What the furor over the Witch Walk in Franklin can teach us about Christian cultural engagement

Downtown Franklin during last year's Witch Walk

As many of you in the Franklin area will have noticed, a post on the St. Patrick Parish Facebook page yesterday has gone viral (800+ shares and 3k plus comments on the original post in the first 24 hours, that's a whole lot for our small town). Here is the yourerie.com news story about the drama that has been unfolding.

While I have no desire to engage in the argumentation about the post's topic (their opposition to the upcoming Franklin Retail & Business Association's sponsored Halloween themed shopping event called the Witch Walk), and will gladly delete those who comment in that direction, this is absolutely a teachable moment with respect to Christian discipleship and engagement in the world.

Today's Wednesday AM Bible Study had come to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13: 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Bible Study video, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 {We talked about this topic during the first 30 minutes of Bible Study, if you want to engage more deeply on the topic, watching it is a good place to start.}

This text leads us to an important question: When should Christians, in a free society like ours (we are indeed blessed with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion), engage in the culture at-large by either supporting or opposing what is happening around them?  In other words, when is what happens outside of the Church our business?

Some important context: 

(1) The mandate to protect the innocent from violence/exploitation/oppression supersedes this.  If/when that is what is happening, it is not a question of choice but an obligation, Christians must intervene, to the best of their ability, to protect those in need.  This then explains why Christians ought to speak out and fight against racism, injustice, homelessness, sexual abuse, violence, fraudulent practices, cults, and the like.  Real people are being hurt and even if that action is taking place outside of the Church (God forbid it is happening inside the Church, in that case our mandate is even stronger), we ought to act.  {Example: The Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church, etc.}

(2) When the topic is illegality, it isn't an option for the Church to handle it "in house."  This was one of the great sins of the clergy sex abuse scandal, to think that such illegal and evil acts could be dealt with through counseling and church discipline while at the same time hiding the truth from the proper legal authorities.  As Paul makes clear in Romans 13, we have human governments for a reason, when behavior is criminal (assuming the law itself is not immoral) the justice system is the primary remedy.

(3) Our house will always be made at least partly of glass.  The obvious and expected response to any negative cultural engagement on the part of the Church (officially through leadership or on the individual member level) is to point out the hypocrisy of all of the ways in which the Church, past and present, has failed to live up to the high standard of Christ-likeness.  That this objection is valid, those sins truly do stain the Bride of Christ, means that this will always be an impediment if/when the Church decides to take a side in a cultural issue.  If the response is to downplay or deny the evil that has been done by those who claim the name of Christian, it will only make matters worse.

(4) Hyperbole doesn't help matters.  I've often seen Christians take an issue that has some objectionable content in it and make it out to be something that Satan himself created.  The sky isn't falling, the Devil doesn't lurk behind every corner, and not everything is wholly evil that we take issue with.  Before we start yelling, "Burn the witches!" we'd better know if there are actual witches involved, actual pagan worship, and not just play acting.  By the way, even if there are real-life witches involved, the answer is never "burn them!", it is always pray for them and love them, for only Good can overcome Evil, utilizing different kinds of evil as a weapon is always counter-productive.

To sum up: I know well-meaning and God honoring Christians who are worried and want to do something about a whole range of issues, including the Witch Walk, and I know well-meaning and God honoring Christians who look at those same issues, including the Witch Walk, and come to a different conclusion.  Where one sees evil, the other seems harmless fun, where one sees a cause to champion, the other says, "Live and let live."  Because I believe so strongly in the breadth and depth of the Church in our world, I both expect and celebrate this diversity of viewpoint.  God has called so many people out of the darkness and into the light, from so many different backgrounds and experiences, that it would be folly to expect us all to look out at the complex world we live in and see it in exactly the same ways.  We are indeed one body, but designed to be many parts, and that's a good thing.

In the end, what we need is compassion, dialogue, patience, hope, and the willingness to agree to disagree.  These aren't the qualities that make good "click bait", but they are the ones that help us develop the Fruit of the Spirit and make a true positive impact upon the world that we live in.

* Note * This is not a pagan religious event, those wanting to share opinions about freedom of religion or the separation of Church and State are barking up the wrong tree, it is a business venture, and attempt to encourage shopping in the downtown district.

* Final note * In a deep irony that was expected, the local Torah Club leaders have praised the efforts of St. Patrick's social media account to "combat evil" and "stand for the Gospel", even going so far as to praise the Catholic Church (For context on why that is unusual, First Fruits of Zion, their parent organization, is strongly Anti-Catholic to its core).  This support from the Torah Clubs is deeply ironic for two reasons: (1) the Gospel itself is not at stake in this question, the Witch Walk is not an event where a version of the Gospel is being proclaimed in any way shape or form, thus whether or not a pastor or church supports, opposes, or says nothing about it, it is not matter of "standing for the Gospel."  (2) The Torah Clubs are 100% committed to overturning and replacing the Gospel as it has been preached for the past 2,000 years (replacing it with Torah observance as the true measure of devotion to Jesus), and the Franklin Christian Ministerium has spent the last year fighting against their malign influence and proselytizing of church members. 

Update 9/19/23: explorevenango.com, a website that publishes local news, wrote a story about the original post, how it targeted the Chamber unfairly, the uproar, and subsequent events.  I found it to be accurate and even-handed: Controversy Brewing Over Franklin Witch Walk - By Gavin Fish, October 18, 2023

Update 9/20/23: The News-Herald/Derrick, our joint Franklin-Oil City newspaper, wrote about all this in Friday's paper, below are photos of the story for those who don't live in the area.

Update 9/20/23: Erie News Now was in town yesterday, doing interviews about the story.  Their reporting doesn't add much except it is in the video format: Erie News Now story on the Witch Walk controversy

Update 9/22/23: Things went off without any controversy or contention yesterday, both at St. Patrick's and downtown.  My thanks to all who worked to make sure that was the case, if you dissuaded someone from doing something fueled by fear or anger you did the work of the Lord whether or not you knew it at the time.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #14: Matthew 18:3-4

 

Matthew 18:3-4     New International Version

3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

One of the things that made George Lucas' fictional Force interesting as a story plot device was how counter-intuitive it was for most of the characters.  Luke's first interaction with the Force is a training exercise where Obi-Wan Kenobi asks him to try to defend himself against a drone with the 'blast shield' on the helmet lowered, i.e. to fight blind.  After initially failing, he eventually starts to get the hang of it.  At the end of the movie, Luke demonstrates that he learned something about the Force in the brief interim by destroying the Death Star by 'using the Force' to aim his proton torpedoes rather than his targeting computer.  The Force, in Lucas' imagining, is not like anything we know from our own experience here on Earth.

As Jesus explains the Kingdom of God to his disciples, he time and time emphasizes that the methods and goals of the kingdom he is founding are not those of this world.  It won't operate according to this world's rules, and it won't chase after what this world covets.  The Kingdom of God will be different.

The Church, therefore, must follow this series of commands and teachings by Jesus when considering how we are to fulfill our obligations as encapsulated in the Great Commission.  If we attempt to achieve the correct goals, but do so using the methodology and tactics of this world, we will fail.  If we attempt to achieve goals other than the ones that Jesus told us to pursue, we will fail.  It is that simple.  

Unfortunately, Church History is full of examples of men and women, some of whom were acting in sincere faith and devotion, others not so much, who either abandoned Jesus' methodology, or eschewed his goals.  The results were, entirely predictably, disastrous.

Here is where 'Christian' Nationalism comes in.  As a movement, it is BOTH utilizing strategies and tactics that are in direct contradiction to Jesus' example of servanthood and righteousness by placing morality as a lower priority than winning, AND doing so in the service of the pursuit of worldly power (and the wealth and fame that go with it) that Jesus never, not once, told his disciples to pursue.  Knowing that either immoral methodology, or faulty goals, will doom any human endeavor that is supposedly undertaken on God's behalf, it is certain that 'Christian' Nationalism will fail, as it has always done throughout Church History, no matter how much power it manages to scrape together in this world.  Make sure you understand this: Even if 'Christian' Nationalists "take back America for God" they will fail.  Even if they control the entire government, in perpetuity, wielding all of its power in pursuit of their politics, they will fail.  It may not look like it from the heights of world power, but it will most assuredly be true when looking at the effect upon the Kingdom of God.

Failure is inevitable because the Kingdom of God doesn't work this way, and the Kingdom of God isn't interested in what Nationalists so badly want. 

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #11: Matthew 7:1-5

 

Matthew 7:1-5     New International Version

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

One of the most damaging aspects of 'Christian' Nationalism with respect to evangelism and the integrity of the Gospel is its built in tendency to shout from the rooftops about the sins of 'them' (the political enemies of 'our team'), and at the same time downplay or even cover-up the sins committed by 'us' (the political allies of 'our team').  This rank hypocrisy isn't fooling anyone, and both other Christians who disagree with the favored political stance of the 'Christian' Nationalists and non-believers can readily see it.

The question then becomes, "Why?"  Why are 'Christian' Nationalists so concerned with the sins committed by people they don't want to be a part of their group {either because they're Christians who don't think like them about politics, and therefore in their minds not Christians at all, or they're non-believers who aren't acceptable partners in such a 'holy crusade'}, and so unconcerned about the sins committed by the people that belong to their group?  The only possible answer is that this is being done in the pursuit of worldly power {and its unholy partners, fame and money}.  In order to 'win', morality must be set aside.  This not only applies to employing tactics and strategies that would otherwise be called evil {more on that with other texts}, but in this case being hyper-partisan in the use of the moral authority that they supposedly wield on God's behalf.

One of the key things to look for when this is happens is 'what-about-ism'.  When a person on 'our team', especially a powerful political leader or influential religious figure, is credibly accused of a deeply disturbing sin, even a heinous crime, the immediate response is to say in essence, "What about that person on the other team who did something else that isn't right?!?!"  This of course is a way of avoiding accountability and facing the hard truth that political allies not beholden to the demands of Christian discipleship are only playing lip service to the morality that 'Christian' Nationalists proclaim is essential to the future of America.

In the end, such hypocrisy may help win some elections, but the cost is always high, not only fostering schism and animosity within the body of Christ, but showing non-believers that to 'Christian' Nationalists at least, the sharing of the Gospel and the call to righteous living are commands of less importance {since they're willing to compromise them so thoroughly} than gaining and maintaining power here on earth.  Why would they seek salvation from such a Gospel?

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #2: 2 Chronicles 19:7

2 Chronicles 19:7

Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”

Among the ways in which 'Christian' Nationalism damages the Church is by compromising its moral authority.  When the Church (or segments of it) ally themselves with worldly (political) power, it creates an incentive to criticize 'them' for moral failings and a disincentive to criticize 'our team' for those same moral failings.  In our own setting, we have seen this play out time and time again since the rise of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.  In addition to giving 'our' politicians and pundits a free pass while lambasting those of the opposition, 'Christian' Nationalism also encourages the defending of organizations and institutions (See: Clergy Sex Scandal, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) because they are part of that same team effort and if their moral failings were made known, if a reckoning and justice were to be pursued, it would be seen as a win for the other side.  When the nation or world is divided in this way into two camps competing for worldly power (as opposed to Paul's theology of worldly vs. spiritual), moral authority diminishes to a tactic, a cudgel, for the bashing of one's enemies, justice is denied, and the Church becomes complicit, at the least, in it.

How do we know God doesn't operate in this fashion?  The case of King David is illustrative.  Despite being the man hand-picked by God to rule Israel, and having been given the title, "a man after God's own heart", God didn't hesitate to send the Prophet Nathan to excoriate David and pronounce a hard judgment against him (2 Samuel 11-12).  God didn't look the other way, and he didn't engage in the repugnant 'what about' moral equivalency that seems to be the go-to response anytime a member/institution on 'our team' commits moral evil (hint: we'd call it a sin if they did it).  That King David was on his own side didn't pervert God's justice, let alone stop it.

How does this use of morality, as a tool for our own power rather than a standard to live by, affect our Gospel presentation?  How does perverting Justice advance the Kingdom of God?  These are questions that 'Christian' Nationalism has no answer for, and as God's Word makes clear, that's a problem.  

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral Clarity: God help us if we can't see that Vladimir Putin and his war are Evil.

Commenting on the social media feeds of others is "like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get."  I recently wrote in support of a post from a fellow minister (who lives outside PA) who had shared a story from The Gospel Coalition regarding a statement released by ten seminaries that were formerly behind the Iron Curtain against Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. {10 Seminaries from Post-Soviet States Issue a Joint Statement - The Gospel Coalition}.  The response to that posting from an individual that I don't know anything about (other than we have one mutual FB friend) was shocking, to me.  This individual called the Gospel Coalition's story propaganda, "TGC has a tendency to push the accepted narrative, and in this case they're apparently declaring which side God and the Church is on and/or routing for. It reads like propaganda."  After further discussion, with myself and the clergy member who posted the link, he wrote, "I don't believe Putin is trying to harm civilians—he certainly has more important locations in mind. There's going to be wars and rumors of wars until the Lord returns, and I don't plan on falling for the cookie cutter narrative pushed by the mainstream media and big tech any time soon."  In the end, I walked away from the conversation (and that of another commenter on the post who shared Russian posts and claimed it was a 'civil war'), as there seemed to be no common understanding of the facts that allow a fruitful discussion to take place, if the video of residential buildings on fire and refugees fleeing don't make an impact, neither will my words.

As the war in Ukraine unfolds, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, displacing millions of refugees, wrecking cities, destroying the Ukrainian economy, and of course maiming and killing countless innocents, it seems clear to most, myself and every clergy person I know included, that this war and the person primarily responsible for starting it is Evil.  Yes, the capital 'E' is on purpose.  It pains me to think that there are Americans, hard to say how many, who could look at the actions of Vladimir Putin over the last two decades, the litany of murdered dissidents, journalists, and exiles killed in the countries they had fled to, plus the cities leveled in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine without being able to call this evil.  It should disturb us all if some claiming to follow Christ can only view this war through their own American Culture War glasses {the dig at the 'mainstream media' being my clue as to that motivation, I don't know the writer of those words at all, but he claimed to be a follower of Jesus}  If this litany of bloodshed, if this repetition of violence isn't evil, what is?

Isaiah 5:20 (NIV)

Woe to those who call evil good

    and good evil,

who put darkness for light

    and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet

    and sweet for bitter.

This is indeed an ongoing danger to the Church, one that has reared its ugly head many times in Church history, when those who claim to follow Jesus at the same time embrace for themselves, or others, doing acts that are exceedingly immoral whether in service of 'the greater good' (The Crusades, Inquisition) or enslaved to their own sinful desires (such as Putin's dream of a new Russian Empire for which he is willing to kill many thousands).  

Should we pray for Vladimir Putin?  Certainly not for his success or the continuation of his autocratic rule, for his desires are evil, and actions causing suffering on an epic scale.  For the salvation of his soul?  Absolutely, the same as we pray for the Lost the world over, for by the fruit of his actions he has repeatedly declared himself to be in need of repentance.  God can forgive the vilest of sinners, but not until they turn from their wickedness, of that we have yet to see any sign.

The Holocaust was Evil, and so were the actions of everyone who aided it.  Anyone who cannot see that, who either denies that it took place, or attempts to minimize or justify it, is living in darkness of heart and mind.  There is no comparable action in human history to the Holocaust, it is the ultimate example of the depravity of humanity both singularly (Hitler) and collectively (his willing executioners).  I dislike both as a student of history and a minister, attempts to compare people to Hitler and events to the Holocaust.  To say that something is less egregious, or less evil, than the Holocaust is a given, but sadly there are still many others things that rightly deserve the label, they may not be the ultimate example of evil, but evil they are.  Unless Putin unleashes nuclear weaponry and threatens the existence of life on this planet, he will remain a notch below Hitler, but with every passing day that this war continues, he moves further down that path.

We may not always agree on what ought to be, on what the best path forward is (and that disagreement can be, to an extent, healthy for the Church), but God help us as a Church if we can't see evil for what it is and denounce it.  

Sermon Video: The Moral Cowardice of Pontius Pilate, Mark 15:1-15

We often think of cowardice in physical terms, as in standing up to the bully on the playground, but moral cowardice is both more consequential and more common.  Pontius Pilate is easy to portray as a villain, but the reason why he walked away from Jesus' innocence is important.  Standing up for Jesus would have cost Pilate something, at least in theory, and since he was far from being a good man, it wasn't that hard for him to choose himself.

Question: If the Church in America today comprised the crowd that Pilate addressed, what would our collective response to the choice between Jesus and Barabbas be?  Before answering consider, Jesus represented a spiritual kingdom won by self-sacrifice, and Barabbas represented an earthly (political/cultural) kingdom to be won by any means necessary.  It pains me to say, I don't know what the answer would be.

Sermon Video: Make use of what God has given - Mark 4:21-25

 In a series of 4 connected sayings, Jesus explains the nature of the world that God created, emphasizing that the Truth is intended to be disclosed and that both the righteous path toward God and the wicked path away from God are self-reinforcing.  Why?  Because that's the nature of reality.  The universe has a moral law just as much as it has a natural one.  Moving toward God is light and life, moving away is darkness and death; it cannot be otherwise because apart from God there is nothing.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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

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

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

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

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

{COVID-19 death projections}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Sermon Video: Grace is Greater than Law - Mark 2:23-3:6

 Having been accused by Pharisees of violating the letter of the law regarding the Sabbath, Jesus reminds them of the way in which David violated the letter of the law in order to meet an extraordinary need.  This sets up a confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees about whether or not it is proper to heal on the Sabbath.  Jesus does so, elevating Grace above Law, the doing of Good above questions of how, when, or where.  As Christians, we can be in danger of becoming like the Pharisees, of elevating the form of religion over the heart, or of defending morality (God, Law, ethics, Truth) in ways that are inconsistent with the character of God (the Fruit of the Spirit).  This is not acceptable, to further the Kingdom of God, we need to act in Christ-like ways, no matter what cause we're championing.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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.

God and Politics: Greater than, less than, or equal to?

 I often speak and write about the danger of a too cozy relationship between the Church and political power, but this warning also begs a further question: What is the proper relationship between God and Politics?  The various answers will fall on a continuum from one end of the spectrum that places the Church above earthly power feuds all the way to the other extreme which subjugates the Church to the dominion of temporal power structures.  Some will respond to the 80's sitcom question, "Who's the Boss?" by emphasizing God's sovereignty (an idealist and/or Rationalist position) and others by accepting the limitations of life as we know it (a pragmatic and/or Empiricist position).  Truth be told, when studying philosophy, I always preferred the logic based approach of Descartes or Kant to the observational style of Hume or Locke.  I will focus upon three primary points on this continuum, feel free to carve out a place for others in between or at the ends of the spectrum, the goal is to spur discussion and contemplation, not to squelch it.

1. God < Politics  = Principles are expendable 

One option would be to merge Christian belief and practice INTO the current political goals of a party or system.  This option would be much worse if the system were itself overtly evil, like the German Lutheran Church's acquiescence to Nazi rule, but it still contains pitfalls even if the political philosophy one merges into is not outwardly immoral.  Why is that?  If one's commitment to political goals/methods is greater than one's commitment to God, it will only be a matter of time until that political system goes astray from the principles of faith and requires one to abandon them.  An example that might illuminate this type of arrangement is the 'deal' that Lando makes with Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.  Lando believes he has no choice, that a harsh reality requires him to compromise 'for the greater good', but soon realizes that his 'deal' can be altered at any point because he is subservient.  If you prefer a more classical example, the deal that Dr. Faustus makes with the Devil is a parallel, it too trades temporary benefits for long-term destruction.  While we might typically think of this choice as relevant to Christians living under oppressive regimes that try to force obedience upon them, for examples the Early Church when facing Rome, or Christians in China today, the real danger comes not from an aggressive and antagonistic power structure, but a welcoming one.  The promise of wealth and power are far more dangerous to the Church than the threat of oppression.  If power is more important than principle, where is the basis for criticism of the power structure?  What is the role of the prophet when the Church has handed over authority to political masters?

2. God = Politics = Principles are negotiable 

Option #1 only happens most clearly when dealing with a corrupt political leadership as when Henry VIII removed the Church of England from its relationship with Rome in order to allow himself to obtain a divorce.  An arrangement more likely to occur in 'ordinary' times would be one in which the Church considers Politics to be a partnership, simply a means to an end that can be managed (after all, how often are we really dealing with a Vader?).  In this case, Christian belief and practices are not merged INTO the system, but rather emphasized or minimized in accordance with the current political goals of the party (or a particular leader) that one chooses to partner with.  Criticism isn't excluded, as in #1, but simply muted for the sake of Realpolitik.  Principles and morality are not expendable, but they are negotiable, becoming a part of the game that must be played.  The time will come when the Word of God is weighed against a bargain that must be made (to get legislation passed, or to win an election), and tossed aside.  This arrangement it typified by the actions of Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, whose study of the power of Sauron convinces him that the best course of action is not to oppose him (for he sees no hope in victory), but to work with him.  Gandalf, realizing that Saruman has traded morality for power, continues to fight on, even against hopeless odds.  If the Church allows its principles to be dictated to it by popularity (for what is politics but a popularity contest?  Even dictatorships require popularity among the ruling clique), it will forever shift with the needs of the moment.  Most of Church History reflects this middle of the road, pragmatic, view.  There will be times when this partnership seems to be beneficial to the Church, when it yields results, and may even advance worthy causes, but these victories will inevitably give way to setbacks and compromises.

3. God > Politics = Principles are foundational

But what if the Church chose to proclaim Christian belief and practice APART FROM the current political goals of any party?  Such a Church would be beholden to none, would compromise its beliefs for no promise of power.  The Church could then criticize whatever policies and proposals it saw as unjust or immoral, it could support those that align with biblical principles, supporting ideas that it judged to be moral, not politicians or parties.  It could cooperate when politicians chose to align with the Church's goals, engage on its own terms, and do so for God's purpose.  Is such a stance naive?  Impossible in the 'real world'?  Or have too many of the Church's leaders lacked the courage to stand their ground?  The example that comes to mind here is the decision of Steve Rogers, Captain America, to refuse to sign the Sakovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War because he believed that giving up the ability to decide for himself the difference between right and wrong was a dangerous path.  (Yeah, I'm Team Cap when watching that movie.)  There are actually numerous biblical precedents for this stance: When the Prophet Nathan saw that King David had chosen an immoral path, he opposed that path and called the king to question.  When the Prophet Elijah saw that King Ahab and Queen Jezebel had embraced the idolatry of Baal worship, he took it upon himself to oppose the prophets of Baal, earning himself a death sentence from the king and queen in the process.  Likewise, John the Baptist did not consider Herod's role as king to make him exempt from the Law of God and rebuked him for his unlawful marriage (this opposition cost him his life).  Fast forward to the situation described in option #1, that of the German Lutheran Church succumbing to Nazi control, and you see in opposition to this betrayal the faithful work of the Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who also lost his life because of this stand).  The Church fulfills its relationship with earthly power most faithfully when it maintains its prophetic ministry of speaking Truth to the powerful, of opposing immorality wherever it originates.  

Are there other options?  The Amish have decided that they'd rather not be involved at all, withdrawing from society, as have the Jehovah's Witnesses (somewhat less dramatically).  While this removal from the questions of power and politics removes the temptation to compromise, it also abdicates the responsibility given to the Church to stand for justice and protect the oppressed.

Isaiah 1:17    New International Version

Learn to do right; seek justice.  Defend the oppressed.  Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

Leviticus 19:15    New International Version

“‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Psalm 82:3    New International Version

Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

While it is true that the Church is not Israel, and we do not live (nor should we seek to) in a theocracy, the Church still has a role to play in upholding and advocating for morality in the societies and power structures that it finds itself a part of.  What the Church has at times forgotten, especially when offered earthly power, is that God does not accept that the pathway to good can be paved with evil. (Romans 12:21 (NIV)  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.)  

When I was eighteen I strongly considered majoring in political science and seeking to serve my country in the realm of politics.  In the end, I rejected that path for two primary reasons: (1) I hated the idea of constantly asking for money, (2) I knew that I would be forced to choose between proclaiming what was True and Right and thus ending my career at some point when those things were opposed by the needs of the party, or muzzling my beliefs (or worse yet changing them) in order to move ahead.  I don't doubt that thousands of Christian politicians from the local to the federal level struggle with what their faith demands of them, with the demand to compromise principles for the sake of politics.  What if the Church supported them by not playing the political game?  What if the Church offered these politicians an example of moral fortitude that might inspire them to stand for justice even when it wasn't convenient?  

We've never truly seen what the Church could become if it took all of Jesus' teachings to heart.  What would our world look like if Christ's followers really 'turned the other cheek' and 'repaid evil with good'?  We fall short, we repent, we lean upon the Spirit and seek to imitate Christ-likeness better the next time.  Imagine also if the Church truly believed the words of Paul, Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.

God is already sovereign, what if the Church started acting like it knew that to be true?

Philippians 4:8  New International Version

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

  

Why Legalism doesn't work: Footloose and the self destruction of Jerry Falwell Jr.

 I recently watched the movie Footloose for the first time, and can concur with Peter Parker's response to Star-Lord's assertion in Avengers: Infinity War that it is indeed not the greatest movie of all time.  It is, however, an attempt to assert, although through a flawed vehicle, the known truth that Legalism does not work.  In the movie, Kevin Bacon's character Ren McCormack moves with his mom to a small town in the Rocky Mountain foothills only to discover that the town council under the leadership of John Lithgow's character, Rev. Shaw Moore, have instituted a total ban on youth dances (along with youth drinking) following a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of several of the town's teens, including Rev. Moore's son.  Of course, Ren considers the ban to be oppressive, and is helped in his rebellion against it by the Rev. Moore's own daughter, Ariel (Lori Singer), who rebels against her father through promiscuity, drinking, and a pair of death-wish style stunts.  In the end, Rev. Moore realizes his zeal has gone too far when his acolytes organize an impromptu book burning on the steps of the library.  Moore reluctantly backs down, fearing the worst but resigned to face it, as the teens enjoy their victory with a senior prom.

You might be wondering, what does a movie about the older generation trying to rein in teens via a ban on dancing in 1984 have to do with the cascade of news about the President of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr? {Jerry Falwell Jr. says he's resigned from Liberty Univ. after sex scandal revelations, confusion over future - Fox News}  Footloose is a fictionalized repudiation of Legalism, Liberty University and Jerry Falwell Jr. are a real life testimony.  Liberty University under Jerry Falwell Jr.'s leadership has become one of the largest Evangelical institutions in the world, with 15,000 students on campus, and 95,000 students online.  As such, they carry tremendous influence, influence that has increased dramatically following Jerry Falwell Jr.'s very public foray into American politics in 2015.  Liberty University has an honor called called The Liberty Way, like many Christian educational institutions, which prohibits premarital sex, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and of course, social dancing.  The Liberty Way also requires that students submit to random drug tests, and declares that, "Students must dress modestly and appropriately at all times."

To be sure, organizations need rules and regulations.  Schools need to set boundaries for their students, parents need to define for their children what is, and what is not, acceptable, and have appropriate consequences when those rules are broken.  The opposite of Legalism, Anarchy (Individualism) is certainly not the solution either.  But why doesn't Legalism work?  Why can't we simply list every possible negative behavior, prohibit them all, and watch people follow the rules?

1. Rules by themselves have no power.

The University that I graduated from, Cornerstone University, had rules.  In decades past those rules were not that different from those of Liberty, but from the outside looking in, the attitude behind the use of rules seems very different.  At Cornerstone, our professors were consistent in their quest to teach student how to think, not what to think.  Why?  Cultural mores change, constantly.  What belongs on the 'list' of prohibited behavior is a snapshot of today's standards.  To teach young people to memorize a list is not to teach then how or why such things end up on the list, and it doesn't help them to understand how to react to situations not covered by the dreaded list.  In other words, sustainable and effective morality depends upon enlightened and discerning minds and upon self-awareness and self-control, not upon perfecting a system to take agency away from the individual.  

Without a corresponding attitude of the heart, rules will always fail.  In the Gospels, Jesus contends with the Pharisees, a 1st Century group of zealous Jews who believed they could legislate their way to a moral society.  To be sure, the Law of Moses contains rules, and Jesus was not a rebel who denounced the Law, but he could also see that his opponents were placing burdens upon the people that could not be kept, rather than focusing upon building up the character qualities that would enable people to freely choose to embrace morality.

Matthew 23:1-4 New International Version  23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

2. Making actions forbidden/taboo altogether gives them an allure or mystique.

Romans 7:7-12 New International Version 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The Apostle Paul, no fan of immoral behavior, recognized the danger associated with making rules, even though many of them are necessary.  This is not news to any parent, one need only tell a two year old that they can't do something in order to encourage that very behavior.  

Take dancing, for example, rather than forbidding all social dancing, why not seek to educate young people on appropriate forms of dancing?  Surely there isn't anything morally objectionable in many forms of dancing, nor to much of the music to which people would dance?  If some kinds of dancing, by some people, lead to temptation, must we ban it all for everyone?  So, why the total ban, what does it accomplish except to encourage young people to engage in the same behavior, but on the sly rather than in public, off the radar, rather than openly.  In other words, Legalism creates some of the very temptation that it thinks that it is suppressing by making the behavior more desirable as an act of rebellion. 

3. Rebellion against unnecessary rules becomes its own snare.

Romans 14:16-23  New International Version  16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.  22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Continuing with the dancing example.  If a Christian is firmly convinced in his/her own mind that social dancing is not immoral, that he/she can engage in it without temptation to sexual sin (the typical rationale for banning it), then he/she should be able to do so, unless that action causes another person to stumble.  This is Paul's way of balancing Christian liberty and responsibility to others.  However, when an authority over a Christian (parents, church, school) prohibits a behavior, even one that would NOT be sinful for that person to engage in, if that person does it anyway, he or she is still committing an act of rebellion in the process of doing what ought not be for him/her an immoral act.  In other words, the existence of the rule requires rule breaking to engage in behaviors that the Word of God has not prohibited, that conscience and the indwelling Holy Spirit have not warned against.  An offense is created where none need exist.  Rebellion is fostered among those who simply want to be disciples of Jesus.

Back to Jerry Falwell Jr.  In the past, Falwell has been photographed at a dance club, apparently enjoying alcoholic beverages, and recently with his arm around a young woman whose pants are unbuttoned, as are Falwell's, while he holds what he assures in the caption is not really alcohol.  

The bottom 1/3 of the photo was cropped, no need to show the whole thing.

Here's the thing, if Falwell wasn't the head of Liberty University, with its Liberty Way that applies to all students, he would be free to go to a club and enjoy dancing, even drink alcohol in moderation (I know that's taboo for many Evangelicals, but there is no Biblical prohibition on consumption, only drunkenness).  The picture with the young woman would have been over the line, but it wouldn't also reek of hypocrisy as he once again flaunts to the world that he doesn't need to follow the rules that he requires of others.

4. Boundaries can still exist without attempting to limit all possible sources of temptation.

When I was in Antigua,Guatemala, many years ago, I saw an odd sight.  An arch built over the road.  What was its purpose?  To prevent the monks in the monastery on one side from seeing the nuns in the nunnery on the other.  Lust is certainly a temptation to be wary of, and on guard against, but if the only way that we can tame it is to make sure that men and women don't see each other, we're in deep trouble.  Rather than detailed rules that spell out every conceivable temptation and prohibit as much of them as possible, why not teach young people how to think about morality, how to discern between right and wrong, and how to face temptation without succumbing to it?  We need guard rails to keep young people, and ourselves, from going off the road to our destruction, rather than straight jackets to keep them (and us) from doing anything but stay in our cell.  Legalism doesn't work, it never has.  It is far better for the Church, and other Christian organizations, to focus upon teaching and training hearts and minds, and importantly, leading by example.