Non-Combatant Chaplaincy: Preserving the Spiritual Mission of Military Ministry
Introduction
There he was in a blood-spattered Humvee. The ring and roar of mortars, bullets ripping through flesh, and yells. The sights unmentioned and horrible. Why was he there? Why was a chaplain there? This essay explores that question.
Specifically, why would a non-combatant be in the military?[1] What is the ethical framework underpinning the non-combatant status of chaplains, and what are the theological and practical principles that guide ministry in military contexts? Even though there is a long history of chaplains serving as non-combatants, some argue that chaplains should be combatants.[2]
If the war is just—if there are good moral grounds for engaging in combat—then should not the chaplain be the first one willing and able to take up arms and fight? If there is truly just cause, then the chaplain should be willing to lead from the front, right?[3] He or she should not fear death and should have a holy conviction that the war is right.[4]
In fact, Darrell Cole concludes his essay by saying: “Christians who willingly and knowingly refuse to engage in a just war do a vicious thing: they fail to show love toward their neighbor as well as toward God.”[5] So, why are chaplains non-combatants? Because there are other important theological considerations. My thesis is that although there is theological warrant for warfare, the chaplains’ non-combatant status is essential for their role in providing spiritual guidance, moral counsel, and upholding religious freedom within the military. This is the chaplain’s God-given calling, and it must be the focus, not engaging the enemy.
Theological Principles
Some argue that in light of Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies (Matt. 5:38-42) and the value of human life (Gen. 1:26-27), chaplains should not engage in combat. But if that is true for chaplains, why is it not true for all people? What about “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9)? That is true. And there are times to make peace by striving to righteouslywage war. How does “turning the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39) square with warfare? One answer is that Jesus meant individuals should not take the law into their own hands. What about king David being unable to build the temple because he was a man of war (1 Chron. 22:8; 28:3)? Chaplains are not serving under the old covenant or building a temple.
The Bible does not say it is wrong to wage war, but it does say to serve in the military justly (Lk. 3:14). So, war is not wrong. But there are a few biblical reasons why chaplains should be non-combatants. First, from a Christian perspective, governing authorities should be obeyed (Romans 13:1-7),[6] and chaplains are currently non-combatants. Although, chaplains are allowed to defend themselves.[7]
The most important aspect of the chaplain’s non-combatant status, however, is the chaplain’s particular calling and stewardship to focus on spiritual fitness. Chaplains can best serve military personnel and the mission by being non-combatants. Biblical stewardship is the calling to be faithful with what God has given (Matt. 25:14–46; 1 Cor. 4:2) because He owns and gives every good gift (e.g., Lev. 25:23; 1 Chron. 29:11–12; Ps. 24:1; James 1:17), including our time and talents, and wants them employed to His glory (1 Cor. 10:31). Chaplains have specifically been given the responsibility to provide “religious support and spiritual care” which importantly “ensures all Airmen and their authorized dependents have opportunities to exercise their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.”[8] That is the important calling chaplains should focus on.
Chaplains focusing on spiritual fitness is absolutely vital. George C. Marshall, who among other things served as the 3rd United States Secretary of Defense, said, “I look upon the spiritual life of the soldier as even more important than his equipment. … The soldier’s heart, the soldier’s spirit, the soldier’s soul are everything. Unless the soldier’s soul sustains him, he cannot be relied upon and will fail himself and his country in the end.”[9]
It should also be considered that military members are literally trained to kill with powerful killing machines. As Samuel Huntington puts it, “They are specialists in the application of violence.”[10] It is thus important that they have moral guidance by their side. Chaplains must advise commanders, guide military members, and restrain unjust actions when needed.[11]
Chaplains being non-combatants allows them to focus on their distinct role of holding the all-important spiritual realities before the military, as well as providing for the free exercise of religion. So, the non-combatant status of chaplains facilitates focusing on morals and morale. These are very worthy goals that make sense of chaplains being non-combatants.[12]
Moral and Ethical Framework
Just war theory best captures the teaching of the Bible. It also allows a much-needed moral and rational framework to evaluate military decisions. Just war theory establishes moral boundaries around military conflict by identifying conditions under which warfare is ethically defensible.[13] There are three main considerations: right to go to war, right conduct in war, and justice after war.[14]
Just war theory is an important theological and ethical foundation because, as has often been said and experienced, “War is hell.” It should not be entered into casually. Also, human life is incredibly, even inestimably, valuable. There must be strong reasons to allow for violence and destruction. Further, all resources are finite, so their destruction should not be taken lightly.
A realistic view of the world will see the clear persistence of evil, and the government’s moral responsibility to defend its people’s lives, property, and social order.[15] The Bible teaches war is, sadly, inevitable in the fallen world (Matthew 24:6-8). What must be asked is how it can be waged justly with minimized destruction.[16] Chaplains have a vast part to play here, and it is another reason why they are non-combatants. Chaplains must reckon with the dark realities of conflict and understand there will be casualties and chaos.[17] In the midst complexity, evil, and gore, they must tenaciously pursue righteousness.
Implications for Chaplaincy Practice
A chaplain’s non-combatant status is important for various reasons. Primarily, it allows them to focus on what they are uniquely trained and equipped to focus on. Chaplains can best support the military mission with God’s word, rather than with a gun. Aquinas, the eminent 13th-century philosopher, believed chaplains should be non-combatants because he did not want warlike pursuits to prevent them from focusing on their God-given jobs.[18]
The non-combatant status also enables chaplains to function as religious leader liaisons and build relationships with indigenous religious leaders.[19] This has proven especially beneficial in some Muslim contexts. Chaplains are often especially respected for trusting God and not wielding a gun. This facilitates promoting peace and reconciliation.
Lastly, all officers, including chaplains, have sworn (or affirmed) to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The chaplain does this in a unique and powerful way. The chaplain does it from the pulpit and with the pen and by providing for the religious expression of all military members. This is a high ideal. And it is worth chaplains going to battle and being shot at, all the while not carrying a gun because we as a nation believe that all people are created equal and have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” One of these rights is the freedom of religion.[20] Chaplains exist, in large part, to help protect First Amendment rights.[21]
Conclusion
The non-combatant status of chaplains is important from a theological and practical standpoint. While one may acknowledge the arguments for chaplains as combatants, chaplains should retain their non-combatant status. This status allows chaplains to focus on their unique calling of spiritual guidance, moral counsel, and upholding religious freedom, which are vital for the well-being of military personnel and the success of the mission. Chaplains are to be faithful stewards ofthe gifts and responsibilities given to them, focusing on their primary calling (2 Corinthians 10:4; 2 Timothy 2:4).
The mission of the chaplain corps is spiritual fitness; spiritual resiliency. It is to “nurture the living, care for the wounded, and honor the dead.” It is not killing the enemy or even defending themselves. That is why chaplains are non-combatants.
We have explored the complex relationship between Christianity and warfare, with a specific focus on the role of chaplains. Some may cite biblical passages advocating for pacifistic peace,[22] but there are times when war is necessary to oppose evil, even while chaplains demonstrate heroism, willing to serve without weapons, to accomplish their important mission of advocating for and facilitating religious freedom and providing spiritual care. Chaplains oppose evil not with a gun but with godly grit.
Why was a chaplain in a blood-soaked Humvee? So, he could wipe up the blood, the tears, and serve for peace as Jesus did. So, he could—in imitation of Jesus—bring to flesh the hope, calm, and peace of God in a cursed, chaotic world. That is why we have chaplains who do not engage in combat. Their focus is daring love, compassion, and peace. Reminders of the good we fight for.
Notes
[1] Chaplains’ noncombatant status stems from the Council of Ratisbon in A.D. 742, prohibiting them from carrying weapons (Michael C. Whittington and Charlie N. Davidson, Matters of Conscience: A Practical Theology for the Evangelical Chaplain Serving in the United States Military [Liberty University Press, 2013], 201–202). “The chaplaincy, it can be argued, has been alive and well either formally or informally for as long as man can imagine. The chaplaincy is as old as war itself.” (Steven A. Schaick, “Examining the Role of Chaplains as Non-Combatants While Involded in Religious Leader Engagement/Liaison,” 1).
[2] For example, Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Joseph Friedman, has said, “The DOD’s insistence on unarmed chaplains does not make sense” (https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2023/Pistol-Packing-Padres/). Friedman says, for example, that when a chaplain is in a combat situation the chaplain becomes a tremendous liability to the combatants around him.
[3] Chaplains are spiritual leaders, that assumes people should follow them. But if chaplains are non-combatants essentilly because it is wrong to engage in combat then it follows that no one, not least the miliatry personel looking to the chaplain’s spiritual leadership, should engage in combat. In other words, if combat is morally and biblically wrong for chaplain’s then it is wrong to all people. It is different, however, if the question is one of prudential wisdom and not transcultural ethics.
[4] Chaplain William Emerson is an example here. In fact, Schaick says, “The Revolutionary War cannot be understood apart from the influence of clergy, many of whom alternated between fighting and preaching for the very freedoms their faith required.” (Schaick, “Examining the Role of Chaplains as Non-Combatants While Involded in Religious Leader Engagement/Liaison,” 2).
[5] Darrell Cole, “Good Wars” https://firstthings.com/good-wars/. He even says, “war-making, when just, can be a form of love” (Ibid.). Jeff Myers simiarly says, “A shameful peace based on nonaction is not to be preferred to a just peace based on action.” (Should Christians Support Israel?: Seeking a Biblical Worldview in an Impossible Situation, 83).
[6] There is clear warrant for civil disobedience in certain limited circumatances: Exodus 1:15-21; Daniel 3:6; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2. But the regular pattern is faithful and grateful obedience: Matthew 22:15-22; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:12-17.
[7] Department of the Air Force Instruction 52-104: 3.2. says “chaplains, as religious personnel, serve exclusively in a humanitarian capacity. Chaplains, therefore, will not engage in activities that could create perceptions of combatant behavior or that compromise the protected status of other chaplains in the field.” But it also says they “have the inherent right of self-defense.”
[8] Air Force Instruction 52-101:1.1.
[9] George C. Marshall, quoted in Donald W. Shea, “A Ministry in the Eye of the Storm,” Army, September 1991, 54.
[10] Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The theory and politics of civil–military relations, 18.
[11] Jo Brick wisely says that “while legal frameworks are important in regulating behavior, the ethical factors and the question ‘Can I live with myself if I do this?’ are drivers of individual behavior that are more important in complex circumstances. Military professionals must be trained in facing the inevitable dilemmas that arise in the course of military operations. Increasing moral fitness in military professionals is an important means of preventing moral injury. Training in the laws of war is, of itself, not enough. The law is easy; ethics is hard” (Jo Brick, “The Military Profession: Law, Ethics, and the Profession of Arms” in Redefining the Modern Military: The Inersection of Profession and Ethics edited by Nathan K. Finney and Tyrell O. Mayfield (Naval Insitute Press: Annapolis, MD, 2018), 62.
[12] Another important aspect is non-combatant status is supposed to allow chaplains to continue to provide relgious care if detained along with prisoners of war. To retain military religious status, chaplains must belong to a force whose members qualify for prisoners of war status, be designated as exclusive religious personnel, and serve exclusively in a religious capacity. This ability would be compromised if they were to engage in combat which would leave soildeis without much needed spiritual care (Naomi K. Paget and Janet R. McCormack, The Work of the Chaplain (Judson Press, 2006), 45.). One of the problems, however, is that “the purported immunity granted by the conventions has not been exhibited by U.S. enemies in over seventy-five years” (https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2023/Pistol-Packing-Padres/).
[13] See for example Hak Joon Lee, Christian Ethics: A New Covenant Model (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021), 467–468 and David P. Gushee and Glen H. Stassen, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 462.
[14] Aquinas, 1274, 2.40.1. Here are the conditions that must be met before starting a war: just cause: Typically self-defense or protecting innocent people from serious harm, legitimate authority: War must be declared by a proper governing body, right intention: The goal should be justice (e.g., peace), not revenge or conquest, last resort: All peaceful options must have been tried first, probability of success: There should be a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, and proportionality: The expected benefits must outweigh the harm. Here are the rules that apply during war: discrimination (distinction): Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians, proportionality: The force used must not be excessive relative to the military objective, military necessity: Actions must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military goal, and no inherently evil means: Some methods (e.g., genocide, torture) are forbidden. These principles guide how wars should end and what happens after the war: fair peace terms: Avoid punishing populations excessively, reconstruction: Help rebuild affected societies, accountability: War crimes should be addressed, and the restoration of rights: Aim to reestablish a just political order.
[15] Lee, Christian Ethics, 467.
[16] “Defenders of the Just War tradition regret that they live in a world where they have to kill human beings in order to restrain evil; that is to say, they regret the Fall. But they find it to be even more regretful for Christians to stand idly by while people are being abused and killed unjustly” (Darrel Cole, “Good Wars”).
[17] As John Keegan says so powerfully, “What battles have in common is human: the behaviour of men struggling to reconcile their instinct for self-preservation, their sense of honour and the achievement of some aim over which other men are ready to kill them. The study of battle is therefore always a study of fear and usually of courage, always of leadership, usually of obedience; always of compulsion, sometimes of insubordination; always of anxiety, sometimes of elation or catharsis; always of uncertainty and doubt, misinformation and misapprehension, usually also of faith and sometimes of vision; always of violence, sometimes also of cruelty, self-sacrifice, compassion; above all, it is always a study of solidarity and usually also of disintegration for it is toward the disintegration of human groups that battle is directed” (John Keegan, The Face of Battle).
[18] Aquinas, 1274, 2.40.2. I disagree with Aquinas’ second reason. He says warfare is “unbecoming” because those who give the Eucharist should not shed blood, even if they do so in accordance with just war theory. Perhaps this line of reasoning works in a Catholic theological system but not in mine which has a different view of the priesthood.
[19] Schaick, “Examining the Role of Chaplains as Non-Combatants While Involded in Religious Leader Engagement/Liaison.” This is an important consideration. Donald Rumsfeld once said, “Overall, we are not doing a good job… of trying to include religious leaders to show respect for their faith as part of stability operations” (Donald Rumsfeld, keynote address, Eisenhower National Security Conference, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington, DC, 25 September 2003).
[20] Protecting this right is vital and we can and should thank God for our freedoms. “Denying religious freedom is a precursor to denying all other freedoms. If the state can put itself in between citizens and God, there is no other part of life within society that the state will not see itself as apt to disrupt and intervene in, either.” (Andrew T. Walker, Faithful Reason: Natural Law Ethics for God’s Glory and Our Good, 286). “The state that recognizes and protects religious freedom is not an omni-competent state, but rather a state that acknowledges the rights of conscience and the prerogatives of the institutions that men and women freely sustain to express and pass on their religious convic-tions. It recognizes its duty to serve, and not to impede, those communities of civil society. Thus the recognition of religious freedom in full is a crucial barrier to the totalitarian temptation that seems to exist in all forms of political modernity” (Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “In Defense of Religious Freedom, ” First Things, March 1, 2012, https:// http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/03/in-defense-of-religious-freedom. Quoted in Walker, Faithful Reason, 287).
[21] This does not mean, however, that all religious requests will be granted. Commanders must weigh religious freedom with safty and mission impact. As Andrew Walker has said in reference to general soceity: “Restrictions on religious liberty are indeed legitimate insofar as rightly authorized authorities carefully delineate what harms a religion’s adherents pose to society and does not arbitrarily penalize. Public health and public safety cannot countenance threats to sound order under an absolutized appeal to religious liberty” (Faithful Reason, 283).
[22] My advocacy of righteous realism agrees with Andrew T. Walker, who says, “Christian pacifism fails to adequately love one’s neighbor. It is an over-idealized ethic that cannot be reasonably pursued in an age marked by sin” (Walker, Faithful Reason, 272).
*Photo by Eduard Delputte
The Slippery Slope, Slopes Both Ways
I’ve often heard the slippery slope argument. If we allow such and such, such and such will follow as a matter of course. If we allow smoking, soon marijuana will be legalized. If we allow this, that will be a reality. If we allow moral decay, moral madness will follow. It seems to me those arguments have proven to be prophetic.
We should consider, however, whether the slippery slope slopes both ways. I am not here saying I know all facts or what happened in each of the following examples, but consider with me.
Here’s part of the transcript from Secrtary of War Pete Hegseth’s recent address to General and Flag Officers at Quantico, Virginia:
We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy… We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters.
What is a potential problem with “overwhelming and punishing violence” and demoralizing the enemy?[1] Is that one of the principles of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) [2] or Just War Theory[3]? The answer is “No.” Instead, “Proportionality” is. “Overwhelming force” is more in the nuclear war vein. And what would we think if our enemies used that overwhelming force logic on us? Should we so quickly and easily disregard The Law of Armed Conflict and Just War Theory principles? What might that lead to?
Yes, getting illegal drugs and drug dealers off the streets is a good thing, but doing it legally is as well. Illegal drugs, drug dealing, and illegally killing drug dealers are illegal, and for good reason. If we celebrate and overlook the killing of noncombatants, what might we slip into? What might be allowed?
What slippery slope could we be on if we kill or murder noncombatants? At what other times and who throughout history has willy-nilly done this? What precedent does this set? What slippery course could we be setting out for?
What precedent does uncharitable and extreme speech coming from the highest office of leadership create? What’s the trickle-down effect? What are we saying is okay to our kids and the broader society? Where’s the Golden Rule? I realize the President is not the Pastor-in-Chief, but does that therefore mean that his demeanor doesn’t matter? Is that a precedent we want to set, let alone for a President?
I am not saying that masked authorities have apprehended people without legal justification. I have not followed everything with fine-toothed fervor. I do think we as a people should care about this question.
We should care that the law is followed, as people are detained who are in America unlawfully. The law must cut both ways. Further, we should care (Christians should especially care!) that these people (made in the image of God, whatever their crimes) be treated humanely. If we turn a blind eye and don’t care, have we considered what slippery slope we may be on? What about the sacredness of every human life? Could there be a slippery slope concern down the road?
Jesus said, “Take the plank out of your own eye so you can see clearly to help get the speck out of someone else’s eye.” We would be wise to do that. We would be wise to see where we might be missing slippery slopes.
The slippery slope, slopes both ways.
Notes
[1] Here’s an AI introduction and overview: “Starting in September 2025, the U.S. military, under the direction of the Trump administration, initiated a campaign of lethal strikes against boats suspected of trafficking drugs from Venezuela, often using “overwhelming force” to destroy vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. This campaign, part of “Operation Southern Spear,” escalated to over 100 people killed in more than 30 strikes by late 2025, with the U.S. justifying the actions as an “armed conflict” against cartel-operated vessels designated as terrorists…
These actions have faced intense scrutiny from international observers, human rights groups, and U.S. lawmakers, who questioned the lack of public evidence and argued that the strikes constitute extrajudicial killings rather than legal, intercepted maritime law enforcement.”
It remains to be seen what will happen with this. But we should care and not just look at the explosions of boats and celebrate. We should care what’s going on legally and what slippery slope we are on if we overlook the rule of law.
[2] Again, here’s an AI introduction and overview: The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), or International Humanitarian Law (IHL), is a set of international rules limiting the effects of war for humanitarian reasons. It binds all parties in an armed conflict to protect non-combatants and restrict methods of warfare based on principles of distinction, proportionality, necessity, and humanity.
Key Principles of LOAC
- Distinction: Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects.
- Proportionality: Attacks are prohibited if the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive in relation to the anticipated direct military advantage.
- Military Necessity: Only measures necessary to achieve a legitimate military purpose and not prohibited by international law are permitted.
- Humanity (Unnecessary Suffering): Weapons or methods that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to combatants are forbidden.
- Honor (Chivalry): Requires a degree of fairness and mutual respect between opposing forces.
[3] https://tjaglcs.army.mil/Portals/1003/SME/ETHICS/JWT%20Booklet1.pdf
*Photo by Donald Merrill
Patriotism, Nationalism, and Christianity
Too often, American Christians come off as nationalistic. What is nationalism, and why is it problematic?
I love America. I served in the Army National Guard for 9 years and now serve in the Air National Guard as a chaplain. I have sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I do not take this lightly. I deem the ideals in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, and the freedoms and flourishing flowing from them, as worthy of protection, even calling forth the sacrifice of my life and limbs. So, I would say I am a patriot but not a nationalist.
With anything, definitions matter. The way we define patriotism and nationalism will helpfully contrast them for our purposes. There is a healthy kind of love for country and an unhealthy, biased, and blind kind. There is also a Christian kind of love for one’s country. As well as a sub-Christian love for one’s country in which the country plays a bigger role and occupies greater space in one’s affections, allegiance, hopes, and fears than it should.
Patriotism
Stephen Nathanson defines patriotism as involving:
- Special affection for one’s own country
- A sense of personal identification with the country
- Special concern for the well-being of the country
- Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good[1]
It is shown through civic virtues, national loyalty, and contributions to the country’s well-being. It involves participating in democracy, respecting national symbols, and supporting fellow citizens. Serving in the military or government, voting, paying taxes, obeying the law, and learning about and respecting the country’s history and founding principles are all patriotic. All of these things are good and honorable. There is nothing wrong with being a Christian and being patriotic.
Patriotism does not confuse the city of man with the City of God. Patriotism leaves room for serious criticism of one’s country. Patriotism is not naive.
Patriotism does not mean promoting one’s country’s interests under any circumstances and by any means. The patriot can and should recognize a higher moral principle above that of one’s own nation. A patriot does not need to and must not lose his prophetic voice. A patriot may fight for his country, but also demand that the war is just.
Nationalism
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines nationalism as an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and places primary emphasis on promoting its culture and interests rather than those of other nations or nationalities. I would further add, from a Christian perspective, that we consider this definition in relation to God’s Kingdom. Patriotism has its rightful place and perspective within our earthly nation. But with nationalism, the nation occupies a bigger place in hearts, minds, and allegiance than is warranted. “Patriotism that loses perspective and offers our highest loyalty to a specific state is an evil and destructive thing. In essence, nationalism is the imbalanced and distorted form of something that is good—patriotism.”[2]
| Healthy Patriotism | Unhealthy Nationalism |
| America < Jesus’ Kingdom | America > Jesus’ Kingdom |
| Subservient to King Jesus and His policies | Subservient to the President and his policies |
| Ultimately concerned about Jesus’ transnational Kingdom | Ultimately concerned about America |
| Eschatology: Hope in Jesus | Eschatology: Hope in American greatness |
| The fall/problem: everyone are sinners in need of Jesus and His love and truth (right and left) and Satan is set to destroy everyone (right and left) | The fall/problem: The left (or the right) are the problem. If we can deal with them, this nation will be back to its original state (Eden/Promised Land)[3] |
| Savior/messiah: Jesus who fixes the problem of sin, is truth incarnate and thus shows us how to live—lives of love. And who will ultimately destroy Satan, sin, and death. | Savior/messiah: a strong political leader who will fix what is broken (and remember the other side is what is broken) |
| Loves everyone. Wisely, carefully, and considerately protects America. | Loves America. Brashly and thoughtlessly does whatever it thinks is in the interest of America. |
| Open to critique and correction. Not naive. Prophetic voice remains. | No critique or correction. No place for the prophetic voice. |
Powerful Push Towards Nationalism
Any powerful nation will push towards nationalism. Of course, no nation says, “We are a variable and artificial entity that sometimes fails in our moral duties, but we want your allegiance in order to increase our power and security.” Instead, God is often co-opted to bolster the country’s standing in the eyes of the people. That is why people who are nationalistic tend to be religious. A link has been made between one’s nation and one’s God.
We see the messianic undertones all over the place, from “Obamacare” to “TrumpRX.” We can trust the Führer to provide what we need. The president is my shepherd, I shall not want. The president leads me to prosperity. The President is here; I will fear no enemy.
The immense power, rich history, and traditions of the United States can inadvertently foster nationalistic tendencies. While the story of the United States, on balance, is predominantly positive, this goodness can be perilous. Nationalism becomes alluring when nations possess sufficient strength or goodness to garner deep loyalties.[4] This can facilitate false beliefs and narratives, and promote placing hope where it should not be placed.
Our nation’s “superpower status and the longevity of our political system provide a potent seedbed for nationalist ideas. When this is combined with a rather widespread belief that the United States is (or in some cases, was) a Christian nation, nationalism becomes a seductive worldview for Christians.”[5]
One of my major critiques of nationalism is that it takes something that may very well be good, or even very good, and transforms it into an absolute good.[6] Of course, every culture and nation has some redeemable qualities. And “It is indisputable that different nations reflect varying degrees of Christian influence in their histories.”[7]
But no nation is God’s ideal. No nation will ever bring heaven to earth. That is a utopian concept. The New Jersusalem will come down from and by God from heaven (Revelation 21:2).
The reality is, however, there will always be temptation to place our hope in govermental powers on earth. Christians must remember that Revelation warns us against the sin of nationalism. We must not put our hope in Babylon. Babylon will fall (Revelation 17-18).
Christianity
The only nationalism the Christian should be about is trans-nationalism: Jesus and His eternal Kingdom made up of people from every tribe, language, nation, and tongue. Christianity is transcultural and transnational.[8] Christianity is not America, and it’s not American. Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jewish carpenter who was crucified. “Jesus people” have historically transformed culture sacrificially and lovingly from the margins.
Christianity is not about my church or your church, this country or that country; it’s about the whole universe being subservient to Jesus. Jesus is the Boss before whom every being in the entire universe will be made to bow. Jesus is bigger than politics. “The Christians primary solidarity is not with those who pledge alliagnce to a particular flag but those who confess Jesus as Lord regardless of their nationality.”[9]
Christianity is political, but it is first and foremost about Jesus reigning in individual hearts and lives; and Jesus’ command is summed up in this: love the LORD (YHWH) with every fiber of your being—material and immaterial—and others as yourself. Jesus will soon reign on this very earth. Christians are about that political reign not by getting overly caught up in earthly politics, but by ensuring they themselves are following Jesus the King and helping others to see who He is and bow before Him.
People will not bow their head, heart, and hands (and morality) before Him until they know and love Him. Christians are not about outward conformity but conformity from the heart. And that happens through love by the Spirit.
One of the death knells of nationalism is the historical perspective that remembers the transitory nature of nations. Nationalism is short-sighted and wrong in its diagnosis and offer of a cure. It’s demonic because it distracts from the real hope of Jesus. Nationalism is also deeply off base because, as Brenda Salter-McNeil has said, ”Cultural difference and diversity was always a part of God’s original plan for human beings. No one culture, people, or language can adequately reflect the splendor of God.” Nationalism and Christianity don’t go together.
Some people might respond…
Some people might respond: “Your unrealistic or unfaithful talking about all the high-fluent Jesus’ Kingdom stuff… You are unrealistic and should care about America. Don’t you care about our kids‽ Don’t you see the moral collapse of the nation‽”
First, I do care about America, and I do things for the betterment of America. As stated above, I am in the Air Force. I also vote and carryout other civic duties, volunteer, serve my local community as a pastor and hospice chaplian.
Second, Colossians 3 says “Set your mind on things which are above, not on things which are on the earth.” This and other Scriptures demonstrate that our first focus as Christians should be Jesus’ eternal Kingdom and our heavenly citenzenship (Philippians 3:20). This positions us to be more profitable people in whatever earthly kingdom we find ourselves.
Third, the hope of America is a person. And that person is Jesus. It’s not any other person or policy. It’s not morality. The hope of America is not America. Jesus, that’s who we all need: His person and policy.
Yes, I know we can’t actually vote for Jesus. Yes, I know the President is not the “pastor and chief.” But yes, the diagnosis and what we think is the cure for this country radically matters. A lot of people seem to be “practical nationalists” even if they say they aren’t.
Fourth, we can’t piecemeal take God’s word. God’s word that says, “thou shalt not commit adultery,” thus condemning homosexuality and pornography, also says, “love your enemies” and “pray for those who spitefully use you.” Sometimes political opponents don’t take into account the whole counsel of God or the weightier matters of the law.
How can we hold to the sacredness of the family with one breath but with the next belittle and objectify women or put down people of different nationalities—people made in the image of God for whom Jesus died? Don’t we get the value of the family and the value of all humans from the same place?
If God’s word, the truth, is our mother, then the indoctrination of the internet should not be our father. We should keep suckling from the same source, that of love and truth, not one mixed with poisonous lies. We should keep in mind that this world’s wisdom is mixed with the serpent’s bite of devilish deceit.
The God of moral order is also the God of sacrificial love. We can’t have actual moral order and the flourishing it promises without the accompanying love. It’s a fool’s errand to think we can have the heads of the quarter without taking the tales’ side too.
Conclusion
So, as a Christian, I do not believe there should be any connection between Christianity and nationalism. I do, however, think there is a clear place for appropriate patriotism.
Patriotism has warrant in Scripture. Patriotism realizes that the freedoms, blessings, and prosperity we have as a nation are a stewardship from God, which is meant to be wisely managed. Patriotism realizes the freedoms we enjoy are not free and they are not just to be enjoyed but leveraged for higher purposes. Patriotism realizes that freedoms are meant to be protected along the lines laid out in the just war literature.[10]
Patriotism realizes that the government is not infallible but is under the higher government of someone higher. Patriotism praises God for the country in which God has placed us, but has no illusions of perfection or the possibility of perfection.[11]
Psalm 23 is not just a funeral poem. It’s political. YHWH is my shepherd. He leads and I follow Him. He is the great shepherd who shows His love by laying His life down for His sheep. It is He—King Jesus—who brings eternal goodness, prosperity, and flourishing; not any earthly ruler.
“Trust in Him at all times. Pour out your heart to Him, for God is our refuge. Common people are as worthless as a puff of wind, and the powerful are not what they appear to be. If you weigh them on the scales, together they are lighter than a breath of air… Power, O God, belongs to You; unfailing love, O Lord, is Yours. Surely You repay all people according to what they have done.” (Ps. 62:8-9, 11b-12)
Notes
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/patriotism/
[2] Steve Wilkens and Mark L. Sanford, Hidden Worldviews: Eight Cultural Stories That Shape Our Lives, 62.
[3] “The supposed antidote for the nation’s ills is sought by a recovery of some golden age within our national history when those things did not exist. Usually, this blessed and right time is not specifically identified, but it often looks a lot like the world the Cleaver family inhabited” (Hidden Worldviews, 70). “Several problems emerge immediately from this idea. First, when “golden eras” are defined by a narrowly construed set of issues, they quickly take on a mythical character in which all the blemishes of that gilded age are ignored or glossed over. Thus, it is common to hear a desire to return to the Christianity of our founding fathers without recognizing that many of them were deists who talked a lot about God but were hostile toward Christianity. A second problem is that we run the risk of turning God into a vending machine with the idea that he will provide us with the national protection, status and well-being if we behave in proper ways. Finally, our return to God’s favor is generally thought to be orchestrated by political actions that will get us back on the right cultural and moral track. In each case, Christians are tempted to rely on political methods and goals to define our mission” (Hidden Worldviews, 70).
[4] Wilkens and Sanford, Hidden Worldviews: Eight Cultural Stories That Shape Our Lives, 65.
[5] Wilkens and Sanford, Hidden Worldviews, 62.
[6] Wilkens and Sanford, Hidden Worldviews, 73.
[7] Wilkens and Sanford, Hidden Worldviews, 75. It should also be noted that “Much of what we believe to be true, good or just proper manners is not filtered through conscious decision-making processes, but is a matter of absorption… Greater awareness of differences between cultures can remind us of the relativity of one’s own national traditions, ideas and assumptions” (Hidden Worldviews, 73).
[8] “Nationalism ignores the transnational nature of Christianity. Perhaps one of the most overlooked lessons in Scripture’s account of Pentecost (Acts 2) is that Christianity is not the sole possession of any particular nation. Instead, God’s new work now transcends old boundaries and encompasses all the nations” (Wilkens and Sanford, Hidden Worldviews, 75).
[9] Wilkens and Sanford, Hidden Worldviews.
[10] See Eric Patterson’s book A Basic Guide to the Just War Traditionfor a good book on the subject.
[11] There is thankfulness and humility so there can be, when appropiate, partnerships with other nations.
*Photo by Janay Peters
Body and Spirit: Christianity and the Importance of Exercise
I recently read David Mathis’ book, A Little Theology of Exercise. It is good and reminded me to finish writing something I started in 2023…
I have been exercising religiously and consistently for the past five years or so.[1] I use both “religiously” and “consistently” purposely here. I don’t primarily exercise for aesthetics or athleticism. But because “exercise is of some value,” as the Apostle Paul says (1 Timothy 4:8).
Some of the values I have seen in my own life: mental clarity, more patience and less anger, self-discipline, less stress (and fewer stress-related canker sores), and less back and knee pain. But that’s not it. My exercise has been religious too.
Exercise can actually be a type of spiritual discipline and an act of worship when done for the right reasons. Christians need to reject lazy and sedentary lives while also avoiding obsession with fitness and body image. Exercise is to serve the higher purpose of loving God and others well.
Christians know the body is not evil or unimportant; it is a precious part of what it means to be human. So, our bodies are to be stewarded to God’s glory. By working to keep our bodies healthy, we position ourselves to better serve God and others.[2] Exercise can help us better steward our time on earth.
Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century theologian and philosopher, saw the benefit of regular exercise, although he didn’t have a gym to go to. In the winter, when he couldn’t ride his horse and walk, he would “chop wood, moderately, for the space of half an hour or more.”[3] I don’t think what we do is as important as doing something. We all have things we gravitate towards. Physical activity is helpful for us.
John J. Ratey’s book, Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain, was also helpful. He shows that exercise…
- helps with stress
- is especially helpful for those with ADHD
- is very beneficial for recovering addicts; it can assist the fight for sobriety because of how the reward system works in our brains
- helps with mental agility
- helps spur the growth of new brain cells
- helps combat anxiety and depression
- helps prevent and heal neurodegenerative disorders
Exercise is important. I love what the Apostle Paul says: “Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come” (1 Timothy 4:8). Of course, the Apostle Paul did not live a sedentary lifestyle.
Paul walked some 10,000 miles on his missionary journeys. So, Paul, although bookish, was also active. Jesus also did not live a sedentary lifestyle. Jesus was a carpenter/masonry craftsman, several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen, and Paul was a tentmaker.
“Regular human movement has been assumed throughout history.” But now, as David Mathis said, “We have cars, and we walk far less. We have machines and other labor-saving devices, and so we use our hands less. We have screens, and we move less. Added to that, in our prosperity and decadence, food and (sugar-saturated) drinks are available to us like never before.”
We definitely need to hear “godliness is much better,” but I think we also need to hear, “physical training is good.” This is especially the case because we drive, we don’t walk. We order fish, we don’t hoist them in from a ship. We build more things on Minecraft than with our hands.
It does make sense that our spiritual lives are more important than our physical fitness. But I don’t believe there is some huge separation between the two. Activity helps activate our minds. And the Bible says we are supposed to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and we are to glorify God in whatever we do. The Bible also says that Christians are temples of the living God; that doesn’t mean that our bodies must be marble, but it does mean that we shouldn’t treat our bodies like latrines.
We are embodied beings, not disembodied souls. Our bodies, it is true, are not glorified yet; they are battered and broken, but they’re not inherently bad. So, let’s exercise for effectiveness and longevity, not self-worth or selfies. God is the one who instills our self-worth (and gave Jesus for us), and being obsessed with selfies is silly.
Notes
[1] Exercise has been a part of my life since about as long as I can remember. I started playing soccer when I was five and remember first being allowed to jog to Fleets Fitness when I was thirteen.
[2] Scripture says to do good to people as you have opportunity (Gal. 6:7), but more and more, if it is difficult to get off the couch, it will also be increasingly difficult to help people. So, I think disciplining ourselves for the sake of godliness (1 Timothy 4:7) can and even should include physical exercise.
[3] The Works of President Edwards.
*Photo by Mike Cox
Should Christians Legislate Morality?
Christians Should Not Enforce “Vertical” Morality
In our modern, pluralistic, and heavily secularized society, John Warwick Montgomery points out that Christians should be particularly cautious not to jeopardize the spread of the gospel by insensitively imposing Christian morality on unbelievers. We must avoid any recurrence of the Puritan Commonwealth, where people are compelled to act externally as Christians regardless of their true faith. Unfortunately, these efforts often lead to the institutionalization of hypocrisy and a decline in respect for genuine Christian values.[1] It can also lead people to a false assurance of a right relationship with God.
Instead, Montgomery says Christians should recognize that Scripture presents two distinct types of moral commands. We see this in the first and second parts of the Ten Commandments.[2] In the first part, we see duties related to God. These commands cover the relationship between individuals and God (“vertical” morality). In the second part, we see duties related to neighbors. These commands cover the relationship between individuals and other people (“horizontal” morality).
Montgomery believes it is crucial not to impose the first part of the Ten Commandments on unbelievers. These commands are:
- “You must not have any other god but Me.”
- “You must not make for yourself an idol.”
- “You must not misuse the name of the Lord your God.”
- “Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.”
Even if Christians are in the majority in a country, they should not impose laws related to the above four commandments. “This is because the proper relationship with God can only be established through voluntary, personal decision and commitment.”[3]
1 Corinthians 5:10 is an important verse for us to consider on this subject as well. Paul argues that avoiding all sinful individuals in the world would mean that Christians would need to “leave the world” entirely, which is an impractical and unrealistic standard. Instead, the church’s primary responsibility is not to judge those outside the faith; it is their duty to judge those who claim to be believers but live in sin within the church.
The Quran says there is no compulsion in religion. Jesus demonstrated that principle. He never forced anyone to follow Him. That’s what we see throughout the New Testament. Christians are to be evangelistic and strive to compel people to see the goodness and glory of Jesus. Still, they are never commanded to command people to bow to Jesus.
Christians Should Work Towards A General “Horizontal” Morality
Christians should, however, encourage people towards general “horizontal” morality. Even while the focus in the New Testament is on the morality of Jesus’ followers, we do see warrant for the promotion of social order and general morality. I think of John the Baptizer and the Apostle Paul, for example (Mark 6:14-20; Matt. 14:1-12; Acts 16:35-39; 24:25; 1 Tim. 2:1-4 also see Rom. 13 and 1 Peter 2). But the letters of the New Testament were written to Christians, telling Christians how to live.
Here’s the second part of the Ten Commandments, which are good for every society to lovingly and practically apply.
- “Honor your father and your mother”
- “You shall not murder”
- “You shall not commit adultery”
- “You shall not steal”
- “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”
- “You shall not covet”
These commands are applied in various ways throughout the Bible. For example, the Bible talks about the importance of railings on the top of buildings to protect people from falling off and getting hurt or killed.
But even here, we don’t want to put our hope or emphasis on “horizontal” morality. Part of the point of the law is to point us to our need for Jesus. It is not an end in itself. So, we must remember that mere morality is not the solution.
The Problem of Secularism and Morality
Britannica says secularism is “a worldview or political principle that separates religion from other realms of human existence, often putting greater emphasis on nonreligious aspects of human life or, more specifically, separating religion from the political realm.”
One of the problems with secularism, though, is that it is not set up very well to give us a societal analysis. How is secularism going to provide us with:
- The Ideal of what’s healthy
- Observation of symptoms
- Diagnosis or analysis of the disease/disorder
- Prognosis or prediction of cure/remedy
- Prescription or instruction for treatment/action for a cure
Secularists believe Christians should not legislate morality. They say that religion has no place in government. Christian beliefs are not allowed, but their core beliefs are allowed. But, as Britannica aludes to, secularism is really an ultimate commitment—a whole world-and-life-view.
Even atheism has the markings of a religion. Atheists have a creed. Theirs is just that there is no god. Atheism addresses the ultimate concerns of life and existence and answers the questions of who people are and what they should value. A committed atheist is even unlikely to marry someone outside of their beliefs. Many atheists even belong to a group and may even attend occasional meetings (see e.g., atheists.org) and have their own literature they read that supports their beliefs.
A merely secular society cannot give a moral framework that transcends individual belief systems. We are left with a “might makes right morality.” It seems to me that secularism leaves us with the column on the left, whereas Christianity gives us the column on the right.
I believe we need and should want Christianity to help our nation work towards a general “horizontal” morality. Our Founding Fathers (along with Alexis de Tocqueville), many of whom were deists and not Christians, agree. Yet, Christians should realize that legislating morality is not the answer.
Legislating Morality is Not the Ultimate Solution
Christians both understand that sinners will sin and that morality is good for the nation. Righteousness exalts the land, as Proverbs says (Prov. 14:34). Yet, Christians are compassionate and humble. We realize that we all stumble in many ways, as the letter of James says, but if we can help people from stumbling, that’s good. But Christians don’t confuse the kingdom of man with the Kingdom of God. Christians know that here we have no lasting city, but we seek the City that is to come (Heb. 13:14).
Legislating morality is not the solution; Jesus is. As C.H. Spurgeon said, “Nothing but the Gospel can sweep away social evil… The Gospel is the great broom with which to cleanse the filthiness of the city; nothing else will avail.”
Paul David Tripp has wisely said that “We should be thankful for the wisdom of God’s law, but we should also be careful not to ask it to do what only grace can accomplish.” It is the Spirit of God that transforms, although it is true that He often works through law. We need our rocky hearts to become flesh through the work of the Spirit.
Conclusion
The question of whether Christians should legislate morality reveals the complexities of faith in a diverse and secular society. While Christians are called to embody and promote a morality rooted in their faith, imposing a “vertical” morality can hinder the spread of the gospel, foster hypocrisy, and promote a misunderstanding of genuine faith. Instead, the focus should be on humbly and lovingly encouraging “horizontal” morality—principles that promote societal well-being and can be embraced by individuals regardless of their faith.
As apprentices of Jesus, Christians are primarily called to lead by example and encourage ethical behavior rooted in love and respect for one another. The emphasis should be on exemplifying Jesus’ teachings and fostering relationships that draw others to the faith, rather than seeking to enforce morality. That’s what Jesus Himself did.
By fostering relationships and demonstrating the transformative love of Jesus, Christians can influence the moral fabric of society without simply relying on legislation. True change comes through the work of the Holy Spirit rather than external mandates. In this way, the Christian community can contribute to a more just and moral society while remaining faithful to the fundamental teachings of their faith.
Notes
[1] John Warwick Montgomery,Theology: Good, Bad, and Mysterious, 122.
[2] Often referred to as the First and Second Tables of the Decalogue. The “First Table” consists of commands 1-4 and has to do with people’s relationship with God (vertical relationship). The “Second Table” consists of commands 5-10 and has to do with people’s relationship with other humans (horizontal relationships). The First Table can be summed up by “love God,” and the Second Table can be summed up by “love others.”
[3] Montgomery, Theology: Good, Bad, and Mysterious, 123.
What sets Christianity apart? (part 2)
In Part One, we found that part of what sets Christianity apart is trinitarian monotheism and God’s eternal love. Here we will add four more aspects that set Christianity apart from other religions.
3. The Incarnation of God
Christians believe that God loves the world so much that Jesus took on flesh and became man to die for the sins of the world (Jn. 1:1-3, 14, 29; 3:16). Other religions, such as Greek mythology, believe in gods who appeared in human form for various reasons, including love or punishment.[1] Greek gods, however, only temporarily took on human form. Jesus permanently became human.[2]
In Hinduism, the incarnation of a deity usually refers to Vishnu, who is said to have appeared in various avatars (e.g., Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, and Varaha). Other than Hinduism and various mythologies (which most people no longer take seriously), the concept of the incarnation of God is uncommon. However, Wikipedia does give a list of other people who have been considered deities. Egyptian pharaohs were considered deities, and North Korea’s Supreme Leader is considered a deity, for example. Interestingly, even on Wikipedia, Jesus is in a class of His own. He is listed by Himself under the “Controversial Deification” heading.
The Hindu avatar comparison to Christian incarnation is not as clear as it might at first seem. There are clearly some important distinctions between the Hindu and Christian beliefs regarding incarnation.[3] First, Hindus claim many divine incarnations have appeared throughout history, while Christians believe Jesus is unique—the only begotten Son of God. The Christian Bible teaches that Jesus appeared “once to bear the sins of many” and “will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him” (Heb. 9:28). So, second, we see that the purpose of avatars and the purpose of Christ are different. The avatars do not take away or bear sin. Third, in contrast to Hinduism, Christianity teaches that Jesus is Immanuel, God with us, and that He is still with us by the Holy Spirit. Lastly, the avatars in Hinduism appear for a time to balance out good and evil; in contrast, Jesus came and will come again to forever banish evil and sin.
So, Christianity’s belief in the incarnation of Jesus sets it apart from all other religions. The Creator became creation, the eternal entered time. As is sometimes said, there are many who would be god but only one God who would be man. Or, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, ”While we exert ourselves to grow beyond our humanity, to leave the human behind us, God becomes human.”[4]
4. Messiah Jesus
Muslims say they believe Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the Quran explicitly refers to Jesus as the Messiah. One of the disagreements between Christians and Muslims, however, is what it means that Jesus was the Messiah. Muslims do not believe Jesus was God in flesh or that He was crucified.
It is true that the expectation presented in the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament for Christians) for the Promised One seems almost impossibly diverse. How could any one person fulfill the many expectations? How could it make sense for the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:9, 13, 22) to be a descendant of king David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Is. 11:1; Jer. 23:5-6)?
The messianic expectations appeared to be nothing more than unrelated and random shards of glass. Yet, the New Testament authors, over and over, argue that Jesus is in fact the Promised One, the long-awaited Messiah, who fulfills the prophecies, patterns, pointers, and promises (2 Cor. 1:20). Jesus, who was from Nazareth (of all places) is believed to be the one who will crush the serpent of old and lead the way back into Eden, bless all the nations of the earth, and set up His righteous and eternal Kingdom. The New Testament helps us see that the Old Testament predictions work together to form an astounding, almost unbelievable, stained-glass picture of Jesus, the long-awaited, promised Messiah.
Regarding prophecy, there are several Old Testament passages we could consider. Here’s a sample:
- His appearance will be disfigured (see Isaiah 52:14 and Matthew 26:67).
- He will be despised and rejected (see Isaiah 53:3 and John 11:47-50).
- He will take sin upon Himself (see Isaiah 53:4-6, 8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3).
- He will be silent before oppressors (see Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew 14:60-61).
- He will be assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in His death (Isaiah 53:9 and Mark 15:27-28, 43-46).
- He will be a descendant of David (see 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 and Luke 3:23, 31).
- He will be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1).
- He will be preceded by a messenger (see Isaiah 40:3-5 and Matthew 3:1-2).
- He will have a ministry of miracles (see Isaiah 35:5-6 and Matthew 9:35; 11:4-5).
- He will enter Jerusalem on a Donkey (see Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:7-9).
- His hands and feet will be pierced (see Psalm 22:16 and Luke 23:33).
- He will be hated without reason (see Psalm 69:4 and John 15:25).
- His garments were divided, and lots were cast for them (see Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24).
- His bones were not broken (see Psalm 34:20 and John 19: 33).
- His side was pierced (see Zechariah 12:10 and Jn. 19:34).
- He, the Mighty God, was born (see Isaiah 9:2-7 and Matthew 1:23).
Christianity is set apart from all other world religions because it says that Messiah Jesus, who is God incarnate, “died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).
5. The Resurrection
Christians believe that Messiah Jesus died as predicted, but that He didn’t stay dead; He rose, conquering sin and death. Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus is the firstfruits of more to come. The resurrection of Jesus is like the down payment with a whole lot more to follow. He is the “test of concept” that proves that God will one day soon set the world aright.[5]
So, Christians believe time is going somewhere. The world itself groans to be fixed, and the Bible says that the resurrection of Jesus proves it will be fixed.
6. Historical Evidence
Christians do not base their beliefs on a dream wish. There are legitimate historical grounds for their beliefs. This sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Now, some other religions claim historical and archeological support, but the evidence for Christianity is much more convincing.
So, for instance, Douglas Groothuis has said, “The New Testament witness is far better established historically than the revisionism of the Quran.”[6] The New Testament documents are amazingly historically reliable. “Nearly 100 biblical figures, dozens of biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John, and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research.”[7]
Further, we can gather a substantial amount of information about Jesus through nonbiblical historical writers. From Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, Thallus, and Celsus, we see Jesus clearly existed and had a brother named James who was killed when Ananus was High Priest. Jesus was known to be some kind of wonderworker, wise man, and teacher. Yet, He was regarded by His followers to be divine. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and His crucifixion seems to have been accompanied by a very long darkness. Surprisingly, His crucifixion didn’t squelch the Christian movement.[8] Historical writings outside of the New Testament corroborate the accuracy of the New Testament.
The English philosopher Antony Flew, while not a believer in the resurrection of Jesus, said, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”[9] Not only does the historical evidence point in the direction of Christianity, but the positive historical impact does too. We’ll look at that in “What sets Christianity apart” (part 3).”
Go to Part Two three here.
Notes
[1] E.g., Zeus, Poseidon, and Apollo.
[2] The New Testament repeatedly teaches that Jesus is God in flesh. Jesus and the New Testament writers over and overclaim Jesus’ divine nature. We see the creedal formula “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). “Lord” was used in the LXX to translate the divine name, so this designation very often equates Jesus with God. Jesus’ title is “Son of God” which implies He is of the same nature as God (Matt. 11:27; Mk. 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62; Lk. 10:22; 22:70; Jn. 10:30; 14:9). Jesus is eternally preexistent (Jn. 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 13:8; Rev. 22:13). He has authority to forgives sins (Mk. 2:5-12; Lk. 24:45-47; Acts 10:43; 1 Jn. 1:5-9). He is even explicitly referred to as “God” (Matt. 1:21-23; Jn. 1:1-14; Titus 2:13; 1 Jn. 5:20; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1). And Jesus was condemned for who He claimed to be (Mk. 14:61-64; Jn. 8:58-59). Yet, the writers say it is right to worship Him (Matt. 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; Jn. 20:28; Heb. 1:5-9; Rev. 5). So, Jesus claimed to be the Lord and the New Testament confesses Him to be Lord. The Early Church taught that Jesus was God, too. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) said in his Letter to the Ephesians, “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit” (18.2 cf. 19.3; Letter to the Romans, 3.3; Letter to Polycarp, 3.2). Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155) said, “The Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead (Philippians 12.2). Justin Martyr (100-165) said, “Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128), and he said that he would “prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts” (Dialogue with Trypho, 36). We also have early archeological evidence from around 230AD. Ancient remains of an early church were discovered in the Megiddo prison in Israel. The church has ornate religious mosaics and an inscription that says, “God Jesus Christ” (Vassilios Tzaferis, “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ,’” 38-49 in Biblical Archaeology Review March/April 2007 Vol 33 No 2).
[3] Kyle Brosseau, “How to Explain the Incarnation to Hindus.”
[4] Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 84 as quoted in Biblical Critical Theory 360.
[5] “The resurrection raises our consciousness to a new set of possibilities in this world and shows us that the way things are is not the way they will always be” (Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 442). “The resurrection is not a one-time happening but the beginning of a new and ongoing age.” (Ibid., 457).
[6] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 664.
[7] Holden and Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 181.
[8] See Boyd and Eddy, Lord or Legend?, 135.
[9] See Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 583.
* Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
Can we know?
Can we know?
What if I don’t know if God exists?[1] What if I don’t know how to answer the big questions of life? What if I don’t think I’ll ever know?[2] Can we know? If so, how?
If we feel like we can’t be sure, we also can’t be sure about that. That is to say, if we feel like we can’t know, how do we know that?
In talking with people about the big questions of life, they often say they don’t think you can know. They think the big questions of how we got here and what we’re supposed to do while we’re here remain unanswered. We simply can’t know.
I played putt-putt golf with my family today. I enjoy the challenge and I definitely enjoy winning. I don’t like playing putt-putt at courses where skill is not a factor. I don’t like the sidewalls to be made out of rock because then you have no control of how the ball bounces. I don’t like when the course has variables that are out of my control. Today, however, on the last hole I couldn’t even see where the hole was. But I took the time and I walked to the end of the course, past the out house that obstructed my view, and saw the hole. My knowledge of where the hole was didn’t get me a hole-in-one but it did get me to the hole eventually. It helped me get a meager win. I beat my son by one stroke.
Knowledge is important in all areas of life, even putt-putt. It’s not always easy though. But putting in the work and at least trying to walk past the “out houses” that obstruct our view is worth it. If it makes sense in putt-putt—and it does especially if you want to win!—then it makes sense in life.
Can We Know Anything at All?
Wow. That is a super big question. And it’s a question that some people are not asking. That’s problematic and in some ways ignorant. Others, however, are asking that question but they’re asking it in a proud way. That’s also problematic and arrogant.
Let me ask you a question, how do you know your dad is your dad? Some of you will say, “He’s just my dad. He’s always been my dad. I’ve always known him as my dad.”
“But, how do you know you know for sure he’s your dad?”
Others will answer, “I know he’s my dad because my mom told me.” But how do you know your mom’s not lying? Or, how do you know she knows the truth?
Perhaps the only way to know your dad is actually your biological dad is through a DNA test. But could it be the case that the DNA clinic is deceiving you? Is it possible that there’s a big conspiracy to deceive you? What if you are actually part of The Truman Show? Everything is just a big hoax for people’s entertainment? How could you know without a shadow of a doubt that’s not happening? You really can’t. Not 100%.
Thankfully, things do not need to be verified 100% for us to believe it to be true. We can and do have knowledge of all sorts of things that are not proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.
We Can’t Know Everything
We, I hope you can see, can’t know everything. There is healthy humility when it comes to knowledge, just as there’s a healthy level of skepticism. If we think our knowledge must be exhaustive for us to have knowledge, we will never have knowledge. And we will be super unproductive. I, for one, would not be able to go to the mechanic. And that would be bad.
Our knowledge is necessarily limited. We may not like it but that’s the cold hard truth, we must rely on other people. We must learn from other people. There’s a place for us to trust other people and sources. Of course, we are not to trust all people or trust people all the time. But we must necessarily rely on people at points.
Philosophy and the History of Careening Back and Forth Epistemologically
John Frame, the theologian and philosopher, shows in his book, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology, that the history of secular philosophy is a history of humans careening back in forth from rationalism to skepticism and back again. One philosopher makes a case that we can and must know it all, every jot and title. And when they’re proven wrong, the next philosopher retreats to pure epistemological anarchy, claiming we can’t know anything at all. Again, when it’s found out that that view is wrong and we can in fact know things, we swing back the other way. And so, the philosophical pendulum goes and we have people like Hume and people like Nietzsche.
The history of philosophy shows that we should be both skeptical about rationalism and rational about skepticism. Both have accuracies and inaccuracies. Which helps explain the long life of both. We can know things but we can’t know everything or anything fully.
Christians give credible reasons for epistemological suspicion even while giving legitimate reasons for belief. Christians are realists, not rationalists or skeptics. Christians believe we should be skeptical about our rationalism and rational about our skepticism. We can know truly even if not fully in this life. We can know a lot even while we know we can’t know all. Christians hold tenaciously to the bedrock truths of reality, but hold other things loosely.
The Bible and Knowledge
The biblical understanding of knowledge takes both rationalism and skepticism into account and explains how both are partly right and partly wrong. And it explains that though we may not be able to know fully, we can know truly. It also explains that there are more types of knowing than just cognitive and rational. The Bible understands who we are anthropologically and so is best able to reveal the whole truth epistemologically.
The Bible also understands that there is experiential knowing, tasting—experiencing something—and knowing something to be true on a whole different level than mere cognitive knowing.[3] When the Bible talks about “knowing” it’s intimate, tangible, and experiential knowing. For example, it says Adam “knew” his wife and a child was the result of that knowledge. That, my friends, is not mere mental knowledge. It’s lived—intimately experienced—knowledge. It’s knowledge that’s not available without relationship.
Job says it this way, I’ve heard of you but now something different has happened, I’ve seen you (Job 42:5). Jonathan Edwards, the philosopher and theologian, talked about the difference between cognitively knowing honey is sweet and tasting its sweetness. It is a world of difference. The Bible is not about mere mental assent. It is about tasting. Knowing. Experiencing. Living the truth.
The Bible says and shows that Jesus is Himself the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is what it means to know the truth. He is the truth and shows us the truth. He is truth lived, truth incarnate.
The Bible communicates that some people don’t understand, don’t know the truth. There’s a sense in which if you don’t see it, you don’t see it. If it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense. The Bible talks about people “hearing” and yet “not hearing” and “seeing” and “not seeing.” Some people believe the gospel and the Bible is foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14). “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers” (2 Cor. 4:4).
How Should Christians Pursue Knowledge?
First, our disposition or the way we approach questions is really important. How should we approach questions? What should characterize us?
Humility! Why? Because we are fallible, we make mistakes. However, God does not. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”
Also, kindness, patience, and understanding are an important part of humility and asking questions and arriving at answers. So, “Faith seeking understanding,” is a helpful phrase. Christians have faith and reason; faith in reason, and reason for faith.
Second, where do we get answers from? Scripture. Why is this important? Again, I am fallible and you are fallible, that is, we make mistakes. And how should we approach getting those answers? Are we above Scripture or is Scripture above us? Who holds more sway? Scripture supplies the truth to us; we do not decide what we think and then find a way to spin things so that we can believe whatever we want.
Third, community is important. God, for instance, has given the church pastor/elders who are supposed to rightly handle the word of truth and shepherd the community of believers. We don’t decide decisions and come to conclusions on our own. God helps us through Christ’s body the Church.
Fourth, it is important to remember mystery. We should not expect to know all things. We are, once again, fallible. So, we should keep Deuteronomy 29:29 in mind: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” There are certain things that are revealed and certain things that are not revealed.
Fifth, our questions and answers are not simply about head knowledge. God doesn’t just want us to be able to talk about theology and philosophy. Deuteronomy 29:29 says, “that we may do…” So, God also cares a whole lot about what we do. Knowledge is to lead to action. We are to be hearers and doers. Christians believe that knowing should absolutely lead to doing, or the thing “known” is not actually known.
Sixth, it’s important to acknowledge there are very big and important questions that are difficult to answer. We should have a sense of our smallness. Again, we should have a certain amount of humility. But that doesn’t mean we can’t find answers. Difficulty answering questions and humility in the face of questions should not be an excuse for digging deep and trying to answer the big questions of life. They’re too important.
Notes
[1] There are multiple things that point us to the existence of God. We now know that the universe had a beginning. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning. It makes sense that God is that cause. God is the Uncaused Cause. God, being God, is immaterial and outside space and time. Further, if there are laws of physics it would make sense that there is also a law-giver. If not, where did those laws come from? In a similar way, it would seem the fine-tuning of the universe requires a fine-tuner. I’m not trying to be too repetitive but codes like the genetic code can only come from a Coder. Intelligence comes from Intelligence. What explains human consciousness except a Higher Consciousness? If there is a moral law, shouldn’t we expect a Lawgiver? Now, just because God exists doesn’t mean we know God. But if God does exist God would certainly be able to make Himself known. He would be able to communicate in various ways. But God being God, those ways may not fit into the categories we’d expect.
[2] People often refer to themselves as agnostic. Agnostic comes from Greek and means “unknown.” Gnosis means knowledge and the “a” prefix is a negation.
[3] As Blaise Pascal said, “the heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of.”
*Photo by Paden Johnsen
Jesus is the foundation, not “free love” or “forced law”
Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great (Luke 6:46-49).
To oversimplify, it seems to me that Christians who lean towards the conservative right could be liable to overly rejoice when moral ground is gained. On the other hand, more liberal-leaning Christians may be tempted to be overly distraught with certain people’s elections.
The reality is, however, that Jesus is the foundation—He is the solid ground. Everything else is sinking sand. Everything.
As Christians, may we not sing moralities praise or prosperities praise! No. Just Jesus’! Sure, prosperity is a blessing and a stewardship and I definitely believe it’s better to have a moral nation rather than an immoral one. But still, let’s keep our focus where our focus should lie: Christ and His Kingdom.
To oversimplify (again!), if one society leans towards “free love” and license (licentiousness), and one towards “forced law” and legalism, the ramifications will obviously be different but neither will be wholly good. The only truly good society is one built on Jesus. Now, of course, the full realization of that Kingdom is in the future (already/not yet).[1]
But we should faithfully work within our current “kingdoms,” and work for their prospering (Jeremiah 29:7). We shouldn’t be overly pessimistic or optimistic. We should think with sober and realistic judgment. And we should ever look to Jesus and His word and radically love and trust Him so we’re not hoodwinked (Revelation 2:4).
Sometimes the “free love” side rejoices when people have the freedom to make whatever choices they want, whatsoever those choices are. The “free love” side seems to see this “freedom” to align with love. On the other hand, Christians who lean towards the “forced law” side, see the enforcement of morality as good because law is good.
But Jesus talked about the law of Christ. He talked about the law of liberty. Jesus talked about something different from either one of those paradigms. We see this “law of love” in a few different places in Scripture.
- Starting in Deuteronomy 6:5 and 18, God says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might… you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord.”
- In Matthew 22:37–40, Jesus states that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
- In John 13:34 Jesus says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you.”
- Romans 13:8 and 10 says, “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law… Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
- Galatians 5:14 says about the same thing: “The whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'”
- James 2:8–9 shows us that the royal law of love is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Jesus isn’t building a “free love” or a “forced law” structure. Jesus explodes both of those paradigms as wrong and shortsighted. As Christians, we are to be about the Jesus structure, Jesus’ Kingdom. A whole different way of being human.
Jesus wasn’t with the Pharisees rejoicing at morality. Though, He did say you should do as they do—i.e., be moral (Matthew 23:3).[2] But Jesus wasn’t just super stoked at morality for morality’s sake. He didn’t act like morality itself was the cure to all that ails society (I know this sounds strange but hear me out).
But Jesus did talk about law. He fulfilled it! He also talked about and showed love. What Jesus got at, and the level we need to most care about, is the heart!
Jesus is the tightrope. We stand on Him or else! It’s perilous on either side. The solution is not merely “love” or “law.” It’s something altogether different. It’s the law of love.
Jesus is the way, the truth, the life. Until individuals in society have their houses firmly built on Him “love” and “law” are both sand and the house is destined to fall.
Let’s rejoice at what God rejoices at. We’re told God rejoices when a sinner comes to Him for salvation. God throws a party when that happens! God doesn’t throw a party when someone allows someone else to “follow their own heart,” whatever it is their heart says. God also doesn’t throw a party when someone is more morally upstanding than someone else. Actually, God says, “Woe to you hypocrites!” God rejoices, rather, when those who are utterly needy see their need and turn to Him. He rejoices when people build their everything on Jesus.
Are moral laws good for society? Is love good for society? Yes and yes! With Jesus they are. When Jesus defines law and love, yes. But where Jesus is not King, Satan reigns.[3] There have been nations that have been considered quite moral. Many Muslim countries are “moral” and Nazi Germany was even moral in many ways. But “moral” is not the Christian’s ultimate desire.
We pray “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Heaven is not just moral, however. Heaven is a world of love. But it’s not “love” in the sense of the culture of the French Revolution.
We’d be wise to remember these words from that old hymn, “How Firm A Foundation”:
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God, and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of sorrow shall not overflow;
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine.E’en down to old age all My people shall prove
My sovereign, eternal, unchangeable love;
And then, when grey hairs shall their temples adorn,
Like lambs they shall still in My bosom be borne.The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to his foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no, never, no, never forsake!
Whether the dictatorship of oppressive law or the rage and licentiousness of the masses, the Christian’s hope is this: we have a firm foundation on the Lord. If to Jesus we have fled, no tempest can touch us. No breach can be made. We are loyal to the Lord of angelic armies, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords. The path to victory may lay in the grave, we’re not promised the road will be easy, but as sure as we’re planted we will rise.
The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to his foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no, never, no, never forsake!
So, let come what may! This world’s awash in sand but we’re built on the Stone! Let’s rejoice not in so-called “law” or “love,” but in Christ! And let’s ourselves live the law of love. A more moral culture is great but may we never forget we need Jesus!
As Christians, let’s build our house on Jesus the Rock and not just hear His word but do what He says (Luke 6:47). Let’s articulate and live a positive vision of life that calls us forward.[4] Let’s actually be what Jesus has called us to be. Let’s be salt in a world of decay, loving light in a world of darkness.
Notes
[1] The “already/not yet” theological concept refers to the idea that Christians already possess spiritual blessings, but they are not yet fully experiencing the complete consumption of those blessings.
[2] Jesus says, “Do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”
[3] Obviously, Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, and there is no being in the universe who will not bow before Him. But Satan is the god of this world and we can’t serve two masters (2 Cor. 4:4; Matt. 6:24). So, it would seem, that people are either ultimately following Jesus or following Satan.
[4] “As Christian theologians, we are not followers of John the Baptist, the prophet of national repentance, but of Jesus Christ, the bringer of good news to the whole world. The core of our response toward moral decline—where and when it exists—should be to articulate a positive vision of life that calls us forward” (Miroslav Golf and Matthew Croasmun, For the Life of the World: Theology That Makes a Difference).
Photo by Julian Gentile
Equality: What it is & where it comes from
In the United States equality is at least expressed to be important. Its importance is seen in people’s views and policies on political participation, education access, views on employment and pay, and disability rights. The Civil Rights Movement has shown that equality is valued by many but not all.
What does equality mean and where did the concept of equality come from? It means the state or quality of being equal. Are there good reasons for believing in equality?
The Assumption of Equality is An Assumption
Naturalism, the belief that no God exists, gives no explanation or reason for equality. People who don’t believe in God or the relevance of God might believe in equality but the belief for them is not based on any foundation. The idea of equality is accepted as true without proof or a solid reason to believe it.
Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher, and author who received a PhD from the University of Oxford and is a lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I appreciate his candor in this quote from his book Sapiens:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently.’[1]
So, Harari rewrites the famous line from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truth to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.”[2]
For the naturalist, equality isn’t really a thing. It is a dream wish. Perhaps maybe pleasant make-believe.
Christians have a Foundation for Equality
The Bible teaches the equality of all humans by saying all humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). It also explains that we are all equally fallen. That is, we all sin and do wrong things. Lastly, it says that salvation is freely offered to all through Jesus.[3]
In Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, Tom Holland argues that Christianity has profoundly shaped Western civilization, influencing core values like human rights and equality. It may not be consciously recognized but many Christian beliefs our embedded in society. As Harari has said, we “got the idea of equality from Christianity.”
The belief in human equality and rights, equality of men and women, love for foreigners, and care for the poor, weak, and marginalized are specifically Christian beliefs. History shows us that it was only as Christianity spread that these believes became generally accepted. The ancient Greeks and Romans would have laughed at them.[4]
Christian Equality has a lot of Explanatory Power
“We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.” Sirius Black said this to Harry Potter in one of their last meanings. Humans have complexity as J.K. Rowling is so adept at showing. The Bible agrees. We are complex beings. We are all equally made in the image of God, fallen, and redeemable.
The Bible says we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). We are all broken. Christians are no less complex. Christians are simultaneously sufferers, strivers, sinners, and saints. So, “The line between good and evil is never simply between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ The line between good and evil runs through each one of us.”[5] Or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said in prison in Nazi Germany, “Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves.”[6]
Therefore, in one sense, Christians should be “culturally wary because they know that evil is real, that everyone is a sinner, that no one is beyond a stumble or a scandal, and that human beings are capable of some devious deceptions and horrific thoughts, words, and acts.”[7] Yet, in another sense, Christians should also be cultural optimists “because they know that no matter how grim and hopeless sin makes the world or how wretched sin makes an individual or a group, it does not define us at our deepest level, and it is an imposter that has no ultimate claim on anyone, whoever they may be and whatever they may have done.”[8]
Christianity gives a realistic and complex picture that explains the paradoxical nature of people.
If we lose Jesus, we lose our bases for Equality
I appreciate how Rebecca McLaughlin says it:
Even if historians agree that our moral building blocks came to us from Christianity it’s tempting to think we can keep the values we cherish while gently removing the claims about Jesus Himself. Like easing out a bottom layer Jenga block, perhaps we can build our moral tower higher without belief in God at all. But extracting Jesus from our moral structure isn’t like gently sliding out a Jenga block. It’s like pulling the pin on a grenade. In the resulting explosion we don’t just lose morality, are sense of meaning blows up too.”[9]
This is the case because if Jesus is not real and right, the next most plausible explanation is that of Harari or Nietzsche.
Conclusion
Secular culture assumes equality but gives no basis for it. Christianity, and specifically Jesus, gives a solid footing for equality. Without Jesus equality is on a shoddy structure and is destined to fall. In other words, if Jesus is make-believe so is equality. On the other hand, if Jesus and His ethic are real, we can’t mix and match to our liking. He is either a liar, lunatic, legend, or the Lord. But if He is anything other than the Lord, His emphasis on equality evaporates with Him.
Notes
[1] Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, 109.
[2] Harari, Sapiens, 110.
[3] See Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 116.
[4] Rebecca McLaughlin, Is Christmas Unbelievable?
[5] N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, 38.
[6] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 10 as quoted in Biblical Critical Theory, 128.
[7] Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 168
[8] Ibid.
[9] McLaughlin, Is Christmas Unbelievable?
Photo by Jacek Dylag
Crying On Christmas Day
A lot of us know the cheery and upbeat Christmas song, “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.” Many people don’t know Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s story and poem behind it. Longfellow heard the bells ringing out from a nearby church on Christmas Day, 1863, and heard the happy chatter of the crowds and composed his poem. But the world seemed anything but peaceful and cheery. It was shattered. He had recently lost his second wife to a fire, the Civil War was raging, and his son had just been wounded in battle.[1]
Longfellow said, “How inexpressively sad are all holidays!” “Perhaps some day God will give me peace.”[2] The song versions of Longfellow’s poem don’t capture the bleak despair he was facing but the Civil Wars version comes close. Here are the two last verses of the poem:
And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth,” I said;
“For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men!”Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, goodwill to men!”
Many bow their heads in despair and say, “There is no peace on earth.” Many people are sad on Christmas Day for various reasons—whether death, divorce, or some other devastation—but sadness is no stranger to Christmas.
Other than “It’s A Wonderful Life,” most Christmas movies are silly, not very serious, and not sad. But the original Christmas story, the true Christmas story, is anything but silly. Jesus was born in an animal troth and was thought by many to be an illegitimate child.
The very reason the Bible says Jesus had to come to earth is sad. Jesus’ very name means, “the Lord saves.” And that is indeed what Jesus came to do, save His people from their sins and the sad situation they had gotten themselves into.
Jesus came into the brokenness and blight of the world. As the Christmas song, “O Holy Night,” says,
The King of kings lay thus in lowly manger,
In all our trials born to be our Friend.
He knows our need— to our weakness is no stranger.
Jesus can sympathize with us (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus understands death and devastation, not just in the way that He knows everything as God, but by experience. Since human beings are made of flesh and blood, Jesus Himself became flesh and blood (John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14), and is acquainted with the stress and sorrow we face.
We don’t always have to be happy-clappy at Christmas. Rather, the Bible says:
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak (Ecclesiastes 3:1,4,7).
More Christmas songs than you might realize, understand our plight and pleas for rescue. Here are a few lines from one of my favorite songs, “O Come, O Come Immanuel”:[3]
…free Thine own from Satan’s tyranny
From depths of hell Thy people save
And give them victory o’er the grave
…Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death’s dark shadows put to flight
…open wide our heavenly home
Make safe the way that leads on high
And close the path to misery
…O come, desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease
And be Thyself our King of peace
We don’t know the exact timing of Jesus’ birth, but it would be fitting if it was a dark cold night. This world is often dark and cold. But Christmas is about Jesus coming into that cold black darkness, relating to us, and bringing life, light, and warmth. In Jesus, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone” (Isaiah 9:2).
The reality is, that Christmas is about light in darkness and hope amid grief. But Christmas is not lite, and it’s not just about laughter and “ho, ho, ho.” The Bible tells a gritty, realistic story about this broken world. But it also gives hope. It gives:
a bell ringing out in the silence
a light in the midst of darkness
snow silently falling on the black muddied earth
sunrise cresting the top of the trees
reminders that there is change
a new day ahead.
The Bible says that God does not sit idly by, but rather enters the fray. Christmas proves that God so loves the world. We may not always feel light, but He gives the offer of life. When we feel heavy and hollow, He offers to lift our load and give purpose.
Longfellow was sorrowful. His life was shattered. But what if Jesus came to earth to be shattered so that one day you could be mended and whole? And what if He promises to help pick up the pieces and make a masterful mosaic?
What if, in our muddled mess, Jesus the Messiah came? Came to love us and help us heal? What if He loves us? And says, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden. Come to Me, I have walked the weary road of life, I get it, I understand your strife.” Jesus says, “Come to Me, all who are empty and exasperated. I will give you rest for your souls.”
May God bless each of you this Christmas and in time, help you make a beautiful mosaic out of the shattered shards of life.
Notes
[1] He lost his friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne, around a year later.
[2] See “I heard the bells on Christmas Day.”
[3] Immanuel means “God with us.”
Photo by Abigail
in X 