Politics

On Protest, Part 2: The Landscape

July 17, 2025 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

As broken people—like everybody else—in a broken world, we will face disagreements and conflicts. To ameliorate and mediate these conflicts, God has established authority structures under which we all live and function.

Before I delineate those, I’d like to note that much of modern culture rejects the whole idea of authority structures. Anarchists, such as Antifa, reject all governmental authority. Non-religious people reject church authority structures, of course, and a majority of contemporary Western culture rejects familial authority structures, most obviously the authority of husbands over their wives and the authority of parents over their children—the latter seeming particularly unpopular with many teachers in public education.

Now, such people are of course free to believe whatever they want, but as is the case anytime humans reject the divine order, they run pretty quickly into a workability problem. Whether you’re doing away with government or other authority structures, you’re going to end up with chaos, with everyone doing what’s right in his own eyes. That’s been tried before (Jdg 21.25)—more than once—and it has never turned out well. Feel free to think of examples beyond the two I’ve mentioned; the pattern holds.

Arguments against authority typically simply cite examples of abuses of governmental or ecclesiastical or familial authority, and there are many. But the fact that something is done wrong is no argument that it cannot be done right, or that it is so inherently evil that it shouldn’t be done at all. Is Florence Foster-Jenkins proof that nobody should sing? Given the brokenness of the world and its inhabitants, there will always be abuses. When they occur, we ought to correct them, but we will never construct a system in which such abuses don’t happen.

How about

“Come on, people, now, smile on your brother;
Everybody get together, try to love one another right now”?

I heard Jesse Colin Young sing that live on Boston Common more than fifty years ago. Didn’t work then; doesn’t work now.

So I would suggest that it’s worth our time to recognize the authority structures under which God has placed us and to seek to live orderly, sensible, and realistic lives instead of insisting on the “freedom” of making things up as we go, all the way to utter chaos.

I’ve already identified those authority structures above (contextually, as formal debaters say), but let me list them formally here, in the order in which God created them.

The Home / Family

The first people God created he intended to be a unit, an organism. Specifically, they were to be husband and wife (Ge 2.18, 21-25), and, as the language indicates, they were to have children (Ge 2.24, “one flesh”; cf Ge 9.1, 7). Later Scripture speaks repeatedly of the authority of parents over their children (e.g. Ep 6.1-4).

The State / Government

There is obviously no need for a state until the human population grows beyond a single family, but that apparently came very early in history, given the extended lifespans in that time (Adam, for example, lived to be more than 800 years old [Ge 5.4]). Adam’s son, Cain, established “a city” (Ge 4.17), probably several centuries after creation. We’re not told what sort of government it had, but some organization must have been involved.

As Noah left the ark after the flood, God bestowed on humans the authority of capital punishment (Ge 9.6), which I think can serve as a clear indication of human government.

And if the state can kill you for violating its law against murder, then clearly it has authority and can command obedience.

It’s worth noting that pretty much all government in those days—indeed, all the way through the Medieval period—was autocratic. Of course the ancient Greeks experimented with democracy in Athens and Sparta, but that was short-lived and not influential. The current broad menu of governmental systems is a recent and unusual development. But the authority has always been there.

The Church

This third authority structure is a relative latecomer, having been instituted after the earthly ministry of Christ, at Pentecost (Ac 2.47 is the first biblical mention of the church as existing). It is never said to have authority over nonbelievers (hence the poor record of theocratic systems in the centuries since), but believers are often told to recognize and obey ecclesiastical authorities (e.g.2Th 3.7; He 13.7).

Now.

Since the world and everyone in it is broken, these authority structures are broken as well. There are mistakes and errors in judgment and execution, and often there are abuses.

Now what?

Next time.

Photo by Koshu Kunii on Unsplash

On Protest, Part 1: First Things

July 14, 2025 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

We live in a culture of protest, and one that didn’t just recently arrive on the scene. Nearly a century ago Mahatma Gandhi advocated non-violent protest against the British Empire’s claim of sovereignty over Indian affairs. Martin Luther King Jr. borrowed significantly from Gandhi in his leadership of protests against Jim Crow practices during the height of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Pro-life protesters have been active outside abortion clinics for decades. Beginning in 2009, Tea Party activists protested publicly. And more recently various Occupy and Antifa factions have engaged in protests, most famously in Seattle and Portland.

I’ve chosen to name these specific examples for their diversity—not just on the political spectrum, but the degree to which they advocate civil disobedience or violence. There are clearly different ways to protest.

Protest is an effective way, especially with political issues, to get a cause onto the political agenda. It’s even implied in the US Constitution. It’s a common tool for dealing with authorities with whom we disagree.

A context of protest provides a good opportunity for us to evaluate the biblical data on authority and to give some thought to how we can best respond when one of our authorities acts in a way we think is wrong.

So let’s begin, as we always should, by laying out some biblical principles that can help determine our philosophy of protest and then guide our application of that philosophy.

The Glory of God

The Prime Directive is the glory of God. Our thoughts, words, and actions must reflect positively on him; they must attribute weightiness to him, giving others legitimate reason to think well of him—whether they end up doing so or not. We cannot control the decisions others make about their view of God, but we must not give them legitimate reason to think poorly of him.

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God (1Co 10.31).

Only He is worth all of our love, all of our loyalty, and all of our devotion. God is the only person we can follow blindly—and He doesn’t ask us to; he has left millennia of historical record of his goodness, greatness, and faithfulness.

This is a weighty task, one with eternal consequences. It must not be merely in the back of our minds as we lay out our plan of action.

Thus it’s worth stating here at the outset that the cause for which we protest is always—always—secondary to our primary purpose of glorifying God and carrying out his commission to take his gospel to the ends of the earth.

The Brokenness of Our World

Our world, and everything in it, is broken. In God’s good plan, sin has damaged his creation. It has rendered us broken as people, and it has broken our environment and our circumstances (Ge 3.1-19). I’ll get to some implications of that later in the series.

So we must not be surprised by evil, including injustice; but on the other hand, we must not be apathetic about it either, waving it off as “just the way things are,” with a flippant “if it doesn’t affect me, then what do I care?” As part of bringing glory to God, we are called to battle the world’s evil and bring healing and relief, to the degree that we can, where evil reveals itself.

God Reigns

God is not stymied or frustrated by evil; he is so much bigger than evil that he can use it to accomplish his own purposes (Ge 50.20). God is directing the course of each life for his glory (Ps 37.23). And for now, he has called all of us to walk as broken people in a broken world. Sometimes this means that we will experience evil and injustice (Job 1).

But in the end, his will—his good will—is always accomplished. He directs and sustains us through evil things purposefully, in order to accomplish His goal in us: to conform us to the image of His dear Son (2Co 3.18).

Next time, we’ll look more closely at the systems he uses to accomplish this.

Photo by Koshu Kunii on Unsplash

On Silence During Chaos, Part 5: Peace 2

May 12, 2025 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Part 1: Personal | Part 2: Political | Part 3: Panic | Part 4: Peace 1

My first biblical theological reason for general reticence about political fights, as I noted in the previous post, is my conviction that God is in charge, and that his good will is being done, despite the pervasive presence of bad actors on the field of battle. That is a powerful incentive to overall peace, to “freak out thou not.” Spending your time in a constant state of rage, frustration, or fear is bad for your mental health and bad for your physical health as well.

My second reason of this sort is a matter of prioritization. God has given us believers a primary mission during our brief time on this earth: the so-called Great Commission, to take the good news about salvation by grace through faith in Christ to the ends of the earth (Mt 28.19-20). That’s more important than everything else.

Now, of course he has given us other commands as well, including stewardship of the earth and its resources and systems, and political stewardship is an important part of that. In God’s providence, in this age we have democratic tools available that those in ancient empires could never have imagined, and we should use those tools as best we can.

I’ve given reasons earlier in this series why I don’t think ranting in social media posts is an effective use of those tools. Here I’d like to add a couple of theologically based insights.

First, I’d like to extend my earlier thought about panic. When I was a boy, both my parents were employed at the home office of what was probably the most well-known right-wing political activist organization of that time. I often heard staff there speak derisively of those who said that we should “just preach the gospel”; they would respond, “Well, if the Communists take over, you won’t be allowed to preach the gospel, and what will you do then?! We need to take care of the Commies first!”

I note two things:

It’s God, not this or that activist organization, who raises up earthly powers and sets them down again. The USSR folded in its time through a series of events that no human agent manipulated into happening, or could have.

And when, after Nixon, China finally became more open to Western “outsiders” visiting, early evangelists in those days were astounded to find, against all their expectations, that there were more Christians in China than in the USA. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese grandmothers kept the gospel story alive despite everything Mao could do to prevent that. To put it bluntly, “the Commies” literally didn’t know who they were dealing with. And in a more contemporary context, neither do the MAGA hyperfans or their most “woke” opponents.

My second insight is that prioritizing panicked political warfare over the Great Commission doesn’t just ignore this divine command, but it actually impedes it.

Why do I say that? Again two observations:

What does the non-believer think when he sees those who profess to follow an omniscient, omnipotent God freak out over this or that political appointee? How pitifully weak and inattentive must their “God” be? They resemble more the prophets of Baal, whose god Elijah says must be distracted, off going to the bathroom instead of hearing their prayers (1K 18.27), than they resemble the first generation of apostles, who told the Powers That Be in their day, “We’ll focus on preaching Jesus no matter what you do to us” (Ac 4.18-20). God’s people should act as though they trust him.

What does the non-believer think when professing Christians set themselves up as the political enemies of the very people that God has commanded them to reach with the gospel? Today there’s a multitude that no man can number of self-proclaimed believers who have burned every bridge available to them to be heard by any unbeliever. They have sacrificed the permanent on the altar of the immediate. Who knows how many “political opponents” they have stiffened in their unbelief?

So. For a good number of reasons, I’m disciplining my mouth, in utter contradiction to my natural tendencies, and deciding not to pour gasoline on the flames of current political controversy. You may agree or not, of course.

But one day, we all—every one of us—will give account to the judge of all the earth. And, as I understand the Scripture, we all will be manifest—transparent—before him (2Co 5.10).

Every idle word (Mt 12.36).

Photo by Jonathan Harrison on Unsplash

On Silence During Chaos, Part 4: Peace 1

May 8, 2025 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Part 1: Personal | Part 2: Political | Part 3: Panic

I can’t discuss any life application—indeed, any topic at all—without basing my thinking on Scripture. I’ve studied the Scripture professionally all my adult life, and I am more convinced than ever that that was a good choice, informed even in my many ignorant times by the kind providence of God. I’ve written about my reasons for seeing the Scripture as more than an ancient book written by well-meaning but primitive people that has received outsized attention throughout cultural history, so I won’t repeat them here; but they inform all my thinking.

I have a couple of bases in biblical theology for the reticence I’ve been advocating. Maybe two posts can cover them.

The first theological basis is far broader than just politics or social upheaval; it covers literally everything in this world, and everywhere else, throughout all time and forever.

God is in charge.

I have social media connections, whom I care for, who disagree profoundly with that statement. But I’ve never seen them refute it.

Oh, they’ll complain about it—“If there’s a God, why did he …”—but logically that’s not a refutation; it’s just an assertion that they disagree with him.

I’m a lot older than most of them are, and with time I’ve come to recognize the foolish arrogance of a “lifted from the no of all nothing, human merely being” thinking that his disagreement with the Creator of heaven and earth, the covenant-keeping God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, “Yahweh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth, who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin, yet he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (Ex 34.6-7)—whew—is in some way the basis for argument, application, or wisdom in life.

God is in charge.

Applying that principle to the current topic is fairly straightforward.

First, history makes sense; it’s not a random sequence of events, but the outworking of a plan that leads to a sensible, rational conclusion—and that plan is from the mind of a great and good God.

Now, that fact raises all kinds of questions. Why does God include in his plan things that make people miserable, that harm them in significant ways? I don’t know the answer to that, and neither does anybody else. But I do know God, and I have decades of experience, in both the lab and the field, that he is in fact great and good. And I expect that a great God, who is by definition infinite, will occasionally (!) go beyond the horizon of my understanding. When he does that, I trust him.

I’ve never been disappointed.

It should be said, of course, that we should do what we can to ease suffering. We ought to feed the hungry; we ought to clothe the needy; we ought to shelter the homeless. There are many ways to do that, including any number of organizations that have been doing those things long enough to have some expertise in the field, and whom we ought to support.

(I’ll note as an aside that human nature these days is to assume that the government should be that default organization—and it’s precisely that kind of thinking that has gotten us into the unsustainable economic crisis we’re in now. The current administration claims to have cut $150 billion in spending—whether they actually have or not, I don’t know—but the naked truth is that the spending cuts are going to have to be an order of magnitude larger than that if the nation is going to be on a sustainable footing.)

So. There is a God in heaven, who raises up kings and sets them down again, and who is so much greater than evil that he uses the greatest evil in all the world to accomplish his good plans (see “Crucifixion”). He knows infinitely better than I do, and I trust him.

There’s a second theological basis for my reticence. More on that next time.

Part 5: Peace 2

Photo by Jonathan Harrison on Unsplash

On Silence During Chaos, Part 3: Panic

May 5, 2025 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Personal | Part 2: Political

You didn’t really think we were going to get through the sociopolitical situation in one post, did you?

At the end of the previous post, I noted the almost constant pressure to see the current sociopolitical situation as apocalyptic: if we don’t do something now, everything will be ruined!

A few thoughts about that.

First, one of the basic rules of detecting and preventing fraud is to resist salespeople who are pressuring you to Act Now!, to get this special deal that won’t be available later. This technique happens in sales flyers for grocery stores; it happens at Wal-Mart; it happens at car lots; it happens when people are trying to lure you into a timeshare, or an investment in gold, or some hot stock, or some dark horse at the track.

And it’s bogus. People who listen to those salespeople are going to lose their money, or at least they’re going to get less than they paid for. Fear makes for lousy decisions.

Now, politicians and pundits are salespeople too. And they know, from long experience, that pressure tactics work. As one former advisor to President Obama famously said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” (That was Rahm Emanuel, in 2008.) Sometimes it’s a war; sometimes it’s an economic issue such as inflation or recession. Sometimes it’s an environmental catastrophe, or even just an apparent one, that serves as an opportunity to goose the level of governmental control. But it’s always something.

So Trump is “a danger to democracy.” Biden’s immigration policy—or lack of one—will eventuate in “the last election of our lifetime.” Gotta do something. And the something you gotta do is vote for our guy, or support our policy.

And thus has it ever been. Goldwater was going to bring nuclear death to that little girl picking daisies. Johnson was a warmonger, and Humphrey would bring us back to peace. Then Nixon was the warmonger, and McGovern would bring peace. Then Carter was going to destroy the economy. Then Reagan—oh, boy, did they unload on Reagan. “We begin bombing in five minutes!” Clinton. Bush 43 and the “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. Obamacare. Trump the First. Biden and the immigration invasion. And now Trump the Second.

One of the benefits of living for a while is that you realize that the news never changes.

And in a day when everybody has a publishing platform, the simplest thing for individual citizens to do is to cooperate by spreading the story or the meme that confirms your bias, that makes the side you want to be on look right and righteous and rigorous.

And here’s the thing. Most of the people who are doing this have no idea what they’re talking about. They think they’re fighting the good fight, but they can’t possibly be sure, at least not in an informed way. And some of them even post—after having done their “research,” which consists of reading an outlet that they have chosen to trust specifically because it tells them what they have already decided to believe—that their friends should “educate themselves.”

So given the likelihood that any given political crisis is being overhyped—perhaps by both sides—I would conclude that waiting for a bit and seeing how things go is the better part of wisdom. Most of the predicted catastrophes never happen.

I have an acquaintance, a Facebook friend, who’s professionally in a position to interact with influential people, including some people whose names you would likely recognize if you follow the news. He’s no fan of Trump. And the other day he posted that the likelihood is that things are going to turn out all right.

But what if it’s a real crisis? What if we really do need to act immediately? In the previous post I noted the importance of being informed, and cool-headed, in a crisis. That means that even if the current situation is in fact a crisis, and not just a manufactured one, those who are acting out of fear or ignorance—that’s most of them—are unlikely to be of any real help, and in fact are likely to do harm.

I don’t want to be one of those people.

If I’m not an expert on tariffs or immigration or law enforcement or military readiness—as, apparently, everyone else on Facebook is—then I’m going to get out of the way and let the people who know what they’re doing take care of the situation. I’m not going to add to the chaos on-scene by shouting uninformed opinions at the people who are actually trying to accomplish something.

Now, if they need help with Koine Greek, or biblical exegesis, or Christian theology, or online teaching, or experiential learning, or poaching an egg, or roasting a Thanksgiving turkey, I’ll be glad to help. But in the meantime I’ll stay in my corner.

Next time: about that Christian theology …

Part 4: Peace 1 | Part 5: Peace 2

Photo by Jonathan Harrison on Unsplash

On Silence During Chaos, Part 2: Political

May 1, 2025 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Part 1: Personal

Another factor in my political reticence is the current sociopolitical situation.

I’ll start with the fact that we have the biggest and most powerful government in the history of the world. That’s a lot of power. And when there’s that much power, a lot of people are going to want a piece of that action. And typically, those people are not potential statesmen; they’re in it for themselves, and they’ll do whatever is necessary to get it.

Some of them go the route of political office. They run for something achievable—say, city council—and they manage their image carefully, working up through the ranks until they get the Big Prize: US Senate. (I’d suggest that that’s usually more desirable than the Presidency, because it’s more likely to be achievable, and because it has lower visibility; once you’re the President, everybody’s after your job—even the people who say they’re on your side. The Senate consists of 100 people who think they ought to be President instead of the current guy.)

Some go the route of journalism. They go to journalism school (which, by the way, no longer teaches accuracy in reporting; it teaches advocacy, taking a side and “reporting” in such a way that you influence the public to your position—which is a virtue, because of course you’re right), then work their way up from the local newspaper (if it even exists anymore) or TV newsroom to one in a larger city and then, if possible, to the network. Again, you’re not likely to get the anchor chair—though a home-town girl from Wade Hampton High in Greenville did a few years ago—but you can be the White House correspondent, or national security correspondent, or some other reporter who’s likely to make the national newscast multiple times per week.

Some go the route of influencers—maybe because they’re rich (we’ve seen a lot of that lately) or because they have expertise in foreign affairs or monetary policy or political campaigns, and they can thereby get the President’s ear.

The situation is complicated by the fact that in a complex political or policy environment, truth is damaged not only by what the outlet says; it’s damaged too, sometimes even more, by what it doesn’t say. If a network refuses to carry a story because they think it would help the “other side,” they’re leaving the public with a skewed view of reality. I’ve seen the New York Times do that, and I’ve seen Fox News do it; and for those for whom Fox News is too far left, I’ve seen the fervently pro-MAGA outlets do it as well.

But all of this is about the power. Big government attracts the power-hungry. Those who have the power will do anything to keep it, and those who don’t will do anything to get it.

In that environment, what will the news, and the news releases, be like? They’ll be telling one side of every story, the side most likely to get the government office, or the corporation, or the journalist, more power. And even those who speak most ostentatiously about putting out “no spin” are spinning. That’s a power grab too.

Now. In that environment, what’s a consumer to do?

Well, the standard advice is to hear both sides. But if both sides are skewing, who’s to say that Side 1 + Side 2 = The Truth? I’m reminded of the engineer who, upon hearing a friend say that she used a cheap tire pressure gauge but took the average of three readings, said, “Why do you think the average of three unreliable readings will be more reliable?”

In practice, then, our short-term sense of the situation is simply not going to be reliable; it’s going to take some time for the truth to come out.

To use a current example, President Trump says he’s going to use tariffs to negotiate deals with other countries, likely eventuating in what is effectively free trade. His opponents say it won’t work, and that in any case he’s inflating the number of countries who want to negotiate. Now, the only way to know who’s right is to wait and see whether his claim is verified.

But that raises another problem.

There’s no time for that!

This will be the end of the world!

We need to act now!

We’ll talk about that next time.

Part 3: Panic | Part 4: Peace 1 | Part 5: Peace 2

Photo by Jonathan Harrison on Unsplash

On Silence During Chaos, Part 1: Personal

April 28, 2025 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

We live in a noisy time. The combination of national polarization, political controversy, and social media—the fact that literally everyone has a public platform now—encourages everyone to have a stake, an opinion, and to express it vociferously, even apocalyptically.

I don’t say much about politics, at least not publicly. I’ve been asked, by people on both sides of the proverbial aisle, why I don’t say more—why I don’t “take a stand” for MAGA, or against it, or on some other hot-button issue.

What am I afraid of? Rejection? Losing my job? (That’s funny, since I’m retiring in 2 weeks. But just for the record, I’ve never been afraid of losing my job. I have confronted people up the chain of command—all the way to the top—when I thought that was called for, and I still have my job. :-) )

So why don’t I speak up more? That’s a good question, and the answer is multi-faceted, touching on personal history, political philosophy, and theology. I think it would be worthwhile, as an exercise in integrating these and other disciplines, to work through an answer.

That means that I’m going to be talking about myself for a few posts. I don’t normally do that, either; I’d much rather lay the Word out there and trust the Holy Spirit’s work in believers, and unbelievers, to make it profitable, even in ways I’m not necessarily intending.

But for better or worse, here goes.

First, personal history.

All my life I’ve had a problem with my mouth. My late parents and my older sisters could bear abundant testimony to that, as could any number of teachers, fellow students, former students, and colleagues. I haven’t typically been driven by malice; usually it’s just an attempt to be funny. But I have had enough of shooting off my mouth and then seeing the hurt on the face of someone I cared about. And I see my friends, on the left and on the right, posting hurtful things, often with actual malice aforethought, and I just don’t want any part of it.

Grace. Mercy. Peace. That’s what I’d like my words to sow.

Shortly after our two daughters were born, I decided to get certified as an EMT, so I’d know what to do in an emergency. A key part of that training was the importance of surveying the scene: you don’t just rush into a situation (hurry! lives are at stake!!!!) without taking some time to see whether there’s ongoing danger, and if so, where it is. If you don’t do that, you’ll likely become just another person who needs medical attention, another person some other responder is going to have to expend the effort to rescue. Just jumping into an emergency situation isn’t helping anybody.

A few years later I got certified as a security guard by the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) so that I would be more reliable as a concealed carrier of a firearm. With that certification I was then approved to carry on school and church property. (South Carolina doesn’t allow carrying there without board approval.) Again, a key part of that training is the importance of staying calm in a chaotic situation; if there’s a shooter in a church sanctuary, and everybody’s running in all directions, and there’s loud noise and the smell of gunpowder in the air, you don’t want to be firing wildly in random directions; you want to observe, determine the threat, determine whether you’re in a position to neutralize the threat (from your angle, is there an innocent person in the line of fire? even beyond the target?), and only then take action. You’re responsible for the final location of every bullet that leaves your weapon, and everything it touches along the way.

We’re responsible, too, for every word we speak. Words can do great damage, often even greater damage than bullets can. We will give account to the one who knows all things (Mt 12.36): Jesus himself said that.

In the current culture, everyone’s encouraged to shoot his mouth off in public forums. Here’s the outrage of the day; what side do you have to be on, based on your vote in the last election? Well, then, assume that position; shoot first, ask questions later. Could the situation be more complicated than it appears at first glance? Who cares? Fire away!

I see that kind of behavior every day—and yes, on both sides.*

I’m not gonna have it.

Next time, we’ll begin looking at the socio-political environment.

* And no, I’m not engaging in “both-sidesism.” That’s saying, “The other side does this bad thing, so my side can do it too.” That’s not what I’m saying; I’m rejecting them both and refusing to do the bad thing.

Part 2: Political | Part 3: Panic | Part 4: Peace 1 | Part 5: Peace 2

Photo by Jonathan Harrison on Unsplash

On Political Panic, Part 2

March 3, 2025 by Dan Olinger 2 Comments

Part 1

One more observation.

Political fights often appear existential, and the fans on each side will almost inevitably speak in apocalyptic terms. “This may be the last election of our lifetimes!” “This is our last chance to save the country!” “This is a threat to our democracy!”

I first heard that kind of talk in the Johnson / Goldwater campaign of 1964, and as a 10-year-old boy I believed it. What I didn’t know at the time is that the same kind of talk had been going on since well before I was born—in fact, since Adams / Jefferson in 1796. And that’s just in my country. There were elections in other countries long before that.

Now, history tells us that at some point, these statements will be true. But it also tells us that those times are extremely rare—think Hitler in 1933—and that any given use of the statements is deeply unlikely to be true.

It particularly troubles me to see self-identified believers saying these kinds of things. The Bible tells us very clearly that earthly rulers—even the really awful ones, like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus and the Herods—are not as powerful as they appear to be, because they are under the sovereign and omnipotent hand of the Almighty God. He has his way not only in the whirlwind and the storm (Na 1.3), but also in the affairs of peoples and nations. He raises up kings, and he sets them down again (Da 2.21). His throne is in heaven (Ps 11.4). And he is not only powerful—his will is done—but he is also good. He shepherds his people (Ps 23.1); he knows when the sparrow falls (Mt 10.29). He gives us peace (Ps 27.1-6).

When we screech publicly and parade our fear—“scary!”—we effectively deny all that.

FWIW, let me apply all this to the current situation.

We’ve had a significant change in political philosophy, strategy, and tactics since this most recent election. Trump’s supporters are trying to clear the road for his plans, and his opponents are trying to frustrate those plans at every turn. For many of his tactics, his opponents will seek legal remedy; many already have. Sometimes the courts will support him; sometimes they’ll stop him. And in the end, I’m convinced, the system will work. He’ll get some of what he wants, and where some of his wishes are illegal, or even unconstitutional, they will have no ongoing life.

And all the screaming and shouting, at least that on social media, will have accomplished nothing toward the outcome; it will merely (!) have encouraged us to hate one another all the more.

And much more importantly, the harsh invective and behavior of some Christians will become lifelong roadblocks to the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of others who need him.

I’m aware, of course, that there’s a spectrum of belief in evangelical theology about how that all works out. Calvinists will say that the work of the Spirit cannot be made ineffectual, and that no eternal harm will have been done by the despicable actions of those believers.

But Jesus warns about people who get in the way of others’ salvation, whether children—that’s millstone territory (Mt 18.6)—or those trusting their unreliable religious leaders (Mt 23.1-4). We should take heed.

And most especially, for our own spiritual health, we should live in peace within our own hearts and with one another.

One more thing: no comment gets posted to my blog without my approval. The last thing I want is for these posts to become a platform for the same lack of peace that I’m trying to oppose. Take that somewhere else—or better yet, exercise some self-discipline and keep it to yourself.

Though the nations rage, kingdoms rise and fall,
There is still one King reigning over all.
So I will not fear, for this truth remains–
That my God is the Ancient of Days.

None above Him, none before Him,
All of time in His hands,
For His throne, it shall remain and ever stand.
All the power, all the glory—
I will trust in His name,
For my God is the Ancient of Days.

-CityAlight; performed by David Wesley

Photo by Usman Yousaf on Unsplash

On Biblical Mandates and Cultural Expectations, Part 3

August 22, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1 | Part 2

Once we’ve invested the time and effort it takes to be informed about what the Scripture says, and what the law requires, and what the culture expects, we need to get down to the business of making decisions about how we respond to specific demands from those authorities.

We tend not to do well when we make snap decisions. Many decisions about these matters—especially the most important or significant ones—are complex and require us to think through extended arguments pro or con. That takes time, effort, and discipline.

Add to that the fact that social media is formulated in such a way that it discourages us from complex thought (I’ve written on that here), and we’re temperamentally and intellectually disinclined to spend that time and expend that effort. We have to fight against our own inclinations and those of our peers.

By the way, this ability to think through complex problems to a proper application is called “wisdom” in the Bible, and it’s highly commended and recommended there. Start with Proverbs.

So. What process do we follow to arrive at a wise decision when authorities appear to be in conflict? Let me suggest one that works for me.

First, gather the data. Make sure you know what you’re talking about.

What does the Scripture actually require?

What does the law actually require?

What does the culture actually expect? And how broadly pervasive is that expectation?

Often I find that at this point there’s no actual conflict; I can figure out a way, sometimes requiring a little creativity, to satisfy all the authorities. I find that Christians are often too quick to pull the trigger on civil disobedience or offensiveness to the culture—or disobedience to the Scripture in order not to be offensive to the culture.

Next, determine the importance. Do you actually have to make a choice? Proverbs—that book of wisdom—says, “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, Is like one that taketh a dog by the ears” (Pr 26.17). Not every controversy is one you need to take sides in; and that’s especially true in a culture where various media outlets raise their ratings, and consequently their ad revenue, by serving up The Outrage of the Day, every day, and sometimes more frequently than that.

Now, if you’ve decided that you need to act on the issue, it’s time to give thought to the way you act. Harsh confrontation, complete with your shaking your fist in someone’s face, need not be your first choice—and frankly, I’m not sure it’s ever a proper choice, especially given Jesus’ words about turning the other cheek (Mt 5.39) and Paul’s words in his letter to the Colossian church:

Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man (Co 4.6).

And a few further considerations:

What is the Authority Priority? I’d say we obey the Scripture first, then the law, then the cultural expectation.

What response best reflects Jesus’ thinking and behavior? Yes, that can be difficult to determine: he overturned tables in the Temple, and later he stood silent before his accusers and took their beatings. And there’s theology to consider behind both of those responses.

How will your response affect others, both regenerate and unregenerate? Paul talks directly about the importance of protecting the conscience and edification of a fellow believer (1Co 8.4-13; 10.23-31), and Peter speaks of the importance of avoiding unnecessary offense in the communication of the gospel, “with meekness and fear” (1P 3.15).

A sobering consideration is this: though you will never have to answer to God for your sins—Jesus’ cross work has taken care of that—you will one day give an account to him for your stewardship, your use of the time and characteristics he has given you. He can’t be fooled, and he’s not likely to be happy with casual or slipshod decision-making on matters of obedience.

So. Navigate the tensions between authorities carefully, thoughtfully, with grace toward all, with joy for Christ’s companionship, and with the confidence that comes from knowing who wins in the end.

Photo by madeleine craine on Unsplash

On Biblical Mandates and Cultural Expectations, Part 2 

August 19, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1

We have, then, three distinct authorities:

The Scripture, which is absolute;

The laws of our land, which the Scripture has obligated us to obey, unless they compel us to disobey God; and

Cultural expectations, because Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor and to live out his grace, mercy, and peace as ambassadors—again, short of disobeying the Scripture. We don’t pick our nose in public.

How do we rightly maximize obedience to all three?

We all know this isn’t easy.

One thing we do know is that some random blogger can’t make these decisions for us; the answers will come from our mind and conscience as informed by our personal interaction with the Scripture and with the Spirit—who, we should remember, never leads contrary to the Scripture, which he himself inspired. This means that we, as individuals, need to be serious about our study of the Word, hiding it in our hearts, and thinking regularly about how, specifically, it regulates our decision making. Your pastor, though his ministry of the Word can be part of your information collection, can’t give you a personal understanding of the Word; you have to do that for yourself.

Similarly, we need to develop our own determination that we are going to heed the Scripture regardless of the personal consequences. We can’t go through the hard decisions of life on someone else’s commitment to Christ; we have to be serious about our commitment to him personally.

Third, we need to know what we’re talking about. For example, on making a decision about a legal requirement, we face a problem: legal issues are often political issues, and politics is by nature filled with highly inaccurate information. Both sides in a political controversy want to maximize their following, and in most cases they’re perfectly willing to lie to do it. So they exaggerate the threat and sometimes they just make stuff up. Further, these days most journalists are advocates, not reporters, and they omit facts that don’t fit their goals and distort facts that do. That means that we need to go to original sources—yeah, we need to read the actual law to find out what it requires.

This principle of being accurately informed extends over into the cultural issues as well. We tend to overestimate the breadth of cultural expectations, to assume too quickly that “everybody’s doing it.” As just one example, evangelicalism in the US has moved from a general opposition to the use of beverage alcohol during Prohibition to more openness since. That move was expedited by increased ease of travel and consequent increased exposure to cultures where practicing Christians had not been influenced by the American Prohibition movement and had a long history of disciplined use of alcohol. So “everybody’s doing it.”

In my experience, though, that’s simply not true. Though I grew up in a culture where alcohol was common (my extended family was more the beer-drinking type than wine connoisseurs), I decided not to drink for a few reasons:

I had a family history of alcoholism;

My parents decided to quit drinking when they came to Christ in their 40s; and

During a brief period of rebellion during my gap year after high school I found that I didn’t handle it well.

As an employee of my university, I’ve signed a statement that I won’t drink, but I wouldn’t drink even if I didn’t work there.

All this to make this point: over the years I’ve often been invited to share a drink, and I’ve always said, “No, thanks, I don’t drink.” And never—not once—has anyone given me any grief about that or taken any offense. In my experience, there is no real social expectation regarding alcohol. The culture does not in fact require that of its good citizens, and everybody’s most certainly not doing it.

So it helps us to be informed about what’s actually going on with the legal requirements and the cultural expectations. And of course, what the Scripture actually says.

Next time, some suggestions about how we make those decisions now that we have the facts at hand.

Photo by madeleine craine on Unsplash