Conservative Christian commentator David French recently posted an article entitled "Only the Church Can Truly Defeat a Christian Insurrection." In the piece, he points out that Christian involvement in (and support for) the recent insurrection against the government of the United States of America is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's fairly straightforward - should be self-evident - right? Sure, Christian's have resisted and opposed government throughout the history of this republic when they have felt a moral principle was at stake. We call it protesting and civil disobedience, but most Christians have always shunned engaging in sedition or participating in violence.
However, when Trump's supporters recently stormed the United States Capital building and many folks were injured (and five lost their lives), we had the unfortunate spectacle of a not insignificant number of Christians participating in the melee or supporting it from afar. I've heard "Christian" pastors justify this action by pointing out that Christian pastors led their congregation's participation in the Revolutionary War and the Underground Railroad and Civil War.
In answering such an attempt at justifying this behavior, we should point out that the American Revolution began as an act of civil disobedience which the British government decided to suppress by employing their armed forces against the native civilian population, and that the Underground Railroad was firmly within the tradition of civil disobedience (and the South initiated armed hostilities against the Union). In other words, in none of these instances did Christians initiate violence or attempt to overthrow or overturn anything by violent means - and any attempt to use those instances as a justification for this current insurrection is inconsistent with what actually happened in the past.
So, what has actually motivated Christian participation in this sedition and insurrection? David French succinctly answers that question in the piece referenced at the beginning of this post. According to French, "The problem is that all too many Christians are in the grips of two sets of lies. We’ll call them the enabling lies and the activating lies. And unless you deal with the enabling lies, the activating lies will constantly pollute the body politic and continue to spawn violent unrest."
French then goes on to explain exactly what he's talking about and give concrete examples of how these lies apply to the current crisis. He wrote: "What’s the difference between the two kinds of lies? The enabling lie is the lie that makes you fertile ground for the activating lie that actually motivates a person to charge a thin blue line at the Capitol or take a rifle to a pizza parlor. Here’s an enabling lie: America will end if Trump loses. That was the essence of the Flight 93 essay in 2016. That was the core of Eric Metaxas’s argument in our debates this spring and fall. Here’s another enabling lie: The fate of the church is at stake if Joe Biden wins. And here’s yet another: The left hates you (this sentence sometimes concludes with the phrase “and wants you dead.”)"
As French points out, it is the belief/acceptance of these lies that motivates and allows Christians to forget the clear teachings of Jesus Christ about loving one's neighbor and turning the other cheek and embrace violence. French wrote: "when the stakes are deemed to be that high, the moral limitations on your response start to fall away. After all, when people believe our national destiny hangs in the balance, they often respond accordingly. Or, as I said in a December 4 newsletter warning about potential violence, “if you argue that the very existence of the country is at stake, don’t be surprised if people start to act as if the very existence of the country is at stake.”"
Unfortunately, French is absolutely correct in his assessment of this phenomenon within the Christian community. Too many Christians have gotten swept up into believing the partisan political propaganda of Trump and his supporters and have forgotten the very fundamental principles which are supposed to be motivating their thoughts and actions: love, peace, patience, kindness, humility and meekness. They have forgotten Christ's and Paul's admonitions to submit oneself to the governing authorities and to live peaceably with all men (even ones whom you believe to be evil, or who are actively persecuting you and your faith).
This is not complicated. Christians should not be supporting or participating in insurrection. Even if you believe the lie that the election was stolen from Trump - Even if you believe that all Democrats are evil pedophiles - As a Christian, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED/AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE - period!
The "native civilian population."
ReplyDeleteExcuse me!
They were acts of treason of civilians against the legitimate British government.
Only 1 legal precedent allowed this insurection. This precedent was well known by the lawyers of New York/Former New Amsterdam.
I suggest Russell Shorto's,"The island at the Center of the World", to learn more about the legal origin precedent and reasoning of States breaking away legally from their legal overlords.
Regarding Christians and the recent insurrection I have no legal opinion yet. I do know Von Stauffenberg as a devout catholic struggled with blowing up the German dictator and much time was spent ensuring blowing up their legal head of State was both legally and theologically defensible.
I truly doubt the pastors sponsoring the current unrest in the USA by their blessing, are even aware of the technicallities involved to absolve their stupidity.
Nck
From the perspective of politicians in Britain (and many of their representatives in the colonies), yes, the actions of the colonists were treasonous. From the perspective of the colonists, they were resisting tyrannical measures imposed upon them by a legislature in which they had zero representation. Whichever perspective one views as correct is immaterial to the point I was trying to make: The conflict began as an exercise in civil disobedience. It became a violent confrontation because the British introduced an army to force the compliance of colonials. Initially, revolution and independence were the goals of only a very small group of radicals - the vast majority of folks thought of themselves as peaceful British subjects. These are well-established facts of history.
DeleteYes I am reading the John Adams book by McCullough as we speak.
DeleteI reject the notion of British being not Christian.
By my exoressions of sympathy for Adams AND Jefferson, you may have gathered I seldom speak from a "moral" viewpoint but from a legal perspective. At times they coincide.
If you have time and like true, rare uncovered legal history, hidden by the power of mythical narrative or asperations of freedom, concerning the break with Britain, I do recommend Shortos book.
Nck
McCullough's Adams biography is great - hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
DeleteMiller,
DeleteI appologize for having strayed from the original point you tried to make regarding the conduct of Christians in times of political upheaval.
As it so happened your posting coincided with my reading of pages 130 -135 of the Mccullough book. It spoke about at least 80 changes Congress made to Jefferson's draft writings, especially the ones written in emotion.
It speaks about the removal of a rant against the CHRISTIAN King of Britain, holding George III responsible for evils that the Americans had largely brought upon themselves.
Well. you have long since recognized that my writings are done in a particular style that may distract somewhat from our shared intention that people that may read here but particularly those that stormed Congress rather choose to read the books I mentioned than take my comments or judgement at face value.
Those people who stormed Congress could and should familiarize themselves with the history of how the founders of the nation struggled to come to agreement in democratic fashion while holding vastly different ideas at times.
Americans must not give cause for critics to be right. As in the 18th century Samuel Johnson, who had no sympathy for the American cause, had asked snarkily, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?"
It is a Christian duty to have a view on right and wrong and act accordingly. Christians should not readily hand out bonus payments to their detractors for loosing in irresponsible bets on trusting the truth's spoken by manipulators.
nck
Cities burning, arsonists, looters, and even murderers being let back on the street to continue committing crimes for some "noble" cause. Where was all this passion in June of 2020?
ReplyDeleteDBP
DeleteYou might be right.
2 wrongs don't make a right or something like that.
nck
Reuters did a fact check on the claim that Biden didn't condemn the violence of last year's riots. Their conclusion: "False. Before he spoke out against violence in Portland at the end of August, Biden had condemned violent protests soon after the death of George Floyd on May 25 and in subsequent speeches."
ReplyDeletesee https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-condemn-violence-idUSKBN25V2O1
Peaceful protest is protected by the Constitution of the United States and is an appropriate expression of grievance or dissatisfaction or disagreement with some action or policy. Violence is not protected by any laws and is always an inappropriate expression of anger and frustration with perceived injustice or persecution. Destruction of property and busting heads was inappropriate behavior in the summer of 2020, and it was inappropriate behavior in January of 2021. Bad behavior in 2020 doesn't justify bad behavior in 2021.