(13) S1E13 Rebuttal: Romans 13 Part 2

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Derek (00:06):
Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. This is the
second part of our Romans 13discussion, And if you haven't
listened to the first partalready, you probably should, so
you can kind of get a foundationfor what we're going into today.
Whereas in the last episode, wewe discussed a lot of the

(00:28):
interpretation aspect of Romans13 and the problems with the
common reading, as well as, howa a nonviolent individual would
read Romans 13. We kind of leftyou with maybe some some pretty
big questions. Because if youthought about the nonviolent

(00:51):
interpretation of Romans 13,then you likely recognize that
there are some prettyinteresting implications for how
that would play out in the realworld.
So as as just a quick recap, thenonviolent reading of Romans 13
tends to go something like this.In Romans 12, Paul is telling us

(01:15):
all of these things that areindicative of a Christian. He's
giving us all these commands forhow a Christian should live. And
those commands center aroundlove, sort of like the the first
Corinthians 13 passage, wherePaul asked us to be living
sacrifices to God, to feedenemies, to not do evil for

(01:37):
evil, to leave vengeance to God.And then in Romans 13, Paul is
going into the government, andthis government is likely view
at least at at the time thatPaul's writing, it could very
well be Nero, and and during thetime of his persecution.

(01:57):
But there were plenty of otherpersecutions and and
difficulties for for Christiansliving in the Roman Empire and
Jews in particular, who hadexperienced the just horrors of
a Roman regime for, quite awhile now. And Rome was not a
pretty country. It was wickedand evil in all of the ways that

(02:21):
it did violence, as well as inits idolatry. And so Romans 13
then is not this, is not thispass for the government or this
encouragement for Christians tobe a part of government, to
kinda make things right andassert control, but rather it is

(02:42):
God saying, look. I'm tellingyou how to live, sacrifice, love
enemies, all that kind of stuff.
And even in the face ofgovernments that bear the sword
and seem unstoppable, you canlook back in the Old Testament
and see how I dealt with themthen, and you can trust me now
that I am sovereign even overthem. So you just do your thing.

(03:05):
You just love, and don't forgetthat I'm in control. And that's
the nonviolent reading of ofRomans 13. So violence is always
wrong, and God does not condone,but rather sovereignly permits
governments to enact violence.

(03:28):
But if if violence is wrong forme as a Christian, then there's
some pretty big questions that Ihave to ask myself. So could I
be the commander in chief of mycountry? Could I be the
president? Because the presidentcontrols the army. Could any
Christian be a a commander inchief and consistently live out

(03:55):
a Christian life?
If I couldn't be the commanderin chief, and if I don't think a
Christian should be a commanderin chief, then can I vote for
the position of commander inchief? Because by voting for
that position and, kinda givingmy approval for it through my

(04:15):
participation in the system,then am I not endorsing the
violence of the commander inchief? And and on that point,
maybe we'll dig a little bitdeeper into it later. But, I
mean, we're not just talkingabout some, like, going to on
these just wars because, youknow, we discussed earlier, is

(04:38):
there really such a thing as ajust war? And I I don't think
there usually is.
But there's a there's a greatvideo by Noam Chomsky, a a
really, interesting historianwho just, you know, from the 19
fifties on, he goes on and hetalks about all of the
presidents and just the thewicked things that they did that

(05:02):
that, you know, and how eachpresident could have been found
guilty under the GenevaConvention. And so I'll I'll
link that video below. But yeah,it it seems like to be in the
position of commander in chief,you are pretty much required to
to do terrible things, becausewe we've had self proclaimed

(05:27):
Christians as presidents since19 fifties, and they've done
some pretty terrible things. Andthat's just kinda part of
politics. There's thiscompromise.
Not only violence, but lying,manipulating people, violence
that's not so much physicalviolence, but, you know,

(05:48):
psychological or mental violencethat we do to individuals and
countries and and, otherpoliticians that we're trying
to, to manipulate. And speakingof manipulative politicians,
what about what about congress?I mean, there there are lots of
compromises that seem inevitablethat should would be problematic

(06:10):
for Christians, but congressvotes to go to war. It seems
sort of like a a conflict ofinterest to be a Christian who
says, we will never go to war,and then kind of take an oath to
protect the country, whichincludes, you know, in in your

(06:31):
abilities to choose to go towar. Is that possible for a
Christian to hold high officeslike, like that of congress?
I don't know. And if you can'thold that office, then what
about voting for it? Voting forthat office and endorsing the

(06:51):
things that they do. And all allof this all of these things so
far probably just soundabsolutely ridiculous because to
an American, this idea of yourresponsibility in voting and the
power of politics is just,unassailable. I mean, it it is a

(07:12):
given.
This is the way that we controlthe world, and this is the way
that we are responsible, in inbringing the kingdom, because
that's how we control things. Wecontrol things through politics.
And in in Christianity today,especially, or maybe
particularly in conservativeChristianity, there is just

(07:35):
this, this great bemoaning of oflosing our power, which which
led to what I what I feel is apretty compromised moral
position of of voting for anindividual like president Trump.
It's because we want somebodywho's going to kind of get us

(08:00):
our power back. I mean, you'veeven got statements from from
self proclaimed Christians likeJerry Falwell, who who say, he
just had a a tweet the other daywhere he said, conservatives and
Christians need to stop electingnice guys.
They might make great Christianleaders, but the US needs street

(08:21):
fighters like Donald Trump atevery level of government
because the liberal fascistDemocrats are playing for keeps,
and many Republican leaders area bunch of wimps. So you've got
people like like Falwell, whichI think represent a pretty large
portion of the the conservativecommunity, where they say, look,
how do, you know, morals bedamned. We need somebody who's

(08:43):
gonna give us power, somebodywho's gonna give us control
because we're losing it. Andthat's just not what you see
come out of Jesus' ethic orJesus' teachings. It's not what
you see with the apostles, andit's not what you see in the
early church.
And we talked about, some of theearly church quotes where they

(09:05):
prohibited high governmentoffice. I don't know exactly
what that meant high governmentoffice. Like, what, you know, at
at what extent did they view itcompromised back then. But,
nevertheless, even when thechurch was was small and
powerless, they said, we're notgoing to seek to gain any

(09:27):
advantage, any power. Eventhough we're a we're a vast
minority who's persecuted, we'renot gonna seek power, at the
cost of compromise.
It seems that a a consistent nonviolent position that that would
view higher government officesthat delve into, positions of

(09:50):
violence, like, let's say thearmed forces or even even,
police dealings, depending on onhow you're you're working with
police, especially in the UnitedStates where the police are
militarized. Whereas in othercountries, maybe it's it's not
quite the same, where they'reusing nonviolent means for for

(10:11):
much of the police force. Idon't know. But it may be that
on a nonviolent position,individuals, to be consistent in
in, not compromising, maybe theyare relegated to to political or
public positions like publicschool teachers or postal

(10:33):
workers or city council members.And I understand that that can
sound very retreatist, as ifyou're withdrawing from a
culture, and I get that.
And and this just feeds thatnotion that nonviolent positions
refuse to do good in the world,and that they are indeed

(10:54):
passive. And I I really don'tthink that's fair, and and we'll
get in into why that is in injust a minute here. But but one
of the main reasons I thinkthat's a a problem is because,
you know, this is an accusationthat's that's levied by a view
of politics which sees the powerof of political force as

(11:19):
legislation and coercive force,which comes from places like the
presidency, and Congress, andand higher government offices
who have the power to demand andto enforce, through force,
through through violent force ifnecessary. And that's what's
viewed as true power in in oursociety. Whereas, you know, if I

(11:44):
if I set up above that being apublic school teacher, or city
council member, and you're like,oh, oh, yeah.
Really? That's not gonna get youanywhere in this world. Well,
those positions, involvecommunity. They're centered
around community and dialogue.Public school teachers, having
been one myself, you're engagedin parent teacher conferences.

(12:08):
You're engaged in in a lot ofcommunity work where you you
talk with other people, youproblem solve, you, but you
can't shove things downanybody's throat. It's it's, a
rough, frustrating process, butit's communal. And same thing
with with, from what Iunderstand of city councils.

(12:29):
Again, maybe the city councilcan't call on the National Guard
to enforce policies or anything,but there's there's dialogue and
discussion with the community.And, I just I just think there's
a, misunderstanding of of thevalues here, where where we

(12:52):
believe that political forcecomes through the ability to use
violence to enforce something.
And I don't think that's that'sreally truly powerful. That's
not what brings restoration.That's not what, that's not what
is going to foster a a deep,beautiful community, that's

(13:14):
going to perpetuate violence. Iunderstand, at this point, that
that a lot of Christians aregonna disagree with me, And just
like, from episode 1, I'd I'dreally point you back to, my
book, which which talks aboutthe problem of of compromise and
delves a little bit into some ofthe politics, the the political

(13:38):
aspect of of what it means tocompromise. But I just I just
don't think that it is the casethat we as Christians can have
this political idolatry whichviews power as coming through
coercive force as opposed to thelaying down of our lives and,

(14:01):
not moving beyond dialogue withother people, but but, you know,
choosing to to use violencerather than dialogue.
I just think that's problematic.But I understand that a lot of
people are gonna need need morethan that, more than me just
asserting something, Even thoughI believe I have the weight of

(14:21):
church history and the Bibleand, philosophy and empirical
evidence and and all that stuffbehind me, I I know that you
need a picture painted for you.So that's what I wanna do right
now. I wanna paint you 2pictures. And the first picture
is going to be the picture ofChristendom, which is is, the
picture of the church when it'smarried to the state.

(14:44):
And take a look at how that'slived out, and what I think some
of the implications are. Andthen we'll take a look at what I
think the the kingdom picturewould be. So let's start with
christen Christendom right now.Recently, Georgia and
Mississippi have signed abortionbills. And, before we talk about

(15:11):
exactly what those abortionbills are, I want you to know
that that I am extremely prolife.
I think that abortion isobjectively wrong. I I think I
have very good reasons tobelieve that, and evidence to to
argue that case. And and infact, I'm more pro life than

(15:34):
even most of the Christian,conservative Christians I know
and even conservativefundamentalist Christians.
Because unlike most of them, Iknow why I'm pro life. Most of
them probably can't explain itother than, like, to say, well,
god knit me together in mymother's womb, even though

(15:55):
that's a really bad verse touse, I think, for for reasons
that maybe I can talk about oneday.
But never I know lots of reasonsand and evidence empirical,
philosophical, for why abortionis is objectively wrong. Most
Christians don't. I am more prolife because I think that most

(16:20):
birth controls are are veryproblematic. Because most
hormonal hormonal birth controlsfor women kill, have at least as
a backup method, if not one ofthe primary methods, that it
prevents implantation, a k a itaborts. Well, most Christians

(16:43):
that I know, even conservativeChristians, take hormonal birth
controls.
I think that's problematic. SoI'm more pro life. I'm more pro
life because I think thataborting an ectopic pregnancy is
problematic morally. Iunderstand it. I empathize with

(17:03):
it.
And and, I would I would weepfor people who have to deal with
making that choice. But ifyou're gonna ask me if I think
that that is right or wrong, I'mgonna say, no, that takes an
innocent human life. So I thinkI am more pro life than than

(17:26):
most people I know. However,that plays out very differently
for me when it comes to how Ithink the government should
handle something. So Georgia andMississippi recently signed
abortion bills, which, do takesome big steps in criminalizing,

(17:47):
the the act of abortion or evenseeking out abortions, even
going to other states andseeking abortions.
And they have some prettysignificant, punitive measures
built into these bills, and Ican't stand it. I I really have
a problem with the bill. For foras for as pro life as I am and

(18:11):
how I I would, I'm very happyabout the lives that would be
saved, potentially, through thisbill. At the same time, I just I
don't think it's a good thing,because this this bill isn't, an
expression of our culture'srealization that children are

(18:36):
valuable and that, humans arecreated in the image of God,
and, and abortion is wrong. But,really, what it is is it's a
Christian influence on thegovernment that seeks to impose
a maybe maybe not a minorityview, but impose a view that

(19:01):
isn't, isn't widespread.
And so what we're basicallydoing is we're taking this this
Christian value that I I thinkis objectively true, and we are
forcing it on people and, on ona lot of people who disagree
with that. And we're basicallycoercing them through force to

(19:23):
act a particular way. And,obviously, I think that's a
problem for Christians to usecoercive force, or to seek out
coercive force. Now, if we livedin a culture where Christians
lived out these beautiful livesthat the secular culture looked
at and said, Wow, that'swonderful, and the secular

(19:45):
government decided to imposeabortion laws, well, that's
great. The secular governmentcan do whatever they want.
The government can can usecoercive force. That's fine. But
as a Christian, I'm not gonna bea part of that, other than
influencing through through mylife. So as an example of this,
we can see this in the Bible.Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel.

(20:08):
Nebuchadnezzar was a a prettybad guy, and it it seems like he
he pretty much remained a badguy. I mean, he kind of had
some, run ins with god throughthrough Daniel and, through his
god kind of messing with hismind a little bit and making him
like a cow. But, you know, whenwe see, Nebuchadnezzar and

(20:34):
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,and and Nebuchadnezzar is having
them bow down before the statue,before this idol, and the 3
friends of Daniel refuse,Nebuchadnezzar is ticked. And he
throws them in the furnace, andthey're not burned, and

(20:56):
Nebuchadnezzar realizes, holycow. These guys really serve a
pretty awesome god.
And then he declares, instead ofeverybody worshiping the statue,
everybody needs to worship theirgod or you're you're gonna get
thrown in the furnace or bekilled or whatever. So
essentially, Daniel's 3 friendslived out impeccable lives,

(21:21):
refused to compromise, and thesecular king, who maybe he
converted, but it doesn't reallyseem like he did, the secular
king recognizes the greatness ofGod and imposes through force
this objectively moral good.Right? You should worship the
God of Israel. You shouldworship Yahweh.

(21:45):
Or you you can see kind of thesame thing in Nineveh. Jonah
goes into this this wickednation. He gives people the free
will choice. Hey. Look.
Repent or God's gonna judge you.Do that. Like, choose to do that
today. You should do that. Andthat's all well and good.

(22:06):
People start repenting. But thenthe king repents, and now all of
a sudden, he imposes, throughthreat that, hey. Everybody
needs to worship this god. We wesee those two examples in the
Bible. We we also see, we we seethis in a number of other places

(22:26):
where, an individual who hasinfluence is converted, or or
sees something great from Godand chooses to have their family
or or, their subjects kind of,do go the same way.
So through through moralinfluence of followers of God,

(22:49):
people who are evil and likelyremain evil, at least in the
case of Nebuchadnezzar, chooseto kind of enforce these
glimpses of objective truth andobjective morality, onto onto
their culture. Now compare thatto two other examples, the

(23:12):
conquistadors, and the crusades.So take take these these,
supposedly Christian, groups orindividuals. They go to these
other countries, and they putguns to people's heads or swords
to their throats, and they sayconvert or die. Now, is

(23:36):
conversion a good thing?
Is worshiping God a good thing?Yeah. It is. But when it's
imposed through through violentmeans by supposed followers of
God, that just doesn't fit.That's really problematic.
And I think that's kind of thedistinction I see here with with

(23:56):
Georgia's abortion law andMississippi's abortion law. This
is largely Christians trying toput swords to the throats of
mothers, to to do an objectivegood, but to impose morality
through through force at thehands of Christians. And I I

(24:21):
don't really like that. I'drather have it be like, like,
we're Jonah, or the or the, the3 friends of Daniel, where we
influence culture so thatculture is so compelled that
they they can enforce thoselaws. They I mean, if they're

(24:41):
gonna do violence, that's that'son them.
But our influence is whatcompels them to to do the right
thing and to to make those laws.It's not the Christianity, it's
not the Yahweh worshipers whoare putting swords to people's
throats, because we don't dothat. And and you'll see that
play out when I when I paint thesecond picture for you. So I

(25:05):
have I have at least 4 majorproblems with this type of
political coercion. Of course Ihave a problem that, that is
violent.
But, more than that, my firstissue is that God always seems
more concerned with the heartthan He does with mere action.

(25:29):
And when we look at legislationof something that that really
isn't morally clear in society,and and a particular group seeks
to legislate this unclear moral,really what it does is it it
tends to harden hearts. So justimagine that, say, the Catholic

(25:51):
church right now, who, at leaston paper, is against birth
control, And we get a, you know,you've got Mike Pence in in
office, and, there's this comeback to Catholicism movement,
and there's an influx of ofCatholics, and and Catholicism
grows. And now, they've gotenough power that they start to

(26:15):
impose anti birth controlmeasures. Now, if they started
doing that, and let's saythey're right about birth
control, let's say it's bad, andthey impose that, there might be
it it might be good that thisobjective moral right, is done
in greater measure.

(26:37):
But in in a certain sense, it'snot really done in a greater
measure because it people'shearts aren't in it, and and you
haven't changed people's hearts.And even worse than that, not
only have you not changedpeople's hearts, but if the
Catholic church would dosomething like this, they'd

(26:57):
probably just tick people off toanything the Catholic church has
to say. Because through coerciveforce, the coercive force of
legislation and the the policeand the armies that are behind
it, they're they're justimposing their will on other
people through the threat ofviolence. And that would make a

(27:20):
lot of people mad, and it wouldjust turn people off to their
message. It hardens hearts touse force, through legislation.
And I know that a lot of peoplewill say, oh, so what? We
shouldn't have any laws? And I'mnot saying that at all. Of
course, I'm happy that we livein a country that has laws, and

(27:45):
that has a lot of good laws. Butthat's why why a law like murder
is is all well and good tolegislate, because there's not
any particular group that pushesfor it.
Everybody recognizes that, well,most people recognize that that
really is a a bad thing. And so,it everybody's good with

(28:07):
legislating that, and it's notone group trying to ram morality
down another group's throat. Andit's it's pretty universally
accepted. So does does that meanthat I'm a relativist, and I
think that, only thing thingsare only wrong if a majority of

(28:29):
people thinks they're wrong.And, no, of course not.
I think abortion is wrong eventhough it's it's legal right
now, and even though there are alot of people who would disagree
with me. But my goal is not tothen try to garner just enough
political support to get, youknow, 51% of the American

(28:50):
population to come to a certainpoint where we can ram this
morality down other people'sthroats. But my goal as a
Christian instead is to live animpeccable life like Daniel's 3
friends, so that it so compelsmy society and the leaders of

(29:11):
that society to desire what itis that I have and and the way
that I live live life out, sothat they'll come to accept that
morality. That's a that's aheart change, and that changes
society. Legislation hardenssociety.
And and not only doeslegislation harden society, but,

(29:36):
in a society where people areacting morally only on the
surface, only only in theiractions and not their hearts,
I'm not convinced that God isany less, any more lenient on
that society, because God's notso concerned with the, with what

(29:56):
happens on the outside as He iswith what happens on the heart.
I understand that that conceptmight sound a little bit crazy
to people, that, you know, GodGod is not gonna bless
individuals for having rightactions even if, even if their
hearts are are kinda messed up.I mean, we believe that on the

(30:17):
individual level, when Jesussays that hate is as problematic
as murder. And we recognize thisin the Pharisees when they have
right actions, but their heartsare terrible. But for some
reason, we think that on alarger societal scale, if we can
just get a group to have rightactions, that somehow we forego

(30:40):
judgment, and that this is anoverall much, much better thing.
And we just don't necessarilysee that. Take, for example, in
Isaiah 1, or you can take a lookat Amos and some of the other
prophets, where they just railagainst Israel. And they they
say that, from from God's mouth,they say, I don't want your

(31:05):
offerings. I don't want yourfeasts, your your keeping of all
of these these things that I'vecommanded you to do. Like,
that's these these sacrificesand these offerings and and
these things that you're goingthrough in in just a, a
mindless, heartless fashion,you're not really fulfilling the

(31:27):
law by doing these seeming rightactions, by following the law to
its letter.
Those things might be good in acertain sense, but they're not
good when your your heart is isnot is not good. And I think we

(31:47):
we kind of see the same thinghere with legislation. Okay. If
we think that we're reallymaking something a a Christian
nation or a more moral nation byholding a gun to people's heads
and telling them that they haveto do something, or else they're
gonna go to jail, that's that'snot really changing hearts, and

(32:09):
that's not really foregoingjudgment. At least, that's not
that's not the indication wewould get from the Bible as far
as, God's concerned withpeople's hearts.
And, again, we might be able tosay, well, at least if we stop
abortion, at least we'restopping some bad actions. So
even if we don't change hearts,it's better than nothing. And I

(32:33):
just I don't necessarily agreewith that. While I can while I
can really like the fact thatlives are being saved, I just
think as far as as, legislationgoes and and the power of
coercion goes, I think you endup doing a lot more harm than
you do good. You harden people'shearts, and you don't really

(32:55):
forego judgment.
You just make it latent and andbelow the surface. What you end
up with in a society like this,I think we actually get a
glimpse of that, in in a anissue that happened about 80
years ago. Take a look atprohibition. You've got these

(33:19):
well meaning individuals who seethis societal evil. Even if you
think drinking's great, therewere there were lots of problems
with, with with drinking and andhow that was playing out in
society.
And so people see some of thethe evils that are playing out

(33:42):
that are associated with with,with liquor, and so they say,
hey, let's prohibit alcohol. Andthey do. And what does that do?
Well, it creates gangs, and itcreates, it creates a lot of
problems for for the US, so muchso that they have to they have

(34:06):
to revoke that because it's it'sso problematic. It it hardens
hearts.
Legislation hardens hearts, andit masks these latent problems
that really fester under thesurface, until they they kind of
erupt and and, can end up beingworse than the problem itself.

(34:27):
And so, legislation just reallyisn't a way to change something,
particularly a way to changesomething that doesn't have near
unanimous or or majority, a vastmajority of approval. A second
major problem with with thetypes of bills that Georgia and

(34:48):
Mississippi are enacting is thatthe legislation you see coming
out of these these Christian,quote, types of of bills is that
it focuses on negative justice.And that's one of the things,
working in Mercy now for, like,the last, maybe, 10 years or so,

(35:11):
and working with with people whoare poor and have have all these
just stories of systemicinjustice or or whatever it is,
I realized that that a lot ofChristians focus very little on
positive justice and focusalmost exclusively on negative

(35:32):
justice. And that plays out somuch in this issue of abortion.
Keller, Tim Keller, in his book,Generous Justice, makes a a very
good point of, discerning thisdifference between positive and
negative justice. And, he arguesthat the Bible focuses far more,

(35:57):
far, far more on positivejustice, which is this doing
right to others, especially themarginalized. And this is even
probably more pronounced thanthe New Testament, where
negative justice is really takenoff the table for Christians.
And they it said, leavevengeance to God. And you do see

(36:18):
some church discipline, one ofthe strongest in in first
Corinthians 5.
But even there, Paul says, hey.Just, essentially excommunicate
excommunicate the guy, doesn'tcome to doesn't come to church,
doesn't get to participate inour community, we'll pray for

(36:40):
him. And if God brings it to tothe point where, where this
guy's life needs to be taken,Satan will take his life, and
God will preserve his soul. Soso leave him out there, facing
Satan without the the backing ofthe church, is is what Paul
says. But that's about thestrongest you see, where we

(37:05):
leave vengeance to God and, wekind of withdraw from
individuals.
But most of the justice that wesee in the New Testament, is
positive justice, the the typeof justice that James talks
about where, where true religionis to help the orphan and widow.

(37:29):
It's doing things for themarginalized. It is seeking the
good of others. When you take alook at at laws like the the
Georgia abortion law, the law isnot about positive justice. It's
about power, force, andcoercion.
It's retributive in nature. Thelaw is about what do we do to

(37:51):
somebody if they do somethingevil, like abort. It's not about
how do we help someone envisiongood and live it out. So so as
far as I'm aware, from whatI've, been able to find, these
laws don't provide moreresources for adoption. They

(38:11):
don't provide more resources forwomen's shelters.
They don't really do anythingpositive. It's just saying, hey,
mothers, we're not gonnaconsider, how difficult it is to
be a mother, that, you might bea single mother, that you might
be poor, you might not knowwhere your next meal is coming
from. We don't know any of thesethings, but we're gonna throw

(38:35):
you in jail if you even seek anabortion, out even outside of
the state. Well, it's even ifyou're a Christian who thinks
that abortion should be madeillegal, and you have no problem
with the state using force,you're gonna have a hard time
explaining to me how you can beso much more focused on this

(38:59):
aspect of negative justice thanyou are on on positive justice.
It it seems to me like you wouldwant to put 4 times as many
resources into legislations thatwould help people, that would
come alongside people, thatwould provide for mothers, than

(39:19):
you would be about theretributive aspect of it.
And and that's one thing I Idon't really understand about,
especially the the conservativeside here, which is we don't
wanna give government money. Wedon't like the way they they use
money. But when we're gonnaconvict more people and provide

(39:44):
more jail time, we're okaypassing legislation right here
that's gonna do that becausewe're gonna have more mothers
convicted, and they're gonna goto prison for a longer time.
We're okay footing the bill forthat retribution. But we're not
okay, or we're not gonna seekout funding for for adoption and

(40:09):
and other sorts of positivejustices?
I just don't get that. Whywouldn't we why wouldn't we want
that money if we could choosewhere that money's allocated,
why wouldn't we throw more of itat the positive justice as
opposed to the negative? Andthat that just doesn't seem like
a Christian thing to me. And andthat aspect, I think, goes back

(40:31):
again to the first episode whereI talked about this, this ideal
that conservatives like me have,which is this idea of personal
responsibility. And it's okay toforego positive justice to
people like single mothers whocould have chosen otherwise and

(40:51):
got themselves into thissituation because they kinda
deserve what they're getting.
That it's their responsibility.And we'll help the tsunami
victim, but we're not gonna helpthe victim who made morally
irresponsible choices. A lotmore that that I could keep
talking about, but I'm sure itwould just be a rant, and a

(41:13):
ramble. So I'll move on. Thethird third problem I have with
the Georgia Mississippi Bill isthat it seems like it's a
misallocation of resources tome.
As a Christian, I want to spreadthe kingdom, the kingdom of
Christ and and, the beauty ofhis love, and I want to compel

(41:38):
people into the kingdom. And ifI think about why I love Christ,
it's because he first loved me.And I've experienced that love,
and I see that love. And and hislove is largely positive
justice. It's the withholding ofthe negative justice, which

(42:03):
there certainly will be negativejustice.
But Christ withholds that andinstead imputes to me his
righteousness. He he doespositive justice towards me, his
enemy, who was his enemy at thetime that he did this positive
justice to me. And Bible theBible Project has a a beautiful

(42:23):
depiction of this. I'll put thelink below, of just this what
this positive justice is and howit's so compelling. But but that
to me is how I want to allocatemy resources.
I want, through positivejustice, to display the love of
Christ, because it's throughbeing loved and experiencing

(42:46):
positive justice that peoplewill see the kingdom most
clearly and be compelled into itthrough a transformation of the
heart, not just thetransformation of actions
through legislation that hascoercive, violent force behind
it. And if you have that view ofhow to allocate your resources,

(43:08):
what that does is that shiftsthis understanding of, true
power coming through government.You say, no, that's not really
true power, that's violent,coercive power. True power, the
power to change hearts, thepower to love enemies and to
have enemies begin to love you,that power, that doesn't come

(43:32):
through government. That comesthrough the church.
And Christ reigns over thechurch. He reigns right now. He
established his kingship and hispower 2000 years ago, and the
church is the seat of power, notgovernment. And so it the the

(43:52):
Georgia and Mississippi bill, itseemed like they're
misallocating resources.Christians who are, spending so
much time and so much moneytrying to to lobby for these
things, They're misallocatingtheir resources.
They might save some babies, andthat's wonderful. And I, I love
that there will be some babieswho are saved by these bills.

(44:17):
But I that doesn't mean that I Ithink that the the means being
used are the right means. And, Idon't think that they are the
means that represent the kingdomthe best. Problem number 4.
I it seems to me that theGeorgia and Mississippi bills,

(44:42):
the the the types of the type ofphilosophy that makes somebody
seek to push those types ofbills forward is is extremely
inconsistent and and can't besustained. And that problem
largely arises because when youwhen you couple this willingness

(45:06):
to use force and this idea ofobjective morality, then it it's
hard for you to explain to mewhere that stops in consistent
application. And I talked aboutthis a little bit in the last
episode, but if God showed uswhat his law is, and if we

(45:27):
believe that that the law isobjective, and we can come up
with a pretty good list of ofobjective, morality, of things
that we know for sure, that wecan find in the bible, that are
objectively, good or bad. Godshowed it to us. And God even

(45:48):
showed us his ideal society.
God showed us the types of lawsthat he wanted to implement in
the Old Testament, and Godshowed us what he thought just
punishment was for some of thesethings, then why don't we seek

(46:08):
the same sort of thing? Ifadultery was punishable in the
Old Testament and it waspunishable, by stoning, why are
we so against adultery beingillegal today and having a harsh
punishment for it today? If ifthat was of God in the past,

(46:33):
what has changed? You can saythat we don't live in a
theocracy anymore, and that'sgreat. Maybe it's true.
I mean, it depends if Jesusreigns in power now and we're
his kingdom and it's a politicalaffiliation. I mean, depending
on how you define theocracy, wedo live in a theocracy with

(46:54):
with, Jesus as our only king.But even if you're gonna say
that we don't live in atheocracy, well, if you're
willing to try to, enforceabortion laws on a society that

(47:15):
has a significant amount ofpeople who disagree with that
law, then what you're doing isyou're trying to impose the law
of God onto people, whodisagree, who aren't Christians.
How how does that make sense ifyou're gonna try to say you're

(47:37):
you're gonna try to argue awayadultery by saying we're not in
a theocracy, but yet you'restill willing to impose this
other objectively moral wrongabortion. You're you're willing
to oppose impose laws on otherpeople there.
Well, they're they're bothobjectively immoral. Like, what

(47:59):
what is it? How do you dismissone by saying we're not in a
theocracy, but keep the otherone? It just doesn't make any
sense. And I I really have yetto hear somebody explain to me
how you can have consistentapplication when you're willing

(48:20):
to to use force on people toimpose your morals, because your
morals are objective.
But then as we work down thelist of morals that are
objective, we get to to a pointwhere people are unwilling to
say that they're willing toimpose that objective moral into

(48:42):
legislation. And why? Why isthat? And, I'll wait for an
answer. Okay.
So that's that's kind of thepicture of Christendom. The
picture of what it's like tokind of to kind of use violent
force to impose your morals on asociety that has a significant

(49:06):
significant amount of people whodisagree. And, some of the
problems that I I think existthere. So So let's take a a look
at what I think the kingdompicture is. The the kingdom of
Christ separated from thekingdom of man, divorced from
from the marriage to the state.
What if, instead of havingcoercive abortion laws that that

(49:33):
sought retribution, retributivejustice, what if the church
instead if you wanted to usepolitics, like city councils and
other sorts of things, what ifwe lobbied for government
funding for, women's shelters orfor easier or maybe not easier

(50:01):
adoptions, but, cheaperadoptions for people who who are
able to get through the system?What if the church, instead of
opening for 2 hours once a weekon Sunday morning, what if the
church was open every day andhad somebody at the church where

(50:22):
women could come in and, and gethelp, get counseling, or, have
have other mothers to talk to?And what if every night the
church was open so that motherscould come in and sleep? Maybe
maybe even mothers and theirbabies, their newborn babies,

(50:44):
could come in, and they couldhave free lodging. And there
would be a a person a couplepeople on staff, or volunteers
who would help to watch thebabies at night so that mothers
could get sleep?
Because as a single mom, itprobably has to work. It would
be really difficult to be ableto provide for your family and

(51:07):
get sleep and take care of anewborn. What if the church
adopted more people, adoptedmore more kids? Our church
started talking with other othergroups that, I think one one
initiative was the 686initiative, where we're trying

(51:28):
to get a support group to helpfoster more kids. I think there
was a, like, one one oneinitiative which said, like, if
every church in the UnitedStates would adopt would have
one family that would adopt onechild, there would be no
children in the United States,like, foster or adoptive system,

(51:51):
something like that.
So, essentially, if if everychurch had one family who would
adopt a kid, we wouldn't havethere'd be nobody to adopt in
the United States. One familyper church. So, obviously, the
church is not doing well withadoption. I mean, I guess, yeah,

(52:13):
we can adopt from othercountries and such, but, there
really isn't that much going on,by and large, in the church.
Maybe the church does more thanother groups, maybe.
I don't know. But nevertheless,the church isn't doing all that
much. So what if the church hadif each church had several or

(52:36):
many families who adopted? Whatif we provided lots of funding
instead of maybe instead oflobbying government officials?
What if we put the tens of1,000,000 or I mean, I don't
know how much Christians spend,but probably, I would guess, 100
of 1,000,000 of dollars spent onlobbying.

(52:58):
What if we spent that onadoptions and women's shelters
and keeping churches open? Or,there's this this great movie
called, I think it's called TheDrop Box. It's about this Korean
guy, just he and his wife. Theyhave this box, and women can

(53:19):
come, and they drop off theirbabies, very discreetly. Nobody
knows who they are, and this guyeither takes care of them or
finds homes for them.
And a lot of these kids, most ofthese kids that are dropped off
are dropped off because they'rethey're disabled. There's some

(53:39):
some issue that makes itdifficult to care for them. And
this guy, like, cares for 10kids, he and his wife. And it
it's just exhausting watchingwhat he does, but it's
beautiful. And what if we didthat?
And what if we or what if wesupported if we had 1 or 2

(54:00):
people like that in our church,and we supported them, and we
put our full weight behind themas they did that kingdom work.
We took that lobbying money, andwe did that. We we created these
shelters around the countrywhere women could drop off their
kids. So what if the church waswas doing all of this kind of
stuff? We did it consistently.

(54:22):
We did it across our ourcommunity, maybe across the the
county, the state, the country.And instead of being known for
having these these picket signsat, Planned Parenthood
facilities, and instead of beingvitriolic, and calling people
baby killers, and trying tobring the sword of the state

(54:44):
down punitively on mothers, whatif we were so focused and so
busy on doing all of thesepositive justice sorts of
things, leaving vengeance up togod, that in our community,
instead of, I think it was the,Barnapol just the other year,

(55:05):
that you like, the the thingswhen you think of Christian,
what do you think of? And peopleyou know, the the top one was,
like, hypocrite or judgmental.Those are the the top two
things. What if instead peoplethought of, loving or family
oriented or giving, generous,calm?

(55:31):
I mean, any number of thingsother than what they think of
now. What if our reputation wassuch that no mother in our
community would ever have todoubt that if they gave their
kid over to the state, therewould be a home for that kid
almost immediately for peoplethat were trustworthy and good.

(55:56):
And what if what if that was ourreputation rather than our
reputation being, like Falwelllikes to put out there, that we
don't really care how we have towin? We don't want a nice guy.
We want a guy who's gonna kicksome butt.
That is the image, that I thinkis compelling. And maybe you

(56:25):
think that the Georgia andMississippi law is is great and
that, these single mothers or orother mothers who seek to abort
not that all mothers seeking toabort are single. But, you think
these mothers who, for whateverreason, feel like they're in a
situation where they can't carryto term, if you think that that

(56:50):
a law that is punitive and it isreally the ideal as opposed to
what I just laid out, then Idon't know. That that doesn't
comport with the Bible that Iread. That doesn't comport with
the Jesus that I see riding inthe sand.

(57:11):
That just doesn't that justdoesn't fit. And one of these
images is compelling, and theother one is distasteful and,
standoffish. And one of them'seasy, and one of them's hard.
And, I'll give you one guess atwhich route we generally pursue.

(57:33):
We pursue the easy one, ofcourse.
Right? The one where I can casta vote every 4 years, and, I did
my part. Or, I can donate to,the Republican National
Convention, and I did my part.It's, it's a lot easier to

(57:57):
subscribe to Christendom than itis to subscribe to the picture
of the kingdom. And I'm speakingto myself here, because I
haven't adopted any kids, and,we don't really do much to
support anybody who who has.
So, definitely talking tomyself, but but I know which

(58:20):
which view is more compellingand which view I wanna work
towards and which view I wantto, repent for not pursuing. So
we we have people like Falwellwho are essentially calling us
to throw off ourdistinctiveness, who say, we

(58:43):
don't want a nice guy. We don'twant somebody with the fruit of
the spirit, because that doesn'twork. Because that's not what we
need right now. We need control,and we need power.
But that's the opposite of whatwhat I see. Rather than throwing
off our distinctiveness, what weneed right now is

(59:05):
distinctiveness. Notdistinctiveness in ideology, but
distinctiveness in action. And,of course, action flows from
ideology. But, action is is whatmakes us not hypocrites, because
to have an ideology is easy.
But to have an ideology andfollow it ourselves? Not quite

(59:30):
so. There's, maybe a bigquestion going through your head
right now, and that might be,well, isn't this a false
dichotomy? Why can't you doboth? Why can't you have, the
laws that you see in Georgia andMississippi that are punitive,
but at the same time also pursuethe kingdom vision, which is

(59:55):
positive justice?
Why can't we do both? I thinkthe the first answer and and the
basic answer is that in in oneof these paths, you have,
antithesis which are which areinherent. So in political power,

(01:00:16):
if I'm nonviolent, politicalpower uses violence to enforce
legislation, and that's theantithesis of of what I think
Christianity, or Christ calls meto. And so that that's a pretty
big problem right off the bat.So to to kind of embrace
Christendom would be to embracesomething which has at its core

(01:00:43):
an antithesis of what what Ithink Christianity is supposed
to embody.
And maybe maybe you can think ofit kind of like, work and money
are tools which can be very goodthings. Work is is a good thing
instituted by God, and money,for me to be able to support my
family, that's a a wonderfultool. But, those things are able

(01:01:08):
to be corrupted, but they'rethey themselves are not
inherently corrupt. But at thesame time, some work is
inherently corrupted. So workingas a drug dealer for a gang or,
you know, maybe prostitution,those those, those are works,
jobs which are inherentlycorrupted, which, isn't they

(01:01:33):
aren't amoral, they're immoral.
Whereas, being a businessman,businesswoman, it could be bad,
it could be good. It depends onon how you conduct business and
what business you're involvedin. Politics, to somebody who
espouses non violence, would bemore like the prostitution, or
at least higher level politics,where you're where you're

(01:01:55):
dealing with violence inparticular. It's something that
is inherently corrupted, and andsomething that we we can't
marry, at all. So we couldn't doboth in that regard.

(01:02:20):
I think the other issue that I'mgonna have is that there's also
this concept of of competingallegiances. And, you can see
that, especially right now,probably most clearly in the
immigrant situation, and the waythat we are forcefully dealing

(01:02:42):
with immigrants, and the waythat we are treating immigrants.
And, I I really struggle as aChristian how how I can work
through this issue. I was havinga a discussion with somebody
about immigration, and, youknow, they were they were

(01:03:02):
saying, you know, we need toprotect we need to protect our
citizens. And I I understand theconcept there, and I I know that
the United States has laws, andI know that they have the
governmental right to enforcethose laws, and that, people are
supposed to submit to laws.

(01:03:23):
I get all of that. But at thesame time, that seems to be a
very big problem for me as aChristian, because I don't know
how in the world I can say thatmy government should protect our
people, over over the well-beingof God's people, which is all

(01:03:48):
people. So, there are immigrantsescaping terrible situations. I
mean, even if even if it's not asituation which the US, is
required to to take them in for,even if it's just extreme
poverty, I I mean, who knows?All sorts of situations.

(01:04:12):
For me to say that my concern ismore for American citizens and
American rights than it is foran image bear a fellow image
bearer of God. I don't know howI can say that as a Christian.
That's not my allegiance is notAmerican citizens, to American

(01:04:34):
citizens. It's not to myAmerican government. It is to
the kingdom and the upholding ofthe image of God.
And there is no our people thatI'm trying to protect. My
government can choose to dothat, but if, if that's the job

(01:04:56):
of the government, then that'snot a job that I can have,
because that is not of God to,to make borders to keep people
from sharing in the goodness ofof what we have. That's just I I
can't rationalize that as a as aChristian. So I you know, on the

(01:05:22):
issue of of abortion, perhapscompeting allegiances doesn't
doesn't come up, nearly as muchas it does when, when you're
talking about something likeimmigration. But I I think you
still can kind of see the pointwhere if if the way that the

(01:05:46):
world conducts business andaccomplishes things is to
legislate and to use force tomake other people comport, but
the way of the kingdom is tolive in such a way that you
compel people to to change theirallegiance to Jesus Christ, then

(01:06:12):
my use of force, or my myseeking of legislation, or my,
taking on a vengeance for myselfrather than leaving it to God,
that's idolatry, and that's acompeting allegiance.
That's a competing allegiance,with Christ, and my allegiance
is to Christ. And so, it's ait's a little bit different, but

(01:06:36):
I think it's it's a huge problemof competing allegiances when we
try to say, well, I wanna buildthe kingdom and do positive
things, but I also want tolegislate and and pursue
governmental power. I just Idon't think you can do both. I
guess that would take me to tomy last point, and, I I which

(01:07:00):
is, I'd be very skeptical thatif you do try to do both, that
you're gonna do both well. And,I mean, church in the United
States is case in point, whichis, right now, conservative
Christianity in particular, butprobably probably all brands,

(01:07:22):
I'm just not as familiar withother brands, are wrapped up in
in political power.
You see it with our compromisewith with, president Trump. And
then you see the reaction of thethe left. When they lost power,
it was it was almost like Imean, their hearts were ripped

(01:07:43):
out. And everything is all abouthaving to get president Trump
out and getting their person in,And we just worship politics,
and, and you can look at whatwe're lacking in what we do in
our positive justice. And youlook at other countries where,

(01:08:05):
let's say China, where where,Christianity has been
flourishing and growing, and youwonder, how is it flourishing
and growing when they're notwhen they're not really able to
to to be, overt overtly in highgovernment offices.
And it just seems to me thatthat, again, I I have not done

(01:08:30):
any studies on this, but I Iwould be willing to bet that,
the quality of of Christianityor the the image that's,
conveyed probably tends to beinversely proportional to, to

(01:08:52):
the amount of influenceChristians have in government.
Just to guess. But it at leastappears that way in in the world
today, that nations where whereChristianity is persecuted or
oppressed or not able to tolegislate, it seems like you

(01:09:15):
have you have a quality that'sthat's quite a bit different
than you have here, where wespend so much of our time not
doing positive justice, buttrying to, maintain church
buildings and, rituals and andpolitics. So what's, what's

(01:09:40):
required to kind of accept whatI'm what I'm advocating here? I
would have to say, first of all,you'd have to acknowledge that
God is sovereign.
And not just acknowledge it, buttrust it, that you can be
faithful, and that God will, behappy with your faithfulness,

(01:10:02):
and He will accomplish His willthrough your faithfulness and in
spite of what you perceive asineffectiveness. So God's
sovereignty is is vital. And, Iwas gonna give you some lengthy
quotes by by, John Howard Yoderfrom his his book here, but I'll

(01:10:23):
have to skip those since we'realready going long. And you can
just take a look at, at mysummary of Yoder's work and
check out some of his quotes. Ithink secondly, playing off
that, of God's use of myfaithfulness is this recognition
that God does indeed desirefaithfulness over sacrifice.

(01:10:46):
And we see that very clearlywith Saul. You know, when Saul
was commanded to, kill all ofthe animals and and, people, the
Amalekites, and Saul decided tosave some of the animals. And,
Samuel came by and he's like,what is all this bleeding I

(01:11:06):
hear? I thought I told you Godsaid to kill all of the animals.
And Saul said, well, but theythey had, you know, a lot of
good animals here, and I didn'twanna just waste them.
I was gonna slaughter the bestfor God. I mean, I was doing it
for God. And Samuel says, don'tyou know God desires obedience

(01:11:27):
over sacrifice? And that'sthat's really what I view a lot
of Christendom as doing. I Ieverybody I know is in
Christendom.
They they are on board with thepolitical machine, and they're
good people. Most of them, ormany of them better than me in a

(01:11:49):
lot of ways. And, I I don't atall doubt that, their hearts are
are right, and the people whodrafted the Georgia and
Mississippi bills for abortion,Great intentions, and I I love
that they're trying to savelife. But if I think that

(01:12:11):
faithfulness is is non violence,and I and I'm right about that,
then it doesn't matter whatpeople think they are doing for
God. If it's not obedience andit's not faithfulness to His
means, then that sacrifice is isnot only meaningless to God, but

(01:12:32):
it's it's repulsive in someways.
And, you know, maybe I'm wrong,and maybe maybe my actions are
repulsive to god, and I'mwilling to to to admit that that
is a possibility. But if I'mright, then it's the other way

(01:12:53):
around. This sacrifice that thatpeople are making is is, for
God, but it's not something thatGod likes. God desires
obedience, not sacrifice. And,3rd, to be able to forego
political use.
Part of the way that we're ableto be obedient, and, even when

(01:13:17):
it seems like it's ineffective,is that we need to be willing to
give up control. And and this isself sacrifice. So this is this
is, Philippians 2 again, whereit's we lay down our lives and
and submit to God, and say, God,your will be done, and not my

(01:13:39):
will. And finally, I think thehardest thing, for us to be able
to forego political use, wereally need to do it as a body.
And, this is the the corporatenature of Christianity, is that
God did not create us to bealone, and He did not create the

(01:13:59):
church to be an individual, anindividualistic institution.
For us to be able to foregopolitical use, we need other
people to come alongside of usand encourage us and make us
better and, help convict uswhere we're wrong. We need a

(01:14:20):
body of people willing to be thechurch, willing to lay down our
lives, willing to trust in God'ssovereignty, willing to be
faithful even when we seemineffective. And, it's it's
through that corporate image,especially, that people will be
compelled as they see our lovefor one another. Because it is

(01:14:42):
through our love for one anotherthat people will realize we are
Christ's disciples. Before I Iconclude and recap, let me give
you a a case endpoint for what Ithink of the overrated political

(01:15:03):
path.
So, modern day abortion isconsidered by a lot of
conservative Christians to be amodern day holocaust. It is the
the slaughter of tens ofmillions of innocent children
since Roe versus Wade. But Roeversus Wade, it's been about 50

(01:15:31):
years since Roe versus Wade, andthe holocaust continues, and
nothing's really being doneabout it. Christians have opened
up some maybe, some sheltershere and there. And, you know,

(01:15:53):
there are are, ultrasound vansthat go around, and and there's
some really creative thingsbeing done to try to help
encourage moms to, to keep theirchildren.
And, and I think you do see youhave seen more in the last 10
years that that have come upwith people really trying to dig

(01:16:13):
more into into mothers' lives.But, by and large, nothing's
really been done in terms of thethe Christian image. This
Christians aren't known as, thisgroup that just adopts kids, so
fast that we don't have anadoption problem. We're not

(01:16:35):
known as the group that justfosters kids in in such great
numbers. We we haven't, shutdown abortions abortion clinics.
We aren't going to jail forpreventing people from getting
into abortion clinics. We don'tpromote bombing abortion

(01:16:58):
clinics. We I mean, essentially,what most Christians do, for
this modern day holocaust is wewatch movies about it,
documentaries. We support moviesthat come out to to help people

(01:17:20):
know how murderous, abortiondoctors and mothers are, and we
really get riled up every 4years as we vote for a president
who we hope will put a SupremeCourt nominee on the bench so
that maybe one day we canoverturn Roe versus Wade. While

(01:17:43):
the, the concentration camps,the the gas chambers, the
crematoriums are ramped up everyday, and we pass by them, we
largely do nothing.
We just kind of shake our headsand vote every 4 years. That's

(01:18:06):
essentially what we do. Myselfincluded. I am guilty. I'm sure
there are are a lot of reasonsfor why we often don't do
anything of substance.
You know, I I just I think ofthe Quakers who who refrained

(01:18:30):
from political involvement, byand large, in the 17 18 100, yet
were were very involved in, theabolition movement and and
running slaves through theunderground railroad. Where I I
think of, you know, thecountries like Bulgaria and
Denmark, which were Nazicontrolled and Nazi occupied,

(01:18:55):
respectively, and how throughtheir their actions that which
put their lives on the line,they were able to save thousands
of Jews, tens of thousands ofJews, even though they didn't

(01:19:15):
have any political recourse,because they were controlled by,
controlled by the Nazis. Andupon reflection, I it seems to
me sometimes that when we havethis this idolatry of politics,
that it it promises that we'redoing something meaningful, and

(01:19:41):
we think that we have power inthe pursuit of politics. But, as
as Roe versus Wade shows us, wecan sit around for 50 years and
allow a holocaust to go onthinking we're doing something.
If we didn't get our guy in lastyear, we'll get him in 4 years
from now.

(01:20:02):
And that's kind of what our whatour action is. It's this this
sitting and waiting, becausesince power comes through the
political sphere, we have towait on the on the political
sphere and of of gaining powerin that sphere in order to
really do anything for God. Andthat's why you get people like
Falwell saying, we need tocompromise so that we can get

(01:20:27):
political power, so we can dosomething for God. In reality,
we've passed 5 decades of doingnothing while the gas chambers
are on. And I I I really wonderif it would be different if we

(01:20:48):
didn't have this politicalidolatry.
If instead of Christendom, wesought the kingdom. If we
recognize that true power didn'treally come from politics, but
came through the church andthrough investing our time and

(01:21:08):
our resources in that community.And through that community,
changing hearts and creating animage that society couldn't
ignore, I just wonder what thatwould do. I wonder how different
we would be and how differentour society would be now if we

(01:21:31):
pursued the kingdom rather thanChristendom. I think you're
really able to see the theopposite of this idea, the
opposite of this, just kind ofpassivity that politics brings
about.
I think you see that in themovie Unplanned. And the movie
Unplanned is about the story ofAbby Johnson, and who was a a,

(01:21:54):
director at one of the PlannedParenthood locations. And,
Planned Parenthood, if you don'tknow, does women's health
services, but a large part ofwhat they do is abortion
services. And so you get tokinda see see the way that
Planned Parenthood runs and and,kind of some of the trickery

(01:22:15):
that goes on on there. But themain focus is is really the
story of Abby and hertransformation.
And in that movie, we see acouple groups of people. We see,
one group who comes out to thefence of Planned Parenthood
every day and has protests andsigns of mutilated babies and
somebody dressed up as the GrimReaper and, cruel signs, and

(01:22:39):
yelling terrible things atmothers, just just very
vitriolic coming out there. Youalso see, somebody, who ends up
killing an abortion doctor, oneof Abby's colleagues, and the
effects that that has on on Abbyand the other abortion doctors.
And what you end up seeing isthat all of these coercive

(01:23:01):
things, these, attempts tointimidate the aggressiveness
really hardens the pro choicers,the the Planned Parenthood
workers, because they view it asa fight, and they entrench
themselves, and they fightharder. And, yeah, they're
scared, especially after the theone guy is killed, But, they are

(01:23:23):
affirmed in their positionbecause they see the hypocrisy,
and evil, and violence, and hatefrom the other side.
On the other hand, you also seethis one group of Christians who
comes to the fence, and everyday they just pray, they talk to
mothers kindly, they don'tcondemn, they, they just love.

(01:23:46):
And, over time, they end upgetting to Abby, and Abby, is is
able to break away from PlannedParenthood, and she ends up
becoming pro life because sheshe recognized the travesty of
of what's going on withabortion, what that does to
mothers, what that does to humanlife, and she escapes. Now,

(01:24:11):
while we don't really seelegislation, represented very
much at all in in the, in themovie, I really ask, what is
legislation more like? Islegislation more like a coercive
measure, or more like love? Andit's certainly more coercive,
and Stanley Hauerwas, says thatwell in in a video I'll link

(01:24:34):
below.
But, voting is really coercive.It's it's 51% of the people
trying to impose their will onthe other 49%, essentially. And,
what would passing legislationreally do to the abortion
industry? Well, it it doesn'treally do anything. It would
entrench people in their views.

(01:24:56):
It might stop abortions for atime and save some some
children's lives, which wouldwould be beautiful, would be
wonderful, but it would end uphardening people and their
hearts to the issue. They'dfight harder, and probably just
in a few years, legislate rightback that abortion's fine, and
put, bigger hurdles in the wayfor abortion to be taken away

(01:25:20):
again. So, in the end, you savesome lives, which is good, but
you perhaps even end up doingmore damage in the end, and not
changing hearts. And you mightsay, well, isn't that at least
better than doing nothing? Andyou might think so, but I really
like what the movie Unplannedputs in that I wasn't expecting.

(01:25:44):
And I I don't think most peoplereally latched on to this, but
but I did. Abby, at the end ofthe movie, is talking to, her
pro life companions, and shesays, you guys don't realize how
important you were, because atsome facilities, up to 75% of
women who were coming in forabortions would turn away if

(01:26:07):
they saw people praying at thefence. Prayer at the fence, in
some cases, turned away 75% ofwomen a day who were coming in
for abortions. What what morebeautiful depiction could you
get of of what I'm trying toargue here is that faithfulness

(01:26:27):
to God, we might not understandit. We might not think that
there are any results, butfaithfulness to God is what He
asked for, and He determinesresults.
And you just see what He's doingwhen people are praying at at at
the fence, just being faithfuland coming out and loving and
not not screaming vitriolicthings. He's he's she's working

(01:26:49):
on women's hearts, and it turnsthem away from abortion clinics
in numbers as great as 75%sometimes. And that's amazing.
And these are the people, thepeople who are living out the
kingdom, love. These are thepeople who changed Abby's heart,
not the ones screaming, not theones lobbying, not the ones who

(01:27:11):
are killing her colleagues.
It's the ones who persistentlylove, who give up their time,
who withhold condemnation, whoare coming, and who are able to
change Abby's heart. And, I Ireally just wonder if if a
couple people praying at a fencecan turn away 75% of women, and

(01:27:34):
if a couple people praying canchange an abortion director's
heart, What would it be like ifeven 50% of the church would do
this? If we would just go outand pray at abortion clinics,
one day a week maybe? Or if,we'd use some of our vacation

(01:27:54):
time, take a day off of workhere and there, and go to a
fence and pray. Or, if insteadof using our lobbying money, we
would, we would choose to adoptkids, of of mothers who are in
crisis.
I mean, just just all of thesepositive things, as opposed to

(01:28:16):
coercive, aggressive sorts ofthings, would change hearts and
impact people. And, I'm reallythankful that Abby was able to
have that insight and and sharethose statistics about the true
impact of of faithfulness,because that's really helpful.
But, you know, to be quitehonest, most of the time, we're

(01:28:39):
just gonna have to trust in Godthat faithfulness is the best
thing and what He wants, becausemost of the time we're not gonna
see those results here and now.And we're just gonna have to be
content in trusting that Godwill, will bring about His good
and perfect will through foolishmeans, through our faithfulness.

(01:29:01):
So, if you wanna see a good gooddepiction of the Kingdom, go
ahead and watch Unplanned.
And then think about, our ouractions of voting, and what that
all, what that all means and howthat encourages passivity. And,
I'll recommend a resource herethat I think is really good in
terms of showing how voting canbe a passive sort of thing, how

(01:29:25):
political idolatry can beproblematic. There's an
interesting video on this fromthe Followers of the Way, the
the people who kind of helped meto, get on the road to pacifism.
It's called, something likeVoting, an Abdication of
Responsibility. I I don'tnecessarily agree with

(01:29:46):
everything that's said in there,but I I think it should
certainly give you pause tothink about how political
idolatry shapes the way thatthat we think we're acting in
the world, but are actually,being largely passive and

(01:30:06):
handing over our power to apolitical system rather than
submitting to our our king andliving out the kingdom life.
I also do want to mention that,there are are varying degrees of
how non the non violent positionwould handle politics. And there

(01:30:28):
are a lot of people who have noproblem with with politics, by
and large, as non violentindividuals, and they have
varying ways of of explainingthat. So, again, I'm still out
on this, and I I don't reallyunderstand all of the
ramifications, and I don'texactly know what I believe

(01:30:48):
about where to fall politicallyyet. And, I I've just tried
today to kinda give you thestrongest viewpoint on the other
end of the spectrum, which isthat we should really avoid most
forms of government. Probably,if I'm gonna land somewhere, it
it might end up being somewheremore towards the left of this,

(01:31:12):
more towards, accepting somemore forms of government.
But today, we just kind of wekind of went to the extreme and
looked at what the opposite of afull government embrace looks
like. You can you can take alook at some other books, you
know, I mentioned The Politicsof Jesus, which might touch a
little bit on this type ofthing. There's a good book

(01:31:35):
called Electing Not to Vote, andthere are, I believe, 7 essays
in that, where 7 individualstalk about their their moral
dilemma of of voting, and howthat kinda played out, and their
rationale. It's not supertheological. It's not gonna get
you lots of deep answers, but itwill at least get you started on

(01:31:55):
on why people might feelconvicted in different ways, and
how they kind of work that out.
There's certainly, like withmost beliefs, there's certainly
a spectrum here, and, everybodyis pretty familiar with the
embracing of government aspecton the spectrum, and I've
provided you with the oppositeof that. So, figuring out where

(01:32:16):
on the spectrum you land will behelpful for you, and kind of
working through that. I'll alsoput at the bottom a link to a an
article that I or a video, Ibelieve, by Gary Habermas. Not
Habermas, I'm sorry. Haarwas,Stanley Haarwas.

(01:32:38):
And, Haarwas has a really goodvideo discussing how legislation
is in fact coercive force, orhow it has that behind it. And,
I think that's really helpful,because we we oftentimes view
voting as as this activity wherewe all get together and we

(01:32:59):
nicely just kind of agree to tosomething. And that's somewhat
true. I mean, it's certainlymore true than than, other forms
where there's violence inherentin the system. But,
nevertheless, there is this ideaof force behind legislation.
And Herawas, I think, uncoversthat pretty well, and explains

(01:33:21):
why individuals would have anissue even with voting, even if
they're not going to be theCommander in Chief themselves,
why voting is problematic forthem in regards to legislation.
So I'll put that at the bottomas well. In conclusion then,
trying to wrap this all up, Godcalls us to faithful obedience,

(01:33:42):
not to sacrifice. He calls us tolive how he has, has shown us
and how he has taught us, in hisfull revelation, Jesus Christ.
And if that obedience meansenemy love, foregoing violence,
and giving sole allegiance tothe kingdom over governments,

(01:34:03):
then that's what we ought to do.
A kingdom ethic that is livedout in this way compels people
through its biblical emphasis onpositive justice, while
simultaneously not undercuttingits legitimacy through violent
imposition, which only hardenshearts. The kingdom in the

(01:34:24):
church is true power, and it'swhere true power lies. Whereas,
waiting on political action isnot only inconsistent with
Christianity, but ineffective.So in closing, I I really hope
that you can see, that I've puta lot of thought into the

(01:34:46):
implications of what anonviolent reading of Romans 13
gets us. And rather than than myconclusion making me feel like
I'm missing out by withdrawingfrom certain spheres of

(01:35:06):
political power, the spheresthat our society views as most
powerful, because they have thepower of the army and the police
and, legislation behind them.
Rather than finding that,cumbersome, I find it freeing.

(01:35:28):
And it it, helps me to recognizethat I'm not just one out of a
couple 100,000,000 votes, but Iam a a, integral part of the
kingdom of Christ, whose king isis reigning in power now and who

(01:35:54):
is promised victory. And I goout in that power, and I hope
you will too. So that's all fornow. So peace because I'm a
pacifist, and I say it.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}(13) S1E13 Rebuttal: Romans 13 Part 2