"Dignitary Harm" and the Debate over Religious Freedom

Albert Mohler reviews a new two-views book on religious liberty and LGBTQ concerns.  Especially important is the discussion of "dignitary harm."

Who Left Whom?

Helpful reflections from Trevin Wax on the sense of dismay many church-going evangelical Christians currently have:  "I don't feel at home in the Republican Party anymore."  About this feeling, Wax adds, "Maybe that's a good thing."

The Pope and the Limits of Free Speech

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Pope Francis has made ill-considered remarks inviting the conclusion that, at some point or in some manner, insulting words will / do (must?) provoke a forceful reply.  This is being construed, for example, by Vox as follows:  "Pope Francis on free speech: if you insult religion, expect violence."  

According to the Vatican News Service, "Pope Francis said on Thursday that there are limits to freedom of expression, especially when it insults or ridicules someone’s faith....  Pope Francis was asked by a French journalist about the relationship between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.  He replied saying that both are "fundamental human rights" and stressed that killing in the name of God “is an aberration.” But he said there were limits to that freedom of expression.  By way of example he referred to Alberto Gasparri who organizes the papal trips and was standing by his side on the plane. The Pope said if “his good friend Dr Gasparri” says a curse word against his mother, he can “expect a punch”, and at that point he gestured with a pretend punch towards him, saying: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others.  You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”"  

How this "punch" fits into Christian teaching is a puzzle--it surely doesn't seem to square with Jesus' message about love for enemies (Luke 6:27, 35).  Better to leave the matter of applying force to the state, since civil government has the responsibility to preserve law and order and to use means, even force when necessary, to protect citizens and apply justice (Romans 13:1-7).

[Jan. 17 update:  Numerous other reports are questioning the pope's remarks--e.g., British Prime Minister David Cameron, who contends that it is wrong to endorse revenge:  "I think in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone’s religion. I’m a Christian; if someone says something offensive about Jesus, I might find that offensive, but in a free society I don’t have a right to wreak vengeance on them."  And former Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, writes, "I am a great admirer of the Pope but when, to make the proper point that we should not insult the faith of others, he said his assistant could “expect a punch” if he cursed his mother, I was aghast."]
.

What Will the President Do?

President Obama could prove Russell Moore wrong, but if he doesn’t speak up to defend religious diversity and freedom in America then he’s proving Moore right.

Moore contends that the recent fracas over the White House’s invitation of Pastor Louie Giglio to give the benediction at the upcoming presidential inauguration, followed by Giglio’s withdrawal of his acceptance of that invitation due to a firestorm of criticism from strident left-wing voices, signals that we’ve come to the place today where we basically have a state church. 

Giglio, an evangelical Christian and founder of the Passion Conferences, preached a sermon in the 1990s in which he articulated a Bible-based message on sexuality, including the idea that homosexual activity is contrary to God’s will.  Moore points out that such a stance on sexual ethics is not only in line with historic Christian teaching but with the moral vision of Islam and Judaism as well.  Thus the day has come in which a faithful Christian or Jew or Muslim cannot pray at a presidential inauguration:  the new state religion forbids it.

So far President Obama has been silent on this controversy, but Presidential Inaugural Committee spokeswoman Addie Whisenant indicates that the committee hadn’t known of Mr. Giglio’s remarks when he was selected to participate in the inauguration, and “they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural.”  She added that as the committee works to “select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

In other words, they are determined to find someone whose religious stance not only affirms homosexual conduct now but who has never articulated a Bible-based or faithful Muslim or Jewish stance on sexuality.  That is the new standard that people who pray in public must meet, and that's also a key premise in the doctrinal statement of the state religion our current administration is establishing.

UNLESS President Obama steps up and speaks out in favor of allowing the millions of Americans who accept Christian teaching to remain present in the public square.  Unless he replies to Giglio and says, “I know you’re getting raked over the coals, and I know we don’t agree on everything, but I appreciate your excellent work fighting against human trafficking and I want you to participate in the inauguration.”

The ball is in the President’s court.  What will he do?  Will he tolerate the new intolerance, or will he affirm and endorse the classic American concept of tolerance that allows and even protects religious diversity in the land?  Will he stand up to his inaugural committee and others in the administration, or will he sit quietly by as this moment passes (his moment to affirm religious freedom) and look forward to an inauguration with prayers only from people who march in lock-step conformity to the new state-approved religion?

.

Church & State

This election season, let’s ponder the oft-cited 2 Chronicles 7:14:  If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.  “My people…”; “their land…”  How should this word to ancient Israel be applied by Christians in today’s world?

In Old Testament times God’s people lived under “theocracy”:  devotion to the Lord and allegiance to government were inseparable; no divide between religion and public life (between “church and state”).  American Christians some­times succumb to wishful thinking that we have a theocracy today—that the rule of God could be “restored” in our land.  But that’s not a biblical hope.  With the coming of Christ and his Great Com­mission, God brought theocracy to an end.

God’s children today are an inter­national, inter-racial, worldwide people—called the church—that can’t be con­tained in or aligned with any one nation-state.  So an Old Testament promise about the “land” of ancient Israel cannot be neatly transferred to our country (or any country) today.  Rather, the application of 2 Chronicles 7:14 would center on the church—i.e., that group who, today, are God’s people:  “my people.”  If we as Christians, in fellow­ships all around the world, repent and pray and humbly seek God, then he’ll forgive and renew his people—his church.  And so, the text relates to the revival of the church, not the improvement of this country.

Here are a few church-and-government challenges believers should grapple with: 

1) Thank God for the gift of the US government—it’s not perfect, but much about it is good. 

2) Submit to the law of the land (see Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:12-17).  Only when “Caesar” would force you to turn against Christ is it right to play the Acts 5:29 civil disobedience card:  We must obey God rather than men.  

3) Pray for government leaders (1 Tim 2:2)—for wisdom, humility, reverence for God, zeal for the common good, unwavering commitment to justice, and both restraint and courage in “bearing the sword.” 

4) Serve your country, including through constructive criticism.  “Sub­mit” does not mean silence. 

5) Watch your expectations:  the state isn’t supposed to promote or advance the church (or vice versa), so don’t expect it to do so. 

6) Model respectful inter­action with those you disagree with this election season (e.g., other party, other positions). Let it be obvious that “the Christians” don’t use the world’s weapons of twist­ing facts, half truths, smearing opponents, or hitting back.  Break the rules of politics as usual. 

7) Finally, give praise to Jesus as Lord of All and King of Kings.  For all your appreciation of our government and nation, let it be ever so clear to all around you that you exalt Christ as “Commander-in-Chief”!

.

The Christian and the State

The presidential election is finally upon us. This is a moment when Christians need to think hard about what it means to follow Jesus here and now, in 2008. Let me offer a few key biblical perspectives:

First things first: we’re citizens of God’s kingdom, and our ultimate allegiance is to King Jesus (Rev 19:16). He’s the “Commander-in-Chief” to whom we owe supreme devotion. “Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 3:20; Heb 9:28). Under the sovereign leader­ship of God’s Spirit, we’re enroute to “a better country, a heavenly one” (Heb 11:16). Today we live as sojourners, not settlers.

And yet, during this earthly journey it’s right to obey the law of the land (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). In fact, Christians demonstrate trust in God when they affirm his delegation of authority to the state. Still, such compliance is always conditional: if pressed by human powers to dishonor or disobey our Lord, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; 4:19) and accept the consequences as “strangers and exiles on earth” (Heb 11:13, 35-38).

Christians should expect to face opposition or even persecution. Our daily trek involves carrying a cross (Luke 9:23); in this world “you will have tribulation” (John 16:33); the world hates Jesus’ people because they (we) “are not of this world” (John 15:19; 17:14); “Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:12); “Woe to you when all men speak well of you” (Luke 6:26). Not that we should despair or give up on showing Jesus’ love to neighbors (1 Pet 2:12; 1 Thess 4:12; Jas 1:27): some will be receptive to our witness! In fact…

Christ says we’re “the light of the world” and “the salt of the earth” (Matt 5:13-16)—and light and salt permeate their environments for good. But we can’t be salt and light while retreating from society or hiding away in Christian ghettoes. We’re taught to love our neigh­bors as ourselves (Matt 22:37-40; Luke 10:37), and acts of neighbor love are not just for their benefit in the life to come: we must seek God’s help to spread his material and spiritual blessings here and now as well (Luke 3:11; 1 John 3:17; Matt 11:28-30; John 10:10).

So let’s join in prayer for God’s guidance, even as we vote, to love our neighbors and seek their good.

.