A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part II
I) Intro
In “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I,” we looked how God cares about Politics and He expects us to be engaged. To not be informed makes knowing what to pray for virtually impossible and to ignore the character of those who govern is to invite the kind of corruption that makes the “people groan. (Prov 29:2, 4)”
In Part II we’re looking at the challenge we face when attempting to discern the character of those who aspire to leadership positions as well as the seemingly illusive bottom lines when it comes to current events. Bottom line: The Bible says to “test the spirits” and we need to apply that to what it is we allow into our inbox by popping the hood, keeping your balance and kicking the tires.
II) Pop the Hood
A) Wisdom vs Intelligence
Proverbs 9:13-18 says:
Folly is an unruly woman; she is simple and knows nothing. 14 She sits at the door of her house, on a seat at the highest point of the city, 15 calling out to those who pass by, who go straight on their way, 16 “Let all who are simple come to my house!” To those who have no sense she says, 17 “Stolen water is sweet; food eaten in secret is delicious!” 18 But little do they know that the dead are there, that her guests are deep in the realm of the dead. (Prov 9:13-18)
Compare that to Proverbs 1:20-23, 3:13-18:
Out in the open wisdom calls aloud, she raises her voice in the public square; 21 on top of the wall[a] she cries out, at the city gate she makes her speech: 22 “How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? 23 Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings… Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding, 14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her. 16 Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. 17 Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her; those who hold her fast will be blessed. (Proverbs 1:20-23, 3:13-18)
What’s the difference between being wise and being smart?
The dictionary defines wisdom as “…knowledge, and the capacity to make due use of it.”1 The Bible takes it a step further by saying that, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” (Prov 9:10) How does that work? How does an appropriate reverence for God translate to wisdom?
B) Give Thought to Your Ways
Apart from the way a fool will ultimately deny the Reality of God (Ps 14:1) and the need for God’s grace (Rev 20:15), you also have the practical side of wisdom to consider in that you’re like the tree referenced by David in Psalm 1 as far as how everything they do prospers (see sidebar). And part of why they prosper is because they’re prudent and they give careful thought to their ways. Proverbs 14:15 says:
The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps. (Prov 14:15 [see also Prov 6:6-11; Matt 25:16])
Fact is, in light of our struggle always being defined in the context of a spiritual contest (Eph 6:12), “testing the spirits” like what Paul says in First Thessalonians is going to apply not only to points of doctrine, but to everything that we encounter as human beings (2 Cor 9:8):
20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil. (1 Thess 5:21-22)
Finally, in 1 John 4:1 we hear John saying the same thing we just heard Paul mention:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 Jn 4:1)
C) Every Bit of It
While listening to a cable news broadcast may seem like it falls under a different category than what John is referring to as far as “false prophets,” remember that however innocent or nondescript something may appear to be, consider what it says in Proverbs 24:
I went past the field of a sluggard, past the vineyard of someone who has no sense; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—34 and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man. (Prov 24:30-34)
You wouldn’t think Solomon, as wise and as powerful as he was, would’ve ever even considered betraying the One Who was the Source of his grandeur, but incremental compromises ultimately culminated in what you read in 1 Kings 11:5, as far as how his wives convinced him to worship Ashtoreth (ASH-toh-rith) and Molech (MOH-lek) – Molech being the god who demanded that you burn your children alive in order to appease him.
It’s not something to obsess over, but it is a healthy reminder to be diligent – not just in personal matters but even in the way you process the things that are going on around you.
Little compromises, incomplete information, a biased perspective – you want to pop the hood on every bit of it in order to ensure your convictions are sound and your steps are appropriately “ordered.” (Ps 37:23) So, how does one “test the spirits?”
III) Keep Your Balance
John says that you tell who’s who and what’s what by looking to see which “spirits” are willing to acknowledge Jesus as Lord:
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (1 Jn 4:2-3)
When attempting to discern the bottom line where a particular headline is concerned, while some commentators will make public their religious convictions, not everyone does.
So, how do you navigate Politics? How do you establish some bottom lines where COVID-19 is concerned or “Black Lives Matter?”
Ecclesiastes 7:16-18 says this:
Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise—why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)
This is where we get into the dynamic of what you allow into your inbox. Consider the following:
Experts Doubt the Resurrection of Christ
All of Israel is caught up in the rumors pertaining to the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious and political criminal that was recently put to death. While some are insistent that he is, in fact, alive, there are many others who dismiss it as yet another attempt being made on the part of his followers to validate his claims that he was the Son of God.
We sat down with several high ranking officials, both from the Jewish and the Roman institutions that championed what was a very difficult, yet just, decision to get their thoughts. From the very beginning, the Nazarene who referred to himself as the Son of God, was a problem in the way he incited many Jews to question the Law and their own heritage. His exploits weren’t curious as much as they were damaging, though many of those who heard him speak were unaware of just how toxic his perspective was.
Thankfully there were steady and committed hands ready to prevent his corrosive effect from spreading by publicly questioning him and revealing his true colors. “We challenged him,” said Simon, one of our more prominent Pharisees. “We demanded that he validate his testimony concerning himself and he wasn’t able to do it. (John 6)”
“His illegitimacy is no secret,” says Reuben, an associate of Simon and with him while they were questioning Jesus. “His mother was a disgrace and to see him now trying to assert himself as being equal to Jehovah is not only ludicrous, it’s almost sad to see someone so desperate to cover up the scandalous and unlawful aspects of his birth. (Mk 6:3)”
Clavius, a familiar tribune who serves Rome and has been an advocate for our Jewish traditions on many occasions, has no trouble being critical of Jesus. “I remember a servant who lived in the household of one of my centurions who was deathly ill,” said Clavius. “He asked the Christ to come and heal his servant and this Jesus, who is supposedly compassionate, never even came to his home. I remember hearing that and from that moment forward, I was convinced that he was a problem and a fraud. (Matt 8:5-13)”
Atticus is yet another distinguished Roman, having served in the Roman army for two decades and a veteran of many conflicts. He was one of the guards who were stationed at the site of the Christ’s tomb (Matt 27:62-65). “It’s insane!” he said. “I’ve been around death more than once. Jesus died. He’s dead. It might make you sad, but that doesn’t change the fact He’s gone. And I know what it is to grieve, but to see this rabble refuse to accept the death of their cause and their champion by inventing this ridiculous story that he ‘rose from the grave’ is nothing more than a crazy effort to not accept the fact that your Christ is no more, and you need to move on.”
When asked about the way in which the Pharisees were accusing the disciples of having stolen Christ’s body in order to give the appearance of Jesus having risen, Atticus said, “Your readers need to know that the disciples are lying! There is no resurrection. They broke the seal, they violated the sovereignty of Rome, they’re a stench among their own people…they’re insane! (Matt 28:11-15)”
Among those who insist that he rose is a former small business owner named Peter. As a fisherman, your fortunes are limited by default. Perhaps that’s why the prospect of becoming one of the Christ’s followers appealed to him to the point where he abandoned his craft and his family (Matt 8:14-18; 1 Cor 9:5). Maybe in the context of aligning yourself with someone who challenges the governing authorities could lead to a more prominent and financially sound position. Whatever his motivation was, his resolve to promote the fantasy of a risen “Messiah” is still very much intact.
“I’ve seen him!” said Peter. “I’m ashamed to admit that during his arraignment and trial, I denied even knowing him – I was that determined to put as much distance between myself and my former teacher as possible (Matt 26:73-75).” “But that all changed when I saw him,” Peter said. “He’s alive and I’ll stake my life on it (Acts 4:18-19).”
Peter’s passion is admirable, but does that passion negate the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses let alone the sworn statements coming from established and reputable Roman officials and Jewish authorities?
“There is something both healthy and beneficial in retreating from emotionally charged declarations and instead cling to the certainty of one’s spiritual heritage,” said Simon. “We obey the political authorities that God has instituted, and we revere the Law He gave to Moses. This is my stance and I hope it is one that our people will adopt as well.”
You can be honest without telling the truth. You can be ethical and still be sinister. By emphasizing certain aspects of the story and casting a shadow of doubt on specific personalities, you can manipulate your readers’ perspective so they’re not only embracing the conclusion you would have them arrive at, but they’re also perceiving anyone who thinks differently as being either hateful or frightened. In many cases, the dissemination of information is more about tactics than it is topics.
In the movie, “The Social Network,” there’s a scene where an attorney shows Mark Zuckerberg just how easy it can be to sway a jury without having to produce any evidence or even have a reason to doubt the answer to a particular question. But just by asking the question, you can distract from what’s relevant and initiate a thought process that’s willing to believe something despite the necessary evidence needed to validate it as being true being completely absent.
(Marilyn Deply [attorney]) I’ve been licensed to practice law for all of twenty months and I can get a jury to believe that you planted the story about Eduardo and the chicken. Watch what else: Why weren’t you at Sean’s sorority party that night?
(Mark Zuckerberg) You think I called the police?
(Marilyn Deply [attorney]) Doesn’t matter. I asked the question, now everybody’s thinking about it. You’ve lost your jury in the first 10 minutes.
What this scene demonstrates is the way in which your mind can be influenced to ignore what amounts to a comprehensive collection of the facts and instead focus on what is made to stand out as being the only logical bottom line. And it’s not hard to do… Oftentimes the only thing needed is to make your audience question your opponent’s character. If you’re successful, there’s nothing that can come from their mouth or their pen that won’t be immediately processed as something bogus. They did it with Paul:
For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” (2 Cor 10:10)
… they did it with Christ:
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.” (Matt 11:19)
…and they do it today.
IV) Conclusion
There’s any one of a number of topics that are being constantly presented using this approach where more time is spent assaulting a person’s character than they do engaging their content. This is but one tactic and we’ll look at some more next week.
But however misleading things can potentially be, the question remains: How do you overcome it?
You keep your balance.
In the passage we looked at a moment ago, the last piece says, “It is good to grasp the one and not let got of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.“
When you’re confronted with a question or an issue, the resources you allow into your inbox that you default to in order to understand what’s going on may represent a comprehensive analysis, they may not. The key is to ensure that you’re looking at all the facts according to their academic merit and not the way in which they’re made to be associated with certain personalities that have been characterized as either fools or fiends.
Balance.
Grasp the one and do not let go of the other.
Give thought to your steps and be diligent in ensuring that you’re processing yourself and the world around you according to a wise assessment as opposed to a quick impression.
For example, did you know we won the Vietnam War?
I’m not kidding.
I didn’t.
I served for nine years in the USMC with several who were combat vets. I remember as a kid the bumper stickers and the bracelets that were circulated during the seventies to remind people that we had POWs still over there… It was always viewed as a bit of a tragic debacle. If you try to find any information on what it is I’m getting ready to elaborate on, you’re going to run into some difficulties. Try doing a search for “vietnam war victory day” and you’ll get articles about the fall of Saigon and “Reunification Day.”
But if you do a search for January 23, 1973, you’ll get the information you need in order to better understand why Vietnam was a war that we did indeed win. You can watch a video about it by clicking here.
The gist of it was that Nixon launched an aggressive bombing campaign against industrial and military targets in Hanoi with the condition that the bombing would stop if the North Vietnamese would agree to talk peace at the Paris Peace Accords. North Vietnam finally agreed to Nixon’s offer and on January 23, 1973, an announcement was made that an agreement had been initialed by the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, South Vietnam and the United States.
It was proclaimed as “Victory in Vietnam Day!” We had won! The nature of the peace agreement was that the hostilities would end and that South Vietnam would be recognized as a sovereign nation by the North Vietnamese. Should the North Vietnamese initiate any kind of military action, the United States promised to match South Vietnam’s response bullet for bullet, man for man.
But then Watergate happened.
Nixon resigned in disgrace and the Democrats smelled blood. They ran on a platform that denounced the war as a waste of resources. Gerald Ford appeared before Congress and pleaded with them to remain faithful to the promise made to South Vietnam, but the opportunity to win the Oval Office was too great, and Congress refused.
Not long after, Saigon fell and the victory that was both true and legitimate was erased from the history books and Jimmy Carter was elected as our new President.
However shameful it may be to see the honor and the sacrifice of the American military so casually removed from the public conscience just so a particular party can regain a superior political position, what’s even more despicable is the way in which those in charge of crafting the headlines and creating our school’s curriculum made a point of ignoring the practical reality of VV Day (Victory in Vietnam Day).
This is part of what makes informed conversation so challenging. You have in place a media staffed by some who are determined to minimize certain facts that make a difference in the way, not only America appears, but also how Truth is defined. Over a period of time, the abundance of “chanted information” (questionable conclusions repeated over and over again by the media until they become a collection of accepted facts) makes locating a more holistic perspective not only more challenging, but also more controversial.
1. Webster’s 1913 Dictionary, “Wisdom”, https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Wisdom, accessed February 9, 2022
The God Delusion | Part Two – What About Prayer?
Dawkins 1 | God 0
Richard Dawkins, in his continued attempt to mock the legitimacy of the Christian faith, references something he refers to as “The Great Prayer Experiment.”
He explains…
...the physicist Russell Standard (one of Britain’s three well-known religious scientists, as we shall see) has thrown his weight behind an initiative, funded by – of course – the Templeton Foundation, to test experimentally the proposition that praying for sick patients improves their health. Such experiments, if done properly, have to be double blind, and this standard was strictly observed. The patients were assigned, strictly at random, to an experimental group (received prayers) or control group (received no prayers). Neither the patients, nor their doctors or caregivers, nor the experimenters were allowed to know which patients were being prayed for and which patients were controls. Those who did the experimental praying had to know the names of the individuals for whom they were praying – otherwise, in what sense would they be praying for them rather than for somebody else? But care was taken to tell them on the first name and the initial letter of the surname. Apparently that would be enough to enable God to pinpoint the right hospital bed. The very idea of doing such experiments is open to a generous amount of ridicule, and the project duly received it. As far as I know, Bob Newhart didn’t do a sketch about it, but I can distinctly hear his voice:
What’s that you say, Lord? You can’t cure me because I’m a member of the control group?…Oh, I see, my aunt’s prayers aren’t enough. But Lord, Mr Evans in the next door bed…What was that, Lord?…Mr Evans received a thousand prayers per day? But Lord, Mr Evans doesn’t know a thousand people…Oh, the just referred to him as John E. But Lord, how di you know they didn’t mean John Ellsworth?…Oh right, you used your omniscience to work out which John E. they meant…1
The study that Dawkins references was done in 2006. The two groups were further divided into three sub groups:
- people that knew they were being prayed for
- people that were being prayed for and did not know it
- people that received no prayers and didn’t know it
The results of the study were clear cut. There was no difference between those being prayed for and those who were not. There was a difference in the amount of suffering however, in that the people who knew they were being prayed for suffered more than those who weren’t being prayed for and had no clue.
Bottom line: Prayer doesn’t work, God isn’t real and to believe otherwise is either complete stupidity or an example of a blind faith that resolves to believe regardless of the quantifiable evidence that exists to refute it.
Dawkins: 1 | God: 0
A Weak Response
Dawkins cites several theologians who embarrass themselves by attempting to explain the results in the context of how God either uses suffering to accomplish His Purposes or such studies are pointless in that they attempt to quantify God – which you can’t do.
It’s not that they don’t have a point. God does use suffering to strengthen a believer’s faith (Romans 5:3-5; 2 Cor 1:3-7). But it also says that you mourn with those who mourn (Rom 12:15).
It is encouraging to know that God has a Purpose and He can be trusted when you’re going through a hard time, but you telling someone they should be “happy” when something terrible has happened is not always helpful. And saying that you can plot the Reality of God on a graph or prove His existence on a calculator is no different than saying you can package love in a shoebox or reproduce peace in a test tube. God is more than a “result,” just like a person is more than a photograph.
Still, you should be able to expect some kind of material evidence to support the validity of the Christian faith and when a clergyman responds to a test like this by saying people should welcome suffering or God can’t be “proven,” their responses sound pretty weak and Dawkins’ argument appears to be all the more compelling.
If God’s real, and prayer supposedly is a person asking God for something, then it follows that, in a study such as this, you should see some kind of evidence that God is at least listening. No?
Dawkins concludes by assuming that the “faithful” will soldier on, despite the lack of evidence and proof, and wait it out until they get the result they want.
But Wait
It’s interesting because, while the study Dawkins cites occurred in 2006, there’s an article in Newsmax magazine entitled, “Studies Prove the Healing Power of Prayer” that references several similar studies that produced much different results:
- The American Journal of Public Health studied nearly 2,000 older Californians for five years and found that those who attended religious services were 36 percent less likely to die during that period than those who didn’t.
- A study of nearly 4,000 older adults for the U.S. Journal of Gerontology revealed that atheists had a significantly increased chance of dying over a six-year period than the faithful.
- Crucially, religious people lived longer than atheists even if they didn’t go regularly to a place of worship.
- The American Society of Hypertension established in 2006 that church-goers have lower blood pressure than non-believers.
- Scientists have also revealed believers recover from breast cancer quicker than non-believers, have better outcomes from coronary disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and are less likely to have children with meningitis.
- Research at San Francisco General Hospital looked at the effect of prayer on 393 cardiac patients. Half were prayed for by strangers who had only the patients’ names. Those patients had fewer complications, fewer cases of pneumonia, and needed less drug treatment.They also got better quicker and left the hospital earlier.
So, which studies do you believe? And why does Dawkins not acknowledge other similar studies that actually reinforce the utility and the Power of prayer?
That’s a question that may not ever get a satisfactory answer, but let’s take a minute and look at Scripture.
In Jesus’ Name
First of all, God is not a vending machine. You don’t simply put in your “prayer coin,” pull a lever and expect Divine machinations come to life, spit out the result you want, in the timeframe you’re expecting. He’s God, you’re not. The Bible makes some pretty broad sounding guarantees when it comes to prayer.
7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.8For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matt 7:7-8)
On surface, it looks like if you position your appeal just right, you’re gold! Whatever you want, whatever you need – it’s yours. But look at John 14:
13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name , so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name , and I will do it. (Jn 14:13-14)
“In my Name” is more than just a poetic compliment to your prayer. “In the Name of Jesus,” or “in Jesus’ Name” invokes a dynamic that establishes the Priority and the Precedence of God. Specifically, His Will:
14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (1 Jn 5:13-14)
And that’s not a “hidden clause.” That’s consistent with the kind of approach you would expect in a wise, father figure. A child can approach their Dad for anything they want, but the Dad isn’t going to respond in the affirmative if the child asks for a machine gun. Take a look at Matthew 18:19-20:
9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matt 7:9-11)
You see where this is all going?
God sees you and your life laid out before Him in a way that’s not limited by the constraints of time and space. He knows what’s best from womb to tomb.
Ask.
Absolutely!
But ask knowing that should He say, “No,” or “Wait,” it’s not Him being cruel and it’s certainly not a prompt to doubt His Reality. Rather, it’s a cue to remember His Sovereignty which is Ultimately founded on an unconditional love and an uncompromising commitment to our welfare.
You Don’t Talk to Your Father That Way
When satan was attempting to get Jesus to make some compromises, he honed in on, what would naturally be, a logical means by which Christ could recruit the attention and the admiration of those He sought to save by throwing Himself down off the top of the temple and emerge unharmed (Matt 4:5-7).
Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16, saying that you don’t put the Lord your God to the test. That passage in Deuteronomy is referring the scenario in Exodus when the Israelites were on the march and had come to point where they were without water. Despite very recent demonstrations of God’s Power and Presence in the context of all the miracles He had done in their midst, here they are now asking, point blank, “Is God among us or not? (Ex 17:7)”
Kind of like the study Dawkins wants to use to demonstrate the Reality of God.
“You do what I want you to do, when I want you to do it, and I’ll give you a second look…”
That doesn’t sound like a reverent request as much as it sounds like a belligerent demand. It’s almost like a child approaching their Dad insisting that unless he gives them that machine gun, they’re going to throw a fit. Things like “You don’t love me!” or “You’re not my real Dad!” are shouted in response to their father’s refusal to meet their demand. Whether they’re legitimate expressions of indignation or strategic phrases deployed for the purpose of securing a specific outcome, either way, it’s wrong. Especially if what the father is withholding from his child is something that could prove harmful.
Yet, that’s the approach some take with God. It’s not healthy let alone appropriate. You don’t talk to your Father that way.
There’s a degree of audacity represented by a human being looking at God and saying, “Oh yeah? Prove it!” Yet, from Dawkins’ perspective, there’s nothing audacious about it because he views humanity as being an absolute in and of themselves.
The cross is foolishness to unbelievers (1 Cor 1:18) and it makes sense. If you’re not convinced that you need forgiveness, then what’s the purpose of a Savior? If you answer to yourself and yourself alone, then the notion of a God is at once ridiculous and intrusive.
That was the mindset being addressed by Jesus when He responded to the Pharisees who were demanding a sign by saying, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Matt 16:4) It’s similar to the way God responded to Job who, seemingly had every reason to be indignant with God, by saying, “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.” (Job 38:3)
Do you smell what’s on the stove?
Brace Yourself Like a Man
Consider the created order (Rom 1:20), contemplate the miracle of grace (Rom 5:8). Recognize who and what you are before your King and appreciate the gift that He’s given to you, as far as your ability to ask for things in prayer, (Matt 7:7-12; Heb 4:16).
Park there for a minute.
It’s a gift!
You need to be careful to process it as something that has been given to you by God and not a license to make demands of God. You don’t talk to your Father that way and should you feel inclined to be a little indignant, remember Who set the planets in motion and initiated the pumping action of your heart.
Most of all, be mindful of the fact that the One you’re getting ready to criticize is the One Who secured a “non-guilty” verdict for you by dying on the cross.
Brace yourself like a man…
A Privilege to be Revered
Perhaps the most succinct refutation of Dawkins’ outlook on prayer in that it is not a practice to be evaluated by man, rather it is a privilege to be revered by man. And to abuse it as a means to test God is to make the focus of your prayer your own arrogance.
In that moment you’re not conversing with the Almighty as much as you’re just talking to hear yourself speak (Matt 6:5-15).
Perhaps that’s why He taught us to begin our conversations with Him by saying: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, YOUR kingdom come, YOUR will be done, on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:9-10 [emphasis added])
Your Kingdom, Your will, because… You’re God.
1. “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2006, p86-87
Pharisees Doubt the Resurrection of Christ – an Example of Fake News
“Fake News” is a sinister mechanism. Reason being is that you can be both ethical and accurate without telling the whole truth with the result being all of your subscribers walking around believing that they have an accurate perspective on the issues when, in fact, they’re clinging to a lie that has a much bigger and more diabolical purpose attached to it.
The following is a great example of “fake news.” I’ve got the passages that are being either distorted or referenced cited in parenthesis. As you read, consider how this same approach can be used to falsify the way in which our nation’s politics and culture are being presented, yet all the while appear completely ethical.
Pharisees Doubt The Resurrection of Christ
All of Israel is caught up in the rumors pertaining to the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious and political criminal that was recently put to death. While some are insistent that he is, in fact, alive, there are many others who dismiss it as yet another attempt being made on the part of his followers to validate his claims that he was the Son of God. We sat down with several high ranking officials, both from the Jewish and the Roman institutions that championed what was a very difficult, yet just, decision to get their thoughts.
From the very beginning, the Nazarene who referred to himself as the Son of God, was a problem in the way he incited many Jews to question the Law and their own heritage. His exploits weren’t curious as much as they were damaging, though many of those who heard him speak were unaware of just how toxic his perspective was. Thankfully there were steady and c
ommitted hands ready to prevent his corrosive effect from spreading by publicly questioning him and revealing his true colors.
“We challenged him,” said Simon, one of our more prominent Pharisees. “We demanded that he validate his testimony concerning himself and he wasn’t able to do it. (John 6)”
“His illegitimacy is no secret,” says Reuben, an associate of Simon and with him while they were questioning Jesus. “His mother was a disgrace and to see him now trying to assert himself as being equal to Jehovah is not only ludicrous, it’s almost sad to see someone so desperate to cover up the scandalous and unlawful aspects of his birth. (Mk 6:3)”
Clavius, a familiar tribune who serves Rome and has been an advocate for our Jewish traditions on many occasions, has no trouble being critical of Jesus.
“I remember a servant who lived in the household of one of my centurions who was deathly ill,” said Clavius. “He asked the Christ to come and heal his servant and this Jesus, who is supposedly compassionate, never even came to his home. I remember hearing that and from that moment forward, I was convinced that he was a problem and a fraud. (Matt 8:5-13)”
Atticus is yet another distinguished Roman, having served in the Roman army for two decades and a veteran of many conflicts. He was one of the guards who were stationed at the site of the Christ’s tomb (Matt 27:62-65).
“It’s insane!” he said. “I’ve been around death more than once. Jesus died. He’s dead. It might make you sad, but that doesn’t change the fact He’s gone. And I know what it is to grieve, but to see this rabble refuse to accept the death of their cause and their champion by inventing this ridiculous story that he ‘rose from the grave’ is nothing more than a crazy effort to not accept the fact that your Christ is no more and you need to move on.”
When asked about the way in which the Pharisees were accusing the disciples of having stolen Christ’s body in order to give the appearance of Jesus having risen, Atticus said, “Your readers need to know that the disciples are lying! There is no resurrection. They broke the seal, they violated the sovereignty of Rome, they’re a stench among their own people…they’re insane! (Matt 28:11-15)”
Among those who insist that he rose is a former small business owner named Peter. As a fisherman, your fortunes are limited by default. Perhaps that’s why the prospect of becoming one of the Christ’s followers appealed to him to the point where he abandoned his craft and his family (Matt 8:14-18; 1 Cor 9:5). Maybe in the context of aligning yourself with someone who challenges the governing authorities could lead to a more prominent and financially sound position. Whatever his motivation was, his resolve to promote the fantasy of a risen “Messiah” is still very much intact.
“I’ve seen him!” said Peter. “I’m ashamed to admit that during his arraignment and trial, I denied even knowing him – I was that determined to put as much distance between myself and my former teacher as possible (Matt 26:73-75).”
“But that all changed when I saw him,” Peter said. “He’s alive and I’ll stake my life on it (Acts 4:18-19).”
Peter’s passion is admirable, but does that passion negate the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses let alone the sworn statements coming from established and reputable Roman officials and Jewish authorities?
“There is something both healthy and beneficial in retreating from emotionally charged declarations and instead cling to the certainty of one’s spiritual heritage,” said Simon. “We obey the political authorities that God has instituted and we revere the Law He gave to Moses. This is my stance and I hope it is one that our people will adopt as well.”
The God Delusion vs the God Conclusion | Part I
There are three kinds of “data.”
Facts
“Facts” are accurate statements. Think of them as headlines.
For example:
- Headline #1: Jesus Rises From the Grave
- Headline #2: Pharisees Accuse Christ Followers of Stealing Corpse of Christ
Both of these statements are accurate. While we know Christ did, in fact, rise, the Pharisees also paid the guards that were guarding the tomb a large sum of money to back up the story that the disciples had stolen the body (Matt 28:11-15).
What’s significant is that for someone who’s just glossing over the headlines, the verbiage, albeit very brief, can still shape conclusions for those who don’t take the time to consider the full account. That leads us to the second category:
Information
“Information” is the “facts” in the context of a limited perspective.
A journalist could build a compelling yet misleading article by strategically citing the chief priests, the guards who had been bribed and any one of a number of like minded people.
Can you see the article in your mind’s eye (click here to read “Pharisees Doubt the Resurrection of Christ – an Example of Fake News” to see an example)?
By steering clear of any testimony that differs from the accounts of the judiciously selected individuals compiled by the hypothetical journalist, you’ve got an article that’s legitimately accurate (facts) and informative (limited perspective). But because the perspective of the article is limited, while there’s nothing directly stated, there is nevertheless an implication that says Christ is dead and unless the reader is inspired to seek out a more comprehensive perspective, assuming he’s even aware that one is available, he’s waking around sporting a very cynical outlook on the first Easter morning.
Information.
Limited perspective.
Finally, the last category of “data” is…
Truth
Truth is an accurate statement that’s been elaborated on in the context of a full perspective. This is the well you want to be drawing your conclusions from. Here is where the right questions are being asked and full disclosure is the norm.
In the absence of “truth,” you risk formulating convictions that are fundamentally flawed. This is why you want to ensure that you’re aggressively and intentionally seeking out the “truth,” and not just the “facts.”
You don’t even want to be content with “additional information.” The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Consider this quote from John Adams:
“This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it!”
On the surface, you have, what appears to be, a very valid piece of evidence that says our nation’s second President and a founding father was an atheist. Or, at least, a very cynical individual when it came to religion. John Adams did say it. It’s part of a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson. When you consider the statement in its proper context, you arrive at a much different conclusion:
“Twenty times in the course of my late readings, I have been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it!’ But in this exclamation I should have been as fanatical as [Adams’ former pastor Lemuel] Bryant or [his former teacher Joseph] Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company — I mean hell.”
In other words, Adams is exasperated when he ponders the way in which organized religion has resulted in so much tension. He says, tongue in cheek, that the world would be better without any “religion” in it. But then he’s very quick to say that the world would be, literally, hell on earth.
Hardly the musings of a man who views religion with a contemptuous sneer.
Yet, this is the way in which atheists and progressives sometimes frame their “facts” and “information” when it comes to the religious disposition of America’s founding fathers (see also “The Treaty of Tripoli” on sidebar).
Richard Dawkins categorizes John Adams as a cynical deist, to the point of him being used by Dawkins as evidence of a collective disdain for religion shared by virtually all the founding fathers.
He quotes Adams as saying:
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”1
But he fails to reference another statement made by Adams:
The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern Times, the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity, let the Blackguard [Thomas] Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to Man.2
Facts. Information. Truth. You want to know the truth, you want to be aware of the facts, but more than anything else, you want to understand the truth.
The Book of Proverbs
Scripture admonishes us to do as much. Proverbs 4:7 says:
Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. (Prove 4:7)
And wisdom begins with a reverence for God. That’s the top button.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Prov 9:10)
Understand that wisdom, from a biblical standpoint, is more than just knowledge. It’s the “ability to judge correctly and to follow the best course of action, based on knowledge and understanding.”3
While this “ability” is based in part on one’s discipline in the context of academic pursuits, it derives it’s true accuracy and application from an intentional pursuit of God’s Power and Perspective.
In short, it’s a Divine Perspective properly applied (1 Cor 2:16; Col 1:29; Jas 1:5-8).
Here, then, is where you see the real distinction between having access to the directions and actually following the directions – the difference between Facts, Information and Truth. Anytime you buy something that requires some assembly, you can gloss over the instructions, believing that your intuition can more than make up for a careful study of the manufacturer’s counsel. More often than not, however, those instructions prove invaluable in being able to put your new resource together correctly. And however prudent it may be to follow the instructions in the assembly of your nephew’s new swing set, it’s absolutely crucial that you follow God’s Instructions when it comes to the whole of life (Jn 14:21; Rom 8:11).
When you’re listening to people like Richard Dawkins, or people who think like him, use the same technique. Recognize the difference between Facts, Information and Truth. Don’t let a carefully crafted platform based on an intentionally watered down perspective replace the full perspective and the truly accurate convictions that flow from that approach.
1. “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2006, p65
2. John Adams, The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962), 3:233-34
3. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, Nashville, TN
A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I
Despite the fact that Donald Trump was defeated in the 2020 Election, his opponents continue to attack his character, minimize his accomplishments and question the sanity / morality of anyone who would support him.
To some extent, you can’t help but wonder why? If he’s no longer in office, than there’s no reason to be concerned that his policies will make their way into the public sphere given the fact that he’s no longer in a position of authority.
But there’s more to Trump than just him being a political figure. He represents a different approach to politics that makes some very uneasy because of the way it reveals the lack of ethics and efficiency typical of big government and the Liberal perspective in general.
Ultimately, Trump’s platform translates to a result that’s very difficult to argue with, given the way it serves our country’s best interests. But that doesn’t change the fact that those who dislike him are especially passionate in their disdain and an intelligent conversation can be a real challenge because of the way they’re conditioned to perceive Trump as evil along with anyone who would come to his defense.
And it’s not just Liberals.
You’ve got Conservative Christians who either refuse to vote or assert a different name on the ballot because they’re so convinced Trump represents the kind of immorality that they simply can’t support.
So, why Trump? Why would anyone support Donald J. Trump?
We’re going to break this down into several sections because there’s more to this than just an affinity for a particular political party.
To say that God doesn’t care about Politics is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates all governments to begin with. And while that’s obviously a nonsensical disposition, you also have the false premise that says that God doesn’t care about the laws of a nation and how they either promote what strengthens an individual or tears them down (Prov 28:2-3, 28; 29:2, 4). He does care and He expects His people to be engaged (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2).
The candidate that represents the most qualified to lead is the one who champions the approach that is most consistent with the foundation laid by the ones who defeated the most powerful empire in the world and established a system of government that, up to that point, was completely unheard of in the way it established the individual as the one who had the right to choose how they wanted to be governed and the extent to which they wanted to succeed (Ps 33:12).
Over the course of the last several decades, Journalism has become more of thermostat than a thermometer and you need to be wise in the way you process information coming from those who are vying for a position in your inbox.
Christ said you’ll know a tree by it’s fruit (Lk 6:44). However Trump is made to appear in the headlines, it is his policies that need to be evaluated in order to determine the substance of his platform and not just the commentary crafted by those who have a problem with his personality or his past.
I) God and Politics
Some will insist that God doesn’t care about Politics. Because it doesn’t directly impact a person’s soul and the fact that it can be a very divisive issue to the point where a conversation about Christ becomes difficult due to the way in which political topics can poison a dialogue, the tendency is to avoid it altogether and believe that God is basically indifferent to who gets elected and what goes on in the halls of government. That’s absurd. First of all, it’s God Who establishes kings and those who are in positions of authority (Dan 2:21; Rom 13:1-2; 1 Pet 2:13). So, to say that He’s not concerned is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates governments to begin with.
Some Christian communicators cite the answer given to Joshua by an imposing figure standing near Jericho just prior to the Israelites marching around the city as evidence that God does not take sides…
13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”
14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[a] have for his servant?”
15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Josh 5:13-15)
The fact that the man replied by saying that he was neither on the side of the Israelites nor the Canaanites was not indicative of God being neutral and detached from the situation. The fact that it was God working through the Israelites that resulted in the successful siege of Jericho demonstrates that God was obviously invested in seeing the city destroyed. The point that was being made is that we don’t need to be asking whether or not God is on our side as much as we need to ensure that we are on God’s side and operating according to His Instructions and overall Purpose.
But even if you’re on God’s side, do we need to be concerned about voting or even paying attention to the news if God’s Purpose is going to be accomplished regardless of our involvement?
You could ask the same question about salvation, given the fact that those who are born again were predestined to be saved (Rom 8:29), yet we are to witness and Paul makes the Divinely inspired observation that you can’t expect someone to hear and understand the gospel unless someone preaches to them (Rom 10:14-15).
The fact is, God has set things up in such a way where His Sovereignty exists alongside our responsibility – both are true simultaneously (see “God’s Sovereignty & Man’s Responsibility” on sidebar). Emphasizing one over the other invariably leads to disobedience and we are commanded to pray for those who are in positions of authority (1 Tim 2:1-3).
The fact that our prayers are referenced as an act that makes a difference reinforces the idea that our involvement is both mandated and effective.
II) Your Best Option
The key to political success is to model our approach according to the template used by our Founding Fathers who were able to defeat the world’s most powerful empire and to establish a system of government that, at the time, was completely unheard of. It’s that template that has allowed our country to flourish and it’s more than just political theory as much as it’s an ideological paradigm that serves as our legislative foundation.
Those ideals go beyond human preferences or sensible philosophical options and it’s because they’re rooted in a transcendent Absolute that they can be asserted as functional bottom lines. The best qualified candidates for political office are those that possess the talent and the mindset that best facilitate those bottom lines – not just because they’re consistent with a successful history, but because of the way they’re based on Something that transcends human opinion and therefore avoids all of the corruption that characterizes the human condition.
You can see that transcendent Absolute clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence. When we submitted that document to King George, we were saying that it’s because that God has created all men to be equal (Gal 3:28) that the individual has the right to choose how they want to be governed and the extent to which they want to succeed. It’s because it was a Divine Truth that we could logically point to as that which substantiated our claim, we weren’t just filing a complaint, we were making a point. Yes, there were other brilliant political philosophers, such as John Locke, that had contributed to the collective mindset represented by the Second Continental Congress, but ultimately it was a collection of references to God that was cited as the basis for our reasoning and not the names of several respected thinkers.
This is why a candidate’s platform is so important. However noble or approachable they may appear, if their goal is to implement a worldview that runs contrary to our spiritual foundation, they invoke a doctrine that inevitably positions man as his own moral authority and the state as its own religion.
While that may sound overly simplistic, the fact is there are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or man is God.
Every religion save Christianity provides a way in which you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. With Islam you’ve got Jihad, as a Buddhist you’ve got Nirvana. Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to be among the 144,000 referenced in Revelation 7:4, Hindus pursue Moksha (MOKE-shah) in order to be liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth. Mormons believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). In each scenario, while you have a supernatural element, you have the ability as a human being to tip the scales in your favor through some kind of action or mindset.
Christianity, on the other hand, says that you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1). You are dead in your sin and you have no option available to you that can offset your default status as a sinner that is permanently and irretrievably separated from God (Ps 14:3; Is 64:6). That’s what makes Christianity distinct from every other religious school of thought – you are utterly destitute apart from some kind of miracle that can somehow transform you in the eyes of God from being sinful to sinless. And that miracle is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
When you pull back the curtain and see how Christianity is the only authentic religion in that it’s based solely on the grace of God rather than a human being attempting to be a god, you can understand why it resonates as a stronger option in the mind of the person who recognizes the frailty of his human condition and the veiled attempt on the part of other creeds to position man as his own deity.
You can also see why from a purely logical point of view that only the Absolute Power and Perspective represented by the Word of God would suffice in providing the philosophical strength the Founders needed in order to refute a monarchy and create a republic. John Adams said it best:
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.1
This is why the best option, when reviewing different candidates for office, is going to be the one whose policies are most consistent with Scripture. However you may personally disagree with that premise, the verbiage of the Declaration as well as the documented comments of the early patriots demonstrates conclusively that the novel political ideas they dared to assert were not based on human preferences as much as they were Divine Guidance (see “Divine Guidance” on sidebar). And while they celebrated the Goodness of God’s Providence in the context of our nation’s initial declaration and the creation of the new Constitution, they were just as vocal in declaring that our future welfare was a certainty only if it was based on the same Resource. Samuel Adams had this to say:
May every citizen in the army and in the country have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of that declaration recorded in the Bible: “Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed” [1 Samuel 2:30]. 2
John Adams mirrors his cousin, Samuel Adams:
…We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams)3
George Washington leaves no doubt as to his perspective on religious piety and political prosperity:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.4
“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.” Washington’s words capture the spiritual and political direction that needs to be central to the platform of anyone who aspires to public office because it’s that foundation alone that guarantees a successful administration.
Some will want to insist that a Christian worldview is a needless and ignorant basis for the selection of our national leaders. They will assert the 18th popularity of Deism as a means to minimize the way in which Scripture served both as a Resource and as a Guide in the formulation of our government (see “Christianity or Deism” on sidebar).
In other instances, they’ll take statements made by those like John Adams out of context and attempt to turn them into comments that prove he didn’t perceive Christianity as the fundamental foundation for our country’s government that it is (see “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One – FIT“).
The fact is, when you consider the spiritual fabric of our nation’s initial colonization and the way in which Christianity was such a prominent cultural fixture during the time of the Revolution, any effort to try and dismiss or qualify the fact that our country is based on Christian principles borders on the absurd. Perhaps one of the more compelling proofs of our country’s collective regard for the application of Scripture to the cause of liberty comes from the battlefield (read the story of Major General Peter Muhlenberg by clicking here).
The “Black Robe Regiment” was the name the British troops gave the clergy who supported the Revolution from behind their pulpits with their Bibles and in combat with their rifles. Historians have commented that:
There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.5
British soldiers went as far as saying blaming Christianity for the Revolution:
The influence of the Reformed political tradition in the Founding era is manifested in a variety of ways, but particularly noteworthy is the almost unanimous support Calvinist clergy offered to American patriots. This was noticed by the other side, as suggested by the Loyalist Peter Oliver, who railed against the “black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a part in the Rebellion.” King George himself reportedly referred to the War for Independence as “a Presbyterian Rebellion.” From the English perspective, British Major Harry Rooke was largely correct when he confiscated a presumably Calvinist book from an American prisoner and remarked that “[i]t is your G-d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins the Country; Damn your religion.”6
While it is not difficult to believe that the Founders based their approach to government on Christian principles, given their verbiage both public and private, it is nevertheless challenging to reconcile their perspective with the fact that many owned slaves.
While Slavery is by no means an American institution, the fact that it’s contrary to Scripture (Ex 21:16) and an inhumane practice in general, makes it easy to question the mindset of those delegates from the South that comprised the Second Continental Congress. How do you process a document written and agreed upon by men, many of whom maintained a mindset that allowed for the enslavement of human beings?
First of all, from a purely practical standpoint, we don’t evaluate the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence according to the character flaws of the men who wrote them. Rather, we evaluate them according to the substance of the documents themselves.
Secondly, many of those that owned slaves were the same ones who sacrificed their homes, their fortunes and, in some cases, their lives, to ensure a system of government that possessed the necessary tenants that would ultimately translate to the end of the slave trade.
Third, to align yourself with the Revolution, whether as a statesman or a soldier, you were committing treason against the crown. The punishment for that included:
- That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk: though usually (by connivance length ripened by humanity into law) a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement
- That he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive
- That his entrails be taken out and burned, while he is yet alive
- That his head be cut off
- That his body be divided in four parts
- That his head and quarters be at the king’s disposal7
This was the fate that loomed over the progress of the Revolution. Those that fought and served to win America’s independence did so risking everything. However flawed they were in the way they processed the sin of slavery doesn’t change the substance of their work. It’s that work that we honor, not just because of the sacrifices that were made which made it possible, but also because of how the biblically based freedoms those efforts established would go on to secure the liberties that timeframe denied to others.
Historian Stephen E. Ambrose sums it beautifully in an article featured in “Smithsonian Magazine:”
Slavery and discrimination cloud our minds in the most extraordinary ways, including a blanket judgment today against American slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries. That the masters should be judged as lacking in the scope of their minds and hearts is fair, indeed must be insisted upon, but that doesn’t mean we should judge the whole of them only by this part.8
Some of the most accomplished characters in Scripture were guilty of some truly despicable sins: David and his affair with Bathsheba and his subsequent murder of Uriah (1 Sam 11) and Paul, one of the more prolific writers of the New Testament, condoned the murder of Stephen and was an accessory to the persecution and imprisonment of perhaps hundreds of Christians (Acts 22:17-20).
While it’s tempting to place yourself in a category distinct from that kind of wrongdoing and be able to feel as though you appear more righteous in the sight of your Heavenly Father, you have to remember that all sin requires an attitude that is as heinous as it is universal. In order to sin in any capacity, you have to walk up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and tell Him to get out of your chair.
Granted, some sins are unintentional (Num 15:27-31), but the vast majority of them are deliberate and all of it requires grace including everything from speeding (Rom 13:1-7) to overeating (Prov 23:20-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20). The fact of the matter is anytime you’re looking at a believer, you’re looking at two worlds that are operating side by side simultaneously. While the power of sin has been destroyed (Rom 6:6), our capacity to sin remains (Rom 7:14-25). And the thing is, in the words of Paul, “…there is nothing good in me.” (Rom 7:18) Whatever good I’m able to do, it’s more because of God working in and through me (Ezr 1:5; 1 Cor 12:6; Phil 2:13) than it is me functioning according to a morally pure mindset.
This is why we can embrace the accomplishments of certain individuals despite them having significant sin in their lives. We can applaud the Activity of God in and through an individual without endorsing the depravity of that same person. You don’t overlook wrongdoing (1 Cor 5:13), but you never want to become so preoccupied with the sin in others that you forget the way in which God uses both brand new gloves and filthy mitts to catch fly balls.
We give God the credit because it’s Him doing the work and the fact that He uses sinners like you and me is a testament to His Grace and not our goodness. And the same thing applies to unbelievers as well. However distant that person may be from God doesn’t change the fact that God can, and often does, use people who don’t honor Him to do His Work.
King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).
The example of Cyrus demonstrates that a leader can be a heathen and still be worthy of your support because of the way their platform promotes and protects the work of God. So the question isn’t, “How can I support someone who doesn’t acknowledge God?” The question is, “Whose platform is most aligned with that which promotes and protects our nation’s spiritual wellbeing?” Or, another question which better accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to those passages that restrict God’s usage of individuals to those that honor Him would be, “Would you have voted for King Cyrus?”
III) Conclusion (Part I)
God cares about Politics. He facilitates governments and He uses our involvement and prayers to accomplish His Purposes. Our nation is founded on Christian Principles that come from the Word of God. Our Founders were not masquerading as pious human beings when they cited Divine Absolutes as the basis for their declaration to King George. Anything less than the Substance of Scripture would’ve reduced our cause to nothing more than a complaint and it’s those same Truths that guarantee our continued success and serve as the basis for the way in which we choose our elected officials.
The thing is, God does care about Politics because it’s not just “politics.” It’s either His Purposes or man’s rebellion being played out in the context of legislation and foreign policy. God cares about Politics.
1. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208#:~:text=The%20general%20Principles%2C%20on%20which,by%20me%20in%20my%20Answer, accessed February 2, 2022
2. “The Writings of Samuel Adams”, Harry Alonzo Cushing, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, London, 1908, p189
3. “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102, accessed February 2, 2022
4. “Transcript of President George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)”, ourdocuments.gov, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript, accessed January 31, 2022
5. Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 170
6. Douglass Adair and John A. Schutz, eds., Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961), p. 41; Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 173; John Leach, “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775,” The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol.19 (1865), p. 256
7. Blackstone, Wm., Knight. Chase, George, ed. Chase’s Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1936, p891
8. “Founding Fathers and Slaveholders”, Stephen E. Ambrose, “Smithsonian Magazine”, November 2002, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/, accessed February 2, 2022
Excellent Reading: “Did America Have a Christian Founding” Mark David Hall
Donald Trump
There’s so much more to the dialog pertaining to President Trump than just who he is as a person.
It comes down to idealogies and however you want to criticize or applaud the man, what you’re inevitably evaluating is a political philosophy and not just a personality.
Below you’ll see several links to a number of different resources that don’t try to minimize his faults or overlook his mistakes. Rather, they look at the tactics used to undermine his administration in order to demonize the foundation represented by our national motto.
It’s a challenging conversation but a necessary debate. What’s at stake is more than the political currency of a single politician. Rather, it’s the substance of what makes us who we are as a country and guarantees both your safety and our prosperity.
Welcome!
| type | title | description |
| video | Why I’m Voting for Donald Trump | Regardless of how determined you may be in your resolve to dislike Trump, this video details that reasons why the Republican political philosophy translates to better results because it’s based on something more substantial than personal preferences. |
| website | Trump’s Lies | In 2017, the New York Times published a full, front page article entitled, “Trump’s Lies..” It listed 100 lies the President supposedly told. This website goes through every “lie” and shows that it’s NYT that is either exaggerating or flat out lying and not President Trump. |
| article | What Just Happened? | To understand the outcome of the election, you have to be able to pass a simple vocabulary test. To prepare, let’s walk through a couple of terms… |
| article | Thank You, President Trump! | An article printed originally in the Boston Herald that listed President Trump’s accomplishments during his term as President in 2016. |
| article | A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part I | To say that God doesn’t care about Politics is to ignore the fact that He’s the One Who facilitates all governments to begin with. And while that’s obviously a nonsensical disposition, you also have the false premise that says that God doesn’t care about the laws of a nation and how they either promote what strengthens an individual or tears them down (Prov 28:2-3, 28; 29:2, 4). He does care and He expects His people to be engaged (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2). |
| article | A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part II | The Bible says to “test the spirits” and we need to apply that to what it is we allow into our inbox by popping the hood, keeping your balance and kicking the tires. |
| article | A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part III | Current events are often presented using a series of tactics you’ll be confronted with when you’re listening to someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide. |
| article | A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part IV | A look at the last three of the five tactics referenced in Part III and then looking at the importance of evaluating a tree according to its fruit more so than its appearance. Here we go! |
| article | The Progressive Pentagon – A Practical Guide to Fake News | There are five tactics you can be listening for when you’re being told by someone that they have a point, when in fact they’ve got something to hide. I call it the “Perspective Pentagon” because, taken together, they serve as the way in which the Left both defends it’s stance and attacks it’s opponents.
It’s bogus, but it’s brilliant. |
