Minority or Majority - Religion and Politics

In a recent article in Christianity Today, Philip Yancey writes of an insightful interaction that also has application to libertarians:

Several years ago, a Muslim man said to me, "I have read the entire Qur'an and can find no guidance in it on how Muslims should live as a minority in a society. I have read the entire New Testament and can find no guidance in it on how Christians should live as a majority." He put his finger on a central difference between the two faiths. Muslim societies tend to unify religion, culture, law, and politics. Whereas U.S. courts debate the legality of nonsectarian prayers at football games and public monuments to the Ten Commandments, in the Middle East even the airlines broadcast the call to prayer five times a day. And in countries with a variety of religions, like Nigeria, as the Muslim population increases, they seek to impose the religious Shari'ah law on all citizens.

The Muslim was wrong, of course. The New Testament does teach christians how to live as a majority, although it is implied and not specifically defined. Christians are to live as a majority in exactly the same way that they are to live as a minority: resolving life's daily issues through love and not initiating force; living in accordance with God's will (not "What Would Jesus Do?" but rather, "What Did Jesus Say?"), and insofar as it is within our means, at peace with others. This is indeed foreign to Islam, so he is not to be condemned for his misunderstanding.

Indeed, the New Testament, in its guidance for resolving disputes and providing discipline, can be applied to the daily lives of christians whether in a majority or a minority in society. These principles would apply across the board.

In the same way, those who believe in libertarian ideas and work to convince people and to establish a society based on liberty, predicated on the idea that it is wrong (sinful) to initiate force or the threat of force.

But BECAUSE neither being converted to the church nor becoming a libertarian is done through any use of force, it is highly unlikely that a majority of ANY society will ever be a christian or a libertarian, at least not a christian as defined by the New Testament, and not according to some tradition which has corrupted the religion; and not a statist minarchist libertarian-lite sort of political philosophy.

Free Churches and the New Testament, Part 1

A not uncommon term to find in the religious world, especially in the United States, is the "free church." Sometimes this is found in the name of a individual congregation, and sometimes in a "group" name.

There are actually three meanings to this term "free church."

The first and most common is found in Wikipedia and elsewhere:
Historically, we are told "The term, free church refers to a Christian denomination that is intrinsically separated from government (as opposed to a theocracy, or an "established" or state church). The term is especially relevant in countries with established state churches."

Obviously, by this definition, most of us would think that ALL churches are "free churches" in the United States today, since the United States do not have established state church(es). However, as a number of people have pointed out there are "state churches" and "state churches." The act of making a church corporation in accordance with state laws ("incorporating") is a way of becoming a "state church," as is seeking recognition from the IRS as a "church" or 501c3 organization. This idea is discussed in more detail later.)

The second relates to individual congregations, which are churches that are (or at least claim to be) "congregational" in organization: they do not fall under the control of some "higher" organization like a "synod" or a "diocese" or some sort of similar denominational group. Such a group of churches that claim this status is:
"Lutheran Free Churches" were formed in the 1970s by two Minnesota professors who "determined that according to the New Testament the local congregation was the correct form of God's kingdom on earth" but ironically, in 1897 formed an "association" called Lutheran Free Churches in 1897, which merged with the American Lutheran Church, a denomination, in 1963. Forty congregations which did not agree with the ALC merger continued as the "Association of Free Lutheran Congregations." With more than 250 congregations, the AFLC claims that its congregations are autonomous but has multiple corporations "to direct their common endeavors." Free apparently does not mean "free" for the "Free Lutheran Congregations.

We find something similar for the Evangelical Free Churches of America, which says of itself: United by a mutual commitment to serve our Lord Jesus Christ with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and obedience to the Word of God, the Evangelical Free Church of America is an association of nearly 1,500 churches and church plants in a growing ministry that currently extends to some 75 countries of the world. Wikipedia calls the EFCA a denomination and that seems to be the case. Most churches in America who call themselves a "Free Church" seem to be parts of this EFCA denomination, even though they often do not use the word "Evangelical" in their name.

There are, however, many churches which DO adhere to this idea of "free church," that is, churches (local congregations) which are autonomous, recognize and belong to NO "parent organization" including synods, associations, societies, cooperative assemblies, or anything else on earth. These churches claim no earthly headquarters at all, and that they are responsible to, and members of, only Christ Jesus himself. They often use very different names, including just plain "Church," but commonly-used names include "Christian Church," "Church of Christ," "Church of God," and "Bible Church." Most (but not all) are like one church in Vallejo, California: "There are no governing boards -- neither district, regional, national, or international. Each congregation is autonomous (self-ruled). Each congregation is governed locally by a plurality of elders."

The third use of "free church" refers to what are also called "Unregistered Churches." These are churches which refuse to have anything to do with government agencies, such as the IRS, do not incorporate or operate as any sort of trust or business, and do not obtain "recognition" via such things as a Employer Identification Number" (EIN). A good description of this kind of "free church" is found at the "The Free-Church Solution", which says in part: "A great many of the church's problems today are a direct result of the church "taking" and actively pursuing a legal status that makes it inferior to, and a subordinate of, the civil government. The two most significant ways this occurs is by incorporation (state jurisdiction) and the tax-exempt 501c3 status (federal jurisdiction)."

To understand this reasoning, it is good to refer to an IRS Publication In that, on page 27, we find the closest thing to a government (IRS) definition of "church:"
Church. Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches.
These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and
by court decisions. They include:
-distinct legal existence;
-recognized creed and form of worship;
- definite and distinct ecclesiastical government;
- formal code of doctrine and discipline;
- distinct religious history;
- membership not associated with any other church or denomination;
- organization of ordained ministers;
- ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study;
- literature of its own;
- established places of worship;
- regular congregations;
- regular religious services;
- Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young;
- schools for the preparation of its ministers.
The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics,
together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether
an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.
The IRS makes no attempt to evaluate the content of whatever
doctrine a particular organization claims is religious, provided the
particular beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held by
those professing them and the practices and rites associated with
the organization’s belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to
clearly defined public policy.

Keep in mind, this is an official IRS (US Government) publication, explaining the law. It is easy to see why some people want to have their local congregation free of this. Yet, even many churches which are "free" in the sense of being autonomous congregations routinely do incorporate, obtain verification of 501c3 status, and obtain EIN and other recognition by federal, state, and sometimes local agencies. Many of them teach this is a necessity in the world (and especially the United States), citing Romans 13:1-8 and 1 Peter 2:13-14.

That, at least, is a very common misunderstanding. As the website "hushmoney.com" explains, though: "IRC 508c1A and IRS Publication 557 make it clear that a church is "automatically tax-exempt" without having to apply for 501c3 status. The reason that churches aren't taxed is because of the "charitable and religious" activities they engage in. If you organize a real church, it doesn't matter to the IRS whether you organize as a church, as an unincorporated association, as a non-profit corporation, or as a corporation sole. The legal manner in which you organize a church is irrelevant for tax purposes. Provided that it really is a church, it's always automatically tax exempt without having to apply for 501c3 status."

What does the Bible teach, and specifically, what is found in the New Testament beyond these two passages?

We shall look at that in the next posting.

Defending ourselves from evil doers

Another of Oleg Volk's evocative photo-posters.

In Scripture, we find a large number of examples of self-defense, both in the Old and New Testaments. Here are just a few:
Luke 22:36-38 - Jesus commands His disciples to buy a sword for their travels preaching the Gospel.
Acts 18:12-16 - Paul accepted the use of the physical power of the state to protect him from the angry Jews. Either some city troops or Jews or Paul's converts beat Sosthenes (leader of the synagogue) apparently in an attempt to stop his persecution of Paul, and Paul did not intervene. (v 17)
Acts 21 - Paul accepted his personal defense by Roman troops against his own Jewish people in the Temple forecourt. In Chapter 23, he again accepted defense by Roman troops against an assassination attempt.

But the best defense is to take the offense: to preach and convert the evil doers of the world into followers of the Christ - we will never succeed in converting every sinner, every future government thug, but enough, and the darkness that descended over 20th Century Europe will not be nearly so dark, and the light will return sooner, while God's kingdom is spread.

Liberalism - a totalitarian threat to freedom

That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" -- not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality. -- Dennis Prager

Although Dennis refers to "liberalism" in this quote, it applies to the whole spectrum of the so-called left: Socialists, Communists (International Socialists), National Socialists, and Transnational Socialists (Progressives).

An example of this can be seen in an incident related by Jeff Hamilton of La Vista, Nebraska. He relates the response to one of his web articles encouraging young people to reject pre-marital sex: 'Though not the author’s intention, I received an illustration of this very thing. “When you look over these posts and see how miserable and guilty the children that you advise feel about their "sins" don't you regret the way you teach? God loves us all no matter what mistakes we make and it would be nice to find some Christians that teach the love and not the wrath. Unless the reader can read and clearly understand Hebrew, Arabic, and many of the other languages of the original Bible, I think it is almost hypocritic to spread guilt based on third and fourth level translations. I don't mean to criticize and I definitely respect what you are doing, I think its great trying to help young men and women with their most intimate of problems, but maybe sometimes the answer shouldn't just be 'you've sinned, you're making up excuses.' It's clear that some people have justified pre-marital sex in their own lives and you will likely be unable to change that, but your practical advise on what actions to take should be based on if they continue their ways. I’m sure would be much more valuable to them than judging them. It's not our place to judge or dictate who has the rights of passage into our father's [sic] kingdom. Although I don't expect it to, I will pray that my wisdom has a flicker on your thoughts.”'

As Jeff Hamilton points out:
1. Here is a man who doesn’t care about right and wrong, he just doesn’t want anyone to feel guilty.
2. Here is a man who thinks that no one can do wrong.
3. Here is a man sitting in judgment when someone teaches God’s truth.

Sadly, that means this man is a perfect example of a typical liberal.

Paul the Apostle warned us of this (and gave us the solution), in Ephesians 4:14-16.
It is one that applies both in the church and in the community.

A look at liberalism

"My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it's founded on no judgment on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practiced or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous." -- Hugh Hewitt

Faith in Christ Jesus - saving, obedient faith (not that of demons and the pharisees) - demands acceptance of an "absolute moral order" as established by God in His Word. Christians know that things can be absolutely good - or in the absence of good (and God), absolutely evil. Thus, it is not possible for liberalism to be compatible with the "pure and undefiled religion" of which James speaks (James 1:27). Therefore, liberalism is not compatible with any human government which hopes to prove it is acceptable to God (if indeed such exists). Why? Because if there IS a justification for government, its role (per the Bible) is to DISCOURAGE EVIL by punishing it. Only in that way does government promote "GOOD." But since liberalism cannot and will not judge what is evil or what is good, it is incapable of carrying out this primary function.

Ultimately, a government based on principles of this liberalism will become the open enemy of God and our worship of Him. It will seek (as so many modern governments do) to dictate what is politically correct (and therefore "good") based on relative ideas and not absolute values. It turns the universe upside down, substituting the wishes of man for the laws of God. Then, we must decide whether such a government can be tolerated (ignored for the most part) or whether we must take actions to defend ourselves against it, up to the point reached by the Founding Fathers: rebellion and overthrow of the evil regime.

More thoughts on John Locke's limits of government

We can look at a few practical examples of how this principle (discussed in the last post) is (or should be) applied.

As Christians - and as humans, period - God has given us NO power to force people to "do good." We may take (within limits) actions to keep people from doing evil, or to at least respond to their evil actions. But we cannot force someone to worship God, to sing praises to Him, to pray to Him, to give in benevolence, or even to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and be buried with Him in baptism. There is no scriptural authority to do this. There is no reason to believe that such authority exists for ANY moral action.

Yet, government claims to be able to force people to do good to others, by collecting money from people and then giving some of that money to the needy as charity (or welfare). Beyond the complete lack of ANY constitutional authority to do, government has no authority granted by God to do so. Indeed, were an individual person to try and take money from someone else, even with the intent of using it to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, or house the homeless, that individual would be recognized immediately for what he is: a thief.

We as Christians are told (by God) to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, care for the sick, and many other things. But NOWHERE in the Bible are we told that we can steal or take money from others to do these good deeds with, OR that our obligation to God is met by having someone else (like government) do this.

And therein lies the reason that Christians cannot support the ideas (or "ideals") of "social justice" and why people are correct when they say that churches who advocate social justice are NOT advocating true and undefiled religion, no matter how much they try to quote the Epistle of James to support their claims. Government programs of "social justice" require that government, and government agents, do things that God DOES prohibit and condemn as being sin.

Government can have nothing to give to others unless it first takes it from someone else. It does this, almost exclusively, by forcing people to "give" money to government, which it then gives (minus a handling fee, of course) to the objects of welfare. How can any church reconcile this (and supporting government's power to do this) with clear scriptural commands not to steal, and to give freely as we have been prospered?

It cannot. And neither can government. If government is not subject to limits imposed by God on the humans that make up that government, it has no limits. More, it is in rebellion to God.

Limits on government - John Locke

"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would
be unlawful for them to do themselves." ... whenever the Legislators endeavor
to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to
Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the
People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to
the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and
Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this
fundamental Rule of Society, and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption,
endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute
Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of
Trust they forfeit the Power the People had put into their hands, for quite
contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their
original Liberty."
-- John Locke

John Locke here expresses an essential principle for Christians, whether in the First Century or in the Twenty-first Century. It is not possible for ANY group of people to do anything AS A GROUP which they are not authorized by God to do individually: indeed, Scripture shows that groups of people - even churches organized in accordance with the New Testament have no more authority to make laws, override God's commands, punish people, or anything else than the individual Christians which make up that church. How much more does this principle apply to human, secular government?

Locke also points out the logical corollary to that principle: Attempts by human rulers to take that power not granted to them by God forfeit ALL power, and the people are thereby free, in the eyes of God, to resume their original liberty. That is the liberty which is God's gift to all humans.

Two classes of people

James Bovard, in a recent blog posting: http://jimbovard.com/blog/2010/11/10/statism-the-greatest-threat/ wrote:

"Trusting contemporary governments means dividing humanity into two classes: those who can be trusted with power to run other people’s lives, and those who cannot even be trusted to run their own lives. Modern Leviathans give some people the power to play God with other people’s lives, property, and domestic tranquility. Modern political thinking presumes that restraints are bad for the government but good for the people. The first duty of the citizen is to assume the best of the government, while government officials assume the worst of him."

Although Bovard does not write from a religious perspective, he has made a point that has religious implications. Where in the Bible can we find this division of humanity? New Testament Christianity makes exactly the opposite assumptions: that NO one can be trusted with power to run other people's lives, and that people are expected to run their own lives: i.e., that we humans have responsibility (to GOD) for what we do and say.

Thus we have another reason to reject "modern political thinking," as Bovard describes it.