Welcome to Part III of a “Biblical Approach to Politics!”

This is the last part of the first section of our discussion. In Parts 1-3, we’re talking about whether or not God cares about Politics and how our success and tenure as a nation is possible because of the Scriptural foundation upon which our approach to government is built.

Still, some would like to suggest that our Founders were not especially godly men – that they were only token Christians. And then others want to say that because many were slave owners, that their perspective is therefore suspect and the system they created should therefore be discarded.

Today we address the issue of Slavery and to what extent that should influence our view of the things they accomplished.

Here we go!

While it is not difficult to believe that the Founders based their approach to government on Christian principles, given their verbiage both public and private, it is nevertheless challenging to reconcile their perspective with the fact that many owned slaves.

While Slavery is by no means an American institution, the fact that it’s contrary to Scripture (Ex 21:16) and an inhumane practice in general, makes it easy to question the mindset of those delegates from the South that comprised the Second Continental Congress.

How do you process a document written and agreed upon by men, many of whom maintained a mindset that allowed for the enslavement of human beings? 

First of all, from a purely practical standpoint, we don’t evaluate the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence according to the character flaws of the men who wrote them. Rather, we evaluate them according to the substance of the documents themselves.

Secondly, many of those that owned slaves were the same ones who sacrificed their homes, their fortunes and, in some cases, their lives, to ensure a system of government that possessed the necessary tenants that would ultimately translate to the end of the slave trade.

Third, to align yourself with the Revolution, whether as a statesman or a soldier, you were committing treason against the crown. The punishment for that included:

• That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk: though usually (by connivance length ripened by humanity into law) a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement
• That he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive
• That his entrails be taken out and burned, while he is yet alive
• That his head be cut off
• That his body be divided in four parts
• That his head and quarters be at the king’s disposal⁷

This was the fate that loomed over the progress of the Revolution. Those that fought and served to win America’s independence did so risking everything. However flawed they were in the way they processed the sin of slavery doesn’t change the substance of their work. It’s that work that we honor, not just because of the sacrifices that were made which made it possible, but also because of how the biblically based freedoms those efforts established would go on to secure the liberties that timeframe denied to others.

Historian Stephen E. Ambrose sums it beautifully in an article featured in “Smithsonian Magazine:”

Slavery and discrimination cloud our minds in the most extraordinary ways, including a blanket judgment today against American slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries. That the masters should be judged as lacking in the scope of their minds and hearts is fair, indeed must be insisted upon, but that doesn’t mean we should judge the whole of them only by this part.⁸

Some of the most accomplished characters in Scripture were guilty of some truly despicable sins: David and his affair with Bathsheba and his subsequent murder of Uriah (1 Sam 11) and Paul, one of the more prolific writers of the New Testament, condoned the murder of Stephen and was an accessory to the persecution and imprisonment of perhaps hundreds of Christians (Acts 22:17-20).

While it’s tempting to place yourself in a category distinct from that kind of wrongdoing and be able to feel as though you appear more righteous in the sight of your Heavenly Father, you have to remember that all sin requires an attitude that is as heinous as it is universal.

In order to sin in any capacity, you have to walk up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and tell Him to get out of your chair. Granted, some sins are unintentional (Num 15:27-31), but the vast majority of them are deliberate and all of it requires grace including everything from speeding (Rom 13:1-7) to overeating (Prov 23:20-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20).

The fact of the matter is anytime you’re looking at a believer, you’re looking at two worlds that are operating side by side simultaneously. While the power of sin has been destroyed (Rom 6:6), our capacity to sin remains (Rom 7:14-25). And the thing is, in the words of Paul, “…there is nothing good in me.” (Rom 7:18) Whatever good I’m able to do, it’s more because of God working in and through me (Ezr 1:5; 1 Cor 12:6; Phil 2:13) than it is me functioning according to a morally pure mindset.

This is why we can embrace the accomplishments of certain individuals despite them having significant sin in their lives. We can applaud the Activity of God in and through an individual without endorsing the depravity of that same person.

You don’t overlook wrongdoing (1 Cor 5:13), but you never want to become so preoccupied with the sin in others that you forget the way in which God uses both brand new gloves and filthy mitts to catch fly balls. We give God the credit because it’s Him doing the work and the fact that He uses sinners like you and me is a testament to His Grace and not our goodness.

And the same thing applies to unbelievers as well. However distant that person may be from God doesn’t change the fact that God can, and often does, use people who don’t honor Him to do His Work.

King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).

The example of Cyrus demonstrates that a leader can be a heathen and still be worthy of your support because of the way their platform promotes and protects the work of God. So the question isn’t, “How can I support someone who doesn’t acknowledge God?” The question is, “Whose platform is most aligned with that which promotes and protects our nation’s spiritual wellbeing?” Or, another question which better accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to those passages that restrict God’s usage of individuals to those that honor Him would be, “Would you have voted for King Cyrus?”

III) Conclusion (Part I)

God cares about Politics.

He facilitates governments and He uses our involvement and prayers to accomplish His Purposes.

Our nation is founded on Christian Principles that come from the Word of God. Our Founders were not masquerading as pious human beings when they cited Divine Absolutes as the basis for their declaration to King George. Anything less than the Substance of Scripture would’ve reduced our cause to nothing more than a complaint and it’s those same Truths that guarantee our continued success and serve as the basis for the way in which we choose our elected officials.

The thing is, God does care about Politics because it’s not just “politics.” It’s either His Purposes or man’s rebellion being played out in the context of legislation and foreign policy.

God cares about Politics.

To read “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part II,” click here…

1. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208#:~:text=The%20general%20Principles%2C%20on%20which,by%20me%20in%20my%20Answer, accessed February 2, 2022
2. “The Writings of Samuel Adams”, Harry Alonzo Cushing, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, London, 1908, p189
3. “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102, accessed February 2, 2022
4. “Transcript of President George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)”, ourdocuments.gov, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript, accessed January 31, 2022
5. Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 170
6. Douglass Adair and John A. Schutz, eds., Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961), p. 41; Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 173; John Leach, “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775,” The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol.19 (1865), p. 256
7. Blackstone, Wm., Knight. Chase, George, ed. Chase’s Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1936, p891
8. “Founding Fathers and Slaveholders”, Stephen E. Ambrose, “Smithsonian Magazine”, November 2002, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/, accessed February 2, 2022

Excellent Reading: “Did America Have a Christian Founding” Mark David Hall

Yesterday in Part I we concluded by saying that there’s only two religions in the world: Either God is God or man is.

Every religion, with the exception of Christianity, empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate his own salvation. Christianity is the only religion that says the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that made it necessary.

When you pull back the curtain on this one central idea, you see the subtle supernatural dynamic being bestowed upon the individual. The fact that you can do something or abstain from something to merit heaven qualifies you, to a certain extent, as being divine…

Sound familiar?

⁴ “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)

 Kind of makes sense now, doesn’t it.

When you pull back the curtain and see how Christianity is the only authentic religion in that it’s based solely on the grace of God rather than a human being attempting to be a god, you can understand why it resonates as a stronger option in the mind of the person who recognizes the frailty of his human condition and the veiled attempt on the part of other creeds to position man as his own deity.

Moving on to Part II…!

You can also see why from a purely logical point of view that only the Absolute Power and Perspective represented by the Word of God would suffice in providing the philosophical strength the Founders needed in order to refute a monarchy and create a republic.

John Adams said it best:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.¹

This is why the best option, when reviewing different candidates for office, is going to be the one whose policies are most consistent with Scripture.

However you may personally disagree with that premise, the verbiage of the Declaration as well as the documented comments of the early patriots demonstrates conclusively that the novel political ideas they dared to assert were not based on human preferences as much as they were Divine Guidance (see “Divine Guidance” on sidebar). And while they celebrated the Goodness of God’s Providence in the context of our nation’s initial declaration and the creation of the new Constitution, they were just as vocal in declaring that our future welfare was a certainty only if it was based on the same Resource.

Samuel Adams had this to say:

May every citizen in the army and in the country have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of that declaration recorded in the Bible: “Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed” [1 Samuel 2:30]. ²

John Adams mirrors his cousin, Samuel Adams:

…We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams)³

George Washington leaves no doubt as to his perspective on religious piety and political prosperity:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.⁴

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.” Washington’s words capture the spiritual and political direction that needs to be central to the platform of anyone who aspires to public office because it’s that foundation alone that guarantees a successful administration.

Some will want to insist that a Christian worldview is a needless and ignorant basis for the selection of our national leaders. They will assert the 18th popularity of Deism as a means to minimize the way in which Scripture served both as a Resource and as a Guide in the formulation of our government (see “Christianity or Deism” on sidebar).  In other instances, they’ll take statements made by those like John Adams out of context and attempt to turn them into comments that prove he didn’t perceive Christianity as the fundamental foundation for our country’s government that it is (see “The God Delusion vs The God Conclusion | Part One – FIT“).

The fact is, when you consider the spiritual fabric of our nation’s initial colonization and the way in which Christianity was such a prominent cultural fixture during the time of the Revolution, any effort to try and dismiss or qualify the fact that our country is based on Christian principles borders on the absurd.

Perhaps one of the more compelling proofs of our country’s collective regard for the application of Scripture to the cause of liberty comes from the battlefield (read the story of Major General Peter Muhlenberg by clicking here).

The “Black Robe Regiment” was the name the British troops gave the clergy who supported the Revolution from behind their pulpits with their Bibles and in combat with their rifles.

Historians have commented that:

There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.⁵

British soldiers went as far as saying blaming Christianity for the Revolution:

The influence of the Reformed political tradition in the Founding era is manifested in a variety of ways, but particularly noteworthy is the almost unanimous support Calvinist clergy offered to American patriots. This was noticed by the other side, as suggested by the Loyalist Peter Oliver, who railed against the “black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a part in the Rebellion.” King George himself reportedly referred to the War for Independence as “a Presbyterian Rebellion.” From the English perspective, British Major Harry Rooke was largely correct when he confiscated a presumably Calvinist book from an American prisoner and remarked that “[i]t is your G-d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins the Country; Damn your religion.”⁶

Tomorrow we hit Part III!

However sound your reasoning may be when it comes to conversations pertaining to politics and culture, inevitably it goes back to a comment that John Adams made when he said, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He was right.

The Rule of Law and Moral Absolutes have no substance if your philosophical paradigm is based on the notion that you are your own bottom line. In that light, however effective we may labor to be, as far as being knowledgeable and articulate when it comes to championing the Conservative Christian mindset in the context of current events, our primary duty and our most effective strategy is to pray according to 2 Chronicles 7:14.

I see on various websites rhetorical questions coming from Liberals asking how anyone could support President Trump or why someone would question the validity of the Socialist approach to government?

I’ve seen on social media websites a myriad of threads commenting on Homosexuality and other behaviors that are specifically labeled by God as utterly toxic, saying that these lifestyles are justified by a person’s right to be happy and regardless of how you feel, if their behavior is not directly affecting you, than what business is it of yours?

These topics are not merely “moral” or “political” in a general sense. If your perspective on a particular issue runs contrary to what God has expressly documented in His Word, than you’re contesting God Himself and not just the School Board or the Supreme Court. In other words, many of the personalities you encounter who proudly fly the flag of liberal convictions are philosophically invested in a platform that maintains mankind as his own absolute which makes this a spiritual battle and not a mere debate.

That doesn’t mean every Republican is always right and every Democrat is always wrong. Nor does it mean that Trump is a saint and Biden is a reprobate. What it does mean is that you have to kick the tires and determine whether or not God has a particular take on the issue at hand and support those whose platform is consistent with Biblical Absolutes and be ready to explain, not just the theological merits of the direction you’re advocating, but the practical benefits as well (1 Pet 3:15).

And you don’t want to be fixated on just “winning” the argument as much as you want to be promoting what’s True.

The biggest problem with our country right now is not how we’re “divided” or “domestic terrorism.” Our biggest obstacle is our failure to take sin seriously.

But here’s the kicker…

You can’t expect to significantly influence those who approach themselves and the world around them who maintain an indifferent attitude towards the empty tomb (2 Cor 4:4). If the issue bleeds into a spiritual sphere (which it inevitably does [Eph 6:12]), than while you do have the responsibility of being aware and accurate (1 Chron 12:32), in order to be effective, you’re going to need some Holy Ghost Rocket Sauce if you’re going to make a difference and not just an appearance (Prov 25:11; Is 55:10-11; Matt 10:20).

And while the Bible may or may not resonate as an objective Authority in the mind of your audience, you can point to our nation’s heritage as it’s documented in our national archives and imprinted in our capitol’s architecture.

Here is a portion of “American Concrete…“

When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:

• The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
• The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers

Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.¹ Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage.

The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct.  But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:

• the context of that comment
• the character of the person speaking
• the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential

In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.

Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson’s Resume

Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”²

Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.

Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”³ Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason. While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.

Jefferson’s Starting Point

It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on. His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation. Take a look…

In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.

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 unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)

The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance
to the state.

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.

Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.

To read, “American Concrete” in its entirety, click here…

Here’s my thought: You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience.

In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life. Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…

1) Where did you get your gravity from?

The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.

2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?

If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.

3) Where is your fossil record?

When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”¹ He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record.

“Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.² It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation. The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.³

Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:

…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.⁴

4) What’s the point of your existence?

That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road.

You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective. In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another.

In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.

5) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?

This is a little awkward:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.⁵

Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.

6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?

While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound. Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.⁶

Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes? Probably not. But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder?

In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.

7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?

Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10⁴⁵⁰ power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?⁷

8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?

You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.”

In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions.

Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one. When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?

9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?

You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable.

Why?

If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?

10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?

Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture? If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions?

Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.⁸

Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16). In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.

Conclusion

No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters.

But…

The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5). The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity. To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences.

What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science?

Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?

Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.

Here’s my thought:

I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction.

I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time.

And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.

Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.

I’ve got no further questions…

1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250
2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61
3. Ibid, p57
4. Ibid p56
5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015
6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015
7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)
8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015

To say that God isn’t interested in politics represents a twisted interpretation of Scripture.

God works through human institutions and authorities to accomplish His Purposes. You see that in the way He hardened Pharaoh’s heart to facilitate the Exodus (Ex 4:21). He used King Cyrus to give the Israelites the legislative green light they needed in order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem (Ez 1:2-4) . He used Quirinius to institute a census that would bring Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem (Lk 2:1-3), He used taxes to illustrate how we are to allocate our sense of duty and responsibility (Matt 22:21).

The Old Testament devotes four books to chronicle the actions of all the kings of Israel, we’re commanded to pray for kings and those in positions of authority that we might live peaceful and godly lives (1 Tim 2:1-3) , He stresses the importance of godly leadership by highlighting how citizens beneath the tyrannical boot of a wicked ruler are miserable (Prov 29:2). He commends godly leadership , He despises evil rulers (1 Sam 15:11), He hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1) and He encourages political involvement (Ex 3:10-12; 2 Chron 7:14; Neh 2:4-6; Acts 23:11). Furthermore, “…there are 642 verses that refer to law, laws and lawlessness. There are 211 verses that refer to judgment, judges, and judging, and 561 verses that speak about justice. There are 195 verses that talk about courts, 301 verses that talk about ruling and rulers, and 100 verses that speak of governing and government.¹

Just prior to the Battle of Jericho, Joshua comes upon an imposing individual standing in front of him with his sword drawn. Joshua asks, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” The man replied, “Neither,” and went on to say that he was the commander of the Lord’s armies.

Some use this passage to suggest that God is indifferent to Politics – that the discussions, divisions and elections that dominate the headlines irrelevant when compared to more lofty, theological concerns. But that’s not the case. The angel was not relaying Divine indifference to the upcoming battle, he was reminding Joshua that this was God’s campaign and as such they could be confident of a victory. But because it was God’s battle, they couldn’t look upon it as a mere military action and their heart and their minds had to be focused on Him.

God cares about Politics.

Warnings and Rewards

Dishonest scales” are referenced in Proverbs 11:1. That’s referring to cheaters and liars. He hates them.

He hates them.

He also says this the monarchs reigning in Judah:

“Moreover, say to the royal house of Judah, ‘Hear the word of the Lord. This is what the Lord says to you, house of David: “‘Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it. (Jer 21:11-12)

To whom much is given, much will be required (Matt 20:25-28; Lk 12:48; 1 Pet 5:1-3). If God places you in a position of authority, you are accountable to God for the way you lead. Your honesty (Prov 12:22), humility (Jn 19:11) and compassion (Is 1:17, 23) are crucial to the way you administer the affairs of those in your charge.

God cares about Politics.

I Will Bless Those Who Bless You

And here’s something else to bear in mind while we’re talking about it:

The nation is like a mighty lion; When it is sleeping, no one dares wake it. Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, And whoever curses Israel will be cursed.” (Num24:9 [see also Gen 12:3])

Palestine is giddy that Biden has won. And before you begin to think that the PLO represents an honorable cause, understand that in the aftermath of WWII, the UN set up a territory that was supposed to be two separate nations: An independent Arab state and an independent Israeli state. Six days after this arrangement was made, war broke out which was initiated by the Arab world and the hostilities have endured since.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that doesn’t respect Israel’s right to exist. And while the majority of their efforts are directed towards Israel, they are part of a network that is undeniably opposed to any supporter of Israel, including the US. Click here to learn more.

The US, under Trump, has been supportive of Israel. Biden and his like minded compatriots are not. In fact, Obama sent 221 billion dollars to the PLO during his last hours as President.

Now, however you want to process all this is up to you. But don’t think for a minute that God is somehow detached from politics and encourages neutrality. It’s not so much what side God is on, it’s whether or not the nation in question is on God’s side. It’s that nation that thrives and regardless of how stately or crass the leadership may appear on the surface, it’s their actions that reveal, not only their personal disposition, but the collective perspective of the country that voted them into office.

Conclusion

The thing is, God does care about Politics because it’s not just “politics.” It’s either His Purposes or man’s rebellion being played out in the context of legislation and foreign policy.

God cares about politics.

1. “First Person: Does God Care About Politics”, David Shelley, August 30, 2010, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/first-person-does-god-care-about-politics/, accessed March 30, 2021