The harms that "Heritage America" will do to the Church, our Gospel witness, and our republic.

American Progress (1872) by John Gast

Heritage America: Wise Men Have Left Us an Inheritance Ben R. Crenshaw, August 23, 2024 at Americanreformer.org

Ben R. Crenshaw is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Declaration of Independence Center at the University of Mississippi. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.

I came across this article by Ben Crenshaw posted at Americanreformer.org while reading an article about the effort (unserious as it may be) of some complementarian pastors to revoke the 19th Amendment because they believe that women are too empathetic to be trusted with the right to vote.  Needless to say, I reject that sexist view as utter nonsense {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism or The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson}as have other Christian thinkers {The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. David French}.  While thinking about how foolish some pastors willing to rail against women voters have become in mixing their politics and adherence to the Culture War with their responsibility before God to preach the Gospel, I decided to click on the link in the article about a term that I've seen thrown around of late: Heritage Americans.

I would imagine that some who use the term "Heritage Americans" are full-on "blood and soil" racists no different than yesterday's Klan members, and some others may use it out of a love for American culture and history without any racial overtones or designs on wielding power over others, Crenshaw's article leans toward the former, even though he denies that it is so.  In the end, this entire concept of "real Americans" is dangerous to the Church, our Gospel witness, and ultimately our Republic.  Let's look at some quotes of particular concern:

"Not all people merely by virtue of being human are capable of self-government. In fact, self-government is rare in human history, as most people are too poor, slavish, stupid, or vicious to establish good government and run it well. They are instead better fit to be ruled without, and even against, their consent." 

This line of thinking is the same sort of racism that was rampant during the era of Colonialism.  Crenshaw seems to think that Englishmen (and those like them) are the only ones capable of good government and self-rule {He says as much in the article), the world's other "inferior" people are best ruled against their consent.  His views are ugly, immoral, and entirely ahistorical.  In other words, this should be condemned plainly and as often as necessary to get the point across.

This racial viewpoint offered by Crenshaw is also poison to the Gospel.  God didn't create tiers of people, some inherently different than others, to suggest otherwise is to malign the goodness of God or to call into question his ability as Creator.  If that were not bad enough, this view would also taint evangelism because how could one expect a people who are too "slavish" and "stupid" to govern themselves to be able to understand / accept the Gospel, and even if they do, how could such lesser people make good disciples?  This whole pit of racism is revolting, it has nothing to do with a theology actually derived from scripture.

"Heritage America is unique in that it is not merely a Christian people seeking to govern themselves well, but to order themselves under intentional Christian government and civil law. To be a Heritage American, then, is to accept this form of religious polity and be willing to submit to laws and institutions that are explicitly Christian in their origin, nature, and purposes."

The problem with this is, as it is with all 'Christian' Nationalism, a question of who gets to decide which civil laws are "Christian" and which are not.  What Crenshaw wants to do is blur the line between theology and politics so thoroughly that all civil lawmaking becomes a theological exercise.  As we will see later, he also wants to limit that exercise to Protestant Christians with little regard for our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, let alone any regard to those who are not followers of Jesus.

In addition to the problem one can see with a legal code that is supposedly endorsed by Christianity with respect to who makes that definition and who it leaves out in the cold, we also have the little problem of Church History.  We have tried this game before, and it did not end well, at all, for the Church.  From the time of Constantine until the rise of modern nation-states, the Church was intertwined with the power of various kingdoms and empires.  This embrace of power over others rather than Jesus' power under others via a servanthood model {See my 6 hour seminar for a very deep dive: The Church and Politics} redefines Christian discipleship as a matter not of serving others and showing them the value of the Gospel, but instead one of compelling by force and punishing those who do not accept the Gospel.  In the past this resulted in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the burning of heretics at the stake.  Needless to say, as a Baptist who believes in the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and who considers Rogers Williams to be a hero worth emulating, this lust for power on the part of those who think they are helping the Church is terrifying.

"As already mentioned, the Americans were overwhelmingly Christian, and so religious liberty and tolerance was more specifically Christian liberty and Christian tolerance. That tolerance was intolerant toward many world religions and religious practices judged to be harmful to soul and body; instead, toleration was primarily extended toward overcoming denominational differences among Protestants."

Tellingly, Crenshaw admits that the Heritage Americans he so much admires and wants to give power to failed to give liberty or freedom to anyone that didn't fit within their own definition of being "one of us."  Honestly, he's giving them too much credit.  There was a reason why Roger Williams was forced to flee Massachusetts Bay Colony and found Rhode Island, the Puritans with power in the colony abused it just as any student of human nature could have predicted. 

"Heritage Americans must love liberty in its fullest sense—freedom from external tyranny and internal despotism—and seek spiritual freedom in community with family, friends, and neighbors. Heritage America embraces religious liberty and tolerance toward Christian differences, and might even tolerate Christian-adjacent religions if its adherents agree to live according to Christian civil laws, norms, and cultural expectations."

We have seen this fail miserably in John Calvin's Geneva, in the slaughter of the Thirty Years War, and in the rise of antisemitism that ran parallel to the launch of the Crusades.  It doesn't work.  Freedom for us, but not for you if you disagree, is a recipe for disaster.  It will result in oppression, violence, and evil done in the name of defending Christ and the Church.  The thing is, never once did Jesus Christ ask his disciples to force anyone to follow him.  Never once did Jesus tell his disciples to seize civil power and enforce "laws, norms, and cultural expectations."  This quest for power is popular among today's 'Christian' Nationalists, like Crenshaw, but it is foreign to the work and words of Jesus in the Gospels, and it has harmed the Church each and every time it has been tried.

"These traits are what constitute Heritage America. You might formally be an American citizen by birth or naturalization, but unless you understand these deeply-rooted and traditional aspects of American identity, you cannot be a Heritage American—a true American. Nor is it the case that one can merely pay lip service to these ideals. Instead, what is outlined above is a description of a tangible way of life. Because Heritage America is a habit of living, those outside the tradition can be grafted in. The concept of engrafting—of adopting and integrating into the trunk of a tree branches that are foreign to it such that what was once separate becomes one—is the best way to think about becoming a Heritage American if you are not one currently. It is a particular way of life that is proud and exclusive, but it is welcoming to those who want to live in this manner"

And here is where Crenshaw's racism moves beyond harming the Church and our Gospel witness to threatening the future of the Republic.  The moment we allow there to be an ideological test for "true Americans" we've lost.  If one must pass a test of beliefs in order to be considered a "real" American, the 1st Amendment is a joke.  This trend toward those in the Blue and Red partisan camps viewing each other as un-American (or even, as "enemies of the state") has already caused violence and a dramatic erosion of kindness and decency in our politics.  Rather than seeking to heal this partisan divide, Crenshaw and the concept of "Heritage Americans" would purposefully rupture it further.

"Can you be a Heritage American if you’re not a Christian? What if you are a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist? Ideally, of course, all Americans would be Christians, whether sincerely or nominally. However, a polity of pure saints is not practical or likely, and so toleration of those who dissent is necessary. There is a balance that must be struck on this point. Non-Christians can be tolerated, as long as they acquiesce to living in an unashamedly Christian America (i.e., submitting to Christian civil law, government support for Christianity, Christian moral, civil, and religious norms and customs, etc.). At the same time, both public and private citizens should be concerned to help the Christian Church flourish in our nation, since a collapse of Christian conversions, church plants, and influence will mark the end of America. Toleration of non-conformists thus presupposes cultural and religious dominance of some sort. This dominant culture ought to be Christian culture."

The end of the second sentence tells you everything you need to know about why this is absolute madness for Christianity and the Church: "whether sincerely or nominally." That is exactly what doomed the expressions of Christianity in Europe prior to WWII.  Everyone was "nominally" a Christian, but many were just paying lip service to that faith, or were counted as being a part of the Church with zero evidence that they even wanted to be.  This Cheap Grace horrified Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to have faith in Jesus Christ reduced to something that one could simply claim with zero discipleship simply because a person was meeting "cultural expectations" is a slap in the face of the Gospel.  The truth is, I don't want nominal Christians in my Church, and nor should any pastor worth his/her salt.  We need committed Christians, we need men and women willing to embrace self-sacrifice and service for the sake of others, we need people willing to pray for their enemies, and willing to turn the other cheek.  'Christian' Nationalists will eventually say the quite part out loud if you give them a chance.  Here Crenshaw has admitted that "nominal" Christians (i.e. ones without real saving faith) are good enough to be Heritage Americans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a much higher bar for inclusion: real genuine life-altering, Fruit of the Spirit producing, faith.

By the way, I don't want government support for Christianity.  That support is a Faustian Bargain, the costs are in the fine print.  Far better to have a government that is neutral, that protects the rights of all, and allows the Gospel to compete in the marketplace of ideas.  On a level playing field, the Gospel has nothing to worry about.

In the end, an article such as this one will garner enthusiastic cheers from those whose primary concern is earthly power for people who look, act, and think just like "us."  It should also make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up if you happen to look, act, or think outside of the mythical Heritage American mold.  The concept of Heritage Americans could be rejected solely on the basis of how it dismisses the slaughter of Native Americans, enslavement of Blacks, and contributions to American history of those who weren't White or didn't speak English.  On that basis alone this idea ought to be soundly rejected as an ugly relic of the racism of the past.  However, the way in which Crenshaw, and many others like him, present this as a boon to Christianity and the Church only enhances the danger that these ideas pose.  Make no mistake about it, there is no room at the Cross of Jesus Christ for racists, and no need for the Gospel to wield power over others.

For further reading, see also:

The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory, by Tim Alberta: A book review

Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer

The posts in my ongoing "Scripture refutes Christian Nationalism" series

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #35 Romans 8:20-23

 

Romans 8:20-23  New International Version

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

One of the reasons why the aims and hopes of 'Christian' Nationalism will always disappoint is because any success that may be achieved in this world with respect to the Kingdoms of This World will always turn out to be Fool's Gold.  The true gold of a pure and righteous kingdom is impossible in this age.  The entirety of Creation, Paul tells us in Romans has been "subjected to frustration," a status that it will continue to suffer under until that day when Christ returns and establishes his kingdom, the Kingdom of God.  

Because of this foundational truth, power in this world will always be tainted, it will always come with warning signs and caveats.  Don't get me wrong, this world needs righteous people in its leadership, we have had more than enough of evil men wielding power, but ultimately all such efforts at human self-improvement will come to naught.  There is value in nonetheless striving to build and maintain more ethical governments, but such efforts need to be recognized as at most a stewardship until the final triumph of Jesus Christ.

'Christian' Nationalism unfortunately, and dangerously, sells its followers on the idea that if "we" were to wield power things would be different.  The false hope is that a panacea on earth is right around the corner, if only "we" had more power.  "They" are not to be trusted with it, but "we" could be.  In reality, disciples of Jesus Christ ought to know better.  We are sojourners in this world, our citizenship is in heaven, and our service is that of self-sacrifice on behalf of the Kingdom of God that is coming.  

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.

Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.

The view from the Allegheny River Retreat Center

My wife and I moved to Franklin in January of 2012 when I was called to be the new pastor at the First Baptist Church of Franklin (the one next to the Sheetz station, the red brick one, not the other one).  In the years since we've come to know Franklin and Venango County as a place that has a lot of positive things going for it, and as a good place to raise our daughter.  I've worked closely during my twelve years here with my neighboring churches, with charities (including of course Mustard Seed Missions, which I helped to found and serve as the President of), and local government officials.  I think I have a solid understanding of what this community needs moving forward, and what it doesn't.

For example: Franklin (and Venango County) would benefit if the new owners of Joy Plant #1 are able to find good tenants who will hire a significant number of workers at a living wage; that seems like a fairly obvious one.  As a second example, we are blessed in this community to have Emmaus Haven, the Christian charity that runs the men's shelter in Siverly, but our community's people will benefit when Emmaus Haven is also able to open a shelter in our county to house women with children.  Thirdly, we would benefit from an influx of doctors, nurses, dentists, police officers, and all the other professions that we, like most rural communities in this generation, need more of.  The list could go on an on, but let me end it with this, our town and our county need to continue to have churches that preach the Word of God, maintain the faith handed down to us from our ancestors, and work together to help those in need in our community.  At present, this is something we have, a tremendous resource, and something worth every effort that I and thousands like me put into maintaining what we collectively refer to as The Church.

On the flip side, there are numerous things that could change about Franklin and Venango County that would not benefit the people of our community, things that would be a detriment to the efforts of Christians and non-Christians alike.  For example: While some might celebrate the jobs that a casino would bring, or the tax revenue, the dark side of gambling's affects on individuals and families would not benefit our community (that one is unlikely to come here is a blessing).  A second example of the kind of developments that would be unhelpful to the health and vitality of our community would be the opening of a strip club, the closing of one of our libraries, or the loss of another significant employer.

None of the preceding thoughts are all that controversial.  We all want our community to have good jobs and a safety net for those in need.

Which after a long-winded introduction brings us to the topic at hand, which is the proposed "Seven Mountain training center."  Would it benefit Franklin or Venango County if this dream were to become a reality?  It would not.  That may feel like a very definitive statement, even a judgmental one coming as it does from a local pastor, but my belief on this matter comes from a lifetime of experience within the Church, a career of serving local churches, and an understanding of history, both secular and religious.  Given that the future is unknowable, and what is better or worse for a community can be a subjective question (as our recent bruhaha over the Witch Walk demonstrated in spades), I will certainly understand those who don't see this in the same way that I do, but everything that I know about the Church, the Gospel, America, and democracy tells me that "Christian" Nationalism is a bad idea, and that Seven Mountain Dominionism is a particularly dangerous form of "Christian" Nationalism.

Why am I talking about "Christian" Nationalism attempting to come here to Franklin, PA anyway?  When did this happen?  In June of 2023, The Atlantic published an article written by Stephanie McCrummen about the efforts of Tami Barthen and her husband Kevin (the article is almost exclusively about Tami) who moved to Franklin, PA in 2017 looking to buy a retirement cabin, but instead bought the former Vision Quest property where they are in the process of turning it into a retreat center for "Christian" Nationalists under the name Allegheny River Retreat Center.  The website for the planned retreat center doesn't mention anything (that I could find) about the theological and political nature of its purpose, but given the daily social media postings from "prophets" associated with the New Apostolic Reformation that populate both Tami's page and that of the ARRC, and her stated intention to make the property a "Seven Mountains training center," it seems only fitting that the churches and community of Franklin and Venango County take notice of this effort.

{The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer.  I wrote this on 8/23/22 to explain why Seven Mountain Dominionism is so dangerous to the Church and to America.  For those unfamiliar with the term, Seven Mountain Dominionism is a subset of "Christian" Nationalism, a specific type of effort at turning the country into a "Christian Nation."  Throughout this essay I have continued my habit of putting the "Christian" in "Christian" Nationalism in quotation marks, not because it is a generally accepted grammatical practice, but in deference to my own dislike of the association of this movement, historically and today, with the love and peace of the faith and practice that I hold dear.  There is nothing authentically Christ honoring about Christian Nationalism.}

Some of you may have met Tami and/or Kevin, I have not, and they may indeed be pleasant people to share a meal with, and in their own way be faithful Christians who are seeking to honor God with their lives.  My purpose in writing is not to cast dispersions upon them, as people, I don't have any basis for judgment either way, nor any reason to share it if I did.  Rather, it is the ideas behind Seven Mountain Dominionism (and "Christian" Nationalism) that are dangerous.

I was unaware of this effort to open a retreat center or this article about it until last week.  I contacted Tami via FB instant messaging, after seeing that she has the article pinned to the top of the Retreat Center's FB page and also uses an image of it on her business card, to let her know that I would be writing an article about this proposed retreat center from the perspective of someone who believes strongly in the Separation of Church and State as well as Religious Freedom (two ideals that are anathema to the "Christian" Nationalist movement, as they are to Fundamentalists in every religion). I asked her if she wanted to clarify anything from the article.  In the ensuing conversation with instant messaging, Tami indicated that she had never heard of the New Apostolic Reformation (she shares multiple posts daily from that movement's prominent and nationally known leaders), that in addition, "I don't know what Christian Nationalism is," and stated that you cannot judge someone by a magazine article (which, again, she displays prominently inviting others to read it).  In the end, Tami told me that my "tone" was accusatory, but declined to state anything from the article that she believed was a mischaracterization.  That's the long way of saying, I tried to offer the people behind the Allegheny River Retreat Center the opportunity to disclaim their apparent connection to Dutch Sheets, Lance Wallnau, the New Apostolic Reformation, and/or "Christian" Nationalism, but was rebuffed. 

To read the article from the Atlantic, click here: THE WOMAN WHO BOUGHT A MOUNTAIN FOR GOD, by Stephanie McCrummen, The Atlantic, 6/20/23

To read the article from the  Atlantic, together with my response to it, click here: A response to: "The Woman Who Bought a Mountain for God", a nationally published article (on 6/20/23) about "Christian" Nationalism in Franklin, PA

I have written much over the years about the dangers of "Christian" Nationalism both to the Church and to the government, and especially to the rights of those who don't conform to the particular definition of the Church that would then be backed up by governmental coercion.  In fact, I'm still working on my series: Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism.  I've made it to number 30, Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #30 - John 17:16 & 18:36, but it'll be a while until I can work all the way to #62.

Let me make a few brief distinctions between the type of patriotism that can honor God and the "Christian" Nationalism that endangers the Gospel, the Church, and any nation it attempts to control.

1. There is a key difference between prayer for the government that hopes to make our democracy better for all who live in this land...and "Christian" Nationalism's willingness to overthrow the government and end democracy in order to win.

2. There is a key difference between working with, or conversely protesting against, the government as an exercise in freedom...and "Christian" Nationalism's claim of a God-given right to rule in his name over everyone else.

3. There is a key difference between influencing culture and the government for the better, seeking to make them more moral and righteous...and claiming that only you, and those like you, have the answers as to what that culture and government should be, and that those who disagree are in league with the Devil.

I am fully in favor of the first half of those three statements, and in fact I've done my share of all three.  But that's not what the committed "Christian" Nationalists have in mind when they envision what America would look like under their rule, they have the second half of those statements in mind.  

We have a good community here in Franklin and Venango County, it isn't perfect, we all know that, but it is one of the better places to live in our world today.  Working to maintain it is important to us all.  That being said, this is America, if they can raise the millions the project will need, the Allegheny River Retreat Center may indeed become a beacon of "Christian" Nationalist training that attracts speakers and guests from all over the country.  I'm not proposing that anyone take action to try to stop them from fulfilling their dream, and certainly don't want anyone to harass Tami or Kevin online or in-person, in part because I do believe in everyone's freedom of religion, including those who don't reciprocate.  Maybe this "prophecy" of what this retreat center could become will result in a functioning enterprise here in our town, maybe it won't.

No matter what happens next, the answer to falsehood is truth, the answer to darkness is light, and the answer to hate is love.  I truly believe every bit of that sentence.  So, if the planned "Seven Mountain retreat center" becomes a reality, my response to this militancy will be truth, light, and love, I won't respond with anything else even though I know in my heart, my mind, and in my soul, that this is not a good idea for our local churches or our town.

There certainly isn't time here to make the case that "Christian" Nationalism is the destructive force that I know it to be, I have however written and taught on this subject for years, so anyone seeking to learn more about this movement and how dangerous it is to the Church and America can simply continue reading some of the links below.

Here is a six hour seminar outlining what the Biblical relationship is between the Church and human government: What Every Christian Should Know About: The Church and Politics

Scripture Abuse: 2 Chronicles 7:14, idolatry, nationalism, and antisemitism

The irrefutable rejection of Christian Nationalism by the New Testament

The blasphemous "One Nation Under God" painting by Jon McNaughton

Sermon Video: The Debt you cannot repay: Love - Romans 13:6-8a

After telling the followers of Jesus that they have an obligation to pay their taxes, along with other things they may owe to those in authority like respect and honor, the Apostle Paul broadens the conversation to show us that we should discharge all of our obligations to the people in our lives.  Sometimes these things are material (money, time, labor) and sometimes they are intangible (dignity, kindness, hope), in each case we ought to stive to do our part.  However, there is one debt that we cannot possibly repay, yet must continue to strive toward doing so anyway: the debt of love.  We owe God an infinite debt of love (How could it not be infinite when the price paid for our ransom was the blood of Christ?), but rather than focus that effort of love on God who is not among us and has no needs, we are told to consider ourselves in debt permanently to each other, as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, with respect to love.

Sermon Video: Crime and Punishment from God's point-of-view, Romans 13:3-5

What does an ideal government do with respect to crime and punishment?  The Apostle Paul was well aware of the shortcomings of human governments, all of them fail to varying degrees to live up to the standard of being God's servant in this category, but there is still value in understanding what the responsibility of a government should be even when they fall short.

Sermon Video: A God honoring rebellion? Romans 13:1-2

In these verses the Apostle Paul lays out our responsibility as Christians to the human governments that we live under.  His statements are general principles rather than specific applications, and are based upon the reality that all authority ultimately rests with God (thus every human authority is a delegated one).

Church history has examples for us of the Church working to maintain the status quo, even when that state was unjust to most of its people, and examples of the Church standing with the oppressed and rebels, and bearing the consequences.

Rather than firm answers, this passage reminds us of the prayer, study, and deliberation that ought to go into our desire to live out our calling to be Christ-like in this world.  God-honoring Christians may arrive at different answers to these questions, what we all must do is respect God's authority enough to wrestle with them when we choose to act either for or against a particular governing authority.

The Bible doesn't mandate that Christians support Democracy, BUT preventing the Evil that Autocracy would unleash in America does

 

The Bible doesn't support Democracy.  Then again, the Bible doesn't denounce it either.  In fact, the Bible mentions Democracy not at all.  Most people familiar with the Bible and world history would assume this already, but there are numerous modern topics that were not part of the conversation in the Ancient World.  The Bible doesn't address any of these topics directly.  How could it?  What language would it use, and how could the original audience possibly understand it if it did and thus be edified by it?  Remember, the portions of scripture that collectively make up the Bible were first given to specific people on specific occasions, for specific purposes.  Because it is God's Word it has meaning and application beyond those initial considerations as part of its enduring quality, but not without them.  In other words, "It cannot mean for us what it never meant for them."  

The Bible was written in a world that knew only variations of one-man rule (occasionally one-woman rule).  Emperors, Kings, Chieftains and the like, some kind and benevolent, some vain and cruel.  It did not know Communism, Republics, Constitutional Monarchy or Democracy {The short-lived experiment in 'pure' Democracy in Athens being, if anything, a cautionary tale thanks to its demise, and by the time Rome became a part of the story in the New Testament it had long since ceased to be a Republic}.  As such, the Bible neither supports nor condemns modern concepts related to other ways to govern a nation.  This gives Christians freedom of conscience when considering what type of governmental system they prefer.  Instead of commands in this area, the Bible gives Christians principles to seek to apply such as the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31) or "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.  And what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

That being said, there is a growing trend in the West (Hungary is already there, but also Poland, France, and America) of Christians (a mix no doubt of self-professed cultural 'Christian' and genuine disciples of Christ) supporting Autocratic tendencies in government.  In response to societal pressures and fears, a growing number of Christians are beginning to prefer a 'strong man' type leadership to the leadership derived from fair elections.  In other words, they would rather have their team win without democracy than risk losing with it.  There are increasingly supporting having the policies they champion imposed by any means necessary, regardless the legality of the methods or the rights of others.  The most common rationale is to view modern politics as a war, one in which it doesn't matter how you play the game, only whether or not you win or lose.  In this view, democratic norms and morality are naïve, only power matters because the stakes are too high {There is much Christian Apocalypse related imagery and reasoning here as well.}

I have written often about the dangers of choosing power over principles, might over right, but what about the danger of choosing Autocracy over Democracy?  Are Christians obligated as a matter of morality to support, even defend, the modern concept of liberal democracy?

The answer is yes, and the reason doesn't have to involve a philosophical discussion regarding governance.  One need only ask this question, "If democracy falls, what will replace it?"  History has shown, repeatedly, that the answer is: something less just, less fair, and more prone to evil.  It would be the height of folly to believe that this time it will be different.  That we can hand power over to one man, one family, or one cabal, without watching our society descend into persecution of those who oppose the regime.  Until the invasion of Ukraine, it was fashionable in some Christian Nationalist circles to view Vladimir Putin as a 'savior' of Christianity against the forces of Islam and Liberalism.  As the mass graves in Ukraine, the rape of a country previously at peace attest, autocrats are no friend to Christian morality.  There is NO scenario where the American system of elections, of sharing power based upon their results, is replaced by one in which 'our team' has permanent rule that does not involve a massive increase in Evil.

Perhaps some Christians are thinking, "this time it will be different, you'll see."  They're wrong; both history and human nature make trusting the leadership of a nation to an autocrat to be a folly, but let's move to a 2nd line of reasoning: Do Unto Others.  Would you want to be on the losing side of an Autocratic regime?  Would you want your rights taken away by 'them', your role in choosing your nation's future reduced to nothing?  The answer is no, it would be tyranny and you would hate it.  HOW then can any Christian support the notion that Autocracy is just fine when my team wins if they would violently oppose it if the shoe was on the other foot?  If Christian Nationalists are not willing to live with permanent rule of the Democratic Party, how can they cheer on the notion of permanent rule by the Republican Party?  To do so, those trending toward autocratic methodology must consider the people on the other side to be less than us: they are less than those of us who are the 'real Americans'.  An ethic that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, that views every person as your neighbor that you must 'love as yourself' cannot tolerate this dissonance.  In fact, to embrace us over them, even to see the world as divided into these competing camps, is to begin to walk down the road that negates the truth that every person is made in the image of God. {Yes, the world is divided into Redeemed and Lost, Sheep and Goats, but those are not the lines being drawn here, this is political not spiritual warfare}

Can a Christian, in good conscience, turn against Democracy in favor of Autocracy?  Not if he/she loves their neighbor whom such a system would harm, as Jesus commanded us to do.

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: Jesus: Pay your taxes, and serve God - Mark 12:13-17

Hoping to trap Jesus, two rival groups that otherwise hate each other asked him if it was moral to pay taxes to Rome. Rather than answer with a Realpolitik answer, "What choice do we have?" or with rebel's "Give me Liberty, or give me Death" response, Jesus instead asks them to examine the coin and note that Caesar's face is on it. This leads Jesus to conclude that God or Rome is a false dichotomy, an attempt to force the people into a 'lesser of two evils' type situation, but God doesn't work that God. God doesn't choose any kind of evil. Instead, Jesus commands God's people to serve both their governmental authority AND God. The obligations are not mutually exclusive, they often overlap, and despite our grumbling about our obligation to the government, that which we owe to God is far more expansive, comprehensive, and stringent. After all, God demands heart, mind, soul, and body...In the end, the growing anti government attitude within American Evangelicalism is a sign of unhealthiness, a focus on pride and 'personal freedoms' over and above obligations and responsibilities, as such it is one that is foreign to Jesus' teachings in the Gospels.

An unhealthy overemphasis on politics

 

I'll admit, I've been sucked toward the rabbit hole of politics more in 2020 than any year since my youthful fascination decades ago.  With so much of consequence happening, between the pandemic, race relations, and the election, I can't be alone in this.  At the same time, the ongoing Culture War and hyper-partisanship have made our political theatre more and more toxic to those who both participate in it, and to those who observe it.

Perspective is lacking.  We need to refocus, particularly as Christians, on 'things above', {Colossians 3:1 (NIV) Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.} but how do we do that?  By putting politics back in its rightful, secondary, place.

1. God directs history, not man - Psalm 2

 Psalm 2:1-6 (NIV)

1 Why do the nations conspire

    and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth rise up

    and the rulers band together

    against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,

3 “Let us break their chains

    and throw off their shackles.”

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;

    the Lord scoffs at them.

5 He rebukes them in his anger

    and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,

6 “I have installed my king

    on Zion, my holy mountain.”

The thing is, as impactful as human decisions and choices are in our own lives, and as important as our collective decisions are for the future of our nation and culture, God is still in control, both individually and collectively.  The will of God is not gainsaid by anything that human beings do, or fail to do.  The ultimate example of the futility of striving against God is the 'victory' of Satan when Jesus Christ was betrayed, falsely convicted, sentenced to death, and horribly murdered on a cross.  This apparent defeat of God's champion, whether Satan knew him to truly be the Son of God or not, was not a derailment of God's purpose in sending the Messiah, but its fulfillment.  In 'defeat', God was victorious in establishing his will, destroying both Sin and Death through the resurrection of Jesus.  Because God was able to accomplish this humanly impossible victory, he certainly can handle the simple plots of, relatively, powerless humans.  This is not a denial of human freewill, but rather advocacy for the supremacy of God's will.  God, being God, is able to give humanity freewill AND still accomplish his will.  Another example?  Joseph's time in Egypt as a slave: Genesis 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.  Likewise, note the futility of Saul of Tarsus' efforts to thwart the will of God: Acts 26:14 (NLT) We all fell down, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is useless for you to fight against my will.[b]’ [26:14b Greek It is hard for you to kick against the oxgoads.]  Whatever politics is, it is not what determines the future.  We have given it too much credit, at the expense of trusting in God.

2. Human nature is unaffected by governments/society - Ecclesiastes 1:9

Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NIV)

What has been will be again,

    what has been done will be done again;

    there is nothing new under the sun.

Solomon, in his wisdom, grasped that human nature doesn't change.  This may seem like a fantastic claim to post-modern individuals living in the information age in a democratic society, but the people in our modern world are no different than the people of the Ancient Near East who lived in an agrarian society of kingdoms and empires where oral history was the primary means of retaining knowledge.  As much as technology and information availability have changed since the Industrial Revolution, a pace of change that has accelerated dramatically since the invention of the internet, human nature has 'evolved' not at all.  Human beings still respond to the same motivations, still have the same flaws, hope, and dreams.  The details change, but the substance does not.

What then is the impact of the static nature of humanity on politics?  It reminds us that whatever change a new election or new form of government may bring, that change impacts the surface.  Deep down, humanity remains what we have always been.  Beings created in the image of God who have fallen from grace and are powerless to alter that state and are thus dependent upon a Savior.  Those truths remain the same, whether one lives under a despotic emperor or has the right to vote for representatives.  Don't get me wrong, humanity is better off with political freedom, those blessings are of great value, but even they don't change human nature.  Our ancestors were less free, but they were no less human, and our freedom hasn't made us any more human.

3. The Church's victory is not dependent upon temporal power (or a lack thereof) - Matthew 16:18

Matthew 16:18 (NIV) And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

The Church does not require power to fulfill its mission.  In fact, the more power in society that the Church has wielded, the more mixed the results of evangelism and discipleship.  While the history of Christianity in Japan is the prime example that, 'the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church' is a myth.  Extreme and prolonged persecution can destroy a church.  The opposite of persecution, power, is also a danger to the church.  When Calvin merged the Church in Geneva with the State, making city business into church business, it was not 'heaven on earth', nor was it sustained long-term.  Likewise, when the Lutheran Church in German was at its most elevated status, it fell prey to Bonhoeffer's 'Cheap Grace', a form of religion without the commitment of the heart.

In the end, neither persecution nor power can deny the universal Church its final destiny as the Bride of Christ.  While local churches, denominations, or even national churches may thrive or fail as time wears on, the mission of the Church is not to conquer the physical/political world, but to share the Gospel with all peoples.  We are called to be servants, not rulers, and that calling is irrevocable. 

Revelation 19:6-9 (NIV)

6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:

“Hallelujah!

    For our Lord God Almighty reigns.

7 Let us rejoice and be glad

    and give him glory!

For the wedding of the Lamb has come,

    and his bride has made herself ready.

8 Fine linen, bright and clean,

    was given her to wear.”

(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)

9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

The final victory was secured at the Empty Tomb, the final chapter of the story has already been written.  The ebb and flow of human striving for temporal power pales in comparison to the drama unfolding through the generations as individuals are redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.

4. The corrosive nature of politics - Philippians 4:8

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.

The most detrimental thing to me, personally, during the heightened awareness to politics throughout 2020 has been the emotional pain caused by experiencing despicable human behavior being rewarded as 'good politics'.  When fellow citizens are pitted against one another, competing to outdo 'them' in duplicity and character assassination, we turn character and honor into a weakness, and make a lack of conscience or integrity a strength.  This may win elections, but it warps and degrades the electorate.  Christians, unless they choose to forgo these tactics and compete with integrity, are stained by joining in with 'politics as usual'.  

In addition to the corrosive impact of the way in which politics is waged, there is also the influence of vast sums of money.  It was Lord Acton who famously warned, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."  The same is true with money.  Money tends to corrupt, vast amounts of money tends to vastly corrupt.  We should not be surprised by this in the least: 1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV) For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Maybe after November 3rd things will calm down a bit.  Maybe our fascination with the machinations in Washington will subside for a while and we can get back to focusing on what's happening with our families and community.  But it won't happen if we don't make it happen.  Elections matter, who governs our nation and how they govern matters, they just don't matter nearly as much as our current toxic political drama implies.

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

This is a serious question, I'm actually curious about what you would answer:

Given that as of today, 10/13/20, there have been at least 214,000 COVID-19 deaths in America, and given that those numbers are expected to be nearly 400,000 by February of 2021 (that is, only 111 days from now): At what point would governmental (local, state, or federal) restrictions (shutdowns, crowd limits, mask mandates) be justified in your mind?

1% of the current US population (331 million) would be over 3 million deaths. Thankfully, we have avoided this nightmare scenario {thanks in part to mitigation efforts, both voluntary and imposed}. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of less than 1%? Is economic hardship justified for less than 1%? Are limitations on the freedom of a country's citizens justifiable for less than 1%?

For comparison: In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected with the Spanish Flu 1918-1920, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population in 1918, those % amount to 1.588 million to 2.681 million Americans with today's larger population)

{COVID-19 death projections}

As of today, we are approaching 1/10th of 1% of America's residents killed by COVID-19 (331,000), and should surpass that number before Christmas. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of 1/10th of 1%?

The final number killed by this pandemic will, Lord willing, remain significantly less than 1%. What then does the Christian worldview offer to guide us regarding our level of concern for harms that may come to a small minority among us?

1. Abraham's conversation with God about Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis 18:20-32 (NIV) 20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[a] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[b] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” 26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” 29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” 32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

If there had been 10 righteous people in Sodom (sadly, there were not even 10), the city would have been spared. Without knowing the population of the city at that time, it is impossible to judge how small a minority this would have been, but it seems clear that it was less than 1% (i.e. that the city contained more than 1,000 people). While this example involves divine judgement, not governmental policy, it illuminates a principle that can be applied from the former to the latter.

2. Jesus' parable of the 99 and the 1 sheep.

Luke 15:3-7 (NIV) 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The numbers here are helpful, only 1% of the sheep are in danger in Jesus' parable, yet the shepherd leaves the 99 'in open country', not safe in a pen or with another shepherd, in order to rescue the lost 1. Once again, this is a spiritual example involving God's justice and mercy, but it too vindicates concern for the minority, even one as small as 1%.

3. Any is too many when Peter reflects on God's purposes.

2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Governmental officials, not having the wisdom or power of God, have to make hard choices. They sometimes must make choices that will lead to the harm of some in order to protect others. From God's perspective, there are no 'throw away' people. All of humanity is created in the image of God. Every person has a soul, every person is one for whom Christ was willing to die.

Conclusion: From a Christian worldview perspective, whether one is a libertarian or a socialist, a Republican or a Democrat, or any other political view or allegiance, the biblical model remains clear: One is worth sacrificing for, tiny minorities have value in the sight of God.

What precautions should be taken, and who should be encouraging or ordering them is a political question. Christian men and women of good intentions can and do disagree about HOW to put our concern for those in need into action {and not just on this topic}. However, what we don't have the luxury of doing, as Christ followers, is making a cold calculation that 1/10th of 1% of Americans are not WORTH sacrificing for. That this pandemic primarily affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions is irrelevant from a moral point of view. As Christians, we remain beholden to the Law of Love:

Mark 12:28-31 (NIV) 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

The Prophet Amos: What provokes God's wrath? - Injustice and False Worship

Amos was an ordinary man, a farmer from Judah, chosen by God in the 8th century BC to go to Israel to warn the people of the impending wrath of God.  Israel was the name given to the 10 northern tribes that broke away from the Davidic dynasty following the death of Solomon (due to the arrogance of Solomon's son Rehoboam).  The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrian Empire in 722 BC, less than two generations after the warning given to it by Amos.

With the idea of Justice prominent in our conversations as Americans and as Christian Americans, it benefits us to consider what the Justice of God looks like.  What provoked the wrath of God against his Covenant people of Israel and Judah?  What offenses were the prophets commanded to condemn?

The text below is excerpted from the book of Amos, its nine chapters can be read in twenty or thirty minutes; please do so.  These texts appear in the order they are given, not arranged thematically.  My commentary will appear in bold after each text.

 Amos 2:4-5 (NIV)

4 This is what the Lord says:

“For three sins of Judah,

    even for four, I will not relent.

Because they have rejected the law of the Lord

    and have not kept his decrees,

because they have been led astray by false gods,

    the gods their ancestors followed,

5 I will send fire on Judah

    that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.”

Judah is not the focus of Amos' ministry, but his prophecy begins by announcing God's wrath against the surrounding peoples, primarily for their violence toward neighboring peoples, including the people of Judah to the south.  Judah's sin is more specific, involving idolatry and the worship of false gods.  Although Judah was a troubled society, their kingdom endured until 586 BC when Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, they too committed the same type of sins that Israel will be charged with by Amos, and God sent them prophets as a warning in turn. 

Amos 2:6-8 (NIV)

6 This is what the Lord says:

“For three sins of Israel,

    even for four, I will not relent.

They sell the innocent for silver,

    and the needy for a pair of sandals.

7 They trample on the heads of the poor

    as on the dust of the ground

    and deny justice to the oppressed.

Father and son use the same girl

    and so profane my holy name.

8 They lie down beside every altar

    on garments taken in pledge.

In the house of their god

    they drink wine taken as fines.

Here begins the indictment: (1) selling the innocent for silver, (2) trampling the poor, and (3) denying justice to the oppressed.  The society of Israel systematically oppressed the poor, taking advantage of them both in business and in the courts of law.  These themes will be repeated throughout Amos' prophecy.  In addition, the people of Israel indulged in sexual immorality ('Father and son use the same girl') and mocked God by coming to his altar while retaining a garment taken in pledge (an act forbidden by the Law, Exodus 22:26-27).  Lastly, they were drinking wine in God's house that had been taken as fines (presumably unjust fines).  These last two point toward a pattern of false/insincere worship.  God will not be mocked.  Galatians 6:7 (NIV) Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.  To worship God while in the middle of conducting sinful behavior, will not be tolerated.

Amos 2:11-12 (NIV)

11 “I also raised up prophets from among your children

    and Nazirites from among your youths.

Is this not true, people of Israel?”

declares the Lord.

12 “But you made the Nazirites drink wine

    and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.

God was not silent when these injustices and blasphemies occurred.  His response was to send prophets, but the people made a mockery of the Nazirites (who had taken vows not to drink alcohol) and told the prophets to be quiet.  This idea will be repeated in Amos, the powerful do not like to be reminded of their sins (anymore than the rest of us, but they have the power to silence their critics).

Amos 3:1-3 (NIV)

1 Hear this word, people of Israel, the word the Lord has spoken against you—against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt:

2 “You only have I chosen

    of all the families of the earth;

therefore I will punish you

    for all your sins.”

3 Do two walk together

    unless they have agreed to do so?

This is a key point that is often overlooked: God holds his own people MORE accountable than the rest of humanity.  When we talk about Justice, in society, we hope for equality and fairness, but when we consider God's Justice, we need to be very aware that God is both more stern and more gracious to his people.  He is willing to forgive our sins, if we repent, but highly intolerant of our immorality if we harden our hearts.  I know that many of my fellow Christians consider America to be the New Israel (Replacement theology), thinking of us in the same Covenant terms that were given by Moses to the people.  The theology of this position is flawed, and that can be demonstrated by examining Paul's letter to the Romans, but there's an important reason to be glad we aren't the New Israel: We wouldn't survive God's wrath.  Israel was held to a higher standard than their neighbors, no nation in our world today would survive such scrutiny. 

Amos 4:1 (NIV)

4 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,

    you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy

    and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”

The upper class women of Israel were as involved in crushing the poor as their husbands, laughing at the situation in a way worthy of Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake!"

Amos 4:4-5 (NIV)

4 “Go to Bethel and sin;

    go to Gilgal and sin yet more.

Bring your sacrifices every morning,

    your tithes every three years.

5 Burn leavened bread as a thank offering

    and brag about your freewill offerings—

boast about them, you Israelites,

    for this is what you love to do,”

declares the Sovereign Lord.

This section shows God's sense of humor.  In this case, biting irony.  The people were still obeying the FORM of correct worship while their hearts were far from God.  They oppressed the poor and needy during the week and worshiped the LORD on the Sabbath.  Such worship is not only fruitless, it actually offends and angers God.  The prophet Isaiah makes this clear, "Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being.  They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them." (Isaiah 1:14)  Once again, if America were the New Israel, it wouldn't matter how many people were in church on Sunday morning when God considered our nation's ample inequality, injustice, and immorality (sins that God's people sadly participate in all too readily).  As it is, we cannot hope to receive God's blessing as a nation if we don't address the issues of injustice in our society.

Amos 5:10-12 (NIV)

10 There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court

    and detest the one who tells the truth.

11 You levy a straw tax on the poor

    and impose a tax on their grain.

Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,

    you will not live in them;

though you have planted lush vineyards,

    you will not drink their wine.

12 For I know how many are your offenses

    and how great your sins.

There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes

    and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

The pronouncement against injustice continues: (1) injustice in the courts through false testimony, (2) heavy taxes upon the poor, (3) the taking of bribes to deprive the poor of justice.  Looking at a list like this, I'm struck by the animosity toward the idea of social justice in America.  Many Christians, and a not a few prominent Christian leaders, demonize the idea of seeking equality before the Law, calling it a political ploy or a Leftist plot {See: Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"}.  And yet, God cares about these issues enough to make them the FOCUS of the warning of his chosen prophet that judgment is at hand.  I'm not saying that those advocating for social justice are without error (in their tactics or judgments), but how can the very IDEA of seeking equality in the face of injustice be against the will of God?  The Scriptures say otherwise.

Amos 5:14-15 (NIV)

14 Seek good, not evil,

    that you may live.

Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you,

    just as you say he is.

15 Hate evil, love good;

    maintain justice in the courts.

Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy

    on the remnant of Joseph.

How can God's people avert the disaster heading their way?  Repent and administer true justice.  This is one piece that is often missing in the discussion of America's history of racism.  IF we truly have repented of the way in which our ancestors treated Blacks, Indians, and various other minorities, we would now be actively seeking to "maintain justice in the courts."  In other words, the sincerity of our repentance, as a people, is not judged by our claims of sincerity but by the results of our actions.  Actions speak louder than words.  The verdict on whether or not America retains systemic racism will show itself in the way in which our justice system treats ALL the people.  IF we have repented, we will live in a way that proves it.  {This is what true repentance always looks like in the Bible, without follow-up actions that prove it is genuine, the repentance is not considered legitimate.}

Amos 5:21-24 (NIV)

21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;

    your assemblies are a stench to me.

22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,

    I will not accept them.

Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,

    I will have no regard for them.

23 Away with the noise of your songs!

    I will not listen to the music of your harps.

24 But let justice roll on like a river,

    righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Harsh words from God (via Amos) about the value of the worship of the people.  God does NOT accept worship from a people mired in immorality.  Why?  Because God is holy, his people must seek righteousness, must "hate what is evil; cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9)  If they do not, no amount of worship, offerings, or singing will be accepted by God.  What is the antidote to false worship?  "let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!"  And yet, churches that involve themselves in helping the poor, in seeking racial harmony and reconciliation, often by working for a more just and fair legal system, are accused of abandoning the Gospel.  The Word of God warns us of the frailty of a path that focuses upon worship and ignores injustice, of one that claims to follow God on Sunday, but ignores the needs of the people in our community the other six days of the week.  The Gospel call for salvation by grace through faith must always remain central to our ministry, but that message is made COMPLETE (by actions that demonstrate the sincerity of our faith) when we work for righteousness in our community.

Amos 7:10-13 (NIV)

10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: “Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. 11 For this is what Amos is saying:

“‘Jeroboam will die by the sword,

    and Israel will surely go into exile,

    away from their native land.’”

12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13 Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom.”

Was Amos welcomed with open arms?  Nope.  The leadership in Israel were not pleased with Amos' warning and told him to go home.  Why?  Because the sacred space at Bethel, and the authority of the king couldn't be bothered with hearing from God.  There is irony here, of course, that those in leadership should be most keen to hear from God, but are in fact the least.  Why?  Because their hearts are hard, and because they benefit from the oppression of the poor.  That dynamic is true in every society in human history, ours included.

Amos 8:4-6 (NIV)

4 Hear this, you who trample the needy

    and do away with the poor of the land,

5 saying,

“When will the New Moon be over

    that we may sell grain,

and the Sabbath be ended

    that we may market wheat?”—

skimping on the measure,

    boosting the price

    and cheating with dishonest scales,

6 buying the poor with silver

    and the needy for a pair of sandals,

    selling even the sweepings with the wheat.

Lastly, Amos broadens the indictment of oppression of the poor with examples: (1) the eagerness of the merchants to get back to business as soon as the Sabbath is over, (2) the dishonest business practices that cheat the customers.  I've also read that the term Economic Justice is an affront to Justice, an insult to God.  That doesn't seem to be the case here.  The prophet of God is concerned with something as commonplace as dishonest scales.  Should not the Church of Jesus Christ concern itself with the ways in which the poor in our nation are treated?  Should not issues of homelessness, housing, education, addiction, and the need for a living wage be our concern?  God-honoring Christians can disagree about HOW to address such issues, about which political or legal solutions are best, but we have been given no wiggle room as to the question of whether or not we should CARE about these things.

What does the book of Amos illustrate to us about God and Justice? (1) God cares about legal injustices, (2) God cares about economic injustices, (3) God holds the rich and powerful accountable for these injustices, (4) God will not accept worship from his people if they are involved in  perpetuating these injustices, and (5) the rich and powerful are unlikely to appreciate being called to task by a prophetic voice speaking the Words of God.  

Social Justice?  Racial Justice?  Legal Justice?  Economic Justice?  God cared about them then, and their lack provoked his wrath.  God does not change.  God cares about them now, their lack still provokes his wrath.  The prophet Amos was called to bring to the people's attention these failings, we honor God when we do likewise in our time and place.