A proposal being debated in my church and denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America) would insert language into our Book of Church Order (BCO) that says, “Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office.”
A friend of mine, during a recent conversation on this issue, said that the proposed statement was “political” and did not belong in the BCO.
I know my friend did not mean that homosexuality is only a political issue that has nothing to with faith. I took him to mean instead that the focus of some people in our denomination on those who are gay and celibate has moved beyond faith to politics.
His statement reflects a sentiment popular among some Christians today that evangelical Christians, especially white evangelicals, have politicized the Christian faith.
In an interview with Vox last year, David French said, “Any time you’re going to tie faith to ideas and people who do not either personify biblical ethics or positioned to flow from biblical ethics, you’re creating a real problem. They’ve essentially politicized their faith.”
Notice how carefully French constructs his statement. He has positioned himself so that if he finds a Christian who supports a politician French believes does not “personify biblical ethics,” perhaps Donald Trump?, he can easily claim his opponent has politicized his faith. Likewise, if a Christian takes a position on public policy that French and company do not think “flow[s] from biblical ethics,” French can readily dismiss it as political, not based in faith.
Let’s consider this in the context of an example from Scripture. On a recent American Vision podcast, Gary DeMar mentioned that the dispensational Christian author Dave Hunt once complained that John the Baptist cut short a promising ministry by getting involved in politics. What did John do wrong? He pestered Herod about his sin of taking his brother’s wife as his own wife. According to Hunt, John’s politicization of marriage interfered with the purpose and promise of his ministry.
I provide this background because I want to talk about Stacey Abrams, the race baiting progressive gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, from the perspective of biblical ethics. Abrams wants to expand welfare programs for Georgians with disabilities so that more of them are able to live “independently.”
My take on Abrams is what she really wants is not to improve the life of the disabled but a larger, more intrusive government that can be used to destroy what’s left in America of a Christian perspective on government and family.
Yet quite a few evangelicals today would claim my ideas on this issue are political, not scriptural; that because opposition to welfare cannot possibly flow from biblical ethics, I have politicized my faith. So, I will lay out my ideas here and let you decide.
I ran across Abrams’ focus on disability in the 19th, an online news site which identifies as “an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy.” It particularly promotes feminism and homosexuality.
The article about Abrams was written by the 19th’s “caregiving reporter.” This in itself tells us something about the progressive agenda. With reporting focusing on the lack of government-supplied caregiving, the implication is that caregiving is only compassionately caring for those in need when it is supplied by the government. This bias shows up clearly in the first paragraph of the Abrams’ story.
Martha Haythorn, 22, has Down syndrome and gets help from her mother with everyday tasks like grocery shopping, meal planning and getting around. The Georgia Institute of Technology student would love to be living independently, but she’s been on a waitlist to receive in-home support services from the state of Georgia for six years — with no end in sight.
We can learn an awful lot from this paragraph if we approach it from a logical and biblical perspective. So let’s do that.
First, let’s focus on logic. The problem described here is that Martha can’t live independently because without these in-home support services she has to do depend on her mother. I looked up what some of these services are. They include:
The staff will assist in acquiring, retaining, and improving skills such as bathing, dressing, chores, walking or moving around and planning or cooking meals. We will even help find ways to get you where you need to go and help you get involved with things you like, such as recreational activities, access to food, making your own schedules and having visitors.
Do you see the problem here? The complaint is that Martha can’t live independently because she has to “get help from her mother with everyday tasks like grocery shopping, meal planning and getting around.” So how do we move Martha to independence?
By giving her the same help from the government.
Somehow, when the government is bathing and dressing Martha, cooking her meals, helping her find recreational activities, and providing transportation for her, her life of dependence is magically transformed into independent living.
This would boggle the mind if we weren’t already used to the language of the left, such as calling violent riots “mostly peaceful protests,” calling actual mostly peaceful protests “insurrections,” and being told that when we are being oppressed by government it is actually “protecting our rights.”
But, of course, this is the language of oppression we hear from the left today. The path to liberty and independence is reliance on the government.
Let’s look at a second practical aspect of this. I do not know Martha. I have never met her. But what we know about her is that she is 22 years old and has Down Syndrome. This is obviously a hard situation; I would not wish it on anybody. And I am not an expert on this. Yet, one would have to think that Martha is going to continue to need some help. That there is no path to independent living for her in the sense many people are able to experience. So not only does this perspective perpetrate a lie about what independent living is, but also about the lifestyle that is a realistic goal for Martha.
Now, let’s take a look at this from the biblical perspective on the family and civil government. In the article, Martha describes having to rely on help from her mother as “really painful.” She goes on to say, “I want to be out in the community. We need to change this so people with disabilities can have social lives and lives worth living,” Martha says that having to depend on her mother is painful, but apparently believes that shifting her dependence to the government would make her life a life worth living.
This disparaging view of the family is echoed by Martha’s mother. She notes that the main reason Martha can’t get in-home support services is because she has “two healthy parents.” The 19th piles on by telling us “like many family caregivers, [her mother] provides the unpaid, undersupported care necessary for her daughter to thrive.”
Here we see very clearly the effects of the left’s ongoing effort to scourge traditional family. It is as if having Martha’s mother helping her is a reminder of how God designed the world to work. With a father and mother, raising up their children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). And we can’t have that.
Why? Well, if children are dependent on their parents, those children might actually learn to depend on someone other than the government. And if the parents are Christians, they might actually learn to depend on Jesus Christ and call on Him, rather than Caesar, as Lord (Matthew 22:21).
Which is of course anathema to the left. Their ultimate goal is to remove God from the public square and from everyone’s lives. They are raging against God, attempting to set themselves against God and HIs Annointed, Jesus Christ (Psalm 2). Most governments today are trying to become as God. Just like Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:5). Just like the people at Babel (Genesis 11). And will distort every good thing God has given us, like families, to try to make this happen.
To help us depend on Him, God gave us self-governance, or self-control (Proverbs 25:28). He also gave us three external forms of government: family government, church government, and civil government. Each operates in its own sphere, though each sphere overlaps with the others. In the case of “caregiving,” the family government, not civil government, is the primary care giver. It is what we might think of as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The role of the civil government is, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, to secure our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property, not to care for us from cradle to grave.
Martha, her mother, the 19th, and Medicaid’s in-home services are all encouraging the civil government to take over the role of the family. And, ultimately, take over the role of God. Not just as caregiver, but as the ultimate authority. For since if all caregiving comes from the civil government, then all authority resides there as well. What is right and wrong? Just ask the government. What rights do we have? Just ask the government? Is requiring a photo ID to vote about voter integrity or voter suppression? Just ask the government. Can a boy become a girl? Just ask the government.
I’m sure you get the picture.
Yet millions of Christians across our country still don’t get it. They view Medicaid and it’s in home services, public schools, social security, job programs, and other efforts by the government to assume roles that God gave to families and churches as good. And many, like David French, claim that opposition to the civil government taking on these roles is politicization of our faith.
Not only does this perspective ignore a multitude of biblical passages directly on topic about families and government, it also runs counter to the robust biblical teaching on the sovereignty of God. God made everything. He owns everything. And He rules everything. When Jesus told His disciples that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” it is difficult to believe that He was excluding human politics from his Lordship. To claim that Scripture does not “provide express precepts and/or general principles that adequately govern every contingency” of politics (Psalm 119:105; 2 Tim. 3:16-17) is to diminish the sovereignty of God.
How, then, can Christians go about claiming politics for Jesus, the Lord of Misrah (government; Isaiah 9:6)?
First, we must worship God weekly in church—the way He tells us to worship Him in Scripture. We must also pray to Him that He would open our eyes to the goodness of depending on Him. And then we must bring the whole counsel of the Word of God to public debates on issues such as marriage, abortion, welfare, public schools, and economic regulation–and on which politicians and political parties we should support. In taking this path, we can help open the eyes of our nation on the necessity of depending on God and submitting to His design for the various roles of family, church, and civil governments.
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.