Menu Close

Tag: Obeying the Law

Responding to a Critic of the Post, Should Christians ALWAYS Obey God?

4 Comments
love and obey

Recently, Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, responded to my post Should Christians ALWAYS Obey God? I suspected one of my Fundamentalist critics would respond, and Thiessen was the first one to respond. What follows is my response. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation in the original. Thiessen’s response is in bold font.

There are many factors that play into our not taking a break. Right now, we have had a rainstorm and are still waiting for a project to be sent our way. So we need something to do. The question in the title is not ours. It comes from BG’s website, and it reflects the attitude of MM and his question: would we kill him if God commanded us to?

Thiessen, as he is wont to do, drags my friend Ben Berwick into the debate. While Ben and I agree on this issue, I will leave it to him to defend himself. Is it fair to ask questions about whether an Evangelical Christian would kill someone if God commanded him to? Absolutely. It is, after all, in the Bible. God repeatedly commanded his chosen people, the Israelites, to commit violence and murder against individuals and people groups. If Thiessen has a problem with our observations and conclusions, his real problem is with God, not BG and MM (as he likes to call Ben and me).

Both are ridiculous questions because the answer to the title question is yes, and the answer to the annoying second question is that God does not give that command anymore.

Wait a minute, I thought the Bible says that Jesus (who is God) is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is a deity that doesn’t change his mind, though other passages of Scripture say he does. On what basis do we conclude that God doesn’t expect his followers to obey everything he commands them to do? Is Thiessen saying God changed his mind; that he figured out bloodshed, violence, and murder are not effective ways to get your point across — especially when innocent people get caught up in the carnage — including women, children, babies, and fetuses?

I asked in my post:

If God commands a Christian to do something, should he obey? How does a Christian determine that it is God commanding him to do something? What if God’s command runs contrary to the Christian’s personal moral code? Should the Christian obey, anyway?

The answer to the first question is, yes, he should, as the Bible teaches us that to obey is better than sacrifice. The second question is a bit more difficult to answer, as confirming God’s command takes several steps.

Thiessen’s position is that Christians should, without exception, obey God’s commands. Never mind the fact that he doesn’t practice this himself, He’s more of a “do as I say, not as I do follower of Jesus.

The first step is to confirm that the command is in line with God’s word

Thiessen believes the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. He believes every word of the Bible is straight from the mouth of God. Thus, in his mind, if God commands it, obey!

The second step would be to confirm that God is sending that command. The Bible tells us to test the spirits, and we should test that command to make sure God is giving it.

How could someone possibly know it is God commanding him to do something? How does a Christian determine whether it is God, Satan, or self telling him to do something? As far as I am aware, there’s no empirical test that can be used to confirm it is God giving a believer a command. As far as I know, all that Evangelicals have to go on are their feelings. How do Evangelicals know God is speaking to them? They allegedly feel it in their heart of hearts.

Third, the nature of the command must be analyzed to make sure the Christian is not being commanded to violate God’s other commands, laws, and instructions. Murder and rape etc., are certainly not commands coming from God.

And here is the crux of the issue. The Bible does indeed make moral claims. However, the Bible also records not only God, but his followers, ignoring and violating these moral claims. What’s up with that? Surely Thiessen is aware that God commanded the Israelites to murder and rape those he determined were his enemies. If Thiessen wants to debate me on this issue, I’m game.

Fourth, one must be careful not to confuse the commands given in the OT as commands to be followed today. For example, God commanded certain activities to be done as punishment for the other people’s sins. Those commands are very people and era specific and are not in force today.

Does Thiessen really believe that every act of violence God commanded Israel to do is moral? What did the innocents murdered and raped by the Israelites — as commanded by God — do that deserved such punishment?

Thiessen wants us to believe that God went to anger management classes, and now he behaves differently. However, the book of Revelation reveals a God who is still very much a vicious monster. Richard Dawkins was right when he said:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

As far as we know, God does not command anyone to kill others as punishment for their sins in the modern age. Those types of commands come from evil, and we know they come from evil because they violate God’s laws, instructions, and so on.

If these commands “come from evil,” logically God and the Israelites committed evil acts. I conclude, then, that the God portrayed in the Bible is evil.

Thiessen has no evidence for this claim. We humans cannot know God’s mind, the Bible says, yet Thiessen thinks he can discern and know the mind of God.

Then, we have NT instructions to guide us in how we obey God. Galatians 5 tells us:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Thiessen might want to meditate on these verses and change his ways. My interactions with Thiessen suggest that he doesn’t think these verses apply to him.

We are also told in Romans to obey the laws of the land and murder, rape, pedophilia, etc., are against the law of the land and a Christian cannot disobey those laws. As you see by the quoted verse above, we are instructed to live according to the Spirit, which does not have any evil or evil doing in it.

Evil is evil, right? So if certain behaviors today are evil, those same actions were evil in the Old Testament too. Thiessen cannot have it both ways.

As for the question, if God commands something against a Christian’s personal moral code, would that person obey God? First, a Christian should not have a moral code that contradicts God’s or his instructions. etc.

But, every Christian does. No two Christians have the same moral code, and that incudes Evangelicals who claim that the Bible is their rulebook.

Second, it is better to obey than sacrifice, so the Christian must always obey God, as long as it is God giving the instructions. Disobedience is sin and wrong. Third, we do not go by the unbelieving world’s standards for commands or obedience . . .

Again, how can an Evangelical Christian infallibly know that it is God commanding them to do something? They can’t.

….

I wrote:

Does genocide, child sacrifice, and slavery promote the well-being of others and human flourishing? Of course not. Yet, when God commands such things, all of a sudden, Christians lose all sense of what’s best for themselves and others.

This is another ridiculous thing to say, as the unbeliever takes them out of context and misapplies them to whatever troubling thought they have on their minds. The unbeliever writing those words has no concept of what human flourishing means as he wants sin and corruption to abound at the expense of those doing what is right and moral.

Contrary to Thiessen’s assertion, I know exactly what human flourishing means and what we can do to make our world a better place to live. Again, I am more than happy to debate him on this issue.

I find it funny coming from a man with a sordid past that he says “sin and corruption to abound at the expense of those doing what is right and moral.”

I wrote:

The good news is that most Christians do not obey God. As cafeteria Christians, they pick and choose which commands to obey. That’s why they oppose genocide, child sacrifice, and slavery.

That is not good news but bad news. Christians are not free to pick and choose what they will obey. As Jesus said, ‘Why do you call me Lord yet do not do the things I say’. People need to look at what Jesus says honestly and implement  his instructions correctly.

All Christians, including Thiessen, pick and choose the commands they want to obey. If someone obeyed every command, teaching, and precept in the Bible, you know what would happen? He would be arrested and thrown in prison.

At no time does Jesus teach to own slaves, commit genocide or do child sacrifice. Those activities are practiced by the unbelieving world as the sinful world aborts innocent children, keeps sex slaves, and kills people just because they do not like them.

Thiessen forgets the fact that Jesus is God. I have challenged him on this point before. I have concluded that he is heterodox on the nature of Jesus and the Trinity.

Everything that God commanded in the Old Testament, was also commanded by Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. Thus, Jesus commanded the Israelites to murder, rape, and commit genocide. To say otherwise is to deny the divinity and nature of Jesus.

We can point you to Hamas, Boko Haram, and other examples that show it is not the Christians that is doing this. Abortion is the biggest genocide taking place,e yet the unbelieving world practices it without guilt or shame.

The Christians are the ones trying to stop these things. But the unbelieving writer of those quoted words does not care if he writes the truth or not. He just wants to justify his departure from God. He also wants to misdirect people’s attention away from what the unbelieving world is doing.

Thiessen does what he always does: he attacks my motives and says I am a liar. I will leave it to readers to decide if I am a truth teller.

Anything that the writer accuses God of doing, his side of the world is doing with less than holy and pure motives, and on a far grander scale. He and other unbelievers are in no position to accuse God of anything.

It is best that he refrain from speaking, as his world is far worse than anything God has done.

Is this the best argument Thiessen can offer? God and his followers may have commited sinful, evil acts, but Bruce and his fellow atheists do worst things. Really? Whom have I murdered or raped? What immoral, evil acts have I committed. No, Thiessen objects to the fact that I speak my mind about Evangelical Christianity and people agree with me. His only response is to attack my character and lie — both of which, if the Bible is to be believed, means Thiessen is not a Christian.

What say ye readers? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section.

Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 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.

Are Evangelicals Being “Persecuted” When Prosecuted for Breaking the Law?

11 Comments
persecution

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, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 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.