Loyalty To The King – Reprise


Some times a democracy can be harmful. I’m so happy the founders of the US established the kind of government they did, but the fact is, our right to vote has translated into a right to criticize. And criticism more often than not yields to grumbling and complaining, which in its turn can lead to slanderous invectives.

The US is in a unique period of our history. The nation is divided in a disturbing way—people on opposing sides have little respect for the individuals who hold a different view. The idea seems to be, only morons would not agree with my position, therefore you in the opposing camp are morons, and I don’t have to listen to you. If fact, I’d rather if you simply did not speak.

Nothing could be more detrimental to a country that depends on compromise between legislators, between the two legislative houses, and between the legislature and the executive branch of government.

Compare where we are with David, youngest son of Jesse, who found himself in the opposite camp from the king of the land. Though he did not harbor rebellion in his heart and only fulfilled the king’s every wish, David became King Saul’s enemy.

We’re not talking about Saul hurling insults at David. He hurled spears. More than once. He ordered his men to pull him out of his house and kill him. He murdered seventy priests because one, thinking David, the King’s son-in-law, to still be a loyal member of his court and on the King’s business, gave him food and a weapon.

Saul took an army of 3000 to hunt him down; he bribed and pleaded and cajoled and threatened to get people to disclose where David was hiding.

Sometimes his schemes seemed to work, and he closed in on David. Once when he was pursuing David in the desert, he took a break in a cave—a siesta, of sorts, in the middle of the day to get out of the heat. As it happened, David was hiding in the recesses of that same cave, but Saul never knew it.

David’s men urged him to put an end to the persecution once and for all by killing Saul. But David refused for one reason and one reason alone—Saul was God’s anointed. In other words, God had put Saul in authority, and David was not about to supersede God’s decision.

Later he had a second opportunity to finish Saul when he made a foray into his camp at night. As it happens, God put a deep sleep upon everyone, and David slipped in, grabbed a couple things belonging to Saul to use as proof that he did not plan evil against the man who sought to kill him, then slipped out. Even though his men urged him to do Saul in.

But David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the LORD’S anointed and be without guilt?” David also said, “As the LORD lives, surely the LORD will strike him, or his day will come that he dies, or he will go down into battle and perish. The LORD forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the LORD’S anointed; but now please take the spear that is at his head and the jug of water, and let us go.” (1 Sam. 26:9-11)

In all this David did not rail against Saul or paint him as a monster. He didn’t brag that he himself was anointed by God, and he didn’t use his choice by God, carried out by the prophet Samuel, as a special reason for no longer honoring the King.

David lived out his loyalty to God by remaining loyal to His chosen King. He was willing to let God deal with Saul. This position is precisely the one the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter preached, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to Christians in the first century.

They happened to fall under great persecution because of their faith in Jesus Christ, but Peter wrote this in his first letter:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:13-17)

By doing right we may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Not by calling them names. Not by signing petitions or starting impeachment campaigns or painting Hitler mustaches on the government leaders we don’t like.

David was right to let God deal with Saul. He had to wait, and he got tired of waiting which led him into a bad situation, but he remained firm about not taking matters into his own hands. He would not move against Saul. He would let God take care of him.

His wait paid off.

When I see Christians treat our President—whether now or four years ago—with disrespect and accuse him unjustly, I am confused. God’s command in His word is clear: we are to honor our leaders:

Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men (Titus 3:1)

Even more clearly, Paul said to the Romans, who would have had a front row seat to all the abuses of the Caesars and their minions:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (Romans 13:1-6)

Notice Paul does not qualify his statements. He’s not saying be subject to authorities with whom you agree or to ones who aren’t corrupt.

David’s example shows, however, that being subject to the King didn’t mean to stand still so he could skewer him with his spear. David ran and hid and ran some more so that Saul wouldn’t kill him. But he didn’t assassinate his character or take the man’s life.

Would that Christians today had as much confidence in God’s sovereignty and His omniscient plans as David did all those years before. He didn’t have Scripture to direct him in his decisions. We do, and still we speak with such disrespect about our rulers.

Even though our democracy allows us the freedom to speak against our leadership and those with whom we disagree, I think our commitment to Christ should lead us to a different position.

This post is an edited version of one that originally appeared here in October, 2014.

Advertisements
Published in: on September 27, 2017 at 5:10 pm  Comments (9)  
Tags: , , , , ,

Grumbling Is Sin?


In the past I’ve been pretty hard on the poor Israelites fleeing Egypt for the Promised Land. They had just witnessed God’s amazing judgment on their oppressors, I reason, and walked out of Egypt a rich people. As if that wasn’t enough, God dried up a path through a sea and wiped out the army of charioteers following them.

And what did they do? They had the gall to complain when they got thirsty. They had the nerve to grumble about heavenly food provided for them on a regular basis.

Despite my judgment of that conflicted historical people group—which, by the way, coincided with God’s judgment of them—I’ve somehow avoided putting all the pieces together to see that MY grumbling, MY disputing is sin. I can see it in ancient Israel. I can’t see it in me. Or don’t want to.

In my post “The Lesson Of The Bee,” I pointed out that the problem of grumbling must first be addressed when we grumble against God. But directly hurling angry words at Him is not the only grumbling that displeases Him.

The passage to the Philippian believers, in which Paul commands them to do all things without grumbling, in no way limits this to their communication with God. In fact, since the point of their not grumbling was so that they might appear as lights in the corrupt and perverse world, it seems to me the lack of grumbling and disputing would have to be true of conduct and conversation in the public arena, not just the church.

In thinking of this command in a hierarchical manner—first don’t grumble against God—my natural second question is, Who is next in line?

I’d have to say, logically, that would be governmental leadership. For us in the Us that would start with … the President.

Ouch! That hurts, doesn’t it? I mean, isn’t it sort of one of the American pastimes to shred the President if we didn’t vote for him? Some, of course, shred all Presidents since they don’t vote, or don’t vote for a major-party candidate. Others “only” go after a President in the “opposition” party.

I know it sounds old fashioned, but I was raised to respect the President because he was … the President. It’s right there in the Bible, after all:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (Romans 13:1)

Well, that doesn’t say “respect.” It says “subject.” Can’t we put ourselves in subjection to a leader and not respect him? Paul goes on to say more about our response to those in authority in his letter to Titus:

Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. (Titus 3:1-2)

Since rulers would fall into the “all men” category, I think it’s safe to say the “malign no one” part applies to pretty much every President.

But what if the things we say against a leader are true?

Well, the things Israel said against Moses were true. They didn’t have water, and at one point, the water they had wasn’t drinkable. They didn’t have the strong-tasting foods they’d grown used to in Egypt, and there really were giants in the land.

The reality of those conditions didn’t mean they therefore had a pass to rebel against the man God had put over them. No, they could not stone Moses and return to Egypt because they were out of water.

Peter spelled out what was expected of the early Christians, many who suffered under the persecution of Roman rule, and why:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:13-15 – emphasis mine)

So are we muzzled? Can we say nothing critical about our President?

I think we are free to voice our opinion and even point out when we disagree with the President. I think we can state what we wish he would have done instead. For example, I have no problem saying I think the President was wrong in the decision he made about health care.

That’s a far cry from hurling verbal stones—the kinds of disrespectful invective that come out of the mouths of and onto the screen from many professing Christians.

It’s as if we think we have a better plan than the one God is working. When He said we could be light to a crooked and perverse generation by not grumbling or disputing, we come along with plan B: Grumbling and disputing when it comes to “a bad President” is desirable and to be encouraged. It’s the American’s right, even responsibility, because that’s what you do in a democracy if you get involved. And good Christians get involved.

There’s the insidiousness of this argument. Christians should get involved. But how shocked would our culture be if we disagreed respectfully, without maligning anyone, treating all with gentleness, showing consideration even to those with whom we take issue? Wouldn’t that have the kind of effect that, say, God said it would?

And even if we never see any results from subjecting ourselves to our President, we will have accomplished the greater goal—to please our Sovereign King with our obedience. After all, He’s the one who’s told us not to grumble or dispute. He’s the one we sin against when we disobey.

This post is an edited version of one that first appeared here in August 2011.

Published in: on August 29, 2016 at 6:57 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Freedom And Authority


America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Freedom is what the US is all about, and freedom is what attracts so many immigrants to leave their homes and come here. And yet, A. W. Tozer says people aren’t actually free, not completely. Not even Americans.

From The Knowledge of the Holy:

There cannot be two absolutely free beings in the universe, for sooner or later two free wills must collide. (pp 15-16)

His point is that God alone possesses certain attributes, those scholars refer to as incommunicable. These are not qualities that Man has even though made in God’s likeness. We are not, for example, omnipresent or unchanging. We are not infinite, nor are we sovereign. And there’s the rub.

If God alone is sovereign, then we are not free in the ultimate sense. Rather, His rule must supersede our liberty or He is not sovereign.

The incredible truth is, however, that God seems to give us free rein. We can choose Him or reject Him, we can bow to His authority or trumpet ourselves as the only one we trust. We can accept His revelation of Himself, or we can deny His desire to do so or His power or even His very existence.

It seems to me that true Sovereignty is the only One not threatened by another’s freedom.

Christians in America, both cultural Christians and those following Jesus, feel threatened because certain laws suggested by our current administration would certainly reduce the rights of some to hold to their religious beliefs, hence jeopardizing the religious rights of all.

Feminists in America who believe in abortion feel threatened because a Presidential candidate talks openly about his pro-life stance, thus potentially jeopardizing their “right to choose” should that person win and end up appointing another conservative justice to the Supreme Court.

Gays feel threatened and those advocating for heterogeneous, monogamous marriage feel threatened. Homeowners feel threatened and the rich feel threatened. Small businesses feel threatened and college students feel threatened.

At every turn, though living in a country not torn by war, not suffering from famine, not oppressed by a dictator, we still feel threatened. If anyone ought to feel safe and free, it is the American.

But we don’t because we aren’t actually free. Not even Bill Gates or the President himself. We all — every person on earth — live under God’s authority. He alone is free in the ultimate sense. He answers to no one and has no laws to abide by except those originating from His nature. He goes where He wants, does what He chooses, is how He wishes.

Man is not free in that way. And surprise, surprise, Man is constantly dissatisfied. We want to change our hair color or lose ten pounds or buy a new car or change jobs or churches or computers or friends or houses or habits.

Our wills are always colliding with other people’s wills because we are not in control. Some of us try to be. We work hard to create an environment we can order, but that’s a figment of our imagination — a sandcastle about to wash out to sea with the rising tide.

I liken God’s sovereignty to that of a teacher supervising a playground of children. She’s in charge, but they are free to do as they please under her watchful authority. If they obey her, they really can do whatever they wish — unless she asks them to help a new child or run an errand or stay away from where the big kids are playing.

A good teacher exercises her authority for the benefit of the children she is caring for. The obedient child submits, even giving up his ephemeral freedom because he is subject to the one in charge.

How good of the One True Sovereign to give us freedom under His watch care, to ask us to trust Him rather than forcing us to do so. How secure to know that His eye is on the sparrow and He’s watching me.

    Why should I feel discouraged,
    Why should the shadows come,
    Why should my heart feel lonely
    And long for Heav’n and home,
    When Jesus is my portion?
    A constant Friend is He:
    His eye is on the sparrow,
    And I know He watches over me;
    His eye is on the sparrow,
    And I know He watches me.
    Refrain:
    I sing because I’m happy,
    I sing because I’m free,
    His eye is on the sparrow,
    And I know He watches me
    His eye is on the sparrow
    And I know he watches me

(Written in 1905, the words by Civilla Martin and music by Charles H. Gabriel)

The Christian And Politics, Version 2016


A democracy can be a perplexing animal, at least for a Christian. On one hand, we, The People, are in charge, so when something goes wrong, the buck ought to stop with us, at least to some degree.

Practically speaking, of course, The People aren’t in charge; the politicians are. But that being the case, isn’t our government just like a kingdom or a Pharaoh-dom or a Caesar-dom, subject to the same principles Scripture lays out for believers in an autocratic system? Principles like these: Be subject to your rulers. Pay your taxes. Honor those due honor. Don’t resist authority or you’re in opposition to God’s ordinance. Fear authority only if you’re doing wrong.

The overriding truth is this: “There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Romans 13:1b).

So God establishes our President, by means of we, The People. We are responsible and therefore should do our best to bring the best into the office — into all the governmental offices, in fact, since we have a three-branch form of government. What good is it to have a strong, godly President if we don’t have a legislative branch that will work with him? And what use is it to have a Congress that passes good laws if we have a court system that overturns them?

But ultimately, God is working through this system of ours and will sovereignly oversee the process so that the “right” leader is in place. This is a hard truth. Hitler was “right”? Chairman Mao? Stalin? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is “right”?

I’m sure the Christians who received Paul’s letter to the Romans were asking the same question. Excuse me, Paul, have you heard the latest about the Caesar and his household? Do you know what he’s planning for us followers of Jesus? And you are telling us, God has put this guy in place and we are to subject ourselves to him?

Actually, Paul said there was more than simply subjecting ourselves. He said, Bless those who persecute you; never pay back evil for evil; do not take revenge; overcome evil with good; so far as it is possible for you, be at peace with those in authority over you (since they are part of the “all men” Paul names).

Peter expands this same principle and its corollaries in his first letter to believers “who reside as aliens” scattering throughout various regions of the Middle East.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:13-17 – emphases mine)

Nowhere do I see that our treatment of the authorities over us is conditional — we are to honor them, only if we agree or only if they are abiding by God’s law. Rather, Peter’s instructions were to those who had no friends in high places. These Christians were looked at as kooks, at best, and as enemies at worst. Paul was giving direction to believers who faced increasing persecution of a hostile and immoral government.

Bless, don’t curse. Make peace if they’ll let you, give them honor, obey, be subject to them. Why? Because God put them in place. By treating these authorities properly, you’re obeying God and cutting the legs out from under the criticisms leveled at you.

What timely words for the Christian today. How should we do politics? “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” (Rom. 13:7) I take that verse to include fulfilling our responsibility to vote, but that might just be me. One thing I do know, speaking about our President with disrespect is sinful, and by doing so, Christians are giving those opposed to Christ ammunition for their attacks against us.

In short, then, we should do politics the same way we should do all of life: by obeying the dictates of Scripture.

We also would be wise to do so with a healthy dose of thanksgiving for the privilege of living in a country where we can voice our opinion and not fear being thrown in jail because of it. We can moan and groan about the direction our country is going, but we ought to be thankful it hasn’t gone there yet; we ought to pray God brings revival instead.

Actually this post is identical to the one I wrote in 2012, but since I still believe it is true, I just changed the title to make it current. 😉

Published in: on January 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm  Comments (10)  
Tags: , , , , ,

The Antipathy Toward Authority


Quentin_Tarantino_(Berlin_Film_Festival_2009)_2_croppedMovie director Quentin Tarantino attended an anti-police brutality rally in New York a couple weeks ago. He said he was there because he was “on the side of the murdered.” His remarks have provoked ire in a number of police agencies which have retaliated by organizing a boycott of Mr. Tarantino’s next movie, The Hateful Eight, due to release in January (limited release on Christmas day).

As more police organizations—benevolent associations and unions—have joined the boycott, Mr. Tarantino has pushed back. Sides are being drawn.

Baltimore is the latest city in which police have spoken out against Mr. Tarantino. The president of Baltimore’s Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 3, Gene Ryan, said that by Mr. Tarantino’s statements at the rally, he “degraded and disrespected every man and woman who ever wore the uniform of our profession.” (The Baltimore Sun, Nov. 5).

In response Mr. Tarantino said in an interview with MSNBC, “They would rather start arguments with celebrities than examine the concerns put before them by a citizenry that lost trust in them.” (As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 5).

Police have now promised a “surprise” that will hurt Mr. Tarantino where it matters to him most—in his wallet—and he has answered that he won’t be intimidated, that he’s not a cop hater as he’s been portrayed.

As I see it, this battle is escalating, and that’s a concern. Mr. Tarantino may think citizens have lost trust in the police, but who, then, does he think will keep order in our cities?

I lived in the Los Angeles area during the Rodney King riots back in 1992. As violence spread and police seemed helpless to stop it, I got a glimpse of what true anarchy looked like.

Apparently Mr. Tarantino hasn’t thought about life without authority or that he is undermining trust, not just of officers who might go beyond appropriate limits, but of officers who dutifully and selflessly put themselves in harm’s way to serve the public.

I can’t help but wonder if such treatment of the police, who are the clearest representation of authority, might not grow more widespread. Because I believe we have a crisis of authority in our country.

Feminists don’t want wives to be submissive to husbands; manosphere gamers want to dominate and control their wives. Parents are afraid to spank their children any more because they might be accused of abuse. Students can sit in defiance of teachers, principals, and security guards, but then become victims if they are forcefully made to do what they are told.

But none of this change in our view is actually surprising because our society has turned away from the underpinnings of all authority—God Himself.

Without an understanding of who God is and how He exercises authority, all hell breaks loose here on earth. People’s perception of authority becomes twisted by our own ideas of what authority ought to look like.

Take the President of the United States, for instance. It seems we’ve worked over time to make the President and any candidates for President to be just regular people. Famous people, but they appear on Saturday Night Live and on all the late night talk shows. The day time ones too. They aren’t discussing important issues. They aren’t building an image of authority. They’re primarily hoping to come across as likable. Not authoritative.

Authoritative is an ugly word these days.

But as my fellow blogger InsanityBytes put it, the perception is not the reality:

many people have a very negative perception of authority, that it is all about fear, power, control, punishment. Those are human perceptions, often gleaned from the school of hard knocks where might makes right. That is not God however, that is God being created in our own image, in the image of those who have misused authority and done harm to us.

Because we don’t know God, we don’t have a correct view of authority, and because we don’t have a correct view of authority, we don’t understand God. What are we to do?

Part of the breakdown of authority has been in the home—parents both working and not paying attention to the children, single parent homes, shared custody homes that don’t share the same understanding of authority. Children grow up like weeds instead of nurtured flowers. They learn to play teachers against parents, parents against parents, parents against their own feelings of guilt.

In the end, they disrespect authority. They think authority is either weak or brutal. The same attitude characterizes their ideas of God.

So we’ve lost our models of authority in our society. We disrespect parents and teachers and long ago we lost any idea that pastors were authorities we were to obey. Politicians are not actual leaders—they’re most concerned about keeping their job or about trying to secure the next one.

Which pretty much left the police. And now a movie director is telling us, they’ve lost our respect too.

This set of circumstances and this attitude toward authority is, above all, the reason fathers need to be heads of their households in the same manner Christ is head of the Church and why all of us need to be in Bible-believing churches so we can learn what Christ’s headship looks like.

Washing_of_Feet008Perhaps the greatest picture of who Jesus is and what His authority looks like is His act of servanthood in washing His disciples’ feet, on the very night He’d be betrayed, arrested, denied, and falsely charged with blasphemy against His Father. He wasn’t looking to protect Himself or clear His name. He wasn’t concerned with revenge or domination or control. He wasn’t concerned about what He deserved or what others should have done for Him. He simply grabbed the towel and bowl and went to work, stooping at His followers’ feet and cleaning them up.

There’s the picture of authority we’ve forgotten, the picture that needs to be restored, the picture Christians need to live out.

Published in: on November 6, 2015 at 6:43 pm  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Loyalty To The King


President_Obama_at_MLK_Memorial_dedicationSome times a democracy can be harmful. I’m so happy the founders of the US established the kind of government they did, but the fact is, our right to vote has translated into a right to criticize. And criticism more often than not yields to grumbling and complaining, which in its turn can lead to slanderous invectives.

The US is in a unique period of our history. The nation is divided in a disturbing way—people on opposing sides have little respect for the individuals who hold a different view. The idea seems to be, only morons would not agree with my position, therefore you in the opposing camp are a moron, and I don’t have to listen to you. If fact, I’d rather if you simply did not speak.

Nothing could be more detrimental to a country that depends on compromise between legislators, between the two legislative houses, and between the legislature and the executive branch of government.

Compare where we are with David, youngest son of Jesse, who found himself in the opposite camp from the king of the land. Though he did not harbor rebellion in his heart and only fulfilled the king’s every wish, David became King Saul’s enemy.

We’re not talking about Saul hurling insults at David. He hurled spears. More than once. He ordered his men to pull him out of his house and kill him. He murdered seventy priests because one, thinking David, the King’s son-in-law to still be a loyal member of his court and on the King’s business, gave him food and a weapon.

Saul took an army of 3000 to hunt him down; he bribed and pleaded and cajoled and threatened to get people to disclose where David was hiding.

Sometimes his schemes seemed to work, and he closed in on David. Once when he was pursuing David in the desert, he took a break in a cave—a siesta, of sorts, in the middle of the day to get out of the heat. As it happened, David was hiding in the recesses of that cave, but Saul never knew it.

David’s men urged him to put an end to the persecution once and for all by killing Saul. But David refused for one reason and one reason alone—Saul was God’s anointed. In other words, God had put Saul in authority, and David was not about to supersede God’s decision.

Later he had a second opportunity to finish Saul when he made a foray into his camp at night. As it happens, God put a deep sleep upon everyone, and David slipped in, grabbed a couple things belonging to Saul to use as proof that he did not plan evil against the man who sought to kill him, then slipped out.

But David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the LORD’S anointed and be without guilt?” 10 David also said, “As the LORD lives, surely the LORD will strike him, or his day will come that he dies, or he will go down into battle and perish. 11 The LORD forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the LORD’S anointed; but now please take the spear that is at his head and the jug of water, and let us go.”

In all this David did not rail against Saul or paint him as a monster. He didn’t brag that he too was anointed by God, and he didn’t use his choice by God, carried out by the prophet Samuel, as a special reason for no longer honoring the King.

David lived out his loyalty to God by remaining loyal to His chosen King. He was willing to let God deal with Saul. This position is precisely the one the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter preached, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to Christians in the first century.

They happened to fall under great persecution because of their faith in Jesus Christ, but Peter says

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:13-17)

By doing right we may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Not by calling them names. Not by signing petitions or starting impeachment campaigns or painting Hitler mustaches on the government leaders we don’t like.

David was right to let God deal with Saul. He had to wait, and he got tired of waiting which led him into a bad situation, but he remained firm about taking matters into his own hands. He would not move against Saul. He would let God take care of him.

His wait paid off.

When I see Christians treat our President with disrespect and accuse him unjustly, I am confused. God’s command in His word is clear: we are to honor our leaders:

Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men (Titus 3:1)

Even more clearly, Paul said to the Romans, who would have had a front row seat to all the abuses of the Caesars and their minions:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (Romans 13:1-6)

Notice Paul does not qualify his statements. He’s not saying be subject to authorities with whom you agree or to ones who aren’t corrupt.

David’s example shows, however, that being subject to the King didn’t mean to stand still so he could skewer him with his spear. David ran and hid and ran some more so that Saul wouldn’t kill him. But he didn’t assassinate his character or take the man’s life.

Would that Christians today had as much confidence in God’s sovereignty and His omniscient plans as David did all those years before. He didn’t have Scripture to direct him in his decisions. We do, and still we speak with such disrespect about our rulers.

It’s democracy, I tell you. But that’s not an excuse.

Published in: on October 20, 2014 at 5:52 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , , , ,

Speaking Against God’s Authority


Moses067The book of Numbers records several rebellions against Moses, but perhaps the most costly in terms of human lives was the one led by a man named Korah, who was a Levite in the service of the tabernacle, and a couple of guys named Dathan and Abiram and On, who apparently were simple laymen.

These leaders collected a group of 250 prominent men, and together they challenged Moses’s leadership.

They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?” (Numbers 16:3)

Of course, Moses and Aaron were not exalting themselves. They had responded to God’s call and were simply doing what He told them to do. In other words, as God spelled out, the rebellion wasn’t really against Moses and Aaron at all. It was against God.

But the LORD said to Moses, “Put back the rod of Aaron [which had blossomed over night when the rods from the other eleven tribes had not] before the testimony to be kept as a sign against the rebels, that you may put an end to their grumblings against Me, so that they will not die.” (Num. 17:10, emphasis added)

The horrific thing is, the 250 leaders died for their rebellion, but instead of repenting and turning to God, the people blamed Moses and Aaron for their deaths. As a result, a plague swept through the camp and another 14,700 people died. Moses interceded for them, then God instructed Aaron to make atonement for the people with an offering of incense.

Afterward, as a visual sign for all the people, God instructed each tribe to provide Moses with a rod. He put all twelve in the screened portion of the tabernacle where the ark was. The next morning, Aaron’s staff had blossomed whereas the others remained the same—a clear picture that God had chosen him and his descendants to be His priests.

You’d think such a clear sign would bring an end to the grumbling and doubting aimed at Moses. It didn’t.

All this reminds me of today, We have much more than a blossoming rod. We have the written word of God. You’d think we wouldn’t rebel against God and His authority. I mean, how much clearer can He get? We twenty-first century Christians, who have multiple translations and commentaries and concordances and Bible dictionaries and Hebrew or Greek lexicons, surely must no longer have any doubts about God’s authoritative plans and will.

How ironic, then, that we are the generation with such false teachings as Rob Bell’s that proclaims universal salvation or Joel Osteen’s that reiterates the arguments of Job’s friends regarding suffering or the Progressive Christians’ that dismisses the Old Testament as myth and writes off much of the New as written by bigots.

The Bible goes too far, they seem to say. We’re just as holy as anyone else. The Lord is in us just as well as in you, so why do you elevate your understanding of the Bible over ours?

If we want to declare the God of the Old Testament to be a wrathful tyrant, a God who we’ve moved past to get to Jesus in whom there is no wrath in our view, then who are you to say we can’t?

If we want to say hell doesn’t exist, that it was the imagining of later writers who compiled Scripture or a misunderstanding of Jesus’s imaginative language, who are you to say we’re wrong?

If we want to say the passages in the Bible about homosexuality are misinterpreted or outmoded and no longer culturally relevant, who are you to contradict us?

If we want to say the instruction to women in the church to be subject to their husbands as is fitting in the Lord, that they must remain silent in church services, is cultural and not for the Church today, who are you to dispute the issue?

If we want to say that people can have a relationship with God through Christ, though they have never believed in Jesus, who are you to argue that actual belief is necessary?

Like Moses and Aaron in those days in the wilderness with the rebellious people of Israel, we who believe in the Bible and proclaim it, are not the authority. God is. People standing against the authority of Scripture are actually standing against God.

How many tears I’d be spared if I could write off hell as symbolic or a fabrication. How much less conflict if I could go along with the culture about homosexuality or feminism. How much easier to preach a gospel of health and wealth than one of cross bearing.

I’d much rather believe that Man is good than that we have sin natures. In fact, when I was young and first heard that all had sinned, I didn’t want to believe it. I mean, I couldn’t think of any of the Big Sins that I’d committed. So I decided, if I could just identify one person in the Bible who had not committed a sin, then I could be like him or her.

I decided Moses was a likely candidate. But my mom pointed out he’d committed murder. Horrors! Well, how about King David? No, he was guilty of adultery! Of course Abraham lied and Jacob cheated, the people during the time of the judges were a mess—in fact, a good many of the judges were a mess. The kings were mostly worse.

Then in the New Testament Peter denied Jesus, James and John were trying to one-up the other disciples by securing the best positions in Christ’s kingdom. Paul argued with Barnabas over John Mark, who had deserted them. And on and on.

No perfect people in the Bible. No sinless people that I’ve met either. So, maybe, just maybe, I have to admit, though I wish it weren’t so, I have a sinful heart, and Man not only isn’t good but isn’t capable of being good (which is not the same as doing good).

In the end, I’m no different from those people on their way to the Promised Land. I can believe the authority God has given me—the Bible—or I can rebel and “deconstruct” in one way or another, what He has said. As for me and my house, I’m embracing God’s word which is sure and tried and stands forever.

Published in: on September 11, 2014 at 5:00 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , ,

President Obama, Faith, And Authority


I don’t know if I can articulate my thoughts adequately in a blog post, but I’ll give it a try. I apologize ahead of time for offending people, because that seems to be the rule of the day — someone speaks their opinion and someone else gets offended; the first someone then clarifies their opinion, but in the end apologizes for it. This way I’ll take care of the apology right off the top. 😀

The opinion, offense, clarification, apology round occurred yet again last February and the first someone was Franklin Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The second someone would be those who thought it necessary to defend President Obama, because it seems Mr. Graham said he didn’t know if our President is a Christian. This offended some, in particular those who think President Obama should be taken at his word, and he says he’s a Christian.

It seems he knows quite well what Christianity is about. A year ago at the Easter Prayer Breakfast, he said in part

“But then comes … the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross. And we’re reminded that in that moment, [Jesus] took on the sins of the world — past, present and future — and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection.”

I read those lines with my understanding of Scripture and nod my head. The President has it right.

But what if …

Could he mean that Jesus taking on the sins of the world brought salvation to each person in the world regardless of his faith in or rejection of Christ? Other public statements the President has said don’t rule out that possibility. In fact, they more nearly corroborate it. This for example:

“I didn’t become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck — no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God’s spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose — His purpose.” (From the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 6, 2009 quoted in “President Obama’s ‘theology,’ in his own words”)

Is President Obama a Christian? I don’t know. I do believe from his recent comments about the Supreme Court, however, that he sees himself as above the authority of the Constitution, and that gives me pause.

The news hasn’t done a particularly good job of following this story, I don’t think, but in a nutshell, this is the situation. President Obama made comments on Monday that can be described as pressure tactics directed at the Supreme Court, stating that it would be “unprecedented” for them to declare Obamacare unconstitutional, that this would be the hallmark of an “activist” court, something conservatives decry.

The reason conservatives stand against an activist court is because the Constitution gives Congress the right to make federal law. When the courts do so, they are usurping authority.

Is President Obama right that the court would be taking unprecedented action? Well, no, and he knows it.

The Supreme Court, for the most part, is an appellate court, meaning that it reviews the decisions of other courts. In 1803, thirteen years after the Constitution was ratified, the case of Marbury vs. Madison established what has become known as judicial review — the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of other laws.

President Obama, with his degree from Harvard Law School and his lectures in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, certainly knows this.

Furthermore, Mr. Obama asserted that Obamacare was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” when, in fact, it squeaked by in both the House and the Senate.

The health care law wasn’t passed by a “strong majority,” but rather by a small majority through a technical “reconciliation” measure in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, and a narrow vote in the House that didn’t include a single Republican supporting it. House Speaker John Boehner’s office has made a point of reminding the media of the vote — 219-212 in the House, including 34 Democrats who voted against it (from “In Obama vs. Supreme Court, Politics Knows No Bounds”)

The Los Angeles Times makes another interesting observation — even if Obamacare had passed by huge margins, the numbers would not play any part in a decision about the constitutionality of the law.

Furthermore, the implication of the remark was that the number of votes in favor of a bill was somehow relevant to its constitutionality. It’s not. Otherwise, whichever party or point of view is in the majority would be free to tyrannize the minority. (from “Obama’s Supreme Court comments off the mark”)

What troubles me, then, is this willingness on the President’s part to play above the law and above truth. If he is prone to bend the law he has sworn to uphold and politicize the truth to make his case, what does he think about God’s authority?

Don’t his actions regarding abortion indicate that he is also playing above God’s clear instruction not to kill? Can anyone who has read the Bible miss how heinous God considers child sacrifice?

They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jeremiah 32:35)

(Yes, yes, I know — there are also stories of bloody massacres in the Bible, but that’s got a different context. There is no wiggle room when it comes to God’s attitude about killing children in the process of worshiping a false god. Abortion is nothing less than killing babies in the process of worshiping self or freedom or a woman’s right to choose).

Part of President Obama’s remarks on Monday appealed to the human element — the fact that people’s lives will be affected. I believe he is acting in good faith. He thinks mandated health care will solve a problem, that it will help people. Just like abortion helps women with unwanted pregnancies.

The human element set over the law puts some person in the position of deciding which humans are going to be affected favorably and which adversely. It says a person, not the Law governing the land, is to decide what is right. And not the Law of God.

Published in: on April 4, 2012 at 7:49 pm  Comments (8)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Grumbling Is Sin?


I’ve been pretty hard on the poor Israelites fleeing Egypt for the Promised Land. They just witnessed God’s amazing judgment on their oppressors, I reason, and walk out of Egypt a rich people. As if that wasn’t enough, He dried up a path through a sea and wiped out the army of charioteers following them. Then they had the gall to complain when they got thirsty. They had the nerve to grumble about heavenly food provided for them on a regular basis.

Despite my judgment of that conflicted historical people group — which, by the way, coincided with God’s judgment of them — I somehow avoided putting all the pieces together to see that MY grumbling, MY disputing is sin. I can see it in ancient Israel. I can’t see it in me. Or don’t want to.

In my post “The Lesson Of The Bee,” I pointed out that the problem of grumbling must first be addressed when we grumble against God. But directly hurling angry words at Him is not the only grumbling that displeases Him.

The passage to the Philippian believers in which Paul commands them to do all things without grumbling in no way limits this to their communication with God. In fact, since the point of their not grumbling was so that they might appear as lights in the corrupt and perverse world, it seems to me the lack of grumbling and disputing would have to be true of conduct and conversation in the public arena, not just the church.

In thinking of this command in a hierarchical manner — first don’t grumble against God — my natural question is, Who is next in line?

I’d have to say, logically, that would be governmental leadership, starting with … the President.

Ouch! That hurts, doesn’t it? I mean, isn’t it sort of one of the American pastimes to shred the President if we didn’t vote for him? For some, that means shredding all presidents since those complaining don’t vote, or don’t vote for a major-party candidate. For others that means “only” going after the one in the “opposition” party.

I know it sounds old fashioned, but I was raised to respect the President because he was … the President. It’s right there in the Bible, after all:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (Romans 13:1)

Well, that doesn’t say “respect.” It says “subject.” Can’t we put ourselves in subjection to a leader and not respect him? Paul goes on to say more about our response to those in authority in his letter to Titus:

Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. (Titus 3:1-2)

Since rulers would fall into the “all men” category, I think it’s safe to say the “malign no one” part applies to them as well.

But what if the things we say against a leader are true?

Well, the things Israel said against Moses were true. They didn’t have water, and at one point, the water they had wasn’t drinkable. They didn’t have the strong-tasting foods they’d grown used to in Egypt, and there really were giants in the land.

The reality of those conditions didn’t mean they therefore had a pass to rebel against the man God had put over them. No, they could not stone Moses and return to Egypt because they were out of water.

Peter spelled out what was expected of the early Christians, many who suffered under the persecution of Roman rule, and why:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:13-15 – emphasis mine)

So are we muzzled? Can we say nothing critical about our President?

I think we are free to voice our opinion and even point out when we disagree with the President. I think we can state what we wish he would do instead of a course of action he’s chosen. For example, I have no problem saying I think the President is wrong in the decisions he’s made about health care.

That’s a far cry from hurling verbal stones — the kinds of disrespectful invectives that come out of the mouths of and onto the screen from many professing Christians.

It’s as if we think we have a better plan than the one God gave us. When He said we could be light to a crooked and perverse generation by not grumbling or disputing, we come along with plan B: Grumbling and disputing when it comes to “a bad President” is desirable and to be encouraged. It’s the American’s right, even responsibility, because that’s what you do in a democracy if you get involved. And good Christians get involved.

There’s the insidiousness of this argument. Christians should get involved. But how shocked would our culture be if we disagreed respectfully, without maligning anyone, treating all with gentleness, showing consideration even to those with whom we take issue? Wouldn’t that have the kind of effect that, say, God said it would?

And even if we never see any results from subjecting ourselves to our President, we will have accomplished the greater goal — to please our Sovereign King with our obedience. After all, He’s the one who’s told us not to grumble or dispute. He’s the one we sin against when we disobey.

Published in: on August 31, 2011 at 7:46 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,