The Rule of Law and the Role of Faith

            I recently read about an interview in which Herman Cain (candidate for President) said that communities could ban mosques from being constructed. I posted it on my Facebook, expecting everyone to realize that Cain was not a good candidate. However, there was a very vocal minority who agreed with him. As I read the comments on another article on this story (you can read the article and the comments here), I realized that the belief that we should be allowed to prevent mosques from building in our community is actually fairly widely held. I believe that position should be untenable by both Americans at-large, and by Christians.

            The Rule of Law

           

America is built upon the foundation of the rule of law. This is what we see as separating us from other nations that are ruled by dictators and do not grant basic freedoms to their people. Law is supposed to be just, and interpreted blindly with no prejudice or malice. Our laws and Constitution go beyond mere justice in that they establish freedom for all American citizens, regardless or race, sex or religion (in theory).

The problem comes when one group starts trying to eliminate the freedoms of another group, such as when some Americans want to eliminate another American’s freedom of religion. And if they succeeded, then they would establish the legal precedent that a religion could be discriminated against if enough people decided that they wanted to discriminate. Imagine with me, for a moment, a time when the ACLU has the legal grounds to not just attack a nativity on the courthouse lawn, but is legally allowed to ban churches themselves. That idea seriously concerns me.

This idea of banning mosques, because they are supposedly trying to take over America through the use of Shariah Law, tramples all over the Bill of Rights. The obvious violation that first comes to mind is a violation of the First Amendment, which is the right to practice your religion without any interference from the government (and remember, the law is blind, so what applies to one religion applies to another one, regardless of which one is true).

 Further, beyond the freedom of religion, it also violates their right to assembly. Any group can assemble, as long as they remain peaceful. And if they are not peaceful, then they will be punished for their crimes. For instance, criminal organizations are allowed to meet; there is nothing we can do about that, but as soon as they break a law, then they are arrested.

It also violates the Fifth Amendment, which states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…” Now, most would probably argue that that is referring to prison, but having your rights revoked definitely is being held to answer for an infamous crime. Americans are not allowed to pay the penalty for a crime when it cannot be proven they did the crime. Thus, you cannot ban a mosque based on suspicion that they are going to plot a crime.

The irony of this is that those who want to limit the freedoms of Muslims because they are trying to “take over our country”, or “infiltrate and kill us”, or “make us follow their laws and eliminate our freedom” are guilty of the exact same thing. Eliminating the freedom of others that you dislike is exactly what Muslims are accused of wanting to do. And, let us remember, the people who crafted these legal protections were guilty of taking over their country and rebelling against the government, but yet they still paved the way for future generations to have those freedoms. They knew how those could be used against their new government, but they decided that it was a risk worth taking.

The Role of Faith

The previous argument was for all Americans, but this one is solely for Christians. We have been called to suffer and die. We have been called to be the ones being persecuted, not the ones doing the persecution. Christ did not tell us to try and legislate away those who scare us, but rather to take up our cross and follow him. The significance of that statement often escapes us: Christ told us in no unspecific terms that following him would require us carrying out own tool of execution! To follow Jesus means that our own sacrificial death should always be looming in our minds as something that may soon happen. Thus, it does not matter if a group is trying to kill you, your job as a Christian is not to try and eliminate their freedom, nor even to try and defend yourself—rather, your job is to be a faithful witness to the love of God right up to your death.

While well-meaning people say that it is only right to stop the supposed evil, just remember what Christ himself said: “Do not resist the evil doer. But if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him your other also.”

A Response to the Death of Osama Bin Laden

I wanted to wait for a little while before writing on the response that Christians should have when dealing with the death of Osama Bin Laden because in the initial frenzy everyone was talking and no one was listening. Most of you have already read some responses, and have seen that everyone has a verse. I think that both sides are pulling passages out of context, so I am going to approach this from a different angle.

            When I was a young child, I was frequently called a “tattle-tale” by my siblings. Why? Because, if they had wronged me, I would almost always go to my parents to get them in trouble instead of taking things into my own hands. Why did I do that? It is simple: I learned at a very young age that if I did something to get payback, not only would my siblings get in trouble for what they had done to me, but I also would get the exact same penalty as they did because I had exacted my own “justice”. They were guilty and deserved punishment, but I had to have an impartial person carry out that justice or else I received the same penalty.

            There is a difference between justice and revenge. Both appear justified because in both cases the guilty party is guilty (presumably) and is thus worthy of punishment. But we draw a distinction between that punishment being carried out by an impartial observer and that punishment being carried out by the victim. If a man’s wife is murdered, and he finds her murderer and kills him, most people would sympathize with him (so much so that he might even get a lighter sentence), but he would still go to prison for what he had done.

            No matter how much we, as Americans, would like to believe otherwise: America is not the sole arbiter of justice. Nor are we the Mighty Right Arm of God carrying out His Justice in the world. In the case of Osama Bin Laden and the attack on September 11, we were the victim! Thus, carrying out retaliation against the person who wronged us is not justice—it is revenge.

           

            Furthermore, the events surrounding OBL’s death are not the picture of justice. He was unarmed, and retreating, but he was shot twice in the head. That is not a self-defense shooting: that is an execution. On top of this, Osama had never been tried in a court, and the motto of the American legal system is “innocent until proven guilty”. Even if someone confesses to a murder, we still do not label them as guilty until a court has decided that.

            Did Osama Bin Laden deserve to die? Yes. However, the way in which he died is not a case of justice, but a case of revenge. It is the job of the Christian to call those who are unjust (such as carrying out revenge) to repentance, not to try and baptize their retaliation as true justice.

            (You can send any hate mail to jerusalemandrome@gmail.com)

The Solution to Illegal Immigration?

Kansas state Rep. Virgil Peck recently commented on a local radio show about the use of aerial gunman to shoot wild hogs. He then took that in an interesting direction (you can read about it here): "Looks like to me, if shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a [solution] to our illegal immigration problem."

Now, I think most people, Republicans included, would say that that is wrong. However, I think Illegal Immigration is the new face of racism--just a more socially acceptable form. Defending himself, Peck said that his constituents are angry about illegal immigration and "I was just speaking like a southeast Kansas person."

A nation cannot stand firmly if their borders are under attack. But, the Christian is not called to primarily do what is best for their nation, but to primarily do what is best for the Gospel. We, as Christians, have been called to love everyone. The dividing wall between races has been broken down (Eph.2:14), praise God! We are now one humanity with our brother's and sister's in Christ, and are to bring all the people of the world into this new humanity. So, what if, instead of protesting these Illegal Immigrants (otherwise known as "people"), we showed God's love to them? What if instead of trying to check their id, we offered them shelter or a warm meal? Or, we could just shoot them from helicopters as they try to gain a better life.

In God We Trust Resolution

The House Judiciary Committee is considering a resolution to reaffirm the National Motto as, "In God We Trust". (If you are interested, you can read about it here.) So, this, of course, will be very important to social conservatives who will point to America as "One Nation Under God", and that this motto is a hill on which to die. However, I would argue that the statement is not true of the country. We trust in the dollar and our machine guns. Even in 1956, when that motto was created, I don't think it was necessarily true. They were certainly more religious than now, but is "White-only" drinking fountains really the mark of a society that trusts God?


What do you think?

Greg Boyd: Myth of a Christian Nation (1)

The kingdom of the world is intrinsically a tit-for-tat kingdom; its motto is "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." In this fallen world, no version of the kingdom of the world can survive for long by loving its enemies and blessing those who persecute it; it carries the sword, not the cross. But kingdom-of-God participants carry the cross, not the sword. We, thus, aren't ever to return evil with evil, violence with violence. We are rather to manifest the unique kingdom life of Christ by returning evil with good, turning the other cheek, going the second mile, loving, and praying for our enemies. (47-48)

The End of an Era

            If you visited my blog today, compared to yesterday, you would have noticed an incredible shift. For starters, my URL eliminated the dash, so it is now "joshuahebert.blogspot.com". But, more noticeable is the new title, tagline, format, and look.

I once was heavily involved in politics and was a good social conservative. However, as I learned about the gospel and that there was an extreme political element in it I realized that what the gospel actually teaches is not what the Republican agenda, and in some places, it is quite different. To that end, I more or less let my blog die, just not feeling right about taking the role of “Republican Blogger in Exile”.

However, I recently started blogging again, and decided that I needed turn the page and to retool my blog to make it a closer reflection of what I want to spend the majority of my time talking about. My main topics will be Ecclesiology and Political Theology, although I imagine I will dabble in other topics as well. I will leave all the old political posts in the archives.

Over the next few weeks, I will continue modifying this site so that it has a little more information, and is more accessible to the visitor. Is it the end of an era for me? Yes. But, it is the beginning of an even brighter era!

Poverty and Christianity

I am in poverty--as defined by the government, that is. I don't own a TV, I share a one bedroom apartment with a roommate, and I don't even own a suit. To many, this sounds pretty scant, but yet, as I sit in my heated room, surfing the internet, I realize that I would be considered a rich man in most of the world. Why? I have three meals a day, I have clean water, I have indoor plumbing, I can make my small apartment cool in the summer and warm in the winter, I have a car that allows me to travel in comfort. For much of the world, they could not even dream of having these kinds of possessions and options in life.

Almost 3 billion people in the world live on less than two dollars a day; for those of you doing the math at home, that is almost half of the world's population. Two dollars a day. That is less than most would spend making a trip to McDonald's, but 3 billion people survive on that. Here is another fact to chew on: 36 million people die every year from starvation. Statistically speaking, in the time it took me to type that sentence, 5 people starved to death. And not in the metaphorical sense that everybody uses to express that they are hungry. Five very real people died because they simply did not have enough food to survive any longer.

Enter the church. Poverty has been around a long time. During the time Jesus walked the earth somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of the population was in poverty, and the other 5-10% were extremely wealthy by their standards. On multiple occasions, Jesus fed massive crowds. In Matthew 18:16-22, he told the rich young man that to follow Him, the man would have to sell all his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. Was this just a random saying that He told but didn't really mean? If we believe God is just, and we believe that Jesus is God, then we cannot say that He would randomly turn a man away to an eternity of punishment because of a random moment when He said something He did not really mean. That means that we have to seriously consider this command of Him. Even if Christ did not mean for everyone to sell their possessions, He made it clear that His followers were to help take care of the poor (Deut 15:7; Matt 25:35, etc). The church was never intended to cure poverty, as there simply are not enough Christians to go around, but one of its jobs IS to lessen poverty.

However, the church has by and large failed at this job. There are many people who do great things to try and ease poverty, but this is not the majority in the church. I frequently hear Christians complaining about how seemingly little they have, while not even considering the state of those 3 billion people who live each day on less that a cup of Starbucks coffee. I am as guilty of this as anyone. I have even heard of many Americans not really believing that there are people in true poverty and unhappy about being strapped for money when they have multiple cars, TVs, and other "essentials".

So, what does this all mean? Well, for one, I would encourage you to consider Christ in all things, and keep Him in mind and be in prayer with Him while thinking about this issue. Second, pray for those who are in true poverty. Third, be more grateful in your own position, and realize how good we have it. Fourth, consider ways to cut back your expenditures so that you can donate to churches or missionaries who are making a point to help out the poor. Fifth, volunteer your time to help with our own poor--while they may not live on two dollars, we have Americans who starve to death--go volunteer at a soup kitchen or a food pantry and help out others in need.

(Sobering reality: During the time it took to write this, nearly 3000 people died of starvation. Remember how Christ would have you treat these people.)

The World’s Most Impressive and Oft Ignored Display of Peace Through Strength: Luke 2:8-20

“Angels we have heard on high, sweetly singing o’er the plains…” Christmas songs like this—along with stories, nativity scenes, paintings, and numerous other media—have seemingly permanently engrained a certain approach to the Christmas story on our minds; so much so that we gloss over what is right in front of our eyes, and instead reading into the text what we want it to say. However, there is so much more depth to what is actually happening in the Christmas story than what is seen in the popular understanding. I will only be discussing the appearance of the angels to the shepherds.

The first facet of the angels appearing to the shepherds is its remarkable similarity with the story of the man throwing a feast in Luke 14:23, where the invited guests made excuses to not come, and eventually the master had the servant compel people in the highways and hedges to come in: the lowest of the low—this is especially intriguing since the master was most likely an extremely rich person; the ultra-rich inviting in the lowest in society. Similarly, those in the katalyma, or guest room, could have witnessed the birth of the greatest king, but instead had decided to shun their own kin—and in response, the “master” sent his servants to compel some of the lowest in society to go see the birth of the Messiah.

The phrase, “the glory of the Lord,” is an important part of understanding this passage. The Old Testament showed glory as something associated with God’s awe and power. It “combines awe and terror, and it simultaneously invites approach and distance.” This is showing that the full backing of God is on this Child, through the appearance of the angel carrying that message.

The next thing that deserves mention is that the shepherds were in fear. If the angel in question is the spokesman for some type of Heavenly Choir, as we often picture it, then there would be no reason for the shepherds to fear! I have never in my life had a choir director have to tell me to not be afraid, nor do I know of anyone who was terrified by a choir. Obviously, something in our picture is missing. The Glory of the Lord is a terrifying thing!

“And the angels said to them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy…unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” This phrase presents all kinds of opportunities for shedding light on Christmas, as well as the theme of the Gospel. Why? Because the Greek verb used, εὐγγελίζομαι, is frequently translated as, “I preach the gospel.” So, if the gospel is ONLY that Christ died for our sins, then how could the gospel be preached at Jesus’ birth, before He had an opportunity to substitute Himself for us? Again, something is most probably missing in our theology. However, the text provides the answer for us! A savior who is the Christ, is the message of the gospel being preached by the angel. In the shepherds’ minds, what connotation does the Christ, or Messiah, bring? The connotation was that the Messiah would be the one would establish The Kingdom— the one without end, and without borders. Israel’s long awaited King was being born that very night! As presented in Luke 2, this is the Gospel! So, what is the connotation of the term, “Lord?” Calling someone Lord was a very simple way to make everyone angry. The Caesars called themselves Lord. But in the Septuagint, the Divine Name is translated as Lord. So, when this baby is declared to be Messiah and Lord, He is most probably simultaneously being declared the King of all, as well as being divine Himself.

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God…” This is the central idea in the passage that is probably most often overlooked. Whenever modern Christians read the Christmas story, they most probably envision a large choir in the sky with white robes, halos, and harps, such as we sing about in our Christmas carols. However, the imagery at play here is militaristic, not “angelic” in the proper sense of the word. The Heavenly Host is almost always associated with being the Army of God. The word used here, στρατιᾶς, is frequently translated as army. In fact, in the Septuagint, στρατιᾶ is used 28 times, and 19 of those times are referring to earthly armies; the other nine are all attached to, “heavenly,” and most refer to an army, with a few possibly referring to the stars. “This heavenly host is a vast number of angelic beings, mighty and noble, who relate to Yahweh as knights related to feudal kings: in homage, in service and in battle. They are a vast army, loyal to the purposes and desires of God. ” A new King has just been declared as such by an angel, who is then surrounded by the Military of God who are there to insure that there is no question as to the validity of the proclamation of the baby’s Messianic responsibilities.

At the end of the earthly ministry of Christ, He references to having this army at His disposal: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53) A legion is another military term. This Heavenly Host is the army that the Messiah has, if He so chooses to make use of it.

“Saying, glory to God in the highest, and upon Earth peace, among men goodwill.” This phrase is where I see the focus of the arrival of the Heavenly Army. This is the ultimate display of, “Peace through Strength.” With a background in politics, I am acquainted with the idea of peace through strength. This is usually tossed around when trying to increase defense spending by arguing that by building the most powerful army we will promote peace because no one would dare attack us, and if they did, we could quickly and efficiently respond with overwhelming force. This is the exact same thing at play in Luke 2, only magnified. Angels are many times invisible to the naked eye, they are never recorded as being killed by a human, and they are devastatingly effective at wiping out an opposing army (2 Kings 2:35). In short, it is a force that no other army can stand against. But this army isn’t here just for show; they are here to back up the proclamation of the new King of Israel, showing that He had the most powerful military backing Him, and was the one appointed by God to provide redemption for the nation. When the fiercest fighter declares that a fight is over, it is over—even if he has to throw some more punches to finish it. Similarly, when the Heavenly Army, on mission from God, declares that there is a new King, and that peace has arrived, there is peace, even if the Devil, and his actions through the nations, needs to be defeated first.

“Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” This illustrates the earlier discussion of using, “Lord,” for the name of God. What I find interesting is that there is no question of whether they were dreaming this, or if someone has spiked their drinks; rather, they all know that this was from God, and go to see the new King.

“And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them.” Much like folks today, it was hard for whoever was around to believe that the army of God had appeared, and told these shepherds that this baby was the Messiah. I am sure that even if they did believe the shepherds, they were wondering, “Why didn’t He tell kings, or the richest of society, or at least some of the pillars of the community?” But God had chosen to go to the outskirts of society, and bring in those who would most probably not be considered worthy of such an honor.

So, what is the point of all this? Simple: there is a new king, who is to rule over the entire world, backed by Almighty God, and the Heavenly Army. If He is an actual King, and we mean that in a more significant way than simply using the title in our songs and prayers, then that means that the Christian is actually a citizen of a new country—The Kingdom of God. As such, his first and foremost priority is to follow Christ, and be obedient to Christ’s commands. However, the modern Christian often places allegiance to his country, or some other source, above his allegiance to his Messiah.

A good example of this misplaced allegiance is the Christmas Truce of 1914. On Christmas Day, the British and German forces stopped killing each other, celebrated the day together, and returned to their war the next day. These were obviously people who were at least had a passing knowledge of Christ so that they wanted to celebrate His birth, but the very next day they were killing each other again. Imagine how Christ would have reacted to this! He who said to bless those who curse you, and return good for evil, and yet His own followers kill each other at the command of their government! These were brothers in Christ, citizens in His nation, killing each other for an earthly nation which will pass away (Psalm 2).

Another example of misplaced allegiance is the allegiance to materialism. The Christ repeatedly told His followers to sell what they have, and give to the poor. And instead, we have turned His birth into a day of receiving. And many will be more generous at this time of the year and give to the poor, but the commands to clothe the naked and feed the hungry are not things to be taken care of once a year, but should be a life long commitment of the believer.

Keeping Christ in Christmas means nothing if you do not recognize Christmas as the birth of a true king, whose Kingdom is the entire world, and respond as such.

Footnotes:
Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 330.

This and all other Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.

Verlyn D. Verbrugge. A Not-So-Silent Night: The Unheard Story of Christmas and Why it Matters (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009), 69.

Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 373.

Author’s own translation.

(Sorry the footnotes did not work out correctly, but they are in the order that the quotations were used.)

Christians and Politics: Part 1

I am going to preface my discussion by stating that I am a Christian, and that I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This influences how I look at everything in my life. This post will be about how I got to this point (I guess this should actually be the intro, but it is too late for that). Growing up, I was in a very political family. There was never any question about whether or not Christians should be in politics. In fact, when I was 10, I remember reading a book titled The Political Christian.

I have just finished my first year at Criswell Bible College in Dallas. My brother attended there, and talked me into going there for a year to figure out if I was really a Christian, or if it was just because my parents were Christians. After that I planned on transferring to UT for pre-law, and intended on getting in to politics after I finished my law degree. However, Criswell changed all that. For the first time, I have been faced by people who have spent their entire adult lives studying what they are teaching, who are so good that they can read the Bible straight from the original languages, translating on the fly. And these professors presented the Bible in a different way than I had ever heard before. All of a sudden the Bible was not a disconnected set of principles that could be used to fuss at gays.

Through these profs, I came to a correct view on ecclesiology, which is just a five dollar word for: "What the church is supposed to be". I discovered that the church, when done correctly, is very geo-political, and that it is to be a standalone society. The church should offer an alternate way to view the world. We are supposed to be differnent in almost every way, from our way of persuasion, to our care of other people. Now, obviously this is not the way the church actually is, but I am dealing with how is SHOULD be, not how it currently is. The main conflict with politics is that the political system is based on power which they obtain through manipulation, force, deception, etc. The Christian obtains power through weakness. Christ was led to the cross like a lamb. He told us to not try to fight those who hurt us. That is weakness. This is the problem that any Christian would have to deal with in order to be in politics. How do I be in the system, and yet not work it the way everyone else does?

The next few posts will be expounding this further, as well as dealing with a few individual issues that would be affected by Christians' involvement or non-involvement in politics.

Christians in Politics-Introduction

Well, I have finished another semester. I took 21 hours this semester, which is why I have not had time to write. However, life is slowing down now, and there is a topic that I am going to start exploring. This topic is the relationship between Christians and politics. What is the role that Christians should play in politics? Is being involved in politics really the best way to change things? Is being in politics even biblical? These are the questions that I am going to start answering over the next few posts.