Years ago, there was quite a dust-up on a previous iteration of this blog over a guest post written by a former Evangelical man named Ian. Ian posited that Christian claims of persecution were grossly overstated; and that many persecution claims were not persecution at all. I agreed with Ian’s assessment, and have continued to do so to this day. One man, a Greek Orthodox Christian, took umbrage with my position on persecution, alleging that I supported the slaughter and murder of Christians. This claim, of course, was patently false. This man went far and wide on the Internet trying to smear me, without success. An Internet search today revealed he no longer has a blog and his accusations have disappeared from the web.
Today, I intend to revisit this issue. This post will likely infuriate Evangelicals, especially those who believe that Christians are increasingly persecuted and martyred. (Dr. Candida Moss’ book, The Myth of Persecution, is a good read on this subject.) Listen to some Evangelicals and you’d think Christians are being slaughtered left and right. And even here in the United States, Evangelicals, in particular, are being persecuted for their faith. While it is certainly true that there are individual incidents of persecution in the U.S., to suggest that the government, Joe Biden, Democrats, atheists, agnostics, and other non-Christians are “persecuting” meek, mild, loving, kind, self-effacing Evangelicals is untrue. And if you object to my claim, please provide evidence for your assertion in the comment section.
Ask the average American to define “social contract” and they will give you that deer-in-the-headlights stare. Most people are clueless that the underlying principle governing their day-to-day lives is a social contract.
Wikipedia defines “social contract” this way:
In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is an idea, theory or model that usually, although not always, concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Conceptualized in the Age of Enlightenment, it is a core concept of constitutionalism, while not necessarily convened and written down in a constituent assembly and constitution.
Social contract arguments typically are that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. The relation between natural and legal rights is often a topic of social contract theory.
….
The central assertion that social contract theory approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that government is not a party to the original contract and citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest.
People groups gather into communities, states, and countries. When doing so, there is a need for order. Laws are passed to give structure and legal codification to governing entities. As citizens, we enter into a social contract with the government and each other, agreeing to obey the law and play by the rules under threat of punishment if we don’t. Laws govern every nation-state. Of course, the laws differ from country to country, state to state, and city to city. What may be criminal in one country, state, or city is legal in others. Generally, citizens play by the rules of their respective governing authorities, and when visiting other countries, they agree to play by their rules. When in Rome, the old saying goes, do as the Romans do.
The United States is a nation of laws, much like our mother, Britain, before us. As a Republic, citizens, through their elected representatives, enact or change the laws by which they are willingly governed. We may disagree with certain laws, but until said laws are changed, we are obligated to obey them. And when we don’t, we face punishment for breaking the law — be it murder, rape, or driving without a valid license.
Years ago, I was a music thief. I accumulated tens of thousands of ripped and downloaded mp3s. I had moral and philosophical reasons for doing so — my music, I can do with it what I want — but I knew I risked losing my Internet service or being fined for breaking the law. I continued to download music, knowing, at any moment, I could be caught and punished for my behavior. The same goes for speeding. The speed limit on the freeway is 70 mph. Polly never drives 70. She always speeds along at five to ten miles over the speed limit. If pulled over by a highway patrolman, she would likely receive a ticket — justifiably so. To quote one of the world’s greatest detectives, Tony Baretta, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
Every six weeks or so, we drive to Michigan so I can buy cannabis. Presently, doing so is against the law, though it is unlikely that I will be arrested. And if I am, the violation is a misdemeanor. I am willing to risk breaking the law for the physical benefits I gain from cannabis use. Reducing chronic pain is more important to me than the risk of being busted for buying THC-infused gummies. All of us have been, at one time or another, and to one degree or another, lawbreakers.
Our social contract governs how we live our day-to-day lives, especially when in contact with other people. Things I may do in the privacy of my own home can be considered crimes when done in public. For example, at 4:00 am I may painfully, slowly shuffle to the bathroom to pee — sans clothing. I sleep in the nude, as I have my entire adult life. Now, thanks to damage to my lower back, I no longer have bladder and bowel control. When I have to go to the bathroom, it’s now . . . I mean right now. The difference between making it to the toilet and a mess is a matter of seconds or feet. I don’t have time to put clothes on first (which is fine since no one is up but me at 4:00 am). However, I would never use a public restroom without clothing on. Why? We have laws governing public decency and nudity. Think for a moment of all the things we do in the privacy of our homes that we can’t do in public. Want to have sex with your spouse, or significant other, or a pick up from the local bar at your home? Have at it. Couches, beds, floors, tables, or desks are places people are known to use for sex. However, having sex in public is illegal. Have my partner and I had sex outdoors or in a car — back when we were young, virile gymnasts? I’m not going to say one way or another. 🙂 That said, if we did take a roll in the sand on a secluded beach under a moonlit night, and a park ranger found us, we likely would have been arrested. That’s the social contract we have with one another. Want to have sex? Do it in the privacy of your home. Want the thrill of having forbidden sex — and who doesn’t? That’s your right, just as long as you know that if you are caught you could be arrested. I can say this as a sixty-seven-year-old man — some experiences are worth the risk. 🙂
While Evangelicals will generally agree with the premise of a social contract, they add a caveat. Yes, God commands Christians to obey the laws of the land, but only if doing so doesn’t break the law of God (as interpreted by them). If a human law violates the law of God, Christians are duty-bound to disobey. Thus, Evangelicals can justify all sorts of criminal behavior, be it murdering abortion doctors, illegally picketing abortion clinics, smuggling Bibles into Communist/Muslim/Hindu countries, or being missionaries under the guise of being English teachers in foreign countries.
Sadly, many American Evangelicals think that when they travel to other countries to evangelize people, the laws governing said behavior don’t apply to them. They wrongly think that U.S. law with its strong First Amendment protections and religious freedoms applies universally. It doesn’t. When in other countries, the laws of those countries apply. Thus, when an Evangelical illegally distributes Bibles, religious literature, or proselytizes non-Christians, they are breaking the law. What God or the Bible says is immaterial. Just because Evangelicals believe they should obey God over men doesn’t mean that nation-states must acquiesce to their peculiar religious beliefs. Thus, when arrested, they aren’t being persecuted. They are lawbreakers. Remember, when in Rome do as the Romans do. If a country’s law prohibits proselytization, then doing so anyway is lawbreaking, and not persecution. Evangelicals are free to risk their safety and freedom to evangelize others where proselytization is forbidden, but don’t scream persecution if caught. To quote Tony Baretta once again, Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time. Don’t hand out Bibles, tracts, or witness to people if you aren’t willing to be arrested and imprisoned for your crimes. Like it or not, many nations don’t have religious freedoms as we do in the United States. Until said laws change, breaking them could result in arrest. It is NOT persecution when you are arrested for breaking the law. Self-righteous, arrogant Americans wrongly think “When anywhere in the world, I have a right to do whatever we do in the United States.” This approach, of course, will land your Jesus-loving ass in jail.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
Good thoughts. Like a lot of things, I have complicated feelings on this one. First, no Christian is being persecuted in this country. Merely read about the lives of (early) saints and you will see what real persecution looks like. Or if you feel these are ancient exaggerations, read about St. Maximillian Kolbe- the Polish priest who was murdered by the Nazis in a concentration camp because he was taking too long to die of starvation (he took a married man’s place in a starvation barracks- the Nazis were retaliating for an escaped prisoner). This is what government sanctioned persecution is. Not government officials, or more often just people like me who are tired of the street preacher’s loud mouthed pontificating, asking that person to be respectful of others who are just going about their business. This is more like crying because someone knocked the chip off your shoulder.
On the other hand, I think there are two distinctions about activities in Communist and/or repressive religious countries- proselytizing, which is blatantly breaking the law and difficult to defend, and covertly aiding those who wish to practice Christianity within that country but are being actively persecuted by the repressive government. I see this as more virtuous, as I feel everyone has a right to practice their religion in a reasonable manner so long as they are not interfering with someone else’s right to not practice, etc. In communist countries “freedom of religion” is usually promised, but later it is clarified as “freedom of religious belief” not practice. So going to church, gathering for group prayer in a house, etc becomes targeted by the officials. In communist China, you must go to an “approved” church/mosque/temple..one that not only does not criticize the government but sings its praises even while it is suppressing the rights of its citizens. This to me is the modern day equivalent of “persecution”, albeit in a more benign manner than the example I gave of Max Kolbe.
In our country, evangelicals and conservative Catholics (primarily) as well as some Muslims feel they are being oppressed if they are not allowed to proselytize at work, or have their office all trimmed out in overt religious expression for everyone to see (full disclosure, I have a small crucifix on my desk, facing me. It is slightly visible). To me that is the balance- you can express your faith but you must observe reasonable boundaries and respect those who do not share your beliefs. That is the social contract in the USA, and I think it is the best balance. It is rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Yes I think places like France have gone too far in the head covering ban (scularization laws) on the beach, etc. but once again this is not the same as being put in prison for your religious practice.
Some right-wing Christians think they were being persecuted because they misinterpreted a portion of the Paris 2024 Olympics opening ceremony as a drag-queen tableau of the Last Supper in Christianity whereas it was a Dionysian feast complete with blue Dionysius.
Some right-wing Christians think they are persecuted for having to admit LGBTQ people exist.
Some right-wing Christians think they are persecuted because some women have positions of power or choose not to have kids or many kids.
Those are not persecutions.
Christianity’s first citizen was a martyr, all the early disciples are alleged to be martyrs, and early Christian lore is rife with martyrs. So it should be no surprise that modern day Christians with all their privileges and special treatments would see themselves as martyrs as well.
I see things a bit differently, most laws are already tailored to suit Christianity, even when they are unconstitutional or non-secular. (Example you can’t buy alcohol on Sunday or Christmas and other “blue” laws) So Christians don’t really need to be martyrs. When they really start playing the oppression card is when those privileges are correctly remedied and they are treated like everyone else.
Wanna waste your life? Live it for the fakeroo church system. Might as well just flush your time and money down the toilet.
I agree that God’s law supersedes human law.
I’m thinking of Dr. King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mr. Thoreau.
Which does raise questions:
Does God’s law require honoring man’s law where possible?
Does that require we willingly accept any and all legal consequences?
Does acceptance of all penalties fulfill the social contract?
Should Christians who break the law demand that all legal penalties be applied to them?
Burr I have a slightly different take- a person should follow the law until their conscience compels them not to. My view is that just because something is legal does not mean it is morally right, and conversely something illegal is not automatically morally wrong. Hitler, Stalin and the other great tyrants of history used “lawfare” at first to merely harass those they saw as lesser beings. This then progressed to outright genocide.
Even with the caveat of disobeying an immoral law, one should also use common sense and logic to determine how they are going to disobey. I think the theme of this post is that many American style evangelicals want to turn everything into a moralistic battle, and want to imply that any change in the status quo that reduces their influence on society at large is going to incrementally result in North Korea-style oppression of religious persons in the US. Because, of course it says it right there in the Book of Revelation (which has been “saying” the same thing to Christians for the last 1500 years or so). Like crying wolf, picking silly things to allege religious persecution over reduces the seriousness of the allegation, to the point when there is real actual oppression no one is really going to care anymore.
Just my imperfect opinion.
My elderly mother occasionally tells me how ‘good Christian people are being persecuted in this country!’ (always with the exclamation). She hasn’t done it in awhile, as my response last time seemed to piss her off. In response to her outrage, I commented that it was ‘really awful, the way you have to hide your church services in your garage and disguise your bible as a handbag when you go out. And obviously you can’t pray over your lunch if you go to a restaurant, they’ll throw you in jail! And for goodness sake, if someone wishes you a Merry Christmas, do NOT respond in kind!’
“No need to smart off,” she said.
I disagree.
Me too AMI. However right you may be, irony can be abrasive. It’s not unlike my instinctive response to such nonsense. I tend to come back with hyperbole which makes a point but triggers resentment. I try to be a bit more delicate (sneaky) and ask for explanations. One convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still. However, given subtle prompts, reasonable folks can and do change their point of view.. Of course reasoning with the unreasonable is futile.
Obviously you probably know that “preaching the good word” means Fundamentalist Fascists are free to bend and break the social contract, what Republicans and Evangelicals want is a simulacrum of a Democratic Republic keeping the trappings of freedom while there is an unequal application of the Law. This is nothing new and has been spoken of by political theorists since the Nazi era if not earlier. Major Traitor Greene is very vocal about the “weaponization” of Justice and the need to have MAGA sycophants in power to ensure the those people receive harsh unyielding Law & Order whilst the saved are given every leniency imaginable.
The Nation, Republicans have in mind would be a mockery of America built upon the twin pillars of White Power and Fascist Fundamentalism.
Mostly I find that their cries about ‘persecution’ all to often boils down to “You’re persecuting me by not allowing me to persecute ‘those’ people!”
I just wish more of them understood that “Your freedom of religion ends at the tip of my nose, and vice-versa.”
Many complaining about Christian persecution in the U.S. are really demanding the right to bully, exclude, and even destroy the lives of those they hate. Yes, hate. Not disagree with. It’s about forcing society to become a Christian theocracy, all in the guise of protecting innocent children and doing God’s will. And, when people fight back? Of course, it’s persecution. Because if we tolerated Christians, we would let them control us.