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.

The self-destructive American motto: Freedom > Responsibility. Christians should be ashamed at how they've embraced it.

Clara wearing a mask during our recent trip to Disney World

I typically read the letters to the editor in our local newspaper.  By now some of the regulars, for better and for worse, are known to me, I expect either a well reasoned or unhinged letter based upon the name at the bottom.  In today's case, it wasn't the name that caught my attention, but a quote that accurately sums up what many (most?) Americans feel about freedom: morality has little to no claim on their lives.

"A true Christian would never try to force those around them to do things that infringe on the freedoms, liberties and possibly their health, simply for their own self preservation." - 10/29/21 letter to the editor

The topic, as you may have guessed, is health mandates, in this case the requirement in PA that children wears masks at school.  The writer of the letter took umbrage with a previous writer's call to protect the "least of these" by asking children to follow the guidance of public health officials and organizations.  At the end of the letter the writer suggests reading the books of Daniel and Revelation, revealing that an apocalyptic mindset has also influenced that sentiment, but we have seen this attitude over and over on a whole range of issues where Freedom is claimed as the superior standard, outclassing morality and negating its obligations.  One might expect such an attitude from libertines, from those who do not believe that God exists and therefore do not concern themselves with being judged for their actions in this life, but far too often the staunchest defendants of the notion that they owe little to no obligation to their neighbors, certainly not if the government is the one telling them to do it, are those who also claim allegiance to Jesus Christ.  This is a paradox, and not a good one.

I saw similar responses revolving around instances of mass shootings, racism, and the plight of refugees.  In each instance, the person objecting to proposed responses did so from a stance of autonomy, without allowing that he or she might have an obligation toward neighbor, stranger, or even enemy.  In statement after statement of politically informed statements about freedoms, the question of discharging one's obligations as a Christian is glossed over.  And yet, the Word of God speaks in a very different voice on such matters.  In God's Word, Freedom is not the goal, it is simply the door to true service, once we have been set free from sin, our real self-sacrifice begins.

1 Peter 2:16  New International Version

Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.

Galatians 5:13  New International Version

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

Matthew 10:8  New International Version

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

Romans 1:14  New International Version

I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish.

Romans 13:8  New International Version

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

Here's the thing.  Nobody is obligated toward their fellow human being, nobody has a greater responsibility to die to self and serve others, than the disciple of Jesus Christ.  Instead of being on the forefront pushing cries of 'freedom!!' in the face of those who may have a claim upon us, we should already be serving them, helping them, sacrificing on their behalf, long before they had the chance to ask.  Christians should not be required by the government to curtail their freedom, they should volunteer.

The letter's author chose to use the word 'true' in front of Christian.  Ironically, that choice is important, for as Jesus made all too clear, it is not who we claim to be that counts to God, for many will claim to have followed him only to be tragically shown their folly on the Day of Judgment, but how we live that will validate our profession of faith.  Christians should talk about freedom less than others, not more, for to us obligation speaks with a much louder voice.  That American Christians often do the opposite is all you need to know about the health of the Church in our nation.  

More of my writing on these topics:

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

Why are we free? Galatians 5:13-14 {This one contains a link to a short message I gave at Franklin's 4th of July celebration in 2018}

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

How should Christians act during a pandemic? - Wisdom from Martin Luther's experience with the Plague

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Sermon Video: Trust God, hold Man responsible - Mark 6:7-13

 Jesus sends out his 12 disciples in teams of two with a message of repentance and the power to cast out impure spirits and heal the sick. While we might wonder if the disciples are ready for such responsibility, the bigger surprise is that Jesus forbids them to take any supplies with them for the journey. Why? Not because God wants to reward poor planning or laziness, and not because God's servants should suffer from physical deprivation (as some sort of spiritual discipline), because they shouldn't. Rather it is an object lesson for the disciples, and for us, that when God promises to do something he will be faithful and fulfill it. In addition, the passage offers a stark warning to those who fail to heed the call to repent: the disciples are to symbolically 'disown' the town/village by shaking the dust of their sandals off as they leave. God is always trustworthy, our fellow man (including ourselves) needs to be held to account.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A vulgar anti-Trump sign and an attempt to kidnap the governor of Michigan - Biblical wisdom for an uncivil society: "'I have the right to do anything' you say - but not everything is beneficial." 1 Corinthians 10:23-24

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (NIV)  23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

A recent incident in Oil City, PA is indicative of the overall lack of civility and kindness that inhabits the political sphere in this generation.  {Judge: Anti-Trump Signs Can Stay Up Through Election Day - by Aly Delp of Explore Venango October 8, 2020}  An Oil City man decided to place an anti-Trump sign in his yard.  That in and of itself is not uncommon in an election year, both homemade and signs furnished by the campaigns are common, including those against one candidate or the other.  What made this sign stand out was the decision to place a vulgarity (the 4 letter one starting with F) in front of Trump's name.  This is, a step removed from a sign that might say, for example, 'Dump Trump', or one that said, 'Say no to Joe'.  Clever, witty, or sarcastic is one thing, crass, crude, and rude is another.  This one sign is hardly an outlier given the current animosity, even rage, that is being expressed by politicians, pundits, partisans, and the people who gravitate toward them.  A quick look at Youtube, Facebook, or the letters to the editor (if you're old school like me) will reveal a plethora of variations on this theme: 'They're trying to destroy America!"  "If they win, you can forget about your freedom or prosperity!"  Political mud flinging always crescendos when an election draws near, that was as true in Ancient Athens as it was during the Roman Republic, or the bitter election between Thomas Jefferson and President John Adams in 1800 {1800 United States presidential election}.  In that election, the Federalists claimed that the Democratic-Republicans would ruin the country, and the Democratic-Republicans countered that the Federalists had subverted republican principles (The Alien and Sedition Acts were later partly invalidated by the Supreme Court).  Sound familiar?  In case you're wondering, neither the Federalists nor the Democratic-Republicans destroyed the country or its system of government.

But this is just talk, right?  Nobody takes all this seriously, do they?  Actually, they do.  Thirteen men (thus far) have been charged with plotting to kidnap (and presumably murder) the governor of Michigan, target police officers in their homes, and plant bombs.  {F.B.I. Says Michigan Anti-Government Group Plotted to Kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Authorities charged 13 men, some of whom were accused of plotting to storm the State Capitol building and planning to start a civil war. - by Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, Shaila Dewan and Kathleen Gray, the New York Times, 10/8/20}  Unfortunately, if you read the article (or others covering this act of domestic terrorism) you will likely read that Governor Whitmer and President Trump have chosen to use this moment to criticize each other rather than call for calm.  A thwarted act of domestic terrorism was not enough to break through the partisan goggles, the fight between the two parties didn't even pause.

Where then can we look for wisdom in this chaos?  To what standard should Christians hold themselves?  The words of the Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth at the start of this post point us in the right direction.  As Americans, we have 1st Amendment rights to say far more than is beneficial or constructive.  We can, legally, say things that are detrimental and destructive.  When we do so, there will indeed be real-world consequences ranging from broken relationships, to divided churches, to civil unrest, to even domestic terrorism.  What we can say/do and what we should say/do are NOT the same thing.  As Christians, we are called to a higher standard than legality.  We are called to seek the good of others, to choose righteousness.

What Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians is self-control.  This is not a popular topic, but it is an essential aspect of Christian discipleship.  As followers of Jesus Christ, we must choose to limit our own freedom for the sake of others.  This perspective affects our personal relationships, our business endeavors, and also our civic and political engagements.  Self-control is one of the Fruit of the Spirit.  It is not an optional part of being a Christian, but an integral one.  

It is past time that we, as Christians, choose to walk away from this toxic environment.  The politics of mutual destruction can have neither our participation nor our support, for they are clearly not beneficial, constructive, or seeking the good of others.

How should Christians act during a pandemic? - Wisdom from Martin Luther's experience with the Plague

The response of American Christians to the COVID-19 pandemic has run the gamut from faithful adherence to CDC guidelines, to open and proud defiance of recommended precautions.  The root causes behind these extreme variances is itself an interesting, but separate topic.  The question of the moment is this: How should Christians act during a pandemic?
On August 2nd, 1527, the bubonic plague (Black Death) returned to the German city of Wittenberg.  Many of the town's residents fled (the students and faculty of the University were advised to flee the city), but Martin Luther stayed put.  1527 was 10 years after the posting of Luther's famous 95 thesis, 6 years after Luther was excommunicated in 1521, the same year that he defended his beliefs before the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms.
The risk of staying to Luther and his family was not insubstantial.  While his wife Katie survived a bout of the Plague while pregnant with the family's second child, the girl Elisabeth died in infancy before her eighth month (perhaps weakened by the Plague, perhaps not).

An English translation of the text of Luther's letter in its entirety may be read here: Whether One May Flee From A Deadly Plague - by Martin Luther.  Relevant excerpts will appear below in italics with my commentary in bold.  Three factors to consider when weighing Luther's words: (1) The way in which the plague spread was little understood, except that contact with those infected was dangerous.  (2) There was little in the way of efficacious treatments with death rates as high as 30%, and (3) there was no system of hospitals to care for the sick, if family or friends could not help, the sick would die alone.

Grace and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Your letter, sent to me at Wittenberg, was received some time ago. You wish to know whether it is proper for a Christian to run away from a deadly plague. I should have answered long ago, but God has for some time disciplined and scourged me so severely that I have been unable to do much reading or writing. Furthermore, it occurred to me that God, the merciful Father, has endowed you so richly with wisdom and truth in Christ that you yourself should be well qualified to decide this matter or even weightier problems in his Spirit and grace without our assistance.

Luther wrote to Rev. Dr. Johann Hess, a fellow Lutheran pastor at Breslau.  Before giving his own opinion on the matter, Luther expresses confidence that the wisdom of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit, should have made the answer to Hess' question apparent without Luther's insights.  In our current situation, facing COVID-19, one would hope that Christians could arrive at God honoring positions through applying the wisdom that they already should posses as followers of Jesus Christ.  Given the wide-range of responses, however, as well as the animosity that these various positions have brought with them toward those who hold differing views, it seems that we too need Luther's wisdom to help us see things more clearly.

Those who are engaged in a spiritual ministry such as preachers and pastors must likewise remain steadfast before the peril of death. We have a plain command from Christ, “A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep but the hireling sees the wolf coming and flees” [John 10:11]. For when people are dying, they most need a spiritual ministry which strengthens and comforts their consciences by word and sacrament and in faith overcomes death. However, where enough preachers are available in one locality and they agree to encourage the other clergy to leave in order not to expose themselves needlessly to danger, I do not consider such conduct sinful because spiritual services are provided for and because they would have been ready and willing to stay if it had been necessary. We read that St. Athanasius fled from his church that his life might be spared because many others were there to administer his office. Similarly, the brethren in Damascus lowered Paul in a basket over the wall to make it possible for him to escape, Acts 9 [:25]. And also in Acts 19 [:30] Paul allowed himself to be kept from risking danger in the marketplace because it was not essential for him to do so. 

In Luther's view, the clergy were obligated to ensure that ministry continued among the people, even during times of plague.  He did however, note an important caveat, only such as were needed should expose themselves to danger.  This theme will be developed by Luther throughout the letter: to expose oneself unnecessarily to danger is to tempt God, and is thus immoral.  This has relevance for the ongoing debate about 'reopening' churches.  {update 8/21: The same principle applies regarding mask wearing and vaccinations, as those issue continue to be contested}  We are blessed in this generation with the ability to worship remotely.  In this way, we can both fulfill our obligation to continue to worship and teach the Word of God, and minimize the risk of spreading contagion.

Yes, no one should dare leave his neighbor unless there are others who will take care of the sick in their stead and nurse them. In such cases we must respect the word of Christ, “I was sick and you did not visit me …” [Matt. 25:41–46]. According to this passage we are bound to each other in such a way that no one may forsake the other in his distress but is obliged to assist and help him as he himself would like to be helped.

Given the lack of public medical care, one of Luther's primary concerns was that brotherly/neighborly love be maintained as a witness to Christ.  Times of disaster do not put our obligations to each other on hold.  {Update 8/21: This same passage is one reason why I have not kept silent in the face of anti-vax attitudes based upon non-factual (that is, lies) information.  Should I turn a blind eye to those who if they continue on this path are likely to become sick, and some die??  No, for the same reason that I would caution against other choices that a Christian would make to harm his/her Temple, we are not our own, our bodies do not belong to us, Jesus paid the price for them.}

 To flee from death and to save one’s life is a natural tendency, implanted by God and not forbidden unless it be against God and neighbor, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 4 [5:29], “No man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it.” It is even commanded that every man should as much as possible preserve body and life and not neglect them, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 [:21–26] that God has so ordered the members of the body that each one cares and works for the other...How much more appropriate it is therefore to seek to preserve life and avoid death if this can be done without harm to our neighbor, inasmuch as life is more than food and clothing, as Christ himself says in Matthew 5 [6:25]

Much has been said during this pandemic about 'living in fear', as if taking precautions is somehow against living by faith.  Martin Luther disagreed, strongly.  He saw fear of contagion and death as a natural, even God given, tendency.  As a member of the body of Christ, we each have an obligation to protect our own health, as much as possible, "unless it be against God and neighbor".  Rather than a sign of weakness, or of lack of faith, taking necessary precautions to protect own's own life is a sign of gratitude toward God (for the giving of that life in the first place).

Examples in Holy Scripture abundantly prove that to flee from death is not wrong in itself. Abraham was a great saint but he feared death and escaped it by pretending that his wife, Sarah, was his sister. Because he did so without neglecting or adversely affecting his neighbor, it was not counted as a sin against him. His son, Isaac, did likewise. Jacob also fled from his brother Esau to avoid death at his hands. Likewise, David fled from Saul, and from Absalom. The prophet Uriah escaped from King Jehoiakim and fled into Egypt. The valiant prophet, Elijah, 1 Kings 19 [:3], had destroyed all the prophets of Baal by his great faith, but afterward, when Queen Jezebel threatened him, he became afraid and fled into the desert. Before that, Moses fled into the land of Midian when the king searched for him in Egypt. Many others have done likewise. All of them fled from death when it was possible and saved their lives, yet without depriving their neighbors of anything but first meeting their obligations toward them. Yes, you may reply, but these examples do not refer to dying by pestilence but to death under persecution. Answer: Death is death, no matter how it occurs. According to Holy Scripture God sent his four scourges: pestilence, famine, sword, and wild beasts. If it is permissible to flee from one or the other in clear conscience, why not from all four? Our examples demonstrate how the holy fathers escaped from the sword; it is quite evident that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob fled from the other scourge, namely, hunger and death, when they went to Egypt to escape famine, as we are told in Genesis [40–47]

Here Luther cites numerous examples from the Heroes of the Faith, that even men such as Abraham and David fled from danger.  In Luther's mind, to wisely flee from the threat of violence is not different than protecting oneself against wild animals, famine, or in this case, pestilence.  {Update 8/21: This line is so important, "Death is death, no matter how it occurs", Luther saw it as a Christian duty to avoid unnecessary risk, not a matter of personal choice or freedom at all}

By such reasoning, when a house is on fire, no one should run outside or rush to help because such a fire is also a punishment from God. Anyone who falls into deep water dare not save himself by swimming but must surrender to the water as to a divine punishment. Very well, do so if you can but do not tempt God

Here Luther counters the folly of fatalism from those who proclaim any misfortune to be God's punishment.  When taken to its logical extreme, such people should not seek food or shelter either, trusting in God's providence.  Today's version of this outlook is on display from those who ignore social distancing while yelling, "I'm covered by the blood of Jesus".  To ignore the wisdom which God has given us, through modern medicine, as some sort of way of publicly proclaiming one's faith, is both an act of pride, and an attempt to tempt God into protecting us from our own folly.  {Update 8/21: Likewise, those who proclaim that faith is the best defense, making a vaccination unnecessary are tempting God, to do so is BAD theology}.  

We should then need no apothecaries or drugs or physicians because all illnesses are punishment from God. Hunger and thirst are also great punishments and torture. Why do you eat and drink instead of letting yourself be punished until hunger and thirst stop of themselves? Ultimately such talk will lead to the point where we abbreviate the Lord’s Prayer and no longer pray, “deliver us from evil, Amen,” since we would have to stop praying to be saved from hell and stop seeking to escape it. It, too, is God’s punishment as is every kind of evil. Where would all this end? From what has been said we derive this guidance: We must pray against every form of evil and guard against it to the best of our ability in order not to act contrary to God, as was previously explained. If it be God’s will that evil come upon us and destroy us, none of our precautions will help us. 

The proper outcome of faith is not fatalism, but realism.  If medicine exists, use it.  If precautions can be taken, follow them.  If, after having done this, it is still the will of God that we should become ill, and having done so, that we should die, so be it.  The people of God were told to pray for deliverance for a reason.  Luther was clear about whether or not we need to do our part to protect ourselves against the evil of the plague, "guard against it to the best of our ability".  The important questions for much America's Christians: Why are small precautions, that cost us comparatively little, the cause of such anger and defiance?

In the same way we must and we owe it to our neighbor to accord him the same treatment in other troubles and perils, also. If his house is on fire, love compels me to run to help him extinguish the flames... A man who will not help or support others unless he can do so without affecting his safety or his property will never help his neighbor. He will always reckon with the possibility that doing so will bring some disadvantage and damage, danger and loss.

Once again, our obligation to our neighbor is no different when facing an invisible contagion than when facing visible flames.  It will always cost us something to help our neighbor, and there will always be excuses to hand for those who want to find them.  {Update 8/21: Love compels me to urge my family, friends, and neighbors to be vaccinated, Love compels me to 'run to help'.  Don't tell me to ignore the Law of Love when God has commanded me to follow it!}

It would be well, where there is such an efficient government in cities and states, to maintain municipal homes and hospitals staffed with people to take care of the sick so that patients from private homes can be sent there — as was the intent and purpose of our forefathers with so many pious bequests, hospices, hospitals, and infirmaries so that it should not be necessary for every citizen to maintain a hospital in his own home. That would indeed be a fine, commendable, and Christian arrangement to which everyone should offer generous help and contributions, particularly the government. Where there are no such institutions — and they exist in only a few places — we must give hospital care and be nurses for one another in any extremity or risk the loss of salvation and the grace of God. Thus it is written in God’s word and command, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and in Matthew 7 [:12], “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”

Public healthcare was almost nonexistent in Luther's day.  We are so very much more blessed in that regard.  Our response today?  Continue to support those institutions, the workers who risk their lives there, and the politicians who ensure that they have the resources they need to help the sick.  {Update 8/21: Having prayed with nurses and staff in our local hospital during the height here locally of the pandemic, this sentiment is only strengthened in me; they were (are) doing the Lord's work and require our support.  Additionally, note that Luther was in favor of government's involvement in healthcare, he wanted them to help the people.}

 Because we know that it is the devil’s game to induce such fear and dread, we should in turn minimize it, take such courage as to spite and annoy him, and send those terrors right back to him. And we should arm ourselves with this answer to the devil: “Get away, you devil, with your terrors! Just because you hate it, I’ll spite you by going the more quickly to help my sick neighbor

This is the balance that Luther is calling for: One the one hand, take necessary precautions to protect our own lives and not spread contagion, on the other, do what needs to be done to help those in need.  Thanks to our much greater understanding about how disease is spread, we have the opportunity to do both of these things without compromise.  We can make sure that our neighbors are not neglected during times of crisis like this pandemic without recklessly endangering them or us.

This I well know, that if it were Christ or his mother who were laid low by illness, everybody would be so solicitous and would gladly become a servant or helper. Everyone would want to be bold and fearless; nobody would flee but everyone would come running. And yet they don’t hear what Christ himself says, “As you did to one of the least, you did it to me” [Matt. 25:40].

Who is my neighbor?  Luther imagines the throng of people willing to volunteer if Jesus or Mary were ill, but then reminds us that each of 'the least' among us should be treated the same way.  By the way, Luther goes on to point out the folly of thinking you'd be willing to help Jesus if you aren't willing to help others in the here and now.

Others sin on the right hand. They are much too rash and reckless, tempting God and disregarding everything which might counteract death and the plague. They disdain the use of medicines; they do not avoid places and persons infected by the plague, but lightheartedly make sport of it and wish to prove how independent they are. They say that it is God’s punishment; if he wants to protect them he can do so without medicines or our carefulness. This is not trusting God but tempting him. God has created medicines and provided us with intelligence to guard and take good care of the body so that we can live in good health. 

{Update 8/21: Wow, rereading this section is a gut punch.  So many within the Church today are 'proud' of not taking precautions, 'proud' to refuse vaccination, shouting slogans of 'freedom!' as they do so.  Hear this, Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, calls this "not trusting God but tempting him."}

If one makes no use of intelligence or medicine when he could do so without detriment to his neighbor, such a person injures his body and must beware lest he become a suicide in God’s eyes. By the same reasoning a person might forego eating and drinking, clothing and shelter, and boldly proclaim his faith that if God wanted to preserve him from starvation and cold, he could do so without food and clothing. Actually that would be suicide. It is even more shameful for a person to pay no heed to his own body and to fail to protect it against the plague the best he is able, and then to infect and poison others who might have remained alive if he had taken care of his body as he should have. He is thus responsible before God for his neighbor’s death and is a murderer many times over. Indeed, such people behave as though a house were burning in the city and nobody were trying to put the fire out. Instead they give leeway to the flames so that the whole city is consumed, saying that if God so willed, he could save the city without water to quench the fire. 

{Update 8/21: Once again, these words hit far harder today than when I first published this.  Martin Luther is telling you that refusal to take precautions against a pandemic (whether that be masks when necessary or vaccinations) is akin to suicide, and that if your prideful refusal results in the deaths of others you will stand before God as a murderer.  Martin Luther wrote this, doesn't it have weight to you?  As a minister of the Gospel, I consider it a sacred duty to try my best to prevent my brothers and sisters in Christ from, in Luther's words, committing suicide or murder. }

No, my dear friends, that is no good. Use medicine; take potions which can help you; fumigate house, yard, and street; shun persons and places wherever your neighbor does not need your presence or has recovered, and act like a man who wants to help put out the burning city. What else is the epidemic but a fire which instead of consuming wood and straw devours life and body? You ought to think this way: “Very well, by God’s decree the enemy has sent us poison and deadly offal. Therefore I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine, and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me, however, I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely, as stated above. See, this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.

A long section, but the heart of the matter as Christians today argue about how we should respond to things like government mask-wearing mandates.  Notice that Luther compares the cavalier attitudes of those who take no precautions to that of a suicide.  He also considers those who knowingly spread the contagion to be murderers.  Even conceding that the Plague was 30x more deadly than COVID-19, Luther's moral premise remains.  In this pandemic many more people will 'get away with' it because the results of our actions will not be readily apparent.  The best phrase in the section, "act like a man who wants to help put out the burning city."  That is the true test, do our actions help or hurt the spread of the pandemic?  Are we helping our neighbors in need, or ignoring them?  
" I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence."  Is your presence necessary?  500 years ago Martin Luther was considering the dictates of social distancing.

Perhaps it was foolish for Martin Luther to remain in Wittenberg, especially with a pregnant wife and young child to care for.  Had there been ample public health facilities, and other ministers who could have taken his place, he may have followed his own advice and declared his presence there to be not 'necessary'.  The point of examining Luther's words from five centuries ago during a far more deadly outbreak is simple: If the Christians of medieval Europe could find ways to care for their neighbors AND take the threat of contagion seriously, why can't we?

Being a Habitually Accurate person

Much was said in 2016 of the accuracy of the statements made by various American politicians and their surrogates, most of it not complimentary.  We, as a society, struggle with the desire to put Power above Truth, and the willingness to bend, or invent, "facts" in order to win.  These tactics, win or lose, come at a cost; those who utilize them pay by earning a reputation as a person who cannot be trusted, except when acting in their own self-interest.
The Church, and the people of God, must not allow themselves to be swayed by this siren's song of power to taint their trustworthiness with exaggerations, half-truths, bendable "facts", and outright lies.  Whatever is at stake, to "win" by such methods is to certainly lose.
Compare the current atmosphere's emphasis on finding things that are "true for me" with the timeless desire for Truth in the Word of God.  In F.F. Bruce's 1943 classic, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Bruce writes the following after citing dozens of examples of historical accuracy by Luke in his Gospel and in Acts.

"Now, all these evidences of accuracy are not accidental.  A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available.  Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate.  Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy."

These words bear weight in the ongoing apologetic effort to defend the trustworthiness of the Bible, but they also remind us of something important: that character (or the lack thereof) matters.
Are you accurate and reliable?  Do the things you say on social media, and the things you "like" and share also value Truth over Power?  If we are inaccurate in the small things, why will others trust us when we claim to speak the Truth about the important things?
The people of God cannot afford to sacrifice their love of the Truth in the pursuit of political power, and must certainly not sacrifice our reputation as Truth-speakers about eternity for any purpose in the here and now.  Speak the Truth, our Father loves the Truth, its that other guy that spends so much time crafting lies.

Sermon Video: The Nature of Temptation - James 1:13-18

From the very beginning, man has sought to assign blame to somebody else.  This isn't a tactic that we need to be taught, children figure it out on their own.  The problem is, when blame truly does reside with us, foisting it off elsewhere doesn't make things better.  Temptation is just such an item.  People try to blame society, argue about nature vs. nurture, even go with, "the devil made me do it", all in a vain attempt to shift the blame for our moral failings elsewhere.  Unfortunately for us, temptation comes from within us.  External factors matter, as does parenting and a whole host of related positive and negative factors that affect a person's ability to resist temptation, but the origin of temptation is always from within.  James makes it clear that the villain that is dragging us away toward sin is our own evil desires.  The reason that Jesus successfully resisted temptation, from the devil himself, was his complete lack of wickedness in his heart.  God is all-sufficient, in himself, and thus beyond temptation, we on the other hand, act all the time out of our real or perceived lack, thus our temptation to do evil.  Correctly diagnosing the cause of temptation is an important step, it gives us hope that we can have victory over our temptation, by the power of the Holy Spirit, for we don't have to change the world to remove external temptations, we need only let God repair our damages hearts to remove them internally.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "we have only done our duty" - Luke 17:7-10

What is our relationship with God?  We are his workers, but does that make God our boss and us him employees?  The nature of the relationship between God, the king of the universe, and mortal man is not really like that of a boss and an employee, rather it is like the relationship between a master and a servant (or even a slave).  We may prefer to think of ourselves as God's freelance independent contractors, but we most certainly are not, we are his servants.  What God commands we must do.  God is owed honor, praise, and service, when we fulfill that obligation God is does not owe us recompense in return for we can never repay our debt that God has forgiven.  We have been assigned a task, as the people who constitute the Church, to spread the Gospel and advance the Kingdom of God.  This is our calling, and we must answer it.  Let us never forget, God is God, and we are not.  It is God's will that must be done, it is his kingdom that one day will come.  Our response, our obligation, is to simply do our duty as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded" - Luke 12:35-48

In this passage, Jesus tells two related parables about servants and managers of servants who need to be vigilant and faithful in the completion of their assigned tasks.  In both cases, those servants who do what is expected of them are rewarded and those who neglect their duty are punished.  The meaning of the parables is also related to the return of the Son of Man, a time that Jesus emphasizes once again will be an unexpected hour.  In light of the promised, but unknown time, of the return of Jesus, Christians must needs be prepared to do the work of the kingdom, not putting off till later what we may not then get a chance to accomplish.
The conclusion of Jesus, relating to both parables, is that those who have been given much from God, will in turn have much demanded of them from God.  The judgment of God will fall heaviest upon his own people if they fail to imitate his Son, for they are without the excuse of ignorance, for they know what God expects of them.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

"Sin is a brat that nobody cares to have laid at his doors" - Matthew Henry

I came across this quote from Matthew Henry in his commentary on the failure of Saul to fully obey God in I Samuel 15 as Saul attempts to deflect the responsibility for his own actions onto others.  It is an astute and memorable way to speak about mankind's propensity to try to avoid blame.  Trying to hide from responsibility or blame others is a tactic that children do not need to be taught, they hope to avoid the negative consequences of their actions, and thus are not above lying to blame others, or pretending ignorance.  That parents can see through this charade is clear to adults, and yet as adults, most people continue to try these same sorts of deceptions when trouble comes from a spouse, family member, boss, or the authorities.  Saul soon learned from Samuel that such half-repentance is worth nothing with God as he looks upon the heart and knows if true repentance lies within.  In that same passage, Matthew Henry also wrote, "it is common for sinners, in excusing their faults, to plead the thoughts and working of their own minds, because those no man can dispute; but they forget that God searches the heart."  Seeking to avoid blame is almost an art form in the business and political spheres, and utilizes well paid consultants and lawyers to shape the narrative and massage the truth.  It may keep you in office following a scandal, or out of jail after an arrest, but it won't matter a bit when standing before Almighty God.  On that day, the only thing that will save us is to have already acknowledged, without reservation, that we are a sinner saved by grace.  The brat is ours, the sooner we own up to it, the sooner God can forgive us and begin to transform us.

Sermon Video: The Sower and the Seeds - Luke 8:4-21

The teachings of Jesus are far more difficult to live by than they are to understand.  When Jesus taught the parable of the Sower, he utilized an analogy about farming that his audience would have readily understood.  The focus of the parable is on the variable types of ground that the seed falls upon and how receptive it is to the seed.  There are four types of ground mentioned by Jesus: path, rocky, weeds, and good soil, only one of which is capable of nurturing the seed and allowing it to grow to maturity and produce a harvest.  The first three types of soil all have external or internal issues that are detrimental to the seed and thus fail to produce.  The fourth type is called “good” in that it actually multiplies the seed in the end by giving the farmer a harvest.

            Jesus explained this parable to his disciples and reminded them that not everyone who hears his message is actually listening to it.  This episode touches about a difficult subject for us: Why do some people accept the Gospel while others reject it?  On the surface one person may seem as likely as another, but one accepts the message and continues in it while another either fails to maintain that commitment or outright rejects it.  The parable gives reasons why the three types that rejected the offer of God’s grace did so, but in the end excuses won’t help because they all equally failed to reproduce the seed.

            What is our purpose as Christians?  How do we ensure that we are creating a bountiful harvest for God?  The conclusion to Jesus’ parable is contained in his response to the arrival of Mary, James, and his other half-brothers, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”  The harvest that God requires is nothing new or surprising, it is simply obedience; to hear the word of God and obey it.  This is, we know, a process that can only be done by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, but it must be accomplished.  If we are to be good soil, if we are to fulfill our purpose, we must obey the word of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video 

 

Sermon Video: Personal Responsibility - Acts 18:1-17

Personal responsibility is sorely lacking in the majority of society’s ills.  This should be no surprise to us as it is a consistent theme of God’s message to his people in Scripture.  When Paul arrived in Corinth he was faced with insufficient support to allow him to be a full-time missionary.  The need was far greater than he could ever hope to fulfill in his lifetime, but for a while at least, Paul was forced to return to the trade of tent making in order to survive.  While this situation continued Paul didn’t give up on his missionary efforts, he still reasoned with the local Jews in the synagogue each Sabbath.  When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia they brought support from the church in Philippi that enabled Paul to return to serving God full-time.

            At this point in his missionary career, Paul has now traveled throughout Asia Minor and Greece attempting to plant churches by beginning at the synagogue in each city.  He has been beaten for his efforts, scourged, thrown in jail, and left for dead after been pummeled with stones.  When the people of the synagogue, his fellow Jews for whom Paul cares deeply, responded to his efforts in Corinth with abuse, he made a difficult decision.  Paul shook his clothes off in their presence (a cultural sign of dismissal) and said, “Your blood be on your own heads!  I am clear of my responsibility.  From now on I will go the Gentiles.”  The first phrase, “Your blood be on your own heads”, is used throughout the Old Testament as an indicator of responsibility for serious matters.  In Leviticus 20 it is connected to capital offenses where the death of those who commit them is their own fault.  In Joshua it is used when the spies make their deal with Rahab, in 2 Samuel by David after the unjust death of Abner.  All of these situations show how very serious Paul’s invoking of this phrase was.  The rejection of the Gospel message by the people to whom the Messiah was sent is a matter of grave consequences (as it is for anyone to whom the message comes).

            When Paul declares that he has fulfilled his own mission, he hearkens back to the commission of Ezekiel as the “Watchman” over Israel where the phrase “blood on your own heads” is once more used.  By sharing the Gospel message, repeatedly and at much personal cost, Paul has fulfilled his obligation as a disciple of Christ to warn the unrepentant of their need of God’s forgiveness.  The obligation to warn belongs to us, the results belong to God.

            Lastly, Paul decides that his message is too important to continue to push against such opposition, he then resolves to take the message directly to the Gentiles who have made up the bulk of his converts thus far.  These decisions are in no way easy for Paul, and his failure to reach his own people with the Gospel will continue to haunt him, but the choice is clear to Paul, he has a responsibility to focus upon those willing to receive God’s offer of grace.  For us, this lesson is also a hard one.  We never want to give up on anyone or any church program just because we don’t see success.  Paul’s example doesn’t require us to give up on individuals, but simply reminds us that we must be open to new opportunities.  So continue to hold out hope for that stubborn relative or friend, perhaps God’s grace will reach him/her before the end, but do not close your eyes to the chances we all have in our lives to share God’s love with more or unexpected people.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video