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

 

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

1 Corinthians 6:19-20     New International Version

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

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

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

God our Creator

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

Romans 9:19-21

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

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

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

God our Redeemer

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

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

1 Corinthians 12:12-31     New International Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galatians 2:20     New International Version

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

God as Lord

Philippians 2:10-11     New International Version

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

    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

    to the glory of God the Father.

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

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

Colossians 3:22-4:1     New International Version

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

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

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

Abortion

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

Vaccine refusal

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

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

The Christian Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier things I've written along these lines:

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

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

The Purpose of Freedom: A Christian Viewpoint

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trail of Tears

The Sand Creek Massacre

The Wounded Knee Massacre

The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre

Japanese-American internment during WWII

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

4,743 Lynchings between 1882 and 1968

100 Years of Jim Crow Laws

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

Decades of deliberate federal housing racial discrimination

Police Brutality during the Civil Rights Movement

The exoneration of 172 former death-row inmates since 1973

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

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

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

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

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

It would not be difficult to criticize the American political response to the combined blows of COVID-19 and the racial reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd.  It has been painfully clear as both of these unfolded that our current entrenched gerrymandered hyper partisanship is ill equipped to handle either crisis.  As a realist (some would say cynic) about politics I did not have a high expectation given the level of dysfunction that exists in the system.
It would also not be difficult to criticize the American cultural response to the pandemic and race relations, as there are plentiful examples that illustrate where our culture has fallen far short of any number of ideals.
As a minister of the Gospel, however, my primary focus is narrower than the entire American political and cultural sphere.  When I look at how self-professed Christians have responded to COVID-19 and the evidence of ongoing/systemic/systematic racism in America, the results have been little better than that of America as a whole.  This is not acceptable.  If the Church cannot be salt and light, cannot differentiate itself from American politics or culture through its increased commitment to a higher moral standard, especially in times of crisis, what then is the value that the Church brings to society, or what is the appeal of the Gospel?
Before highlighting the areas in which we, as a Church, have fallen short during 2020 thus far, let me explain why I often use the term 'self-professed Christians'.  The Church, in the tradition of Saint Augustine, is made up of both those who have already been saved (saints) and those for whom hope of salvation remains (future proselytes/converts).  As such, it will also contain within it those who are not currently being directed by the Holy Spirit, who remain slaves to sin, and who will likely therefore not be living up to the moral standards expected of those redeemed by Christ.  In addition, the Church today, like Judaism in the 1st Century, contains its version of Pharisees (self-righteous) and Sadducees (theologically misguided) who while not new to the Church, still lack the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because they have failed to live by faith.  In contrast with would-be converts, this minority within the Church is not actively seeking redemption as they wrongly assume they have already attained it.  To make a long story short, the Church will always have those within it who represent the Church without actually being a part of the Bride of Christ; they have joined the Church in the physical/social realm, but not the all-important spiritual realm.  Some of the criticism to follow is aimed at Christians who (should) know better, but have failed to live up to the high calling of being a disciple of Jesus Christ during these trying times, and some of it lands upon those who are 'in the Church, but not of the Church'.  As God is the only one who truly knows hearts, I won't attempt to judge which is which, for the call to repentance remains for both groups.  Lastly, I do not believe that what follows is true for the majority of the Church in America, although quantifying such things is difficult, it does however appear to me to be true for at least a significant, often vocal, minority, and that is concern enough.

So, how has the Church failed during the challenges of 2020 to live up to its calling?

1. By not putting Truth above personal beliefs
There are two primary ways in which this has manifested itself: (1) Denial of the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic in favor of a variety of politically expedient counter-narratives and/or the embrace of conspiracy theories.  (2) A refusal to admit that racism remains a real issue in America, even within the Church.  While uniformity of opinion on these issue is NOT required by those who would value Truth with a capital 'T', for those who would claim to follow a God who does not lie, the willing, often gleeful, embrace of half-truths and self-serving narratives by many self-professed Christians is a stark warning sign that all is not well in our hearts.  As Christians, we must be servants of the Truth, we must be those unwilling to utilize lies even when they seemingly benefit us, and we must be those willing to confront uncomfortable Truths, even when they indict us.

See also: Faith is not anti-fact, at least it's not supposed to be.

Being a Habitually Accurate person

2. By not putting service/self-sacrifice above freedom/rights.
Lost among the cacophony of noise about COVID-19 restrictions has been the call placed upon all Christians by both Jesus' demonstration of a servant's heart, and Paul's call to respect governmental authorities in Romans 13.  The requirements of Romans 13 are not absolute, and immoral laws are not to be obeyed by a moral people, but the words of Jesus, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35, repeated in various forms throughout the Gospels) have no limitation.  I previously wrote about dangers of a "You do you, I'll do me" attitude {"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview}. As the pandemic's role in our lives continues, there has been a noteworthy lack of Christian voices saying in one accord that other people's lives ought to be rated far above our comfort or preferences.  Again, this is not a call for uniformity on the question of how best to combat the pandemic, but simply dismay that so many Christians seem to lack a servant's heart when considering these issues.
Likewise, when considering racism in America, too many Christian voices have expressed a, "I don't see any racism, therefore it doesn't exist." attitude.  A heart of compassion, one built upon imitating the servant-heart of Jesus Christ, would instead consider the experiences and testimonies of our minority brothers and sisters.  It would also readily admit that my own personal experience is insufficient, that my anecdotal evidence is not the final word on the matter.

See also: My rights are less important than doing what is right

Why are we free? Galatians 5:13-14

3. By not putting humility and repentance above pride and stubbornness. 
We were never going to get the pandemic response exactly right.  We were also never going to resolve something as complicated and deep seated as racism in one fell swoop.  Mistakes were inevitable, some medical advice was bound to be proven later to have been in error, and some demonstrations against racism were bound to devolve into looting.  How do we respond to these imperfections?  As Christians, what do we do when the situation becomes muddled?  Sadly, there has been far too much chest thumping, and far too little listening.  Too many cries of, "Stay the course!" and far too little openness to change when new facts (remember #1's issue of Truth) become available.
Aside from outright heresy, there are few things as dangerous to the future health of the Church as pride and stubbornness.  When God's people close their ears to the moving of the Holy Spirit toward repentance, they drift further and further away from the will of God.

2020 has held up a mirror to American politics, culture, and the Church.  The results have not been pretty.  Some have responded to one, or both, of the issues with a proper Christian worldview and a servant's heart inspired by Jesus.  Perhaps those doing so may even be a majority of those claiming to be Christians, but the ugly truth remains that a sizable minority, numbering millions, have embraced falsehoods over the Truth, rely upon their rights more than their obligations to their fellow man, and are pridefully unwilling to consider change.  What does this mean for the Church?  Only God knows.  I pray for repentance, for renewal, for change.

When the storm is raging at sea, ask a sailor for help, not a taxidermist: How can we navigate the COVID-19 pandemic?

Given some of the private conversations I've been having, let me issue a clarification: I do not now, nor have I previously, had issue with those who have different opinions from myself {unless they be outright immoral views, i.e. antisemitism from anyone or heretical views, i.e. denial of the resurrection of Jesus from a self-professed Christian}. As a firm believer in ecumenism within the Church {treating non-Baptist Christians as true brothers and sisters in Christ}, I take seriously the need to separate the Majors from the Minors {something I was taught by excellent professors at Cornerstone University like Andy Smith and Dr. Ronald Mayers}. That is, to see what is essential/eternal vs. what is opinion/preference/cultural/changing. The Majors are worth striving/fighting/dying for, the Minors are not even worth losing a friend over. I thus have Christian brother and sisters whom I love and respect who are Republicans, some who are Democrats, and some who couldn't vote for either. I have friends who believe in public education, those who champion private education, and those who home-school.

That being said, in regards to the current COVID-19 pandemic. If you believe that the government should re-open the economy now, that is an opinion based (hopefully) upon currently available facts. If you believe the government should wait, or re-open with caution, that is also an opinion based (hopefully) upon currently available facts. Americans clearly disagree about this issue, and that's ok, it is part of being citizens in a republic with free speech rights.

What our rights as Americans (and for myself, the superseding rights and responsibilities of being a Christian) do not grant us are: (1) Our own set of 'facts', or the right to ignore the facts when they don't suit us. (2) Expertise in areas that we do not possess education, training, and experience. For example: I have opinions about war, and have formed them having read widely on the subject of both ancient and modern war, its methods, purposes, and affects. My opinions are not based on nothing, but I recognize their limitations. Thus, if a combat veteran, a professional soldier, has an opinion, I will give it added weight; his/her training and experience has earned it. When the topic is Education, I am on firmer ground, having spent ten years as a public school teacher and having the education/training that proceeded that. I will thus weigh the opinion of other teachers as being similar to my own. Lastly, when the topic is Religion, specifically Christianity (more specifically Protestantism, American Protestantism, Baptists, and finally American Baptists) it is precisely within my education, training, and experience to share opinions that ought to be given more weight {A measure of common courtesy and decency that we reciprocate topic by topic and allow those with education/training/experience in the issue at hand to be shown respect} (3) Therefore, in the case of a global pandemic, such as COVID-19, our go-to response ought to be to give more weight to the opinions (based hopefully on solid facts) of ER physicians, epidemiologists, public health officials, and various others whose education/training/experience helps elevate their viewpoints toward being more consequential than that of the average citizen. Have medical professionals disagreed about COVID-19? Certainly, and that too is to be expected from such a complicated issue whose details continue to evolve as new studies and new data come to light (and old ones are revised or proven to be accurate). What do we do when the experts can't agree? The same thing you do when one mechanic tells you that your car needs an expensive repair and another says there is an easy fix. Look beneath the surface, seek additional opinions, check to see if your own bias is affecting your judgment about who to trust.

What this perspective doesn't do: Make everyone who isn't an expert in a field shut up and obey. That's not the point at all, hopefully it isn't what you're thinking while reading this. My point is not elitist, not by any stretch, it does not require an Ivy League education to become and expert, just a real one.

What this perspective does do: Allow those who have the best chance of being correct on an issue (thanks to education/training/experience, this do matter) to rise above those who have the least chance of being right on an issue.

When the plane I'm on is in danger of crashing, I want a pilot to be in charge, not a preacher. When faced with an angry bear in the woods, I'd rather have a park ranger next to me than a stock broker. When I need to understand something about God, let me look to someone who has dedicated his/her life to the service of God. And when people are dying of a new disease by the thousands, let me first turn to the doctors who has chosen to spend their lives trying to heal the sick.

God bless you all, I know our viewpoints on regarding COVID-19 are far ranging, and that animosity has been dangerously boiling up in our political life as a nation. Please, we can do better, we have to try.

Does God even want state-mandated prayer?

Calls for a return of required prayer in the nation's public schools are common on social media and letters written to the editors of local newspapers.  Some who I would count as valued colleagues and friends are echoing this call.  As the theory goes, this is a key to turning around the American culture and bringing back a golden age of Christendom where America's status as a Christian Nation was unchallenged {A return to a supposed past Golden Age is a common trope in history, one rarely based in reality; a different topic for another time}.  Setting aside the question of whether or not state-mandated prayer in schools would benefit the culture (An assumption made in the argument, but how would one know if it is true: crime rates?  teen pregnancy? drug use?  Would prayer be expected to lower such things by 10%? 50%  With a complex system like a nation/culture, we cannot single out one factor for much of anything because of interconnected cause/effect.), or the Church itself (Was the Church healthier during periods when the population was required {on pain of various penalties} to pay nominal homage to God?  When everyone living in the land was assumed to be a Christian by simple right of birth regardless of any evidence of the Holy Spirit?  Was that marriage of Church/State a healthier Church?), even if we assume that both the nation and the Church would benefit, that there wouldn't be any unintended negative consequences to either, there still remains a fundamental question that is not being sufficiently considered: Does God want state-mandated prayer?
How can we know the mind of God?  A pertinent question, and one that has a simple answer: we can't, unless God chooses to reveal his mind to us, primarily through his revealed Word.  What then does the Word of God say on the subject?  How has God responded in the past to the worship/prayers/sacrifices of those whose hearts are not invested in the act (in other words, unwilling or indifferent participants)?  For rest assured, if prayer was mandated in the schools, there would be millions, likely a majority, of children and teachers who are not enthusiastic supporters of the particular prayer being offered {Certainly not for Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheists, as well as those Christians who would disagree with the particular form and/or verbiage of the prayer being offered.}  A sampling of relevant texts of Scripture follows:

Proverbs 28:9 New International Version (NIV)
If anyone turns a deaf ear to my instruction, even their prayers are detestable.

Isaiah 1:13-18 New International Version (NIV)
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
    Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 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.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
    I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
    I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
    Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
    stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
    plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
    says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
    they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
    they shall be like wool.

Amos 5:21-23 New International Version (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.

Malachi 1:6-10 New International Version (NIV)
Breaking Covenant Through Blemished Sacrifices
6 “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
“It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
“But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’
7 “By offering defiled food on my altar.
“But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. 8 When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty.
9 “Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”—says the Lord Almighty.
10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.

Luke 18:9-14 New International Version (NIV)
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

These are not all of the texts of Scripture that reference insincere or tainted prayer/worship/sacrifices, but they will suffice to show the point: God does not desire, nor accept, from even his own people (or at the least, those claiming to be his people) prayer, worship, or sacrifices that do not come from a humble obedient heart.  If then, these unacceptable efforts were not helpful to the people of Israel, nor to the Church, because they were not genuine, how would they be acceptable to God coming from people of other faiths, or no faith, when compelled by the power/authority of the state?  What about those prayers would be pleasing to God?  Is it not as likely, if not more likely, that such disingenuous rote and compulsory prayer would anger God rather than please him?  Is false prayer better than no prayer at all?  The warnings of the Jewish prophets appear to say 'no'.

Two other factors to consider: (1) Any prayer designed by the government for use in public schools would by its very nature, in keeping with the 1st Amendment, be entirely devoid of specific reference to God.  It could not be a prayer to anything other than a generic god, for generic blessings, and generic guidance/help.  It could not mention Jesus, nor reference the Gospel's call for salvation by grace through faith.  It would, by necessity, be a bland prayer.  Would such a prayer be instructive to young people (what exactly would it teach them about the nature of God?) or pleasing to the God whose name and deeds that we do in fact know?  Even if the government were to somehow avoid violating the 1st Amendment while still including reference to Jesus, it would not differentiate the Jesus of the true Apostolic Church from the Jesus spoken of by the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons (both of whom speak highly of Jesus, but a Jesus whose nature and work is very different).  How could a prayer be constructed under the limitations that exist (Nobody is advocating for a repeal of the 1st Amendment, so we must consider this call for prayer in schools within that parameter) that would be properly honoring to God?  (2) If a conservative/evangelical inspired government (the only one likely to pursue this course and the background of those calling for a return of prayer to schools) were to impose school prayer, what is to stop a future liberal/secular inspired government from taking that same prayer and making it explicitly multi-faith (for example: replacing "God" with Allah, or Jesus with Buddha, or stating that all names/approaches to God are equally valid.  'O God, whose faces are many, though all people call equally to you...')?  What started out as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly become an exercise in blasphemy that Christian children would be required to participate in.  If then, that prospect causes anxiety, should not we, as Americans, not wish to put that same anxiety upon fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhists, etc?  Even though I am 100% convinced that there is only one God, and that he has made himself known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that does not mean I would welcome a return to the policies of past eras where people of other, or no, faith were compelled to acknowledge a God whom they do not believe in.  As a Baptist, I naturally look with trepidation upon any government compelling people in the realm of religion, our ancestors in the faith didn't enjoy being on the wrong end of that, and if we ourselves would object, we cannot advocate imposing the same thing upon others {"Do unto others..."}
The same objections to mandated prayer in school apply to mandated Bible classes in school.  As a former English teacher, I can see the value in teaching the Bible as literature (however, this viewpoint would also treat other religious texts like the Qu'ran in the same way; as literature for students to be made aware of as part of a well-rounded education), and the value in history classes of learning about the role of world religions in human history (a huge factor to be sure, to ignore it is to do a dis-service to history), but NOT the value of having public schools attempt to teach Christian theology.  The reasons are the same as above: (1) Any teaching would have to be generic, and thus liable to offend various Christian sects who vary on one point or another from the mainstream (i.e. Baptists being more/less on their own about baptism, any class on the basic of Christian theology would teach the majority viewpoint), (2) and any class set up to be acceptable to conservatives/evangelicals when they are in power could then be switched to one whose curriculum is approved by a liberal/secular government?  Once again, what started as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly turn into the means to advance what the traditional/apostolic Church considers to be heresy.  If the success of an idea depends upon 'our side' remaining in power, and would subsequently become anathema to us if 'our side' were to lose power, then perhaps that idea is best left on the shelf.

From a strategic standpoint, it seems to me that both prayer and Bible classes in the public schools are a bad idea for the Church, even if they are a 'win' for Christendom (a dubious claim at best).  Others will disagree and see these tools as a means for advancing the cause of the Gospel in the face of an increasingly secular society.  They will contend that the potential benefits outweigh the risks.  We can agree to disagree, as Americans we have that right.  The far more important question that is not being given enough consideration is this: Would God be pleased by these efforts, indifferent to them, or angered by them?  If the examples of Scripture are any indication, and since they are the revealed Word of God, and God does not change, they must indeed be instructive for us concerning the mind of God, the most likely response from God is anger, followed by indifference, leaving pleased as the least likely.  Perhaps there is a Bible-based counter-argument in favor of compulsory prayer and Bible education, given the antipathy shown in the Bible itself to fake prayer/worship/sacrifices, it would have to be extremely compelling.

Sermon Video: Debatable Matters Part 3 - 1 Corinthians 8:9-13

There is a tension that exists between the assertion of individual rights and the obligations those same individuals have to other people.  That tension exists regularly within modern society, especially in the United States, but it is far more acute within the Church.  As disciples of Jesus Christ, we have been called to a life of service and self-sacrifice on behalf of both our brothers and sisters in Christ and the Lost to whom we are obligated to share the Gospel in love.
Paul understood this tension as he wrote to the Christians at the church in Corinth that although they were free to eat meat that had been offered to idols, for in reality idols are nothing for there is only one God, yet those same Christians needed to "be careful" lest the exercising of their freedom might inadvertently lead to the temptation to sin on the part of fellow Christians who did not posses the same level of knowledge.  It is Paul's contention, and thus our command from Holy Scripture, that as Christians we must be willing to sacrifice our individual rights, even if the action is in no way a sin for us, if it will be an example that leads others into sin, it will then become a sin for us.  The action itself doesn't go from being a matter of freedom to being a sinful choice, it is the action toward our fellow Christians, influencing them toward temptation (for them) that makes it a sinful choice for us.  I know that's somewhat complicated, here's it in a nutshell: If an action is ok for me, but not ok for a fellow Christian, and my doing that action might lead him/her into temptation, I am obligated to abstain for their sake.  Our obligations outweigh our rights, love must triumph over freedom.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

My rights are less important than doing what is right

As an American Christian, I have rights and privileges that were given to me when I was born in the United States of America, and I have obligations to do what is right (in the sight of the Lord) that I chose to adopt when I became a follower of Jesus Christ.  At times, these two sets of rights come into conflict.  There are many things which I have a right to do, as an American, which I will not do because it isn't morally right.  This probably shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, Christian or otherwise, that moral rights and legal rights don't always agree, but I have often heard Christians defend behavior which is hardly Christ-like by falling back upon their right as an American to do what they have done.  You may have a 1st Amendment right to say what you are saying, but that isn't good enough for a disciple of Christ.  You may have a 1st Amendment right to belong to that group or patronize that gambling establishment or strip club, but that isn't good enough for a disciple of Christ.

We are held to a higher standard as Christians than the Bill of Rights.  In Philippians Paul wrote, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.  Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Philippians 2:3-4)  I will regularly choose self-denial of my rights in order to do what is right, as will millions of my fellow Christian Americans, for we answer to a higher authority, are called to a higher purpose, and have been commanded to imitate a higher example (Jesus) than the legal rights of any citizen of any nation.

Abortion and Gay Rights, Colorado and Indiana

I don't spend much time talking or writing about the issue of gay rights, or gay marriage, largely because this issue is mired in irrational discussions, and also because I don't think that what the government decides to do about their definition of marriage has anything to do with what the Church is doing on this issue; they seem to be linked in the minds of most people, but in reality they are not.  The fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution of the United States should be for everyone, that this has not always been the case, for various minorities and for women, is a blotch on our history as a people.  Things have changed, they're better than they were to be sure, but where more work is needed, to change the law or the culture, that work should be supported by the Church.
The recent furor over the new law in Indiana seems to be a far cry from the battles over "separate but equal" that were the focus during the Civil Rights movement in areas of education, housing, jobs, and other areas concerned very clearly with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If the focus of this law is truly about cakes and photography for weddings, and not about housing, jobs, etc. it seems that we've lost focus on what truly matters in society: life.
In Indiana people are protesting in the streets about the right to buy services and goods, in Colorado, a woman who was brutally assaulted and had her child cut from her womb and then subsequently left in a bathtub where she died, has to live with the fact that her child's killer will never be charged with a crime toward the child because "it" is not considered to be a person until "it" breathes outside of the womb.  Life is not a primary concern for the law in America.  Life can be taken from the unborn, legally, in all fifty states.  The government supports this "right", the Supreme Court supports this "right", and most of the people who are up in arms about potential denials of the right to buy cake support the "right" of any mother to kill her unborn child, usually until the moment it leaves the birth canal, with no questions asked and no restrictions or limitations (And oh, by the way, the father has no right to protect his child, only the mother to kill him/her).
We live in a society where right and wrong are muddled.  I have a hard time getting upset about the demand that every business you want must participate in a gay marriage when the abortion clinic down the street goes about its gruesome business day after day.  The Supreme Court will soon weigh in on the host of gay marriage laws overturned by judges thus far, and perhaps that will lend some clarity to this highly charged issue, but don't kid yourself into thinking that expanding LGBT rights will make America a just society.  Everyone deserves basic human rights, why aren't the unborn included?

Much of this was inspired by reading an article by Matt Walsh, to view his longer and more impassioned post, click on the link below:
It’s Legal to Kill Babies, But Let’s Worry About a Gay Person’s Right to Cake

* I don't know anything else about Matt's opinions beyond this article, just saw it and thought it thought provoking enough to link to it.*

Sermon Video: "The Year of Jubilee - Leviticus 25

What do Jewish regulations about the Sabbath, land ownership, and workers' rights have to do with the Church today? The answer, it turns out, is plenty. The principles of justice and second chances that underpin the celebration of the Year of Jubilee are certainly needed in our world today. In addition, the return of land during the Jubilee to its original owners helped to balance wealth and poverty in Israel as well as allow those who fallen on hard times to redeem their families land and start over...


This sermon is the last to be given to the people of the First Baptist Church of Palo, my first pastorate, and as such ends with a personal message of thanks and prayer for the future ministry at Palo.
 
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video