This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
God's promise to Abram about the land of Canaan is the foundation for a conversation about the challenging history and complicated present of this land and its people that leads to two resolutions: (1) The Jewish people have a right to live in this land, (2) everyone else who lives in this land deserves basic human rights and freedoms.
 |
| 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
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.
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:
Japanese-American internment during WWII
4,743 Lynchings between 1882 and 1968
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.
