A Tale of Two Christians

As we approach the November election, Christians are divided once again. It would seem that, for both sides, those who would vote for the other candidate are almost incomprehensible. "How can you even be a Christian?"

Let me see if I can tease out the thinking of both sides. Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood or misrepresented anything. Certainly, feel free to disagree. I suspect there are many Christians whose consciences simply won't allow them to vote at all in this election.

Abortion and Transgenders
I suspect that for those Christians who support Trump, abortion remains the central issue. Harris will no doubt do everything she can to make abortion widely available again. She would also appoint Supreme Court judges who, eventually, might at some point reverse the recent reversal of Roe v. Wade. Harris' support for transgender rights is also troubling.

Those voting for Harris might respond that it is unlikely that she can deliver on her rhetoric to make Roe v. Wade the law of the land. What has Biden been able to do to reverse it? They might also argue that more fundamental issues are at stake in this election. If the house burns down, all the children may die.

Democracy and Chaos
I suspect that for many Christians who will vote for Harris, the very stability of America and its Constitution are endangered by Trump. Why else would an unprecedented number of conservative Republicans support her, including many previous members of Trump's administration? Mike Pence, Dan Coats, John Bolton, H. R. McMaster, John Kelly -- and more from his previous administration oppose a second Trump presidency. The January 6 riots would be mentioned as an argument that Trump is a threat to the Constitution and the entire American system.

Those voting for Trump might respond that this is just hype and exaggerating him as a threat. He just talks that way. The system survived him before. Some would say that Trump was not responsible for January 6 or that no one/nothing was hurt.

Dangerous Immigration 
There is disagreement over the threat posed to America by the influx of undocumented (and documented) immigrants to America. Those voting for Trump likely see a picture of dangerous criminals flowing into the country. There are claims of child trafficking at the border. Others might say that these immigrants are taking the jobs of those who are already here.

The other side would claim that most of this is misinformation. That immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than those who are already here. That an allowance for unaccompanied minors is not child trafficking. And Christians believe all people are equally valuable in God's eyes, created in his image. The rhetoric is seen as thinly veiled racism. It is often argued that it was Trump that effectively stopped a bi-partisan immigration bill.

Hatred
Those voting for Harris likely consider Trump's rhetoric to be hateful and vile, disqualifying in itself. From his early comments about grabbing women by the p** to recent comments about the size of Arnold Palmer's male organ to hateful comments that flow daily about people being animals and vermin or "black jobs" or "eating the pets" in Springfield or "the enemies within" in reference to Democrats that should be rounded up by the National Guard or military. We would use euphemisms to convey some of the things he says because they make us feel uncomfortable.

The response is generally that he is a little rough around the edges but it is superficial. In 2016, it was said he was a baby Christian. Probably, all Christians would admit that this is less than preferable in a neighbor or relative at Christmas, let alone a president.

Economics
A major contention exists over who gets the blame for the current economic situation. Those who support Trump would primarily blame Biden-Harris for inflation, perhaps pointing to his Infrastructure Investment Act or aid to Ukraine. "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" A large number of people would say they are worse off.

The response from Harris voters might be that inflation was primarily a consequence of the pandemic and was worldwide, thus not a product of Biden's presidency. For debates over aid to Ukraine, see below. Some might also claim that the economy is actually healthier now than it was four years ago with unemployment down and the stock market up. Most economists see Trump's tariffs as ultimately harmful to the American consumer and the economy.

Israel
There is no doubt that Trump will be more pro-Israel than Harris. As before, Trump would likely support Netanyahu in whatever he might do.

Biden-Harris have pleased neither side in the current conflict. An apparently Elon-Musk-supported group has in fact run opposite ads in Michigan and Pennsylvania. In Michigan, they have painted Harris as a pro-Israel person who has opposed the Palestinians. In Pennsylvania, they have painted her as a pro-Palestinian person who has opposed Israel. In any case, the official response is that they have (unsuccessfully) been trying to get aid into Gaza, secure the release of any remaining hostages, and end the conflict.

Socialism
Harris is likely seen as an advocate for any number of policies that are further on the socialist scale than is desirable. The continuance/strengthening of Obamacare. More regulations on business. Strengthening of central government services. Attempts to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. More climate change regulation. More oversight of education and drag on private education/voucher systems. Attempts at gun control. 

The opposite side might argue that she will not be able to do any more than Biden has been able to do, given the normal grind of government and a divided Congress. Republicans may even retake the Senate, in which case she will probably get little done at all of her own agenda. Others might say that some of these initiatives actually align with biblical values.

Ukraine
Those voting for Harris might claim that Trump would have simply let Putin take over Ukraine and then go on to take over who knows what else. Trump's claim to end the war on Day 1 is seen as him as likely handing it over to Russia. To Harris supporters, this makes Trump incredibly dangerous for world stability. They might argue that Trump actually worsened the Middle East situation considerably by withdrawing from the Iran agreement.

Trump supporters deny that Trump has any sympathy for Putin and in fact supported sanctions on him that Congress passed when he was president. Others might even see Ukraine as the bad guy and Putin as a positive force in the region. Trump supporters see Trump's withdrawal from the Iran deal as a positive -- being strong with our enemies. Others might say that America needs to get out of foreign affairs even more and focus on those at home. 

_____________________________

This is an attempt to present the two Christian perspectives somewhat fairly. I would sum up the two sides in this way. 

• One side sees Trump as a danger to the fundamentals of the country and the stability of the world. It sees hateful vitriol toward immigrants, opponents, and minorities as disqualifying. 
• The other side believes that abortion remains the central issue for a Christian in this election. Harris has made it clear that she wants to make abortion the law of the land. They might also argue that the appraisal of Trump's danger is overstated. 
• On the other issues, there is disagreement on whether various information is true or false and what the core Christian values are.
• Many Christians will choose not to vote at all, concluding that both sides are too unthinkable to support.

Feel free to point out any flaws in this presentation, to augment it, and of course, feel free to disagree.

5.1 (Jesus would vote) ... To Restrain Evil

In chapter 3, we said that loving your neighbor on a societal level would involve at least three components: 1) working for the greatest good for the greatest number (chapter 3), 2) ... without hurting the rest (chapter 4), and 3) restraining those forces that work against both. In this chapter, we want to explore what it might mean to say that at least in some cases, Jesus would "vote" to restrain the forces of evil.

What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD)
1. From the very beginning, I noted that Jesus came to a specific time and place in history. I argued that some of his teaching reflected that context. For example, he didn't tell his followers to vote in the next Roman election because, well, there weren't any elections.

Jesus took a "Christ against culture" stance because it was not appropriate at that time either to give in to the world ("Christ in culture") or to try to take over the world ("Christ over culture"). [1] His disciples, I would argue, wanted to take over the world (Acts 1:6). By contrast, he and the other New Testament authors advocated living separately from the culture as exiles and strangers -- foreign immigrants in the empire. They lived as part of another kingdom: the kingdom of God. They were in the world but not of the world.

Accordingly, when we ask, "WWJD?" there are times when we are asking something that does not relate directly to our world. Jesus might give slightly different instructions to us today in our context. The principles would be the same, but the precise way those principles play out might be a little different.

For example, Jesus submitted to injustice. He had Peter put his sword away in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:11). Depending on your interpretation of Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus either advocated submission to oppressors or passive resistance. [2] What is clear is that he did not instruct his disciples to fight.

The Gospels do seem to indicate a significant conflict between the forces of God and evil on the Day of the Lord. For example, the book of Revelation, there is a final battle between the forces of God and the forces of the world at the battle of Armageddon (16:14). It is not a long battle.

However, it is difficult to find any place in the New Testament where believers are encouraged or expected to fight. Some metaphorical imagery is used -- fight the good fight (1 Tim. 6:12), put on the armor of God (Eph. 6:10-18). At one point Jesus does tell his disciples to go buy a sword (Luke 22:36). But he is not likely being literal here. When they say they already have two swords, he says, "It's enough" (22:38). 

In fact, in the parallel passage in Matthew 26:52, he tells the one who cut the ear of the servant off to put his sword away. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." The bottom line is that we nowhere find Jesus promoting or expecting his followers to fight. It is quite the opposite. In Luke 22:36, is likely that Jesus is warning them about upcoming conflict and persecution, not literally telling them to fight. 

I do not personally think that this is full pacifism. Why then would his disciples have any swords at all? They likely had them to defend themselves in case someone tried to rob or hurt them. My sense is that Jesus had a strong bias toward peace, even a bias to suffer personally rather than to strive for personal justice. That's what he modeled and what his words emphasize. Indeed, the burden of proof is on me to show that Jesus sometimes thought fighting could be appropriate. Nevertheless, I doubt that Jesus was an absolutist on his advocacy for personal pacifism.

What Would God Do? (WWGD)
2. The New Testament seems to have a different view of government. Unlike the individual, to whom Jesus advocates a bias toward suffering over fighting, the New Testament expects government to restrain evil, including the use of force. We should note that the New Testament assumes the government is not Christian.

The clearest example of this assumption is Romans 13. Here is the key verse in this regard:

Textbox: "For it is a servant of God for your good, and be afraid if you should do evil, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is a servant of God for wrath toward the one doing evil" (13:4).

This text not only assumes that the state will use force to enact justice -- it seems to assume capital punishment as one of the options! We will return to that question later in the book.

We have already argued that Paul is idealizing the Roman government here. He knows it frequently does not turn out like the ideal. We know that governments are not always just in their decisions -- even in Paul's own case. He is instructing the Roman church to be ideal citizens and perhaps also giving them a brief in their favor if they get in trouble with the Romans again.

Nevertheless, what I would argue is that, if we were to form an earthly government, the more fitting biblical model to follow is God the Father. Jesus was a model for us as individual believers, especially in a context hostile to us and where we are oppressed or isolated in society. For governance, the more fitting model in Scripture is that of God the Father. In other words, we should ask "What would God do?" (WWGD) more than "What would Jesus do?" (WWJD).

Textbox: Jesus is a model for us as individual believers (WWJD). However, God the Father is the more likely model for biblical governance (WWGD).

3. Once again, one's sense of God comes massively into play. In the previous chapter, we presented a contrast between how Calvinist approaches to God and how Arminian theology tends to see his governance. Deterministic approaches to God tend to have a "take over governance" approach while Arminian theology tends to have a "let them go" approach. 

In the previous chapter, we suggested that the US Constitution overlaps considerably with the Arminian model. God gives us the freedom to disobey him just as the US Constitution allows people of multiple faiths to freely practice their faith as long as they do not hurt anyone. We argued that the US Constitution uses the concept of a social contract to enact laws for the common good. These "common good laws" justify prohibitions on murder, stealing, and so forth without resorting to specifically religious assumptions.  

Interestingly, the biblical expectation for governmental justice is actually more restrictive than the way God governs the world much of the time. God allows people to murder all the time -- often without immediate consequence. God allows people to steal and do all manner of evil all the time. God frequently does not restrain evil at this moment, although we believe there will be a judgment eventually. And sometimes God does intervene in judgment now in history.

We will talk about God and justice in the next section. For the moment, what does the Bible expect governments to do in regard to civil justice?

4. While much of specific Old Testament Law related to an Ancient Near Eastern context, the basic categories of enforcement are largely timeless. [3] For millennia, the specific commandments of the Jewish Law have been categorized in relation to the Ten Commandments. [4] There are thus laws in relation to violence toward others. There are laws relating to sexual behavior. There are laws relating to property. There are laws relating to the justice process itself.

Given the parameters of the social contract in the Constitution, only common good laws can be applied to US law, not religiously-specific law. Again, we have argued this fits with an Arminian sense of how God governs the world. When we apply this lens, laws relating to the sole worship of Yahweh, not working on the Sabbath, and sexual ethics (as long as harm is not brought to another) seem to fall under the category of "religiously-specific law."

Of course, the US in the past has had laws that applied such laws to its general populace. Blue laws prohibited certain activities on Sunday, which of course is not the Old Testament Sabbath. Laws against adultery and homosexuality used to be on the books and, in some cases, still are, although generally they are not enforced. You could argue that the Constitution -- when practiced strictly -- should not allow for laws that are solely based on a Christian perspective.

On the other hand, laws against murder, rape, assault, and theft seem to fall in the category of "common good" or "social contract" law. The commandment not to bear false witness seems to have related to the equivalent of ancient court. Laws thus that set up and maintain justice are thus both biblical and fit under the category of "common law."

5. In these broad ways, therefore, both the biblical and American approach to governance anticipate that the state will play a role in the restraining of evil. The case of ancient Israel was different from that of America, because the leaders of Israel were expected not only to guard against common injustice but also to lead the people of Israel to keep Yahweh's specific covenant with them. This covenant did include everything from Sabbath observance to the exclusive worship of Yahweh.

Yet this is not the situation in America and there obviously is no biblical basis for considering America to be a new Israel. America is not mentioned in the Bible. [5] Even if some group believed it was Christian to try to take over America, the objective position of the United States Constitution would consider any attempt to enforce religiously-specific law as contrary to America's founding principles -- as "unAmerican."

The common ground is that the United States government will restrain "common good" evil. That is to say, it will restrain violence toward others, the damaging and theft of the property of others, and other harms or impingements on the "rights" of others. It will maintain a system of justice to make sure the social contract is implemented.

The state thus has a justice system and a police force to maintain the social contract. Romans 13 assumes that these will be state-administered. Does the state run these things perfectly? Of course not. Is it a "socialism" that needs to be undone? Certainly not. It does not always work, and it certainly has not always worked in the past. However, when you look back through history, it is an amazing privilege. We work to perfect it. We dare not try to dismantle it.

[1] Once again, I'm using the categories of H. Richard Niebuhr in Christ and Culture (Harper & Brothers, 1951).

[2] Walter Wink has argued that all of the responses Jesus gives in these verses would have brought shame to the oppressor. They would thus be non-violent resistance. See Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Fortress, 1992). 

[3] R. J. Rushdoony's "theonomic" approach fails to read those laws not only in their biblical context but in their historical-cultural context. He tries to apply the concrete specifics of Old Testament Law to today in The Institutes of Biblical Law (Chalcedon, 1973).

[4] See my own attempt to do so in Christian Ethics: Wesleyan-Arminian Reflections (2023).

[5] In context, Old Testament references to the "islands of the sea" were not about America (Isa. 42:4).

_____________________________________________

Here is the series so far:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?

2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen
2.2 We're citizens in two kingdoms

3.1 (He would vote) for love of neighbor and enemy
3.2 (He would vote) for the greater good
Test Case: Health Care (under revision)

4.1 (For the greater good) ... Without Hurting the Rest
4.2 The Separation of Church and State
Test Case: Education

Test Case: Education

Links to previous posts are now at the bottom. Chapter 4 continues in the series, "What Would Jesus Vote?" with the test case of education.

_____________________________________________

Jesus Principles
1. So what core principles might Jesus bring to bear in relation to the education of a people. What is the purpose of education? I believe he would have prioritized faith education.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 tells the parents of Israel to teach the commandments of the Law to their children. Similarly, Deuteronomy 4:9-10 instructs parents to pass stories about God's mighty works on to their children. No doubt this teaching is part of the training of children that Proverbs 22:6 talks about.

Textbook: Proverbs 22:6

The New Testament assumes this training took place for Jewish children. 2 Timothy 3:15 indicates that Timothy had been trained in the Scriptures from childhood. Christian fathers (and mothers) are expected to raise up their children in the instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). It is no surprise that, in late 1700s England, the "Sunday School" movement began with the goal of systematically teaching the children of England about God and the Bible. The movement would jump the pond to America as well.

Surely, then, Jesus would have been in favor of children being taught the scriptures. Why was this important? It was important because God is the most important thing. All other importance is derivative from God's importance. More than anything else, Scripture teaches us about God. Scripture teaches us the stories of God and, thereby, the nature of God. Scripture reveals God as holy, God as love, and God as just.

Textbox: Jesus would have prioritized faith education.

2. From a psychological standpoint, a child is not yet mentally capable of abstract or critical thinking on a high level. Teaching at this age is an important kind of imprinting of values and beliefs. The values that are instilled at a young age will be hard to shake. They are intuitive and unthinking. We default to them without even knowing why. They are in our "guts."

C. S. Lewis went through a period of time when he was an atheist. What brought him back to God, kicking and screaming? It did involve an intellectual argument. But even more, it was the fact that good and evil were concepts in his bones. He just couldn't bring himself to believe that good wasn't real, and it was this sense of the reality of good and evil that eventually brought him back to God.

It is much more difficult to instill values with such depth once a person gets older. I would say it is almost impossible to do by way of reason. Dramatic experiences have the best chance, I would say -- experiences of God or personal experiences. The bottom line is that faith education is extremely important for children from a Christian perspective.

3. Is faith education something for the government to do or something for the church to do? For example, should the Ten Commandments and the Bible be taught in public schools?

On the one hand, I personally don't think that it would contradict the "non-establishment clause" of the Constitution to teach the Ten Commandments or the Bible in school. These can and often are taught in a non-partisan way -- for example, the Bible as literature, the Ten Commandments as a historical legal text, etc. Might God speak to children through the text itself even if the teacher was not using the Bible to promote Jewish or Christian faith?

We also have to consider the opposite possibility. When the State of Oklahoma requires the Bible to be taught in its public schools, how will it be taught? I imagine that many public school teachers in Oklahoma are Christians and would teach the Bible quite positively. But could there also be instances where the Bible would be taught in such a way that children would think of Bible stories like Greek and Roman myths? State standards probably cannot constitutionally treat the Bible as inspired Scripture. What would it look like?

Would some places then feel the need to introduce students to the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc so as not to "establish" a religion? Would Indiana kids be pushed toward Christianity and California kids away from it?

I personally think the responsibility for teaching the Bible should primarily lie with churches. Whether it be a children's church or Sunday School, churches should intentionally teach students both the content of the Bible as well as the proper theology, ethics, and values that come from its proper interpretation. That means an intentional curriculum and the best practices of teaching. 

4. The Gospels don't give us any teaching from Jesus on the general education of children or youth that was not faith-related. Jesus did of course value children -- more than his disciples did (Matt. 19:13-15). So it is clear that Jesus would want the best possible upbringing for children that is possible. That plays into the second part of our journey -- the greatest good for our children. 

For the Public Good
5. Where did American public education come from? Public education itself began in New England where the Puritans rightfully wanted to make sure that young people knew the Bible (more accurately, their understanding of the Bible). Then the American public school system arose in the 1800s. 

In keeping with the "neutral zone" concept, individuals like Horace Mann (1796-1859) started a "common school movement." The goal was to provide universal, free, non-sectarian public education with a professional guild of teachers. 

If we dig back into the background of utilitarianism and capitalism, both assumed that these systems would not work properly without an educated populace. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism, was emphatic on the need for the people to be educated so that they would know what the greater good actually is. He viewed misinformation as a major potential problem that could prevent the greater good from happening. 

So he was a major influence in the founding of University College London, and he donated his body to the university upon his death. The remnants of his body were prominently displayed there to help fight what he thought were superstitions about death.

Similarly, Adam Smith's concept of capitalism assumed that the consumer knew what product was in his or her best interest. I believe he would strongly approve of something like the Better Business Bureau to help us know when we are being scammed. The bottom line is that democracy just doesn't work if those who are voting are not informed or are susceptible to deception and manipulation. The current susceptibility of the American populace to conspiracies, misinformation, and media manipulation is a major danger to democracy.

6. Certainly, Horace Mann's "non-sectarian" education did not mean "moral free" or value free. Morality was a key feature of public school teaching in the 1800s, and Judeo-Christian values as understood by the culture of that day were the name of the game. 

From the "separation of church and state" perspective, the teaching of values in public school is a little tricky. But I believe it is still very possible and actually quite important. What are we talking about here? 

We are talking about things like respect for life and believing in the equal value of others. Looking down on the "other" is (fallen) human nature. We are herd animals and naturally (after the Fall) devalue other herds. Prejudice, racism, sexism -- these are all predictable human patterns and behaviors since Adam.

It will take some work to teach our children to value those who are not like them. Ideally, we drill the value of others into our children. Once they leave our schools, they will be free to hate whomever they want -- and they regularly do. But just maybe we can instill into their consciences something deep down that will work against these forces within ourselves and human society once they grow up.

Respect for the property of others is another common value both in Christianity and the American social contract. Honesty and integrity are important for human thriving. These values and others can be taught without privileging a particular religious perspective.

7. However, some argue to the contrary that the danger that public schools will "mis-form" our children is very real. Fearing that their children would be taught everything from evolution to the normalcy of LGBTQ lifestyles, many parents have turned to homeschooling or private Christian schools. The reality of such fears no doubt will vary from place to place. 

At the beginning of this school year, there was a rumor going around my own town that the public schools were putting kitty litter in middle school bathrooms for students who identified as "cats." This was quite a hilarious (and ludicrous) claim. But many Americans seem very susceptible to these sorts of rumors. Most American teachers take their jobs very seriously and are committed to a quite normal -- even at times boring -- education.

There are countries where homeschooling is against the law out of the opposite fear, namely, that families will promote ideas and values that are harmful to children and the country. The two times that my family lived in Germany for several months, our children were required to attend public school even though we were Americans only temporarily in the country. The Germans fear that something like the Nazism of the past might rise again if homeschooling were allowed.

America tries to balance the freedom of individuals and families to educate their children their own way with the public concern that its children don't grow up to be terrorists. An alleged attempt is made to educate our children neutrally in public schools while individual families are allowed to homeschool and private schools are also fully allowed. Very broad, non-sectarian state standards are meant to provide a baseline standard for all these venues. 

In theory, public education is meant to be non-sectarian. That would generally mean teaching widely accepted, evidence-based knowledge that reflects expert consensus. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because creationism was religious in nature. In the 2005 federal district court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the judge ruled that intelligent design was also a form of religious teaching and could not be required in public schools alongside evolution.

Many Christians believe that such teaching is actually anti-Christian bias rather than "non-sectarian." Accordingly, many Christians have turned away from the public school system. Nevertheless, many public school teachers are Christians and do not teach with an anti-Christian bias. In other places, there probably are teachers who promote values in conflict with Christianity. It really depends on where you are and who the teacher is.

8. What would Jesus "vote" with regard to public education? I believe he would want every child to have an opportunity to thrive, and a good education plays a major role in that possibility. In theory, we could completely privatize education. This might lose the value of the public school system as (at least in theory) a neutral zone. In general, the public system seems like a good default that fits with the non-establishment clause of the Constitution. 

It is not without its problems and challenges. For example, public schools have a reputation for ever-changing standards and methods. It can seem that the state is trying something new all the time, jerking teachers and students around every year. Then there is the politics of education, where teachers and students get caught in the cross-hairs of politicians at the state house beating their chests over some alleged atrocity, trying to score points with various voters. Meanwhile, the teachers just want to do their jobs.

The bureaucratization of public teaching is also real. I heard recently of an eighth-grade math teacher who was required by the state to teach exponents when her students couldn't even multiply yet and, in one case, didn't even know all the numbers. So there is the idealism of the state house versus the on-the-ground reality of the students sitting in front of you (if they are sitting). Unfortunately, it is usually the lower socio-economic student who ends up in the worst schools with the least resources and the largest challenges. The difficulties come from the students' home environment and rarely have anything to do with the tireless teachers, whose burnout rates can be astounding.

I see the public school system especially as an educational safety net for "the least of these" (Matt. 25:45). The wealthy and privileged will always get the education they want. If for no other reason, public education is there for those who otherwise wouldn't get much education. And education is still the best path out of an impoverished context. At this point, public education seems to overlap strongly with the values of Jesus.

In my view, the challenges of public education shouldn't lead us to throw the baby out with the bath water. Private schools and homeschooling have their own potential challenges. For example, the number of private schools rose dramatically during the time of desegregation ("segregation academies"). Although it was not the only factor, it seems incontestable that racism was a factor in the spike in private schools in the late 60s and 70s. For a long time, homeschooling was largely done by white, middle-class, Christian families. However, this is increasingly changing.

America also is not immune to the fears that have led Germany to prohibit homeschooling. When you think of some polygamist Mormon groups, they homeschooled their children to indoctrinate them in the particular beliefs of their sect. From a secular or Christian perspective, these were not healthy situations. Similarly, the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas did not let their children attend public school, but children received whatever little education they had there at the compound.

I personally believe that we can continue to support both public and private education while doing everything we can to overcome their challenges. On the one hand, public education seems like an appropriate use of our taxes -- especially for the "least of these." As we argued in relation to health care, a properly Christian perspective is not just concerned with what I get for my taxes but with what others get as well. At least in theory, public education is for the common good.

At first glance, voucher programs make sense because the parents of those students are paying taxes for their children's education. Shouldn't they be able to use their tax money for education however they want? At the same time, it seems important not to "starve" public education. It makes sense that public education would be the first priority of the state since it is meant to provide a baseline for an educated citizenry. 

As we get into the details, the voices of C. F. H. Henry and Richard Mouw are in my head, warning me about wading too deep into controversies on which I am not an expert and on which authentic Christians disagree. My primary goal was to identify what Jesus' values would be in relation to education. Here, I believe that 1) Jesus would want everyone to have access to a quality education. 2) I believe Jesus would strongly reject any system that devalued any "lost sheep" while privileging those with means. Finally, 3) Jesus would not want to empower forces that work against the good. Then begins the debate over what those forces are.

_____________________________________________

Here is the series so far:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?

2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen
2.2 We're citizens in two kingdoms

3.1 (He would vote) for love of neighbor and enemy
3.2 (He would vote) for the greater good
Test Case: Health Care (under revision)

4.1 (For the greater good) ... Without Hurting the Rest
4.2 The Separation of Church and State

4.2 Separation of Church and State

More of chapter 4 in the series, "What Would Jesus Vote?" The chapter began by showing how the US Bill of Rights tries to protect individuals against the whims of the majority. 

Here is the series so far:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?

2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen
2.2 We're citizens in two kingdoms

3.1 (He would vote) for love of neighbor and enemy
3.2 (He would vote) for the greater good
Test Case: Health Care (under revision)

4.1 (For the greater good) ... Without Hurting the Rest

_____________________________________________

... But would Jesus "vote" for it [the US Bill of Rights]? We've talked about how the US system balances out the greatest good for the greatest number with protections for individuals. How does this secular system compare with Jesus' kingdom way of looking at people in the world? 

Rights versus the Image of God
4. It seems to me that both Christian values and the US Constitution get to a similar destination, but they get there by a different path. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that God has endowed all humanity with "certain inalienable rights." He speaks especially of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He is saying that every human being has a right to his or her life. Every human deserves to be free to pursue whatever he or she wants.

Obviously, he didn't mean that these freedoms were absolute or without exception. For example, Jefferson believed in the death penalty. Similarly, Jefferson didn't believe I was free to kill whomever I wanted. 

How is Jefferson's vision for human rights the same and/or different from Jesus'? The very heart of the difference is that Jefferson's vision of rights is "me" and human-centered. Me-me-me. I have a right to my life. I have a right to do whatever makes me happy. It's a freedom for me.

By contrast, for the Christian, human value is always derived from God. We have value because we are created in the image of God. Every human life is valuable because it is a reflection of God. God loves every human life. Therefore, every human life has dignity.

There is a good deal of overlap here. In both approaches, every human life must be protected. However, the secular version detaches us from the reason why we are valuable. Jefferson was a deist who only saw God as the creator. He did not see God in a current relationship with the world. He had no real concept of God's love for us today.

But Jesus is still very much in contact with the world! God still loves the world. God still wants the world to be reconciled to him. Apart from God, we are nothing. Yet even the most hardened criminal is still tethered to God as created in his image and loved by him. God did not create us for the pursuit of happiness in separation from him.

As a Christian, I prefer not to speak in terms of human rights. I'm not saying that Christians can't use this language. It is just easy to lose sight of why "rights" exist and where they come from. Any sense of human rights should ultimately point back to God. If we speak of rights apart from God, we can begin to get who we are out of perspective. We become the center of things. We become the goal of everything rather than God.

Further, on what basis could we speak of human rights apart from God? If we strictly think of America as a social contract, then my rights are simply something we have all agreed on. Apart from God, those rights aren't real. They're just something we've shaken hands over.

In this way, a Judeo-Christian grounding of human rights both gives them substance and makes clear that they ultimately point back to God's love for us. We are created in God's image, and that is what makes every human life valuable. We get to the same destination by a slightly different path.

But, in separation from its Christian grounding, our talk of rights will gravitate toward self-centeredness. For Jesus, human value is a result of God's love. It is a gift, not something we can demand or that we have coming to us. It's not strictly ours. It's God's value in us.

Secular versus Christian Freedom
5. That brings us to another question. Is American liberty the same or different from how Jesus might conceive of our freedom?

Let's start with how Christian faith looks at human freedom. There is actually some disagreement among Christians on human freedom. On the one hand, orthodox faith holds that all human beings are fallen. Historic Christian faith believes that none of us can come to God in our own power or by our own merit. Many Christians use the language of "total depravity" for the default state of fallen humanity. From the standpoint of historic Christianity, we do not have "free will" by default.

Beyond that, Christians are divided into two broad groups on whether God has acted to restore some degree of freedom in us. On the one hand, some believe that God determines everything, and everything that happens is scripted by God. "Everything happens for a reason." Everything is predestined or determined to happen. This group in effect does not believe we have any real freedom at all. We are simply God's puppets. [1]

The other group -- into which I fall -- believes that God empowers us to have some degree of freedom restored to us. The first group heavily consists of what we might call "Calvinists." This group, following the teaching of John Calvin (1509-64), does not believe that we have any real freedom at all. My own tradition, the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, would be an example of those who believe God empowers us to choose to receive his grace. God empowers our freedom.

Textbox: I believe that God empowers us to choose to receive his grace. God empowers at least some degree of true human freedom.

These underlying views of human freedom can play significantly into our views of how our Christian faith should engage the culture around us. We often have unexamined assumptions about how we should act in the world without even knowing it. Yet these assumptions are fundamental to how we behave politically.

The "Take Over" Mindset
6. When John Calvin set up shop in Geneva, Switzerland in the 1500s, his understanding of God and his laws became identical with the laws of Geneva. If you lived in the city, you not only had to be a Christian, you had to be a Calvinist Christian. This is a model that Richard Niebuhr called "Christ over culture." [2] It assumes that the goal of the Christian is effectively to take over the state. At the very least, Christians should try to make the laws of the land mirror the laws of the Bible (called a "theonomic" view). [3]

This is a pattern we have seen in various Calvinist groups over the last five hundred years. You frequently hear people say that the Puritans came to America in pursuit of religious freedom. But this is misleading. They did not advocate religious freedom. They believed everyone should worship God the way they did. They only wanted freedom for themselves -- who had all the right answers that everyone else needed to agree with.

In the mid-1600s, the Puritans took over England under Oliver Cromwell and immediately tried to make everyone in England follow their understanding of the Christian faith. For example, they tried to abolish the celebration of Christmas and other things like sporting on Sundays. 

Once they became established in New England, the Puritans similarly expected religious conformity to their understanding. In 1636, they kicked Roger Williams out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony because he didn't conform to Puritan values. Two years later, in 1638, they similarly kicked Anne Hutchinson out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony because she didn't conform to their views on women. The situation in New England would eventually force them to be more tolerant of others, but it was never their preference.

Here we get to a fundamentally different view of America's founding. Some today have what I might call a neo-Puritan view of America's founding. They see these Puritans with their ideologies as effectively the real founders of the United States. Making America great again is to get back to something like an idealized Puritan America. David Barton is probably the best-known history writer to argue that the founders of America intentionally founded America on biblical principles as a Christian nation. [4] This is a minority view. [5]

7. Another example of the "Christ over culture" approach is that of the "New Apostolic Reformation" (NAR) movement with its "Seven Mountains" mandate. Rather than coming from a hard Calvinist angle, this movement has grown out of the charismatic movement and the work of Peter Wagner in particular. [6] Taking a somewhat "postmillennial" view, this movement looks for Christians to infiltrate and effectively take over seven "mountains" of culture (based on Revelation 17:9). [7] These are religion, family, education, government, media, arts and entertainment, and business.

You can see an overlap between those sometimes called Christian nationalists and those who might consider themselves part of this movement. However, it would be possible to distinguish these from those some we mentioned in chapter 2 who might inadvertently worship America. This group wants Christ to take over America and make it Christian -- their understanding of what "Christian" is. While they may or may not think that America was ever the America of their vision, they want to make it now into their understanding of what a Christian America should be. They want to change America.

The "Let Them Go" Mindset
8. On the surface, the idea of taking over America for Christ may sound ideal. Then we could set up a "theocracy" where God rules the country in a new Israel, if you would.

The problem is that it never turns out this way.  With the exception of Moses and Joshua, God is never the real ruler in earthly theocracies. For example, there is always someone who is interpreting what God says. It's a great gig for a priest. The priest (or priests) come to the people and say, "Here's what God wants us to do." It's actually the kind of setup that they have in Iran, with an Ayatolla to interpret the will of Allah.

This is one of the subtle facts about the Bible that a lot of people don't fully reckon with -- it has to be interpreted. We give ourselves great authority when we say, "This is what the Bible says." If we're not careful, we might forget that what we're really saying, "This is what I or we think the Bible means." The same of course goes for this book.

Whenever the state and religion get too aligned, bad things seem to happen. For the Roman Empire, when Christianity became the official religion of the empire, all the non-Christian religions and forces within the empire simply went underground and pretended to be Christian. The result was "syncretism," when elements that are actually contrary to Christianity get fused with Christianity. We talked about syncretism in chapter 2.

In the days following the Protestant Reformation, the fusion of the church and state led to the oppression of Christians who had a different view from the particular Christian group in charge somewhere. Roman Catholics burned Protestants at the stake. Anglicans and Presbyterians burned Roman Catholics at the stake. Calvinists put non-Calvinists to death. Followers of Zwingli put Anabaptists to death. The Puritans also put to death those who didn't tow their line.

It may not be an authentic quote, but there is a story about Charles Spurgeon being asked why the Baptists never burned anyone at the stake. In the story, his answer was that the Baptists were never in charge. In other words, the story insinuates that they would have if they had ever been in charge.    

9. My own tradition has a different view of how God interacts with the world. In my view, the most serious problem with hyper-deterministic ideologies is that, for all intents and purposes, they make God directly responsible for every evil that has ever happened. Technically, you can speak of first and second order causes, but there is no resistance between the two. It is like me doing something with a broom and blaming the broom. 

Calvin himself at least believed that Satan and Adam had a free choice, and thus that the evil choices of all who have followed are the inevitable consequences of depravity. But originally, humanity had something to do with the choices we now inevitably make. But in hyper-deterministic versions of Calvinism like that of John Piper, God is always the hand in the puppet. 

If "everything happens for a reason," then God's hand makes the puppet be a serial killer or rape a child. Name the most horrific act you can imagine and a fully deterministic system makes God responsible. In fact, Satan himself is simply God's puppet, doing everything God commands him to do down to the very last detail. In this scenario, the problem of evil is insurmountable, and any concept of God's love is mutated beyond recognition. God doesn't really love the world. He just loves the elect. 

Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) recognized these potential problems with Calvinism in the early 1600s and proposed a modified understanding. In particular, he proposed that, while humanity was powerless to do good by default, God empowered us potentially to respond positively to his grace. Thus, we have the potential to have a God-empowered freedom to live righteously if we allow God's Spirit to fill us.

Both Calvin and Arminius were arguably filling in the blanks of the New Testament with regard to human freedom. Calvin supposed that those parts of the Bible that make it sound like we are free are not really how it works. We only think we are free. Arminius supposed that those parts of the Bible that make it sound like we are determined are not really how it works. God has predetermined the plan, not the destiny of each individual.

This latter approach helps rescue the so-called "free will theodicy." A "theodicy" is an explanation for how a good God can allow horrific evil to persist. In the free will or Augustinian theodicy, God allows evil to continue because he has given humanity a choice (especially Adam). But if God gives humanity a choice, some will make the wrong choice and there will be evil and suffering. It is not a perfect explanation, but it is far better than God dictating all the evil that happens directly.

In this Arminian approach, God allows the wicked to persist for a time -- often for centuries. In his sovereignty, he allows the world he created to disobey him. He does not force anyone to come to him. As in Romans 1:28, God lets the wicked spiral out of control to their own ultimate demise. He "let's them go."

10. This Arminian model fits very nicely with the way the US Constitution sets out the relationship between religion and the state. As with our discussion of American rights above, it gets to a similar destination by a different means. It is no coincidence that John Wesley (1703-91) -- a chief promulgator of this view of human freedom -- lived during the Enlightenment period out of which the US Constitution also came.

You could argue that, to a large extent, the US Constitution presents a model that "let's us go." The state is a kind of neutral zone. It's not supposed to take sides on specifically religious matters. It gives all individuals the freedom of religion and forbids itself from establishing a particular religion for the country.

... while protecting the rest. For example, your religion is not allowed to sacrifice other human beings. My freedom of religion cannot impinge on the "rights" of others. If my religion says that you cannot work on Sunday, I am free to practice my religion that way and not work on Sunday. But I can't force everyone else not to work on Sunday because that would be to force a specifically religious view on others.

If we follow this line of thought out, it can get tricky for Christians. For example, if we are to pass legislation that is opposed to gay marriage, we will have to do it without using Christian beliefs as the basis for it. If we are to pass legislation prohibiting abortion from the moment of conception, we will have to do it without using Christian beliefs as the basis for it. In this understanding of the Constitution, we are free to practice our specific religious beliefs as we choose. But the Constitution would not allow us to make them into law unless we can justify them by other than religious means. 

A popular way of expressing this concept is to say that you "cannot legislate morality." But this is not exactly right either. After all, the law prohibits things like murder and stealing, which from a Christian standpoint is legislating morality. However, from a secular standpoint, these laws are enforcing the social contract rather than enforcing morality. The basic social contract of the US involves an agreement that I will not kill you or take your stuff. We both have tacitly agreed to this set up. [8] From the standpoint of the Constitution, these laws are simply part of the arrangement we have agreed upon.

I would argue that this is how God governs the world most of the time. God allows the people of the world to disbelieve in him. This does not threaten his sovereignty because it is his choice. Don't tell him that he can't do it! God allows people to disobey him to a point. Eventually, he hits the reset button for humanity's own good. More on restraining evil in the next chapter.

This is a different sense of God and America than the Calvinist one. The Calvinist approach tends to force conformity to God's will and believes that is how God himself relates to the world. The Arminian approach believes that God draws all people to him (John 12:32). He gives them a choice. Similarly, this approach to governance gives people freedom as long as they do not violate the basic social contract. 

Separation of Church and State
11. You can see that we are building a case for the separation of church and state. Most historians would say that the founders of the US were keenly aware of the tendency of a state religion to oppress and persecute those who were of a different stripe. In the background of the thirteen original colonies, you had states with a Puritan background (Massachusetts), Catholic-leaning states (Maryland), Anglican states (Virginia), states with a Reformed background (New York), and even Quaker-founded states (Pennsylvania). The "non-establishment clause" in the First Amendment suggested that the US should be a neutral zone in which all of these could coexist.

And of course, there were non-Christians whom this non-establishment clause allowed to live peacefully here. For example, New York and Rhode Island had a significant Jewish population. As many as 70-90% of the American population may not even have practiced any religion at all prior to the Great Awakening in the 1730s. At the time of the Revolutionary War, as much as 50-60% of the American populace did not attend church.

The diversity of religion today in America is thus more different in degree rather than kind from the original situation. It is true that some in America have made the idea of the separation of church and state an almost anti-religious sentiment. That also goes against what the founders intended. Rather the goal would seem to be peaceful coexistence of different religions and Christian denominations. The goal is not to eliminate religion from the public sphere but not to enforce one religious perspective over another.

According to most historians, America was founded to be this way. True, many of the key founders of the United States were Christians (e.g., John Jay). But most of the key players were deists who believed God created the world but was not much involved with it at present (e.g., Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington). The majority view is that these founders were strong advocates for a separation between the church and the state, an expression that comes from Thomas Jefferson.

[1] Determinists can speak of freedom, but it is a perceived freedom not a real freedom. That is, we think we are free even though we're not. This is a distinction without a difference because I still have to do everything I do and cannot possibly choose otherwise.

[2] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (Harper & Brothers, 1951).

[3] The theonomic view 1) largely ignores the way the New Testament applies the Old Testament through the lens of Christ, 2) does not see that much of the Old Testament teaching is not applied to Gentile believers and 3) does not read Old Testament law against the backdrop of its ancient Near Eastern context. It thus fails 1) as a Christian reading of Scripture, 2) to listen to the New Testament, and 3) as a contextual reading of the Bible. The most important modern voice behind such theonomic readings of the Bible was R. J. Rushdooney, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Chalcedon, 1973).

[4] E.g., David Barton and Tim Barton, The American Story, 2nd ed. (Wallbuilder, 2020).

[5] A good example of push back against this understanding would be Steven K. Green, Inventing Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding (Oxford University, 2017). Another example is Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation (Zondervan, 2007). 

[6] C. Peter Wagner, Churchquake: How the New Apostolic Movement Is Shaking Up the Church as We Know It (Baker, 1999). More recently, see Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson, Invading Babylon: The 7 Mountain Mandate (Destiny Image, 2013).

[7] Revelation 17:9 was obviously about Rome in its original context. Anyone in John's day in Asia Minor hearing about kings on seven hills would automatically think of Rome and its emperors. In fact, these verses may be the "decoder ring" to dating the book of Revelation.

[8] This is John Locke's concept of "tacit" or silent consent. If you live here, you agree to the rules even though you never signed up for them.

4.1 (Jesus would vote) ... Without Hurting the Rest

On to chapter 4 in the series, "What Would Jesus Vote?" The idea that Jesus would vote for the greater good needs to be balanced with an even stronger concern that the individual be protected from the whims of the majority.

Here is the series so far:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?
2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen
2.2 We're citizens in two kingdoms
3.1 (He would vote) for love of neighbor and enemy
3.2 (He would vote) for the greater good
3.3 Test Case: Health Care

_____________________________________________

Without Hurting the Rest
1. In the previous chapter, I may have surprised you by taking a generally positive view of utilitarianism -- "the greatest good for the greatest number." After all, sometimes something is good for most people but, in the process, harms a few.

For example, let's say there is a hostage standoff. There are twenty hostages, and the person holding them hostage is using one of them as a human shield. A shooter is confident that, if he shoots through the person being used as a shield, he can get the bad guy, and the other nineteen will be saved. What do you do?

In general, ethicists -- especially a Christian ethicist -- would say you can't just kill an innocent person to save the other nineteen. You may have heard the saying, "The end doesn't justify the means." It's the sense that a good goal doesn't give you permission to do something bad to make it happen.

This is the big critique of the "greatest good" approach. It can lead you to justify bad things in the name of the greater good. Opinions differ on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. The conundrum is that, by bombing these two cities, the US likely saved more lives than would have died otherwise -- both Japanese and American. So does the killing of all the "innocent bystanders" in these cities justify it? (The next debate is whether children who happen to have been born in a nation at war at the wrong time are innocent or have a certain corporate guilt, but we'll leave that for some other day.)

But utilitarianism doesn't have to to wrong in order to bring about good. That is why we added the phrase, "without hurting the rest." A society that loved its neighbor on a societal level would set up laws and structures that bring about the greatest good for the greatest number without hurting the rest.

2. In other words, you set up boundaries to prevent the majority from overrunning or abusing the rest. Everyone's life has to count.

This is a place where the American system and Christianity strongly overlap. From a Christian standpoint, every human being is created in the image of God. That gives every human being a certain dignity even if they are a dirty rotten scoundrel. I won't take a position on the death penalty in chapter 7, but some Christians argue that the death penalty does not take seriously enough the value of a human life -- even if the person is a serial killer. The other side would say that what is important is for the person to be put to death humanely. 

Many would argue that the US system -- and in fact those of other representational democracies -- have largely been set up on Judeo-Christian values. This claim is regardless of whether the founders were Christians or intended to do so. The idea is that these values were baked into their psyche as part of 1700s culture. The idea of a society that is most "loving" on a societal level is basically the idea of a society that fits best with the revealed nature of God as love. We will continue to pursue this theme in the remaining chapters.

How has the secular US managed to pull this off without establishing a federal religion (we'll talk about the "separation of church and state" later in the chapter)? We have largely come to the same end result by a different means. Wonderfully, it is possible to argue for the same overall goal of a loving society using language of "natural revelation" -- that is, using some of the very principles of nature that God has built into the world. 

It actually makes a lot of sense. God created the world to work a certain way when it is working the way it was intended. You can argue for this structure to a large extent from nature as well as from the revelation of Scripture. You just have to start with the assumption that everyone's life counts. That's the Judeo-Christian assumption.

The founders of America used the concept of a "social contract" to set up the US. 

Textbox: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity -- do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

There it is. We contract together to create a society that will bring all these blessings to everyone. They were building on the work of philosophers like John Locke to create a social contract. I agree not to kill you if you agree not to kill me. I agree not to steal your stuff if you agree not to steal mine. We'll bring about the greatest good for the greatest number collectively with this agreement.

... without hurting the rest. Thomas Jefferson was channeling John Locke when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

We are still working out the equal part. Jefferson owned slaves when he wrote this, so there is sometimes a gap between the idea of America and the reality. [1] In fact, I have a hunch that this gap stands at the heart of disagreements over when the Supreme Court is allegedly "making law" instead of what some call "strict constructionism" (where the Supreme Court is allegedly just sticking to the letter of the Constitution). 

But the principle is clear enough. Every person should be equal in value and equal under the law. That sounds pretty Christian to me. It sounds like something Jesus would "vote" for.

3. The first ten amendments to the Constitution were the Bill of Rights. When the Constitution was being voted on by the states, states like North Carolina and Virginia refused to ratify it unless it had a Bill of Rights. Once this was agreed, the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

This was an important moment. The Articles of Confederation had not worked. From 1776 to 1781, the states worked on a system in which they remained more independent than together. The Constitution in effect said, we are now more of a union than separate states. The Civil War tested and reaffirmed this union, even though at the end of a gun. 

Still, the United States would not have thrived as separate states the way it has thrived together. We would not likely be a world power otherwise, although perhaps a few states that border the ocean might be. It is doubtful any of those states would be the most powerful nation. We would probably be more like the EU.

What individual rights does the Bill of Rights protect? Here they are:

• freedom of religion
• freedom of speech
• freedom of the press
• freedom of assembly
• right to petition the government
• right to bear arms
• prohibits government from forcing you to house soldiers during peacetime
• prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure of your stuff
• right to due process before taking your life, liberty, or property
• prohibition of double jeopardy
• you don't have to testify against yourself
• the government has to compensate you if they take your stuff
• right to a fair trial
• right to be informed of charges against you
• right to confront your witnesses
• right to legal counsel
• right to a trial by jury
• prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
• statement that this list may not be exhaustive
• delegation of powers to the states that aren't given to the federal government

That's a pretty good list! What is great about the list is that it sets down protections for the individual over and against the majority (or even an evil magistrate). 

But would Jesus "vote" for it? Our journey continues...

[1] I always read Langston Hughes' poem, "Let America Be America Again" on July 4.

3.3 The Merger of Three Churches

My journey through the ideological history of the Wesleyan Church finally reaches the merger. The video to the left is from the Wesleyan Church History and Discipline course that you can watch for free or take for ordination licensing through Kingswood Learn.

In some of the material that follows, I am operating from memory. For this reason, I strongly ask for correction if I have gotten any of the information wrong. Normally, I would ask Keith Drury, but he is quite enjoying heaven at the moment and has decided not to answer my emails.

Here are the previous posts in this series:

Preface to Wesleyan Ideological History
1.1 Wesley and High Protestantism
1.2 An Archaeology of Wesley's Thinking 

2.1 Methodist Ideology in the Early 1800s
2.2 Founding Perspectives of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection
2.3 The Birth of the American Holiness Movement

3.1 The Holiness Revivals of the Fin de Siècle
3.2 Modernism on the Outskirts

__________________________________

12. Bob Black has said that the Pilgrim Holiness Church never saw a merger that it didn't like. Merger was in the water in the 1960s. In the late 50s, the United Church of Christ was a merger of the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. In 1962, three Lutheran denominations merged. The United Evangelical Brethren and the Methodist Church merged in 1968 to form the United Methodist Church. 

The Wesleyan Methodists had already merged with the Reformed Baptist Church of Canada in 1966, also the year they voted to merge with the Pilgrims. A Pennsylvania district, the Allegheny Conference withdrew from the WMC over the merger, as did a number of churches in Tennessee and Ohio. About 13% of its churches and 11% of its membership was lost.

The reasons had a good deal to do with standards (dress, jewelry, matters relating to divorce). There was also a sense that mergers were a movement toward the one-world religion of the Antichrist. Some of my extended family did not go with the merger from the Pilgrim side for the same reasons. 

The WMs had come very close to merging with the Pilgrims in 1959 but didn't for logistical reasons and because of the resistance of the Allegheny district. I've already mentioned that Stephen Paine regretted spending so much time trying to appease that district as president of Houghton. It brought little result. 

I had Don Boyd as a worship professor at Asbury in the late 80s. You'd have never guessed that he was the district superintendent of this district when they split from the church. From my standpoint as a young Wesleyan, he was hyper-liturgical and quite foreign to me. I guess sometimes we go to the opposite extreme of where we start. It's not necessarily out of rebellion. Perhaps having grown up in a generally low church background, Boyd was attracted to elements that were missing from his WM worship growing up. Opposites attract

The Wesleyan Methodists had almost merged with the Free Methodists before, and many of us thought we merged with them in 1976. The presiding General Superintendent that year, O. D. Emery, thought the Free Methodists were liberal on inerrancy and so used a parliamentary trick to kill the merger. Ironically, the Free Methodists had actually added inerrancy language to their Articles of Religion so that we could merge.

The report of the committee recommending merger with the Free Methodists was brought to the floor of the Wesleyan General Conference in 1976. But instead of moving that the conference "adopt" the motion of the committee, Emery had all who wholeheartedly thanked the committee for their work stand to "receive" their report. Everyone stood and clapped. A whole lot of us thought we had just merged, but of course, nothing had been adopted and we never merged.

13. Now to the ideologies. Although there was substantial agreement between the Reformed Baptists of Canada, the Wesleyan Methodists, and the Pilgrims, there were some interesting differences that have left traces in the church even today. Sometimes Wesleyans will think that something seems obvious only to find out that there are other Wesleyans with quite different perspectives on the same thing. Sometimes these are artifacts of our parent denominations.

For example, the Reformed Baptist Alliance had two conditions for merger, where they sought slightly different rules for their churches in Canada. One had to do with divorce. I welcome insights here from those who might know for sure, but I can mention some of the issues that I have encountered with groups that did not go with the merger. I can think of three:

• Whether it is ever permitted for a Christian to initiate a divorce. Matthew 5:32 allows for divorce if a spouse has an affair, but 1 Corinthians 7:12 says not to divorce if an unbelieving spouse wants to remain with you. Someone might put these two together and say a Christian can never initiate a divorce. You could argue that although it's technically allowed for cheating, a couple should stay together if the cheater is willing.
• What are the obligations of the "innocent party," the person who is divorced but didn't seek the divorce? Many ultra-conservatives believe that a Christian must remain unmarried for the rest of his or her life even if they are not the one who initiated a divorce. "They're still married in God's eyes." Matthew 5:32 can be interpreted to say that you can never marry a divorced woman. I know some who even think that, if you repent after you have remarried, you should divorce your second spouse and go back to your first one (in stark contrast to Deut. 24:4).
• Can a divorced person even be a minister, or are they permanently disqualified? Can a minister be married to a divorced person (cf. Lev. 21:7)?

I'm guessing (please correct) that the RBs did not allow for any of these. I'm guessing they did not allow for divorce at all, did not allow for remarriage after divorce, and did not allow divorced individuals to be ministers. The Wesleyan Methodists allowed divorce for cause and remarriage if you divorced for cause or were the innocent party.

Interestingly, the WMs from Tennessee who did not go with the merger formed the Bible Covenant Church in 1966 in part because of the WM's "looser" standards on divorce. Then, ironically, the daughter of the leader of the new denomination sought a divorce from her husband. The leader supported her. The Bible Covenant church disintegrated.

14. A pattern of church change is for the denomination to appoint a study committee of scholars to investigate an issue and come back with a recommendation at the next General Conference. This is of course what had happened with the proposed merger with the Free Methodists. I remember three or four such study committees of note. One was on divorce and two have been on tongues.

From my standpoint today, these study committees are stacked. You appoint people to them whom you know are going to come out with the conclusion you want them to reach. The divorce study committee recommended the position that the next GC adopted. The first study on tongues retained a restrictive view on the use of tongues. The one brought to the more recent GC for the first time made tongues acceptable in public worship as long as there is interpretation.

Nothing to see here. Everything done decently and in order. Change management. I believe a study on membership preceded changes made in 2016. 

15. The other issue on which the Reformed Baptist's sought an exception was on the flexibility the WMC had on baptism. As an heir to the Methodist tradition, the WMC still allowed for infant baptism. The reason why infant baptism remains a possibility in TWC today is because of this heritage. However, the RBs insisted that they continue only to practice believer's baptism.

Meanwhile, the Pilgrims were rather lax on the question of baptism. Interestingly, the Salvation Army -- another Methodist offshoot -- does not require baptism as well. I remember my mother pointing out a known Pilgrim interpretation of Mark 16:16. It says that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. But it doesn't say that those who are not baptized will not be saved.

I've already mentioned (I think) that my grandfather had been a Quaker before becoming a Pilgrim. When he was in his 50s (I believe), he was asked to assist in a baptism. So he thought that he should get baptized himself. My mother, similarly, was not baptized I believe until she was in her late 40s in Florida.

The merged Wesleyan Church did require baptism for membership. But it retained all the options: believer's baptism or infant baptism, immersed, poured, or sprinkled. Most Wesleyan churches do believer's baptism by immersion. At the moment, I sense a strong movement to baptize individuals as soon as possible after they confess faith. This follows the most visible model in Acts. 

However, historically, there has often been a time of catechesis before baptism. In my own view, both approaches should be allowed. Baptism doesn't save you (1 Pet. 3:21 is figurative speech). So you won't go to hell if you undergo some instruction before you are baptized. I also think that Paul sat much more loosely to baptism than most Baptists do (1 Cor. 1:17). 

In keeping with Wesley, Wesleyans do affirm baptism as a means of grace and not as mere symbolism. I find it more difficult to pin down what the grace is. We can be justified, redeemed, regenerated, sanctified, and adopted without ever being baptized. Elsewhere, I have called it a sacrament of inclusion. 

In any case, the Wesleyan Methodists were more sacramental than the Pilgrims. They were, after all, more Wesley-an. The Pilgrims, like the Salvation Army, sat much more loosely to communion and baptism. The Quaker mixture in their roots shone through.

16. Baptism was not the only issue where the WMs and PHC had different flavors. As we have shown, the Wesleyan Methodist Church was born of social action. It had a "postmillennial" heritage that believed not only in saving souls but also in changing the world for the better. It had played a role in the women's rights and temperance movements of the 1800s.

The Pilgrim Church was firmly pre-millennial and dispensational. While it also had a very positive view of women ministers (by the way, so did the Reformed Baptist Alliance), the Pilgrims looked for the rapture to happen any day and the Tribulation to begin. If it had been up to the Pilgrims, a pre-trib rapture would have been part of the Articles of Religion as it had been for them. But a more basic eschatology prevailed with an allowance for different points of view.

17. In terms of inerrancy, I have already suggested that the Pilgrims were more charismatic and revivalist in their hermeneutic of Scripture. God could say whatever he wanted to say through the words to you. The WMs had better scholars and had more modernists like Stephen Paine around, and the new evangelical concept of inerrancy made it onto the books... in the original manuscripts.

Two superintendents were chosen from each main parent denomination. Two from the WMs and two from the Pilgrims. Parity was very important, with each side winning out on about an even number of things. The choice of J. D. Abbott as one of the Pilgrim GSs perhaps signaled a move for the Pilgrims toward greater respectability and class (I was named after his son).

Those in both parent churches who focused on standards were increasingly marginalized and, in many cases, did not go with the merger. Keith Drury once told me that he was specifically sent to preside over a West Virginia district conference because he was the only general official with a wedding ring. He said that as he moved his hand in preaching, the eyes of the audience followed it like they were watching a tennis match.

Finally, it was so distracting that he asked, "Is this a problem?" And he actually took the ring off. He said there was an audible sigh of relief and, from that point on, there was a delightful engagement with the sermon.

Increasingly, those women who had buns and only wore skirts/dresses were mostly found in small churches and camp meetings. There was increasingly a movement away from camp meetings, some of it no doubt intentional. Wesleyans were becoming a little more mainstream and "respectable." It was the Wesleyan version of what the Methodists did on a higher social scale in the late 1800s. 

Women began to wear earrings and jewelry, not to mention wedding rings. Now we began to eat out on Sunday. Wesleyans "secretly" went to movies although it would be discouraged in the Discipline until as recently as the last decade. Dancing wasn't common but its prohibition would largely be a joke on college campuses. Prohibitions on "mixed bathing" (men and women swimming together) would eventually phase out.

The denomination adopted a clever tactic to move toward change in these areas. These disputable issues were moved from membership requirements to a new section of the Discipline called "Special Directions." The Special Directions allowed for the older customs to be displayed prominently but there were no teeth to them. There were no consequences in not following them.

There would eventually need to be clean up here, but it could take decades. It is not ideal to have things you consider to be very important sitting next to items that are joked about and no one follows. It trivializes the important (and in some cases, could create legal problems).

Nevertheless, this was a fairly peaceful way to bring change to the church. Attempts to do similar things on the issue of drinking have not completely succeeded. Indeed, attempts to get around this issue have led to fundamental changes in the church's ecclesiology. Hopefully, such flux can be resolved in the next General Conference or two.

18. This was a different church than the Wesleyan Methodists of a century earlier. While there may have been a few lone rangers here and there participating in the civil rights movement, the annals of both denominations were pretty silent on the movement (Tony Casey did quite a bit of research here). In fact, the tone among many in my Pilgrim circles was more on the side of law and order, grumbling about the troublemakers protesting. MLK was no hero in my circles in those days.

When Roe v. Wade came through in the 70s and a position was discussed on abortion, one of the general superintendents argued there should be exceptions for rape using the illustration, "What if a woman were raped by a black man?" I don't know whether he put it that way because he himself was racist or if he was trying to appeal to individuals on the General Board who were.

It seems possible to me that the Wesleyan Church -- and maybe evangelical culture in general -- goes through phases. Periods with more focus on social issues are followed by phases with more emphasis on soul-winning and inner spirituality. It is a hypothesis. 

The focus on abolition and women's rights in the mid-1800s was followed by the inner focus of the late 1800s holiness/revival movement. Is it possible that, after there was a time of push for equality on matters of race and gender in the 1960s, the church turned into a "let's focus on winning souls" phase in the 1970s? The 1960s did not see the church pushing for civil rights, but the 70s soon followed with a push for evangelism. 

The surge of socially conscious young evangelicals in the 2000s (Millennials) gave way to a surge of Boomer leadership in the 2010s that was more interested in evangelism. And after the recent push for race adjustments in the late 2010s, the church has turned strongly away from social justice to talk more about marketplace evangelism. It's almost like the church can't stomach too much talk about social issues for too long. Perhaps it's too painful. It naturally retreats into an otherworldly (and less sensitive) focus? Again, it is just a hypothesis.

19. The time of merger was also the time of the Vietnam War. The 1950s had seen a surge in civil religion with "in God we trust" put on the dollar bill and "under God" added to the pledge of allegiance. McCarthy had led the Senate in a witch hunt for communists among us. At Houghton College, Wilbur Dayton was recruited as president in 1972 to try to get those young people in line. He would be ousted by 1976. He was a nice man, godly, intelligent. But he wasn't what the young people of the 1970s wanted in a president.

Civil religion was the name of the game. Civil religion is when there is a swirl of patriotic fervor mixed in with one's religious fervor. To question the war was almost like questioning God. So the church focused rather on evangelism and the 1970s version of church growth. There was Ezekiel's Wheels where young people rode their bikes around the country witnessing. A young John Maxwell was beginning to wow ministers with dramatic soul-winning techniques. 

Maxwell's GRADE program sorted the church into Andrews (evangelists), Timothys (disciplers), Barnabases (encouragers), and Abrahams (prayer warriors). It was an early version of APEPT today (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers). The Abrahams prayed while the Andrews went door to door asking Evangelism Explosion's, "If you died tonight, would you have the assurance of going to heaven." Bus ministries blossomed.

The new church was off to the races... 

3.3 Greater Good Test Case (Health Care)

 We finish chapter 3 in the series, "What Would Jesus Vote?" Here is the series so far:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?
2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen
2.2 We're citizens in two kingdoms
3.1 (He would vote) for love of neighbor and enemy
3.2 (He would vote) for the greater good

_____________________________________________

Test Case: American Health Care
8. This discussion is all fine and good in the abstract. But where the rubber begins to hit the road is with specific issues. This is where our tribal sensibilities and gut assumptions begin to overwhelm our reason. It is also where our lack of expertise can begin to bite us. Things that seem obvious to us on a superficial level may become more complicated when we dig into the details.

Nevertheless, we need to explore the issues if we are going to make any progress toward a more Christlike approach to our political engagement. The question of health care seems like a good test case for the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number. So we gulp and step into deeper waters.

Let us start with the most general question. Would Jesus want as many as possible to have access to good health care whether they are believers or not? The answer seems pretty obvious to me. After all, healing and exorcisms stood at the very heart of his earthly mission. As far as we know, there wasn't a person he didn't heal if they sought him for healing.

To repeat some things we've already pointed out. God sends the much-needed rain on the righteous and unrighteous (Matt. 5:43-48). He sends the much-needed sun on both the righteous and the unrighteous. What would Jesus vote? At least at first glance, it sure seems like Jesus would vote for as many people as possible to have health care.

So what might prevent a Christian from supporting universal health care? Someone might try to show that it isn't economically feasible. Perhaps someone could argue that providing universal health care in some way lowers the overall average health care. Someone might argue that it is unconstitutional in some way, or a Christian might argue it is somehow unbiblical or unethical. 

Let's look at these counterarguments. Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the current American option on the table, let's use it as our point of discussion. We can add that the United States is the only major Western country that does not provide universal health care in some configuration. Canada uses private providers funded by taxpayers to provide it. The United Kingdom has a government-run system funded by taxpayers. Germany and France have a mixture of providers funded by taxpayers, and the government oversees the system.

9. This is as good as any place to have an aside about the socialist boogie man. There is a fair amount of illogical rhetoric that says, "If you believe the government should run anything, you're a socialist." This is irrational on the merits. There is a spectrum of options from a government that runs practically everything to one that runs very little. Here is a spectrum:

• Truly Socialist: North Korea and Cuba would be examples of true socialism. North Korea currently allows no private enterprise and the government runs everything. It is a horrible place to live.
• Social Democracies: Sweden and Denmark have very high taxes to provide extensive governmental services, and their markets are heavily regulated. Nevertheless, they also allow significant economic freedom and have a vibrant private sector. They consistently score among the happiest nations in the world.
• Social market economies: Germany and France have less government regulation than Sweden but still have significant government-run services. The private sector still runs freely despite being a strong welfare state. They consistently score higher than the US on the World Happiness Report.
• Capitalist welfare states: Canada and the United Kingdom are capitalist countries that still provide significant social services based on taxes.
• Free Market Capitalism with some Welfare: The United States and Australia would have fewer taxes yet and fewer government services. Still, we have Social Security and Medicare. We have public education and a postal service, not to mention an army and police that are government-run.
• Libertarian Leaning States: Singapore and pre-2020 Hong Kong are/were examples of states with few government services and very limited government intervention in private enterprise. Nevertheless, Singapore does have some government services relating to housing and healthcare, and Hong Kong was returned to China's control in 2020. 
• Anarcho-Capitalist countries: There ain't any. Without any government, you would just have human chaos.

You can see that the US is nowhere near socialist, and no current candidates come anywhere close to socialist. Logically, you can't simply dismiss proposals by saying, "That's socialist." I call that "labelism," and it's a nothing burger. You need to have an argument as to why a specific proposal is good or bad.  The US currently has a number of government-run services that we will talk about throughout our journey. 

Let me also say, "prove it" to those who think privatization is always better for the greater good. I would say it is often good, but we should consider each case individually. For example, having a centralized national defense surely works far better than if you had a host of competing mercenary and private military groups running around. Talk about a civil war waiting to happen! And don't like a particular conflict? Just quit.

Capitalism aims to maximize profit. Its intrinsic goal is to provide as little as it can get away with at minimum cost. When Bolivia privatized its water supply, it led to a disaster that ended with the government renationalizing it. A private company, without government regulation, will cut as many corners as it can to maximize profit. These dynamics suggest that when essential services are in view, the government may be better suited as the provider -- or else it had better regulate thoroughly.

Let's put a pin in that conversation and come back to it as we move through various topics. We'll take a case-by-case approach with the repeated dictum, "Prove it."

11. First with regard to cost. Because emergency care is regularly provided to individuals who cannot pay, both a thoroughly adopted ACA system or a single-payer system like Canada/Britain would lower or significantly lower the overall cost of health care in America. Healthcare costs in the US are significantly higher than those of Canada, Britain, Australia, Germany, France, etc. Meanwhile, our life expectancy is lower. On the merits, we have no bragging rights here. On the numbers, we are not providing a greater good to a greater number in the area of healthcare.

12. A second concern is health care quality and wait times. Because of those who aren't covered and because of the higher cost of health care, the US does not provide better health care for its population on average. It would rank lower on average among the countries we have been considering. Places like the UK emphasize primary care, so there can be wait times for elective care, but there is no extensive wait for essential care. 

In England, one can walk into an emergency room and get immediate service. When I was a student in England, I was a little shocked that we immediately went to the hospital when a Rugby player sprained his ankle. My family avoided the hospital like the plague because of the high cost of emergency room services. 

My father had some sort of heart event a few weeks before he finally died. They didn't go to the hospital even though Medicare would have paid. In my opinion, years of avoiding the emergency room were in play. My mother actually hung up on 911 when he died, thinking a twitch of his toe might mean he was still alive. I have another family member who eventually had a heart attack after failing to get proper medical care for diabetes. Again, in my opinion, none of the above would have happened in Canada or Great Britain where the mindset is just different.

Australia supplements its essential public care with private insurance options. In this way, it maintains a baseline of public health while providing options for those who can afford more for elective services. At least on the surface, a system like Australia seems to provide the best of both worlds. It seems to provide a greater good for a greater number than the American system, which largely caters to the privileged -- a differentiation that finds no basis in the Gospels. The Gospels give us every reason to think that Jesus would reject such a class differentiation.

The ACA of course was based on a Republican-designed system utilized in Massachusetts and involves a market-based approach based on competition between private insurance companies. In other words, it is a capitalism-based system. One has to wonder if it would have enjoyed widespread Republican support if it had been proposed by a Republican administration! Of course, then, it might face widespread Democratic opposition. One has to wonder the extent to which opposition to the ACA has been about partisanship rather than substance.

13. What, if any, opposition to it can be made on biblical or Christian principles? Wayne Grudem in his Politics According to the Bible has made several arguments against the ACA and similar health care proposals. [4] Probably the most serious concern he had was its provisions for contraceptive care and abortion. However, the Supreme Court decisions Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (2020) have mitigated those concerns. Similarly, the repeal of Roe v. Wade has changed that dynamic as well. It is really a side issue rather than an objection to universal health care per se.

Grudem is also concerned that it dulls personal responsibility. Rather than having to steward one's resources and count the cost for one's choices, one can take health care for granted. Healthcare becomes devalued because it is in such easy supply. Instead of reserving the emergency room for real crises, one now goes for a sprained ankle.

I feel this one a little bit. But I feel this one as someone who has health insurance. Is it better for everyone to have access to healthcare, or is it better for those of us with healthcare to grow from having to make careful choices about using what we have? It seems like an argument for the privileged rather than one that is concerned for the greater good of all. 

Again, knowing what I know of the Gospels, Jesus seemed more concerned that the crippled beggar (without health care) be healed than that the Pharisee grow in personal responsibility by making disciplined choices (can't even think of a story like this). In the end, I believe Wayne Grudem and others are unable to see beyond their Western glasses to read the Bible on Jesus' terms.

I will set aside for a later chapter the argument of Grudem and others that Romans 13 does not allow the government to provide services to its people like healthcare. In my opinion, this takes Paul's comments way beyond anything he was saying. Paul is not giving a comprehensive view of the state in Romans 13. 

And, even then, he calls the state a servant for the Romans' good. If the Roman government had decided to use the tax money it collected to provide healthcare for its citizens, I have to think that Paul would have approved. More on this question in chapter 6.

14. That leaves us with one last objection, and that is the individual mandate. The way the ACA was meant to work financially was that everyone was required to have health insurance or else to pay a fine. After all, the way insurance works is that there are enough healthy people paying for insurance to offset those who need health services. By requiring young people who are not as likely to need health services to pay toward it, the system became financially viable.

Suffice it to say, the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 kiboshed the individual mandate. Interestingly, premiums for the ACA have still remained relatively stable. Only about 8% of Americans are not covered with some sort of health insurance at the moment, down from 16% before the ACA. All in all, the ACA would seem to be somewhat of a success, although it arguably would have even greater success if it had bipartisan support.

It does raise a bigger question of whether it is biblical for me to have to pay for someone else. Some would view the individual mandate as tantamount to stealing. You are taking my money to pay for someone else.

But this is a pretty Western cultural way of thinking -- hyperindividualistic. It's not biblical thinking. After all, what are taxes but a way of collecting money to provide services to everyone as needed? And the Bible unanimously says to pay taxes. And the collection could be for you. You don't know when you'll need medical help.

In the end, this all strikes me as a self-centered way of thinking, not a biblical one. The spirit of Scripture is rather, "Whoever has the life of the world and sees a brother in need and withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God abide in him?" (1 John 3:17). Isn't this also part of the message of the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10? In other words, it seems more like the selfish mindset of the world to resist giving to those in need. Shouldn't a person with a biblical, Christlike heart gladly give -- even sacrifice -- for the good of others? It's God's money in the end anyway, not mine. [5]

We will return to some of these questions more extensively in the chapters that follow. I will make the case that the American capitalistic system makes money something different from something concrete like a hammer. If you come into my garage and take my hammer, that's stealing. But the system of money in a country like America is a little different. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) isn't even tied to something concrete like a gold standard. Its value is much more abstract. More to come.

15. In the end, it seems fairly clear to me that -- on this one issue -- Jesus would vote for as many people to have healthcare as is practically possible. If you think of it, giving away free healthcare was a major theme of Jesus' earthly ministry. He did not cater to the wealthy and privileged who could pay for his services. He targeted "the uncovered," so to speak.

In the end, objections to something like the ACA seem to me almost entirely based on tribalism. In some cases, it is based on what I would see as extreme ideology. But in general, one side suggests a solution so the other side opposes it. It could have been flipped, and it might be the opposite. Mitt Romney could have become president and proposed something like the ACA, and maybe Democrats would have staunchly opposed it.

What would Jesus vote? On this one issue, I think he would vote for as many people to have healthcare as possible.

[4] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Zondervan, 2010).

[5] Ron Blue, God Owns It All: Finding Contentment and Confidence in Your Finances (Lifeway, 2016).