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
Having newly been appointed governor of Judea, Festus visits Jerusalem to acquaint himself with the leadership there, and while doing so, is made aware of the ongoing desire on the part of the leading priests to rid themselves of Paul. Festus wastes no time in beginning the trial, but is dumbfounded by the bizarre (to him) Jewish theology which is at issue between the two sides. Unable to decipher what is going on, Festus suggests moving the trial to Jerusalem, prompting Paul to appeal to Caesar to avoid the corrupt influence of the Sanhedrin in the trial. Having little choice but to send Paul on to Rome, Festus asks Herod Agrippa II, whom the Romans considered to be an authority on Judaism, to hear Paul's case and offer a suggestion as to what to write to the emperor about Paul.
Throughout the proceedings, Paul maintains his position as a reformer and not a rebel, and is willing to utilize his rights as a citizen in his own defense. Throughout Church history the line between reformer and rebel has been a difficult one to walk, with Paul being the first of many to attempt it.
"What Does the Bible Say About Paying Your Fair Share of Taxes?" is a video posted on January 9th, under the channel named: When We Understand the Text, which is a ministry of Pastor Gabriel Hughes of the First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City, Kansas. I Understand that Pastor Hughes is trying to simplify issues into short responses of only a few minutes, and that complicated issues are not always conveyed the way the author/speaker intends when brevity is attempted. My objection to this particular video, regarding taxation, is not based upon its conclusion per se, but its methodology. The conclusion reached by Pastor Hughes is that a progressive system of taxation (i.e. that the rate increases as the taxable amount increases) is "not fair". And while the merits of various tax systems for both effectiveness and morality can and should be part of the political discussion of any free society, in this particular case the WWUT video rejects any non-flat tax (i.e. any tax system in which different rates are applied to the poor and rich) as being un-Biblical, and hence immoral and therefore a violation of the will of God.
The key question here is this: How is that conclusion reached in the one minute and thirty-two seconds of the video? The primary point is made by making a reference to the taxation system instituted by the Law of Moses for ancient Israel, that is the Old Covenant. The video makes the case that Israel's system treated the poor and the wealthy the same, briefly mentioning that it had provisions to help the poor (while not mentioning the most significant aspect of the Law of Moses against the accumulation of wealth, the Year of Jubilee), quickly mentions quotations about the need to pay taxes, in principle, attested by Jesus and Paul, and then simply concludes that this model from Israel should be applied, or at least the principle of a flat-tax taken from it, to America in the 21st century.
The use of the Bible to defend or bash Republicans or Democrats is extremely distasteful to me, and something I find to be detrimental to the Church's call to preach the Gospel and make disciples. If that was all this video contained it wouldn't stand out all that much from so many other attempts to use the Word of God to bolster political viewpoints. In addition to being politically tinged (the video shows an interview by Anderson Cooper of Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, thus not overly subtly hinting that Republican taxation policy must be closer to what God wants than that of Democrats), the video also makes a classic mistake of Biblical interpretation by conflating/equating Israel and the Old Covenant with either the United States/Church and the New Covenant. Thus whatever God told Israel to do, we too must do (again, forgetting that Israel was also told to cancel all debts every 50 years and return all property to its original owners to prevent both extreme poverty and extreme wealth, I'm not expecting a video advocating that practice). Does the New Testament address taxation rates? Nope. Does Paul write about what he believes a "fair" tax rate to be? No again. The Church is not Israel, it did not inherit the promises (or curses) of the Old Covenant, it did not take the place of Israel, but has only temporarily been "grafted in" until the "full number of the Gentiles has come in" (see Romans 11). Any question, then, of applying the Old Covenant's stipulations is not a simple matter of cutting and pasting what God commanded Israel to do onto the modern world, as if in this case God's grander intention when he gave Moses the Law concerning the taxes the Israelites were to pay was to eliminate the possibility that any other system of taxation could be possible, and every other way of collecting taxes must be immoral. The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are exceedingly valuable, and are as sacred and authoritative as those of the New Testament, but that does not mean that they should be read as if they are written directly to anyone other than Abraham's descendants. To mentally replace Israel with either America (or England, Germany, or any other nation) or the Church (as a whole, or any one in particular) is to do a disservice to the original intent and original interpretation/application of the Word of God given to the people of the covenants of Abraham/Moses/David. God gave Israel a flat-taxation system with a reset button every fifty years. What then should be the ideal taxation system for a society consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, Christians and non-Christians, in an era when most incomes are not directly tied to land ownership? To simply say, "the same as Israel, end of story", is not good enough.
This is not the first time that I've blanched at a video from WWUT, I refrained from posting about earlier ones because they didn't feel egregious enough to warrant a response, and I hesitate to question what another pastor/church is advocating without good cause (this objection is not an accusation that assumes motives, nor a reprimand that claims authority, but a word of caution concerning the handing of God's Holy Word). It isn't the issue of taxation that prompted this response, nor the issue of playing politics with Scripture, but rather the utilization of an Old Covenant provision to American taxation policy as if it was a case-closed obvious conclusion. Well meaning and God-honoring Christians can, and do, have a variety of beliefs regarding the application of Biblical examples and principles in our society and individual lives today, that is to be expected and not a negative thing. The important question here is more basic: How do we interpret the Bible and apply it to our lives today? Treating America or the Church as Israel is not the solution.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" may be the unofficial motto of America, but it is not, much to the chagrin of many, the mantra of our Creator, in particular the last part. The goal of the will of God for humanity as a whole and individual human beings as well, is not happiness but godliness. In other words, God's aim is not that we feel happy, but that we be holy and righteous. And while there is some overlap between feeling happy and being a person who practices holiness and righteousness, there are most certainly not the same thing. To be a person who, by the grace of God, chooses holiness and righteousness in this fallen world, is to be a person at odds with the prevailing self-centered worldview upon which human culture, not just American culture, is built. It is to be a person who eschews personal gain in favor of service to others, who rejects temporary advancement in favor of projects whose fullness will not be realized until our lives are over, and it is to be a person who is willing to sacrifice one's own comfort and material possessions in the service of a kingdom which, while already established, awaits the return of its king and the manifestation of his justice. It is, then, to be a person somewhat out of time and out of place, a person serving a king and belonging to a kingdom whose reality is not yet what it one day will be, and thus a person who is not seeking happiness, not at least according to any definition that those living for their own ends and purposes would understand or accept. And yet, with far-ranging negative consequences, much of modern Christianity seems to have missed this point, to have accepted that the job of the Church is to help people be happy (or worse yet, to make them happy). This is both a deviation from Biblical teaching, and a great hindrance upon the mission of the Church: to share the Gospel and make disciples.
One of the more well known portions of Scripture regarding this topic is this: Matthew 16:24-26 New International Version (NIV) 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
There are many more examples of the call in the Word of God to serve through self-sacrifice, among them, these words of John: 1 John 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV) 16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
In the end, as a Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, it isn't just about you. Christians are part of something greater than themselves, part of God's plan for all of humanity, and have committed themselves (whether they know it or not) to serving the Kingdom of God, which means that our lives are not about pursuing happiness.
Having safely arrived in Caesarea, the Apostle Paul now faces an attempt by the High Priest Ananias to persuade the Roman provincial governor Felix that he ought to be put to death for being a "troublemaker" who stirs up riots. In his defense, Paul points to a lack of witnesses to this supposed quarrelsome conduct, and asserts that, "I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man." For us, the example of Paul is important. As Christians, we may face persecution because of the Truth that we proclaim in the Gospel, but we must not be liable to charges of being troublemakers. Let the message be rejected if it must, we cannot allow the fault to lie with the messengers, there is no excuse for Christians who character and conduct is destructive not constructive.
After having placed the Apostle Paul in protective custody following the riot instigated by his enemies in Jerusalem, the Roman garrison's commander, Claudius Lysias, learns from Paul's nephew that a conspiracy of over 40 men has vowed to murder Paul in the streets after their co-conspirators in the Sanhedrin have used a false pretext to request Paul appear before them. Upon learning of this disturbing plan, one that includes the blasphemy of using the authority of those who are supposed to represent God to plan a murder, the commander sends Paul away to Caesarea with a strong escort of soldiers.
What do we make of this text? (1) That the providence of God is not thwarted by the conspiracies of evil men, (2) that while evil thrives in the dark it only takes a little like to begin to counteract it (in this case the courage of Paul's nephew to come forward), and (3) that even if we are the target of an attempt to discredit or destroy us, even if we personally face persecution, that we remain, as was Paul, in the care of Almighty God.
