Sacrificing for the Emperor: Cultural Orthodoxy and God's People

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." ~ George Orwell, "The Freedom of the Press" (emphasis added)

My friends, this is a post that I have wanted to write for several years now. It has been a part of many conversations that I have had with friends, congregants, family, and many, many others over the past few years. Last year, with the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, my desire to write it has been "amped up," but yet, I have continued to let other things get in the way. One of those things is my perfectionist idolatry: there have been parts of this that I felt I was not prepared to write well and I struggle with idolizing perfection. (My idolatrous perfectionism is actually one of the things that keeps me from writing more, which I know God is working on in me but my progress is slow.) Yet, lately, it has been coming back in full-force through many conversations with graduate students in my church. In fact, I lead a graduate student Bible study on Virginia Tech campus, and we are studying the Old Testament book Daniel, which has brought this back up over and over again. We are about to finish with Daniel 6, and again, I have been reminded of this subject and felt compelled to write, whether or not I am prepared to do it perfectly. So, this post will partially be a study in Daniel 6 and partially my musings on current cultural trends in light of God's Word and history, and then, next week, Lord willing, I will write another talking about how Daniel and other believes have been faithful under harsh times.

It is no secret that our current culture is pushing Christians to capitulate on its views of sexuality and sexual identity. Any Christian who upholds a biblical view of marriage and sexuality is labeled a "bigot" and "hateful," no matter how politely or lovingly they make their stand or even if they hold that view quietly, and any Christian who refuses to use their business to support any agenda of a sexual-progressive movement is sued and most are losing those suits (in this most recent case, even actor and vocal supporter of LGBT issues, Patrick Stuart, is against the ruling). In fact, even teaching the biblical view of sexuality in a Sunday school class might soon be labeled "extremist" and suppressed in the UK. And, some are coming right out and saying that anyone who descents from the culture's view of sexuality should be forced to comply with it. It seems our society is approaching a totalitarian state, where a particular worldview of sexuality is the only one allowed in the public square, which reminds us more of the Brave New World of Huxley or Orwell's 1984 than a democracy where individuals are supposedly given human rights. Now, I am not writing this to talk about the details of this cultural issue itself, transgender ideology, whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, or anything like that. Others have written on the subject, and many have done a better job than I could. I want to look behind this and ask the question, "What is going on? Why is this happening? Is there anything behind this cultural push?" and hopefully provide some biblical and historical encouragement for Christians to follow Christ instead of culture.

That is why I started with a George Orwell quote. Many of you have probably read Animal Farm, and if you have not, I would be willing to bet you have at least heard of it. What you may not know is that Orwell wrote a preface to it that did not end up in the published work called "The Freedom of the Press," from which I quote above. In it, he talks about what we might call "cultural orthodoxy," which every culture has had, although it has taken many different forms. That cultural orthodoxy is, as Orwell writes, a body of ideas that all "right-thinking" people are assumed to hold, and anyone who descents from them in any way is never given a fair hearing, actively suppressed, and often persecuted. Sound familiar? It should. In Orwell's time, it was communist philosophy. In our time, in the West, it is sexual sovereignty: "I am sovereign over my own body and sexuality, and no one can tell me or believe otherwise." But, I think the real issue is not actually sexuality or really even cultural orthodoxy, per se: it is an issue of highest loyalty. To whom will we give our highest loyalty? The Kingdom of God or some kingdom of man?

Let me start with Daniel. Any Christian who grew up in the Church is familiar with Daniel 6: Daniel and the Lion's Den. It is a popular children's story, but, like almost all popular children's stories, it is often taught wrongly. It is often taught as "If you obey God and do what's right, everything will turn out fine for you." There is a grain of truth to that, but it depends on what we mean by "fine." Often by "fine" people mean that life will be generally comfortable and you will avoid most suffering. But, biblically-speaking, "fine" does not mean we will not suffer in this life; quite the contrary, actually. The biblical "fine" means God will use our suffering for our ultimate good, but we will still suffer. But, even that is not the point of the story. The point of the story comes out in the decree that the king is duped into making: "O King Darius, live forever! All the high officials of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions." (vv. 6-7)

We look at that and on the surface are tempted to think it is about praying and worship. That is part of it, but ultimately it goes deeper. The ESV gets the translation right because it is about making a petition not just praying. Praying is certainly in that category, but asking a satrap for tax money to fix a road would be as well, which is why they qualify it with "any god or man." So, then what are these enemies of Daniel doing? They are appealing to the vanity of King Darius--to his desire to be the highest dependence and highest loyalty in Babylon. Whatever we depend upon most will be the thing to which we are most loyal--our highest loyalty. In essence, they are saying, "Make a law, King Darius, that for thirty days no one can have a higher loyalty than you; no one can be more dependent on anyone else than you." That would be a tempting prospect to anyone, and, indeed, it is the original temptation: "You will be like God." (Ge. 3:5) They know Darius will love the idea of being everyone's highest loyalty, and they know that Daniel will not give in to that command. That is why in v. 5 his enemies say to one another, "We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God." Thus, they have set the trap: make the highest loyalty someone other than God and watch Daniel maintain his loyalty to God. It is a test of loyalty that they know Daniel will fail.

Such a situation is not unique in the history of God's people. This was also the main issue at stake when it came to the official Roman persecutions of Christians. (You can read my summary of early Church persecutions here.) The Romans were remarkably tolerant of religions, philosophies, worldviews, etc. so long as the Roman State was your highest loyalty. They deeply distrusted and hated anyone who had a higher loyalty than the State. If they ever found out that you had a higher loyalty than the State, you were persecuted, and that was exactly the issue that caused the first empire-wide persecutions of Christians from 250 AD onward. Before 250 AD, the persecutions of Christians were localized to various regions of the Empire, and they were not yet a matter of official Roman policy. Then, Emperior Decius came along. Decius issued a decree that commanded all people under Roman rule to offer a single sacrifice once a year to the Roman gods for the well-being of the emperor by burning incense before the local magistrate. When you did, you were given a libellus (the image above is a surviving libellus), which was your proof of sacrifice. If you could not present a libellus when ask for it, then you were sentenced to death. Do you see what he was doing? He was testing the loyalty of his people. If they were ultimately loyal to Rome, they would sacrifice, even if they also had other gods they served, but if they had a higher loyalty to their God, they would not sacrifice. The ones whose highest loyalty was not to the State could then be identified and erradicated. Rome was fine with your religious beliefs, so long as you were loyalty to it above all else. It was a test of loyalty that Decius knew many Christians would fail.

For Daniel and the early Christians, the test of cultural orthodoxy many have been different, but the underlying issue was the same: Who is your highest loyalty? Whom do you really serve above all else? And, what we are seeing today has the same underlying issue, even though the test of cultural orthodoxy is different. The real issue is not sexual autonomy. That is just a symptom of something deeper: a culture that deeply distrusts those who have a higher loyalty than the culture itself, e.g. Christians.

Our culture is fine with religious beliefs and "spirituality" and even encourages it, so long as those beliefs do not lead you to question the prevailing cultural dogma, so long as you pass the test of cultural orthodoxy. For, if you pass that test, it shows you are more loyal to the culture than you are your religious or spiritual beliefs. If you are willing to compromise on that one belief, it shows your highest loyalty is really to the culture; not the God of the Bible. Last year, Frank Bruni of the NY Times tipped this hand and revealed these cards in his article "Bigotry, the Bible and Lessons from Indiana." There he lays it on the line. He tells us that religious freedom is really "freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity." I added emphasis to show you his bottom line: all people, religious or not, must bow to the "enlightenments of modernity," i.e. all people should be more loyal to the culture than their god, religous text, or spiritual beliefs. It is a test of loyalty: Is our highest loyalty to the culture (the "enlightenments of modernity") or to our God?

You see, friends, what we are seeing in culture is what Christians have experienced in all cultures in all times. It is just that the specifics of the test are different for us. Why do I point this out? For two reasons:

• First, we Christians need to be reminded of this so that we do not begin to think that we are going through something no other Christian community has. We are not. Our struggle is not unique. The true Church of God's people has never been on the "right side" of human history and has always been at odds with cultural orthodoxy. And, in those times where we seemed not to be at odds with the surrounding culture, I would argue that those are the times we have been least faithful to God and His Word. It was not because the test was not there but because we passed it (from the culture's perspective). I will talk more about this in the next post, but we need to remember that because then we can look back on history and see that God sustained His people during all those times and tests, no matter how bad the persecution became. He will do the same today. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church (Mt. 16:18). 
• Second, I want us to realize that whatever the test of cultural orthodoxy is, the issue at the base is always spiritual. The fundamental issue is not sexuality, communism, or petitions. It is always a test of whether or not we will worship God and depend on Him above all else, even if it costs us everything we have in this world. In fact, these were really the issues at stake in devil's temptations of Jesus. And, if we are going to follow Christ through these tests, we need to see them for what they really are: spiritual battles. We need to look past the arguments over sexuality and see what lies behind it: Will we trust God, believe His Word, make use of His means of grace to sustain and train us, and make Him our highest loyalty? That is the question that really matters. It was what mattered for Daniel, the early Church, and all other Christians throughout space and time. 

For now, I leave you with that to ponder. Next week, Lord willing, we will learn from Daniel and a little from Church history how we live as faithful Christians in the midst of these tests of cultural orthodoxy.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Exodus: A Great Salvation -- The Supreme Court, Exodus, and the Gospel

Note: This was written as a devotional for my congregation on June 26, the day the results of Obergefell v. Hodges were announced. So, it is a little behind; yet it still applies today.

So, anyone who has been on Facebook or kept an eye on the news for the past few hours probably knows by now that the Supreme Court ruled that States are required to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. And, of course, since then the Internet has exploded with articles and opinion pieces on this topic, which is not really surprising. So far, Russell Moore has a very good response "Why the church should neither cave nor panic about the decision on gay marriage." And, the Exodus story is relevant to the situation the Church is entering.

We do not need to cave or panic. Yes, this will likely mean more persecution for Christians in America as the ramifications of this decision play themselves out. But, let's sit back and take a historical perspective. Rarely has the true, invisible Church existed in an environment where the culture around them was not hostile to their beliefs (and Jesus warned us of this), and God has continued to sustain, love, and care for His Church in whatever environment they live. The Hebrew people had to learn this in Ex. 1-2, and the Church has learned it ever since. Persecution has never stopped God's people or the spread of the gospel. In fact, it has only served to fuel the spread. We have seen this in Ex. 1, the book of Acts, the Roman persecutions of the early Church, the Reformation, and even today in places like Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. And, this is because the life of the Church is not in our selves, our strength, or anything else from us at all. The life of the Church is the resurrection life of Christ, against which even the gates of hell cannot prevail. As Russell Moore said in the above article, "The Supreme Court can do many things, but the Supreme Court cannot get Jesus back in that tomb." Nothing can stop the Church, and Christ will continue to sustain and protect His Bride until He returns again to take her home.

And, speaking of home, that is another aspect of the Exodus story and our lives as the Church that we need to remember. Yes, this latest decision will likely mean greater persecution for us as a Church and as individuals, but that should remind us that the gospel shows us that this world is not our home. He. 11:26 tells us that Moses "considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward." Even Moses knew that the promises of God and the coming Redeemer were greater than all the treasures of Egypt. Why? Because he knew that this world is not his home. The "reward" towards which he was looking is told to us by the author of Hebrews in v. 16: "a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city." Moses and all of God's people have "a better country, that is, a heavenly one" coming--the new heavens and the new earth. Jesus, through His work of redemption, has secured for us a home that far surpasses this world in every category, and while we may suffer here for Christ because we stand with Him against our culture, as the gospel tells us, "The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Yes, we may suffer in the future as the implications from today play themselves out, but that suffering should remind us that this world is not our home. We are strangers and foreigners here, exiles as Peter puts it, but that is only for a short time. America is not really our country but simply a place to sojourn for a while on this earth. We have "a better country, that is, a heavenly one" coming. Christ secured it; the gospel displays it.

Now, I know this might worry you, for even though we know that God will not let His Church die and that we have a better country coming, we still have to see our children grow up in a world hostile to the things we teach them. Yet, we must also remember here that to God our children are holy, and He loves them more than we do. Perhaps life will be hard for them--harder than it was for us--but instead of focusing on that hardship that will come, let's display before them confidence in God's sovereignty, and as we do, perhaps it will help us to live more free from worry. Let's show them that we know God has this country in His hands and the He turns the heart of the "king" however He chooses. Let's show them that He loves and cares for all His people, so much so that He knows how many hairs are on our heads and when one falls He knows (a reality for me that becomes more and more vivid with each passing year). Let's show them that Christ loves His Bride and sacrifices everything for her by living marriages that are sacrificial and serving before them. Or, if you are single, our children can still see quite clearly in your life that Jesus is more important and valuable than any relationship in this world, so please, show them that. Let's show them that we are looking forward to a better country and therefore God is not ashamed to be our God, even if our culture is ashamed to have us in it. Let's show them that the gospel is the true hope of every individual in this country and that they will never be satisfied until they drink of Christ, therefore we still need to be lights and salt for Him so that when the sexual revolution has left our culture bankrupt, the gospel is right there waiting for them. And, let's look forward explicitly to the new heavens and new earth, showing them that we long for that world which is our true and eternal home and that the sufferings of Christ are nothing in comparison. Perhaps as we display that in our homes and in our worship at church and fervently pray for the next generation of Christians, the stark contrast between a bankrupt culture and a full, life-giving gospel will sink down into their hearts, so much so that they will be the next generation that carries the spreading of God's kingdom forward, for His glory and our good.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Charge of Inconsistency

"Simply stated, the 'homosexuality and shellfish' argument falls apart when read as the Scriptures are meant to be read—with a redemptive-historical approach in view." ~ Matthew Everhard

You often hear stated today, "Christians love to quote the Bible and pick and choose whatever rules they want us to obey and what rules they want to ignore. I can quote the Bible too, and Lv. 11:9-11 says that you should not eat shellfish. You eat shrimp, so why should we believe what you say about homosexuality?" This is the "shrimp argument" and it sounds like a good one on the surface, but it actually comes from a complete lack of understanding of Scripture and Christianity as a whole. It is leveled by those who want to charge Christians with inconsistency if they do not agree with homosexuality. Yet, as we will see, citing a random verse from Scripture does not prove Christians inconsistent at all. It in fact opens up the door to show how Christ has changed everything.

First of all, let's be clear about what the Bible says. People who use the shrimp argument generally quote from Lv. 18:22 or Lv. 20:13 as if they are the only thing the Bible has to say about homosexuality. That is simply not the case. The New Testament (NT) is not silent on the issue but is quite clear (cf. Ro. 1:26-27; 1 Co. 6:9; 1 Ti. 1:8-11). So, if we are going to throw around the charge of "picking and choosing," let's not pick and choose what prohibitions we mention or what Testament we go to for those prohibitions. (It is often argued that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. Stand to Reason has a good article answering that charge.)

So, is it inconsistent for Christians say homosexuality is sinful but eat shrimp? No, because with His life, death, and resurrection, Jesus changed the Biblical landscape and now proper interpretation of the Old Testament (OT) law must take Christ's work into account (the redemptive-historical view mentioned in the quote by Everhard).

The OT, especially Leviticus, commits a large amount of space to what is called the "ceremonial law." This law told Israel how it could approach and worship God. Because Christ had not yet come, man could not just approach God in his any state. For God's people to be in right relationship to a holy God and to rightly worship that God, there had to be sacrifices to deal with sin and rules to deal with the purity of the Israelite people. You could not approach God if you had eaten certain foods that were declared unclean (like shrimp), if you had touched an unclean object, or if you did not wear the right clothing. Through the ceremonial law, God made it clear that He is holy and people are not, therefore they cannot just approach Him and worship Him in whatever fashion they pleased. They had to be pure. When Jesus came on the scene, however, He fulfilled the ceremonial law. The book of Hebrews argues this point at length, showing that with Christ's death and resurrection approaching God has changed and people cannot go back to the ceremonial law. Christ's is one-for-all sacrifice (He. 10:12), His righteousness is now our purity before God (Ro. 5:12-18; He. 10:19-23), and now all foods are clean (Mk. 7:19). When Jesus died on the cross the veil of the Temple was ripped and replaced with Jesus Himself (He. 10:20), which shows that the ceremonial law, with its sacrifices and cleanliness laws, has been fulfilled and can no longer be observed by Christians. Jesus makes us clean now, not what we eat, wear, touch, or what sacrifices we make.

That, however, is not the only type of law in the OT. Another type is the "judicial law" that governed the nation of Israel. In it there are a lot of laws that seem odd to us and there are some that seem extreme, like the stoning of blasphemers (cf. Lv. 24:16). What about those laws? How do those work? Blaspheming is obviously still a sin but should we stone those who do it? No, because with the coming of Christ, God's people are not longer a physical nation but a spiritual one. In the OT, God's people were a physical nation so sins had civil punishments. However, now that Christ has come, God's people are a spiritual people living in governments throughout the world. The Church is not the civil government, so the Church no longer deals with sin through civil punishments but through exhortation, censoring, and, as a last resort, exclusion from fellowship (cf. Mt. 18:15-20; 1 Co. 5; 1 Ti. 1:19-20).

But, the third type of law--the moral law, which, for example, tells us about sexuality--is still in place. Why? Because it is not a consequence of how we can approach/worship God (ceremonial law) or the political organization of God's people (judicial law) but an extension of God's very character and created order, which can never change or be done away with. Even the coming of Christ does not change the requirements of the moral law (but He does secure forgiveness and eternal life for those who put their faith in Him). What the OT has to say about generosity, loving our neighbor, families, relationships, and even sex continues into the NT (cf. e.g. Mt. 5:27-30; 1 Co. 6:9-20).

So, how we look at the OT and its regulations depends not on "picking and choosing" but on Jesus Christ Himself. Now, one might reject the Christian premise that Jesus is God and that His death and resurrection changed the biblical landscape. But, even if one does reject that premise, one cannot fairly say that Christians are inconsistent if they accept the moral statements of the OT and do not practice the ceremonial or judicial aspects. From the premises of Christianity this is completely consistent. One can say they disagree, one can reject the conclusion, one can say Christianity is wrong, and one can even say it is "hateful" (those are different arguments), but the charge of inconsistency fails when looked at the data seriously from a biblical, Christian standpoint.

By His Grace,
Taylor