Francois Ntone

White Evangelicals as Defined Here

As I prepare to discuss the white evangelical agenda, I would like to avoid perpetuating misconceptions about who white evangelicals are, realizing that this label must be used with care: many white Christians consider themselves as evangelicals but do not necessarily agree with the group I am about to discuss.  I will therefore be very specific.  During the weeks preceding the 2016 presidential election, I unexpectedly received the September edition of a publication called Decision which represented the views of leaders who were all white and claimed to speak for evangelical Christians.  Those leaders were extremely concerned about the current direction of the nation and were explaining to their readers the choices before them in “the most important election of our lifetime”.  I am listing here the names of those who contributed articles to the publication: Franklin Graham, Jerry Pierce, Cathy Ruse, Bob Paulson, Mat Staver, Charmaine Yoest, Jerry Boykin, David Jeremiah, Joy Allmond, Charles Chandler, Adrian Rogers, and a few others.  They made clear their support for Donald Trump, and their rejection of the “antichristian agenda” that has been promoted by President Obama and would be perpetuated by Hillary Clinton if she became president.

The election results point to the role played by rural whites in Trump’s victory.  I do not know how much influence white evangelical leaders had on this segment of the population.  And I do not have a problem with their push for political engagement.  But since this website is about the kingdom of God, I have no choice but to examine whether the message of these leaders is consistent with the message of Christ.  Indeed, if it is not, then the question “who promotes an antichristian agenda” definitely remains an important one since the Bible warns against the coming of antichrists who will try to pass for Christ.

An examination of the various articles in the publication reveals that only a few issues were considered critical, and they were repeatedly addressed by the writers: abortion, sexual orientation, religious freedoms, military readiness and socialism.  I will discuss each of them below.

Abortion    

It is interesting that those who identify with the pro-life movement typically refer to Jeremiah 1:4-5 in order to support their position:

“The word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

One should notice the absence of any reference to abortion in this statement.  The prophet Jeremiah is simply stating that he was called by God himself, and had no choice about it.  In fact, he felt completely inadequate, being only a child at the time of his calling (1:6).  Jeremiah then goes on to explain how God reassured him and gave him the power to speak (1:7-8).  Of course the anti-abortion movement stretches the meaning of Jeremiah 1:4-5, concluding that since God knew Jeremiah while he was still in the womb, an unborn fetus is a person with a right to life.  Therefore abortion is against God.  However, this passage is really about God’s foreknowledge of all things.  The focus is not even on a fetus since God knew Jeremiah before he even existed in the womb.   Furthermore, what would keep us from using it to conclude that God knows ahead of time about a fetus that will be aborted, and that an act of abortion may represent God’s will in the final analysis?  This would be conceivable if we remember that some anti-abortion activists have claimed that pregnancies resulting from rape are God’s will and should not be interfered with.  If God implements his will through rape, why wouldn’t he do the same through abortion, perhaps to prevent the coming of an antichrist?

That being said, I am not suggesting that abortion has nothing to do with morality.  I am saying that focusing on an irrelevant passage such as Jeremiah 1:4-5 makes it easy for anti-abortion activists to separate it from its appropriate context since they usually do not care about other important issues that are part of that context.  I believe abortion should be debated within the context of the commandment “You shall not murder” (Exodus 21:13).  We should even go beyond that, and take seriously Jesus’ even more demanding command:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subjected to judgment.”  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.  Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin.  But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matthew 5:21-22)

Obviously Jesus’ teaching is a lot more radical than the Old Testament commandment.  All of a sudden, we realize that we are all guilty in God’s eye.  We also come to the conclusion that Jesus demands a complete transformation in the way we think about each other.  Before we even get to murder, by simply entertaining violent thoughts against each other, we have already profoundly violated God’s requirements as presented by his Son.

When we consider Christ’s teaching, abortion is no longer an isolated issue that one can embrace without worrying about other issues related to life.  Strictly speaking, there is no mention of abortion in the Bible.  The ancient Israelites condemn their neighbors who perform child sacrifices, but those sacrifices have nothing to do with the unborn.  On the other hand, when Jesus sends his disciples out, he wants them to heal the sick and relieve suffering among the poor.  He teaches them to promote peacemaking, to be ready to accept persecution without retaliation (Matthew 5:9-12, 38-42), and even to love their enemies (Matthew 6:43-48).  Strictly speaking, this teaching about non-violence and respect for life applies to those who are already in this life, rather than the unborn, but there is no reason not to extend it to the unborn.

Here is where the problem appears: neither the Israelites nor Christians have ever adhered to Jesus’ teaching on these matters.  In the Old Testament, where separation between Israel and Gentile nations is advocated, Moses is said to order massacres of both his own people (Exodus 32:27-29) and foreigners (Numbers 31:1-24).  Even if one adopts the conservative view that God himself ordered those massacres, a true Christian would have to recognize that now that the expected Messiah has come and has provided his clear teaching, such practices can no longer be accepted.  However it so happens that conservatives almost always support policies that result in loss of life by encouraging the use of military strength to resolve world problems.  They enthusiastically refer back to Moses to justify their positions, thereby implying that Moses is above Christ.  Then they cling to an isolated issue such as abortion that was not discussed by Christ, as proof of their allegiance to him.  Is this honest?  They ignore his teaching but claim to be entitled to his salvation because they regularly perform certain church rituals and then throw in an anti-abortion stand.  But Jesus said:

“Not everyone who said to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.  Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matthew 7:21-23).

It is important to understand that the context of these words is the well-known Sermon on the Mount.  In other words, the will of the Father is, in this context, what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5-7.  Those who do not let themselves be transformed by that teaching are mere pretenders.  They may attend church on Sunday morning, but in the final analysis, if they do not take the Sermon on the Mount seriously, Jesus does not know them.

I recognize that Jesus’ example is a difficult one to follow.  There is an assumption that there is so much evil in the world that Christians cannot, from a practical perspective, follow Christ all the way.  So Christians have often taken an easier route, analyzing the various circumstances where the killing of another human being may be justified, such as self-defense considerations.  Jesus and his apostles never used such excuses, but held to their non-violent attitudes even when they faced their own deaths.  But Christians have deviated from the example of their Lord and Savior and have assumed that self-preservation is a sufficient justification for violence.  They have adopted concessions such as the Just War doctrine, and in many cases, they have gone far beyond that, using violence and warfare to advance their own agenda.  They have even shamelessly used Jesus’ name to justify their acts of violence: they were doing it for him.

In the above, I am trying to point out that from a human perspective, the debate about preserving human life is not a simple one, and has never been treated as such.  In a similar manner (I am excluding from this discussion those who do not look at abortion as a moral issue, but feel that they can use it freely to maintain their lifestyles), women experience many adverse situations where they feel that an abortion is their only resort.  Those adverse situations may be related to health issues or to socio-economic conditions that make raising a child a rather frightening prospect.  I will not get into technicalities, but I will state unequivocally that women, rather than white males armed with Jeremiah 1:4-5, should make those decisions with a full understanding of what their faith teaches, and in consultation with their doctors.  There is a biblical notion that Jesus is qualified to be the ultimate mediator for mankind before the Father because he experienced the human condition (Hebrews 4:15).  Men are not qualified to make decisions on abortion for women since they are unable to experience the female condition.  They can advise and show support, but should respect women’s right to make the final decision.  As for those who support warfare and other forms of violence that result in the killing of thousands of humans, they simply have no credibility when they call themselves pro-life advocates.

Since the abortion issue has never been a simple one, current laws tend to reflect, to a certain extent, the fact that a simple prohibition has not historically been enforceable and never came close to solving the problem.  Women who needed abortions usually found a way of getting them, and those with limited means put their lives at risk in the process.  Therefore it seems more beneficial for the state to focus on improving conditions that lead women to abortion as a solution.  For example, Republicans have historically refused to implement policies that help raise needy children after they are born.  In other words, they care about the fetus only as long as it is in the womb, but not afterwards.  It is therefore not surprising that the rate of abortions tends to drop under Democratic administrations (including the Obama administration) more than it does during Republican ones.  Obviously Christians who pursue political engagement with the goal of reducing the need for abortion by improving conditions surrounding pregnant women are making a more meaningful contribution to the kingdom of God than their opponents.  After all, Jesus’ kingdom of God is about love, care and self-sacrifice.  It calls for caring for those in need, and relieving the suffering around us.

As I read the various articles in that September issue of Decision, my impression was that the writers were worried about imminent and potentially permanent changes to their privileged situations rather than concern for the plight of the disenfranchised.  They wanted to save their culture rather than implement Jesus’ agenda.  They repeatedly talked about “biblical values”, but it was not possible to track their positions back to Jesus.  As I said earlier, I believe women are more qualified than men for a meaningful discussion on the abortion issue.  Therefore I defer to Shannon Dingle, who describes herself as a pro-life advocate and has looked into this issue in detail.  Interestingly, she went from being a committed Republican to supporting Hillary Clinton for the 2016 election, recognizing that a real pro-life position must translate itself into concern for all aspects of the human condition, rather than a single focus on the unborn.  She also recognized that Democratic policies had historically been more effective than Republican ones in reducing abortion rates.  Why can’t white evangelicals see that?

I will end this section with a quote from Jim Wallis, who happens to be white and considers himself as an evangelical, but does not identify with the views I have been discussing:

“The categories of pro-life and pro-choice are outmoded and unhelpful. It’s time to find common strategies that promote the health, sustenance, and equity of women, the sexual integrity of men and women, the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, the transformation of adoption systems, and the care of children both unborn and born. We must de-politicize abortion, and support women, parents, and children in the way a society that values all kinds of families truly should. This is a societal problem to be solved — not an issue to keep screaming at each other about in ways that further distort our electoral politics. Lord have mercy.”

Same Sex Marriage and Religious Freedoms

Along with abortion, same sex marriage has, for a long time, been a huge issue for white evangelicals.  Franklin Graham writes:

“Same-sex marriage zealots have launched an all-out war on traditional marriage, which is defined in Scripture – and virtually every civilization in history – as a union between one man and one woman.  Human sexuality itself is being completely redefined by elite sexual revolutionaries who seek to impose their warped views on society, resulting in fierce battles over such things as transgender bathrooms – supported by none other than the president himself.”

There is no statement on homosexuality that can be attributed directly to Jesus in the Bible.  Therefore one must first go back to Old Testament teaching for support on the issue.  In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two men identified as angels visit the city of Sodom where Lot lives.  Lot invites them to his home and extends to them a fine example of hospitality.  But the people of Sodom are not that hospitable: they come to Lot’s house, demanding that Lot deliver the two men to them so they can “have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4).  It must be pointed out at this time that we are not talking about gay people who are trying to establish a relationship with the strangers.  Indeed these people are bent on violence, and when Lot refuses to comply, they threaten him:

“’Get out of the way’, they replied.  And they said, ‘This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge!  We’ll treat you worse than them.’  They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.’” (Genesis 19:9)

Overall, the story describes an early culture where moral standards are very low.  Even Lot, who appears to be more enlightened than the people of Sodom, presents a rather disturbing proposal to them in order to save the angels from harm: he proposes to substitute his two virgin daughters for them, a clear indication of the low status of women at the time.

The angels end up destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.  The word sodomy comes from this biblical story, reflecting the assumption that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.  However, when the prophet Ezekiel much later describes the sin of Sodom, his focus is not on homosexuality:

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me.  Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (Ezekiel 17:49-50)

Ezekiel obviously emphasizes arrogance, luxury and lack of concern for the poor in his accusation.  In other words, the rich and powerful are guilty of neglecting the poor, an accusation most of the writing prophets make in the Old Testament.

Ironically, Ezekiel knew very well that the Law of Moses had stipulations on sexual acts between men: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).  There is an associated punishment:

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)

If one accepts the authority of the Law of Moses on this matter, then one will also have to accept the punishment.  Of course, even though most Christians who have been immersed in the teaching of Christ have goose bumps when they come across a passage such as Leviticus 20:13, there are some who actually feel that it is still relevant today, a rather dangerous thought.  The penalty mandated by Moses is invalidated by the teaching of Christ when he says, regarding the woman caught in adultery: “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7).  Since all of us are sinners, Jesus’ statement implies that capital punishment cannot be enforced by men on other men in his kingdom.  This is of course consistent with his overall teaching on respect for life.

Jesus himself mentions Sodom and Gomorrah when he sends out his twelve disciples on an evangelistic mission:

“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.  I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” (Matthew 10:14-15)

Since the disciples are to rely on the hospitality of the people they interact with during their mission, it is clear from this statement that Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as inhospitable towns rather than places where homosexuality is rampant.  Jesus and Ezekiel are therefore in agreement on what really matters, which is how we treat fellow human beings.  Indeed, the Golden Rule itself is about treatment of fellow human beings, and according to Jesus, it summarizes the law and the prophets.

Paul, with his background as a Pharisee, is horrified by sexual behaviors in the Gentile world and goes beyond Leviticus 18:22, which only bans sexual acts between men:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:26-27)

I do not know what Paul means by “due penalty for their perversion” even though I am guessing that he may be referring to a venereal disease which these men “received in themselves”.  If that is true, then he is saying that these people are very promiscuous, and that their behavior leads to disease propagation.  The disease itself (or whatever the due penalty is) is the fitting penalty for their behavior, and is frankly nothing compared to what he discusses in the next verses, which start with “Furthermore” (Romans 1:28-32).  In those verses, he lists spiritual defects rather than physical ones, and groups them under the category of a “depraved mind”, as opposed to the “shameful lusts” of 1:26.  The passage is reproduced here:

“Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.  They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.  They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents, they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:28-32)

In essence, these verses refer to an inclination to do evil to others, with a complete inability or lack of desire to repent when one is confronted with the truth from God. Paul says such an attitude “deserves death”.  He is in fact talking about spiritual death, and Jesus had already expressed a similar thought when he was accused by the Pharisees of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebub.  He said the following:

“And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.  Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32).

Jesus was saying that the Pharisees could clearly see that his works were from God, but refused to respond to the truth that had been laid out before them because of their own wicked agenda.  We notice that Jesus tolerates those who speak against him out of ignorance, but not those who have knowledge but refuse to act based on that knowledge.  In fact, that thought is expressed in a more direct way in John 9:41, where Jesus says to the Pharisees:

“If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

When conservatives look at Romans 1:26-27 and 1:28-32, they lump them together.  This is because by doing so, they force the penalty in the second passage (death) to apply to the first one, which is obviously not the intent.  Indeed, Paul has already stated in 1:27 that the offenders in the first passage receive the “due penalty” in themselves.

What is noteworthy about Romans 1:26-27 is its emphasis on the idea that, for men and women, there are natural sexual relations and unnatural ones.  If Paul were alive today and became aware that there are people who are born with both male and female genitals, would he still hold on to his oversimplification of the matter?  What is natural to such people?  As for gay people, the best argument for the idea that they are born the way they claim to be (and I am not talking about those who approach the whole thing as merely a lifestyle matter) can be seen in the meanness with which they have been treated by society.  They did not even necessarily have to “come out” in order to be bullied and treated like second class citizens.  They have been historically bullied just because of their demeanor: they look gay.  If this is what they have to look forward to, then why would gay people want to come out at all, unless they are simply being who they are, and doing what is “natural” to them?  Christians of course have done more than their share in the bullying.  Is that how they love their neighbors as themselves?  We know for a fact that Jesus told their disciples to love their neighbors as themselves, insisting that this is the second greatest commandment.  Why is it so important to violate his command and fiercely focus on something he said nothing about?  Again, we have a situation where Jesus’ teaching is set aside, and instead, people go out of their way to pursue less important matters and misusing Scripture to justify their biases.

The same-sex marriage issue is associated by white evangelicals with religious freedom.  That is why they have a huge concern about the Supreme Court, as they want justices who will maintain what they call “religious freedoms”.  But when they talk about religious freedoms, they really mean a status quo that gives them rights that others do not possess.  For that reason, they call for “judges to the Supreme Court and federal courts who respect and uphold the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution.”  They want judges who “refuse to interpret the law based on decadent ideology and liberal political agendas that are directly opposed to the fundamental tenets of religious freedom”.  But why is it that their religious freedoms always seem to conflict with somebody else’s freedoms?

In a democracy, it is important to understand that an individual’s freedoms end where they come into conflict with another individual’s freedoms.  When white evangelicals talk about religious freedoms, does that include the rights of Muslims and other religions?  Obviously not.  When Franklin Graham complains that “anti-Christian forces are seeking to strip funding from Christian colleges to keep them from educating students with a biblical worldview”, does he feel that other religions should have similar funding?  When he says “Can you imagine what our great nation, whose foundation was laid by a moral and religious people, will look like?”, he is assuming that others are trying to displace the rightful Judeo-Christian values of the nation.  To him, the correct interpretation of the Constitution is therefore not to change anything that favors white evangelicals, even if such favors are harmful to other people.  With this kind of logic, black people and women would have never been allowed to vote.  In fact, we know that the Southern Baptists were in support of slavery until 1995, claiming that they had biblical validation for their position.  In their Resolution on Racial Reconciliation, released in 1995 on the 150th anniversary of the Southern Baptist Convention, they wrote the following:

” WHEREAS, Many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership; and

WHEREAS, Racism profoundly distorts our understanding of Christian morality, leading some Southern Baptists to believe that racial prejudice and discrimination are compatible with the Gospel”.

They also wrote:

” Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm the Bible’s teaching that every human life is sacred, and is of equal and immeasurable worth, made in God’s image, regardless of race or ethnicity (Genesis 1:27), and that, with respect to salvation through Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for (we) are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).”

So was the Bible rewritten in 1995?  Certainly not!  How could they be so wrong before 1995?  Could it be because they were defending their own interests instead of the Gospel of Christ?  I am sure they would have, at the time, wanted the laws of the nation to reflect their own biased and erroneous understanding of the Bible.  Doesn’t that tell us that interpretations of the Bible that lead to discrimination against others should be intensely scrutinized?

On the issue of racism, I give the Southern Baptists credit for a statement on reconciliation that unequivocally rejected past falsehoods.  However, it is ironic that white evangelicals discuss religious freedoms but say nothing about the appalling fact that voting rights are being restricted for minorities.  They have no concern for the fact that Citizens United opened the floodgates for the influence of big money on the electoral process.  Also, they have nothing to say about the fact that many innocent black teenagers have been shot by police officers.  The only statement I am aware of, coming from Franklin Graham in the past, blamed the victims by suggesting that the incidents occurred because they refused to comply with officers’ orders.

So once again, we have a situation where Christian values associated with human decency and brotherly love are disregarded and replaced by a focus on suppressing the rights of certain categories.  Is that what Christ wants?  His words certainly do not indicate that the problem of homosexuality was an issue of tremendous importance to him.  Personally, I do not wake up in the middle of the night terrified that the LGBT community will destroy my family and the 31 year marriage between my wife and me.  As I look back at history, I am actually more worried about things that have been done by conservative “Christians” against people they do not like, or to promote their own interests.  Following Jesus and Ezekiel, I have to look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and extract from it what is important: to reject arrogance, luxury and lack of concern for the poor, and to embrace hospitality.

Military Readiness

Franklin Graham, in describing what should be expected of a presidential candidate, asks the following question:

“Will they defend our nation against Islamist terrorists who have slaughtered and killed innocents across our country in the name of their god?  Will they call the enemy – radical Islam – by its name?  Will they work to strengthen our military so the United States of America can continue to be the dependable guardian of the free world?”

The United States of America fought two wars in Iraq, far away from the American continent.  The first one was motivated by a perceived need to stop and humiliate Saddam Hussein, and protect oil resources the US relied on.  The second one was initiated under false pretenses: Saddam Hussein was said to have weapons of mass destruction which were never found.  During these wars, thousands of Americans were killed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed.  While the US mourned for the Americans who lost their lives, people like Donald Rumsfeld considered the Iraqi deaths as mere collateral damage.  Senator Ted Cruz, a favorite of the evangelicals, has proposed to carpet bomb entire areas in the Mideast in order to defeat ISIS, an operation that would inevitably lead to the killing of civilians.  But that is not cause for concern among white evangelicals because, to them, Muslim lives are not valuable.  Is it then surprising that hatred of Americans has risen to the heights it has reached lately?  That hatred translates itself into vengeful acts by terrorists who do not play by any rules.  There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the first Iraq war, and there was no ISIS before Al Qaeda.  Conservatives wanted President Obama to continue to sacrifice lives for a questionable cause, and have blamed him for a situation he inherited from them.

Jesus said:  “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).  This means that violence only leads to more violence, and that is not the right way to solve world problems.  It is amazing that white evangelicals like Graham have such a strong disagreement with Jesus on this matter.  So how can they claim that they represent Jesus at all?  When Jesus sent out his disciples, he said “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves” (Matthew 10:16).  The disciples were to be like sheep in the way they conducted themselves in the world.  It is also by their nature as sheep that he would recognize his followers when he returns (Matthew 25:33).  In the meantime, they were to go out and boldly proclaim the gospel without fearing “those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul”.

White evangelicals hope for a situation that is the opposite of what Jesus was talking about.  They want strong military forces that are prepared for battle, so that they can impose their will all over the world and protect their privileges from all those they consider as bad people.  The September issue of Decision even had an article by a military leader called Jerry Boykin.  The idea that a military leader can speak for Jesus is rather odd.  But I will examine here what he had to say.  Boykin’s emphasis was on military readiness.  He blamed the Obama administration for introducing “open transgenderism”, which “added to the stress on the force”.  He complained about a reduction in resources, and the disheartening effect of “the assault on religious liberty in the military”.  Apparently “religious freedom” is a current buzzword among white evangelicals.

Boykin gives a brief history of the military:

“When I was commissioned in the U.S Army in 1971, near the end of Vietnam, our military was in poor shape.  We were coming out of a war that America was generally against.  Then we went through the Ronald Reagan buildup, and the military absolutely hit its pinnacle because of Reagan’s emphasis on military readiness and winning wars.

What we are suffering with today is a commander in chief with no concept of winning, who has allowed political considerations to override all military, strategic and operational concerns, one who has demonstrated that he is not concerned about military readiness.  He’s far more concerned about his social agenda.”

I will not debate the merits of Boykin’s comments on military readiness.  His focus is clearly on winning wars, and that is his profession.  But what does any of that have to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Jesus clearly cared about the social condition of the people of his time, but did not care about winning wars.  So Obama is clearly closer to Jesus’ priorities than he is.

I think the editors of the magazine must have realized that this military talk does not fit in a presumably Christian context.  So they added the following editorial note:

“The New Testament teaches that human government exists to reward good and restrain evil, even militarily when necessary (Romans 13).  This truth has direct bearing on the preservation of freedom, including the free exercise of religion and the proclamation of the Gospel.”

The above note attempts to provide biblical justification for a military buildup.  In fact, it implies that the state should be prepared to use military force to help white evangelicals promote their brand of Christianity.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine that the authors would include Muslims or Buddhists in what they call “free exercise of religion”.  I will therefore examine the context and meaning of Paul’s message in Romans 13:1-7.  That passage is reproduced here:

“Everyone is to submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, he who rebels against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what is right and he will commend you.  For he is God’s servant to do you good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.  He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

The apostles generally taught that believers should submit themselves to governing authorities (see for example 1 Peter 2:13-17).  In order to understand what they taught, I will first look at Jesus’ teaching in this area.  In Matthew 22:15-22, it is reported that the Pharisees and the Herodians tried to entrap Jesus by asking him if it was right to pay taxes to Caesar.  Jesus said to them: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”.

Jesus’ answer obviously implies that Caesar and God are part of different realms.  What belongs to one is not what belongs to the other.  In cases where the demands of local authorities conflict with allegiance to God, allegiance to God must prevail, as Peter explains in Acts 4:19-20.  Jesus himself tells Pilate, the Roman governor, that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), thereby separating himself (and therefore separating God) from the Roman government.  However, he does not mind paying taxes to the authorities, even though he does not consider them as God’s representatives.  He uses the same logic when he agrees to pay the temple tax even though he states that sons should really be exempt from it (Matthew 17:24-27).  He actually says that he is paying the tax in order to avoid offending the authorities, which might create an unnecessary conflict that would merely be a distraction from the work of the kingdom.

Peter’s message on submission to governing authorities is also reproduced here:

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.  For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.  Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.  Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” (1 Peter 2:13-17)

Peter recognizes that secular authorities may serve a useful purpose in some areas.  For example, they will maintain law and order and thereby provide a deterrent against wrongdoing.  But believers are not motivated by such a deterrent, but must consider doing good as God’s will.  They must maintain a reputation based on doing good, as they interact with foolish men in the world who constantly question their way of life.  They are free because they belong to the kingdom of God, not the local kingdom, and that is why their only option is to live as servants of God.  If they are truly servants of God, their actions should at least rise above the moral requirements of the local kingdom.

Paul also expresses a similar thought when he says:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control.  Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23)

Paul teaches that those who are led by the Holy Spirit live by a standard that is far above the standard set by the law of the land.  Therefore they are not expected to be caught in violations of rules set by governing authorities.

The above considerations must be kept in mind when we examine Romans 13:1-7.  Paul is saying that it would go against God’s will to rebel against governing authorities in order to achieve certain earthly goals.  Those who violate the law of the land should be ready to be punished by the authorities, and have nobody to blame but themselves.  The law of the land gives governing authorities the right to use the sword to maintain law and order, and God will not interfere with that.  However, when Paul says that governing authorities are established by God, he does not mean that God himself anointed them like he anointed David in the Old Testament.  Indeed God did not anoint emperors like Nero or Caligula, and the Roman authorities killed Jesus, Peter and Paul even though they were not guilty of any crime.  Was that God’s will?  Of course not!  Paul is simply going out of his way to warn against any kind of rebellion against the state, but that does not mean he is removing the separation between God and Caesar.  That separation has been affirmed by Jesus himself.

In the end, Paul gets to the core of the matter: Christians should pay taxes and show respect to authorities.  This is particularly important because there were seeds of discontent among the Jews and other populations under Roman domination.  But Jesus and his disciples were telling them to respect their oppressors and continue to pay taxes to them, which seemed unacceptable to many.

However, nothing in the above discussion implies that Jesus, Paul and Peter wanted to be part of the Roman system which used violence both for conquest and to maintain law and order.  They tolerated this system and were willing to work within it, but their true citizenship was in heaven, not on earth.  And they certainly did not want to turn from sheep to wolves.  Their mission was to bring the news of the kingdom of God by peaceful means, in spite of adversity.  That is the Christian calling.  By following Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, Christians were to be the salt of the earth and they were to let their light shine so that the world would see their good deeds and praise their Father in heaven (Matthew 5:13-16).  That is how they were to transform the world.  The transformation of the world itself was meant to redirect it towards the vision of the kingdom of God shown by Isaiah:

“They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.       Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)

Jesus himself led the way: when he was arrested, there was a choice between the way of the sword and the way of the cross.  One of his disciples initially chose the way of the sword and was immediately rebuked.  Jesus chose the way of the cross, and today we call him God.  If he had chosen the way of the sword, he would have been just one of many.  His apostles also followed the way of the cross, suffered and died just as he had warned them.  Paul preached “Christ crucified”, not “Christ the warrior”.  In fact, the only kind of war Paul talked about was “not against flesh and blood”.  His kind of war used as weapons truth, righteousness, the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace, faith, salvation,  the word of God and prayer (Ephesians 6:12-18).

To assume that Jesus wanted Christians to later embrace military strength is absurd.  It implies an admission that the way of the cross failed.  It is a fraud that appeals to those who refuse to accept his challenge:

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” (Matthew 16:24-26)

To deny oneself is to take up the cross, not the sword.  Those who rely on the sword should not sing “Near the Cross” on Sunday morning.  They should sing “Near the Sword”.

It is therefore amazing that the editors of Decision seem proud to be the heirs of the Roman Empire which killed their Lord and Master.  Again, Jesus separated himself from Rome when he told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world.  But somehow, white evangelicals always seem to cling to certain biblical passages which, when approached with the wrong disposition, seem to support their biases, and they do not mind violating the clear teaching of Christ in the process.

Socialism as Opposed to Honest Work

Again in trying to define the right presidential candidate, Graham asks:

“Will they continue to lead us down the road of irresponsible socialism, where the Biblical injunction for hard, honest work is ignored?  Or will we embrace a resurgence of vigorous entrepreneurship and industry that has been the hallmark of our nation since its founding?”

This question summarizes the republican economic mantra.  It condemns socialism and all attempts to create a safety net for the poor.  It assumes that the poor are lazy, and it embraces capitalism without reservation.  Franklin undoubtedly assumes that any Christian should have this kind of worldview.  I have to wonder which Bible he has been reading.  Indeed, remembering the condition of the Israelites as slaves in Egypt, Moses had instituted a remarkable safety net in the nation of Israel.  This safety net was based on the assumption that all Israelite clans should own land and could not permanently lose that land even if adversity forced them to sell it.  Anybody who has read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy should be aware of the extent of the safety net for the poor.

Later, the writing prophets constantly accuse the rich and powerful of denying justice to the poor, as we saw earlier in the passage from Ezekiel.  In Isaiah alone, references to social justice include 1:17, 1:23, 3:15, 10:1-2, 29:21, 58:5-11.  In the New Testament, not only Jesus constantly makes a case for the poor, but he tells the rich young man to sell everything he has, give the money to the poor, and follow him (Mark 10:17-25).  This is the ultimate case for redistribution of wealth and he gives no reason for doing so, except perhaps that the poor need the money.  But he makes it clear that material wealth is a serious handicap to those who seek the kingdom of God: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”  Since Jesus considers storing up treasures in heaven far more important than accumulating material wealth, he does not hesitate to ask his followers to generously give their wealth away.

The believers first put Jesus’ teaching into practice when, in the church of Jerusalem, they shared everything they had, making sure that the needs of all were met (Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-37).  Conservatives are quick to point out that this is not socialism because the believers were doing this voluntarily.  But what part of the New Testament can they point to in order to support their love of capitalism?  In fact, I believe this is one of the reasons why they tend to cling to Old Testament teaching even when it is made obsolete by the New Testament.  Only Mosaic teaching suggests that material wealth is a reward for righteous living.  Later, as we saw above, the prophets realize that the rich and powerful are far from being righteous.  When Jesus comes, he says “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20).  I am not aware that he says anything similar about the rich.  As a matter of fact, I know he does not.

The apostle Paul, while collecting gifts to help the suffering church of Jerusalem, puts forth the principle of equality:

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.  At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.  Then there will be equality, as it is written: He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15)

Paul is calling for a community where those who have much share with those who do not have enough, so that there is some measure of equality.  He refers to the Israelites in the wilderness, who were told by God to only collect as much manna as they needed, making sure that nobody had too much or too little (Exodus 16:17-18).

There is therefore a complete disconnect between Jesus’ attitude towards the poor and the attitude adopted by white evangelicals such as Graham.  And yet, he claims to represent Jesus.  How is that possible?  When it comes to current matters, why would a follower of Christ be opposed to attempts to provide health care to those who need it but cannot afford it?  I suppose in some people’s minds the mere use of the word “socialism” is sufficient to eliminate any discussion about such things.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I examined the issues that are considered critical by white evangelicals, and I looked at their positions on those issues, comparing them to the positions taken by Jesus and his apostles in the Bible.  I found very little in common between the two.  In fact, I found a serious conflict between the two.  I found that white evangelicals cling to certain notions that the Bible barely mentions as proof they belong to Christ, but end up being in conflict with the more basic teaching of Christ as they do so.  Therefore I must ask: whose religion are they really promoting?  It seems to me that they are merely trying to perpetuate white privilege and a white conservative culture that is opposed to current ideas about diversity.

The idea that the message of Jesus Christ can only survive if it is protected by the law of the land denotes a lack of belief in its intrinsic power.  That message made tremendous inroads in the Roman Empire where it faced great adversity simply because it was good.  If it is delivered today in its original purity, it will be just as effective because it is needed today more than ever.  Unfortunately it has been distorted by those who continue to use it to secure material advantages for themselves and protect those advantages with military power.  I have to wonder if they see Jesus as their ticket to heaven after the earthly life they desire, and if they hope they can manipulate him by doing superficial things that supposedly lead to salvation.

As I close this article, I apologize for repeatedly referring to white evangelicals, knowing that there are many white Christians who consider themselves as evangelicals but do not agree with the positions I argued against.  But I think I was clear, from the beginning, about the specific group I was talking about.  I just don’t know what else to call them.