond is the never ending struggle for the upper hand. 

In the real world, the struggle for power often takes on a deadly earnestness.  It is well understood that many people throughout history have been willing to kill to obtain or maintain power over others, but it has also been demonstrated over and over that other people are willing to die rather than live under tyranny.  World History is many things, among them it is a story of would-be dictators/tyrants and the revolutionaries and martyrs who opposed them.

When it comes to ultimate authority, the kind with real legitimacy that doesn't depend upon the threat of violence, the most common struggle in human history has been between material and spiritual lordships.  For much of history kings and priests have take up common cause, propping up the same dynasty that benefits them both.  It doesn't hurt that these two classes often came from the same aristocratic families, making cooperation between them more likely.

But when the vision of secular and religious power do come into conflict, who has the true claim on being the final authority?  There is no doubt, no doubt at all, that the Word of God proclaims that final authority rests in the spiritual realm with God himself.  We see this play out in God's liberation of the Israelites from Egypt as Moses asserts his authority over that of Pharaoh.  It is central to the story of the first king of Israel, Saul, whose power was dwarfed by that of the prophet Samuel.  And prophets like Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel again and again proclaim that God's will is above that of kings and even empires.  In fact, the prophets make it very clear that it is God himself who reserves the right to raise up, and tear down, kings and kingdoms to suit his purposes.

Which brings us to yet another reason why 'Christian' Nationalism is doomed to fail: It overvalues secular power.  Power in this world is fool's gold, it won't last and it can never be the ultimate authority.  The people of God are called, instead, to imitate the Apostles by defying the powers that be when they go against the revealed will of God.  Rather than bow before them willingly, or bend before them under duress, we must follow the example of the heroes of our faith who stood for righteousness and against evil in whatever form it took, including their own government.

Who is the boss?  Who is in charge?  God.  God alone.

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.

Sermon Video: Paul appeals to Caesar - Acts 25

Having newly been appointed governor of Judea, Festus visits Jerusalem to acquaint himself with the leadership there, and while doing so, is made aware of the ongoing desire on the part of the leading priests to rid themselves of Paul.  Festus wastes no time in beginning the trial, but is dumbfounded by the bizarre (to him) Jewish theology which is at issue between the two sides.  Unable to decipher what is going on, Festus suggests moving the trial to Jerusalem, prompting Paul to appeal to Caesar to avoid the corrupt influence of the Sanhedrin in the trial.  Having little choice but to send Paul on to Rome, Festus asks Herod Agrippa II, whom the Romans considered to be an authority on Judaism, to hear Paul's case and offer a suggestion as to what to write to the emperor about Paul.

Throughout the proceedings, Paul maintains his position as a reformer and not a rebel, and is willing to utilize his rights as a citizen in his own defense.  Throughout Church history the line between reformer and rebel has been a difficult one to walk, with Paul being the first of many to attempt it.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Pastors may be legally able to engage in partisan politics? No thanks.

The President of the United States recently spoke in favor of repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment which prohibits endorsements of political candidates by those working for non-profits (including churches) with the possibility of the organization's tax exempt status potentially being revoked for violations.  This law is rarely enforced, during the past election cycle a significant number of prominent religious figures made endorsements and even actively campaigned for a political candidate, in violation of the law, without apparent consequence.  It is apparent that these men and women have some sort of justification in mind for their violation of the teaching of Romans 13, it will of course be God who judges the heart on this matter.
It isn't the law which prevents me from making political endorsements, or even speaking publicly on politics in general (aside from encouraging democratic principles and good citizenship), but a deeply held belief that any marriage between the Church and a political party is destined to be an uneven and abusive relationship.  Politics offers a Faustian bargain to pastors, promising them access to power in exchange for their reputation, in the end, power will prove an illusion, betrayal will occur, and one's reputation will never be the same.
I already have a boss, the God of the heavens and the earth, the judge of the living and the dead, I don't need another, I won't yoke myself willingly to a political boss.  I already have a mission, to spread the Gospel and make disciples, I don't need another, especially one that has the potential to weaken or destroy my effectiveness to do the first.  I am a firm believer in Free Speech, without it, Freedom of Religion could not exist.  That I have the freedom to say or do something does not mean that it is wise, prudent, or morally upright to do so.  I choose to self-limit my political speech, that I might better serve the kingdom of God, that I might better be the salt and light that our world so desperately needs.
If the Johnson Amendment is repealed, it won't change my actions at all, but it will tempt others of my brothers and sisters serving the Church to exchange the unchanging Truth of the Gospel for the changeable power plays of politics.  Not all speech is free, some of it comes as a cost, this cost is too high.

Sermon Video: "At one time, we too were foolish" - Titus 2:15-3:3

As Paul finishes up his directions to Titus regarding Christian ethical behavior, he focuses that topic on the respect that the people of God owe to Titus, as a man of God, to the government, and to their fellow members of society.  In all three cases, pride is the enemy and humility is the answer.  For most Christians, it won't be the first topic, respecting the leadership of the Church, that will give them difficulty, but one of the latter two.  Paul, however, gives no wiggle room, requiring that Christians show respect and be obedient to whichever government they find themselves under.  This was, by any objective standard a more difficult task for the Cretans living under Roman rule, or for Christians living under corrupt governments around the world today or in the past than it is for American Christians who not only have a historically representative and efficient government, but the right to protest freely against it while still being a good citizen.  In light of that easier task, why is it that many American Christians follow the lead of the politicians and talking heads on TV by engaging in the same crass and rude behavior in the political realm?  Why is it that Christians feel they can post on social media things that they ought never to say, regardless of who it is directed at?
When interacting with family, neighbors, or co-workers, Christians likewise have an obligation to be polite, kind, and compassionate, and no room for the slanderous, hateful speech that much of society indulges in.  Paul ends the topic by reminding God's people that they once were so far removed from God that they lived lives of malice, envy, and hatred; used to, but thanks to God, no longer.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Daniel prayed, "just as he had done before." Daniel 6:10

As Christians, should we be in conflict with our culture as part of our effort to be salt and light as Jesus commanded, or should we be trying to live in peace, "If it is possible, as far as it depends upon you"? (Romans 12:18)  The question is an important one because our mission of bringing the light of the Gospel to a world living in darkness is far too crucial to be squandered or impaired by our own mistakes.  The example of Daniel is useful for us because he was part of a distinct minority in the culture of Babylon.  Daniel didn't choose to live in Babylon, but he did choose to make the best of his life in Babylon.  Daniel worked hard and was straightforward in his honesty and integrity even though he was working for the government that had destroyed Jerusalem (the Babylonians, who were in turn conquered by the Medes-Persians during Daniel's tenure in Babylon).  He was a man who recognized his dependence upon the grace of God, but at the same time did not go out of his way to cause conflict that would have required God's intervention.  When Darius was tricked into issuing a decree that was in clear violation of Daniel's ability to worship and obey the God of Abraham, Daniel did the only thing he believed he could as a man whose first allegiance was to God.  He did exactly the same thing he had done the day before.  Notice, Daniel didn't go out on the street corner to protest this unjust law, even though it clearly was unjust, nor did Daniel hide his disobedience behind closed doors.  It was not rebellion against authority that Daniel craved, but obedience to God.  Until the moment of this decree, Daniel had lived in peace with his neighbors and the government of Babylon.  The consequences of choosing to disobey the king were well known to Daniel, but his trust was in God as the judge of both the living and the dead.
Do we, as Christians in America, a nation where we have the right to vote and protest, follow the example of Daniel?  Should we?  To seek out conflict with our culture or our government simply to prove ourselves as passionate Christians would be a self-serving motive more in tune with our own pride than with our witness.  At the same time, to shrink back before potential hardship would be to abandon the faith that saved you for the sake of convenience.  In reality, nobody in America is being threatened with death if they follow Jesus Christ.  Nobody in America is being told they cannot proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in person, by print media, audio or visual media, or anything else.  It is not laws that stop Christians in America from being true to their faith, but apathy, cowardice, or simply too much wealth and comfort.  It is not the outside world that we must be in conflict with in order to bear witness to our Savior, but rather our own sin natures that we must continue to battle.  What was the real reason why Daniel disobeyed the law against praying to God?  He was already in the habit of praying long before it was illegal.