Biblical Dialogue for Thinking Christians

No discrimination! That cry is heard from every corner of our nation these days. It is a very fashionable cry, but is it one which is realistic? Is it in any way based on truth and reality? As with any issue, to truly and reasonably discuss this one we must approach it from an acknowledged baseline; an acknowledged point of reference which is objective, authoritative and definitive. In this essay, the Bible will be that baseline.

The Scriptures plainly tell us that God is sovereign regarding the moral affairs of men and nations. His glory He will not give to another. We are told that God works all things according to the counsel of His own will. Regardless of momentary appearances, all things will ultimately serve His purpose. In His judgments and corresponding actions, He will always discriminate in favor of Himself, and it is perfectly just that He does so.

The Scriptures also plainly tell us, both by direct proclamation and by historical illustration, that human government is ordained by God to enforce law and order among men. He rules over and guides the nations. In this regard, all truly legitimate human government, though never strictly perfect, will willingly serve His purpose. All others will ultimately do so whether they want to or not, and whether they know it or not. These are broad statements, and further discussion on this point is beyond the scope of this essay, but a consideration of the history of nations, Jewish, Christian, and pagan, will show them to be true. 

All human government is founded on some kind of philosophical/religious system upon which its legitimacy, authority, and its mechanical and moral structures depend. Accordingly, any human government will ultimately discriminate in favor of itself in its dealings with those who live under that government. Therefore, we must again ask the question – Is it possible for there to be a truly discrimination free society which is derived from some kind of human government? No, and today, in America, the notion that there can be is a subtle and speciously contrived and propagated myth designed to subjugate those who oppose the philosophical/religious underpinnings of that myth. 

Again, all human government will discriminate in favor of the philosophical/religious principles which are prevailing within it. This does not mean that all such discrimination is right and just, but that all discrimination which carries with it a positive governmental sanction will be seen as right and just by those who support that sanction, and will be defended as such.

There are two specific aspects of discrimination which we must consider. The first is the mental act of judging or making distinctions between differing moral positions. The second is publicly acting upon those various distinctions in society and culture. This second aspect is the one most commonly associated with the term “discrimination,” as it is used today in the public square. Both of these pertain equally to an individual or an association of individuals, although the considerations of an association are more easily known.

It is from the personal aspect of moral discrimination that we derive what we know as the “right of conscience.” Today in America, in theory at least, it is still generally maintained that the right of conscience cannot be abridged. The individual cannot be coerced into an action which requires him to violate his conscience. By extension, what applies to the individual must also apply to an association of individuals. Because of the duplicity of the human mind, and hence of the motives by which a man acts, even this right of conscience is not absolute, or beyond a discriminating assessment. That is a subject for another essay.

Acting publicly upon moral distinctions, or the act of public discrimination, is what will inevitably bring an individual, or association of individuals, into harmony with, or conflict with, the prevailing moral principles upon which current governmental authority is predicated, and upon which it acts, especially with regard to the liberties its citizens have to freely engage in the various kinds of public discourse. This must inevitably produce both positive and negative discrimination in terms of law, the administration of justice, and the establishing of a general social ethos by way of general governmental policy. In the arena of governmental policy, law, and the administration of justice, there is no such thing as pure impartiality. In other words, there is no such thing as a discrimination free society. 

The foregoing statements and principles can shed much light on the governmental, societal, and cultural upheaval which has been taking place in our nation for the last seventy years, the seeds of which go back much further. To consider this upheaval is beyond the scope of this essay. For an in depth analysis of this upheaval, the book “The Long March,” by Roger Kimball is recommended.

Needless to say, a legal, governmental, social, and cultural upheaval has taken place, the realities of which are easily seen all around us, not in the fact that discrimination is somehow coming to an end, but rather in the kinds of discrimination which now prevail. Let us consider a few specifics.

Upon the moral principle of “choice,” “reproductive rights,” and a woman’s inviolably autonomous right to her body, pregnancy is considered a possible violation of those rights, subject only to the unilateral determination or “choice” of the woman, and that pregnancy is subject to termination at any time based solely upon that decision. The rights of the unborn child are thus absolutely and fatally discriminated against in favor of autonomous woman. 

Upon the moral principle of universal, autonomous sexual legitimacy, an individual, or association of individuals, owning and operating a bakery or a flower shop, or by extension any pertinent business, can be compelled to violate their conscience and morally validate homosexual “marriage” by means of the services that business performs. And, this is done despite the fact that there are many businesses offering the same services who would readily accommodate the clients in question. Thus the right of conscience of these businesses is militantly discriminated against in favor of the right of universal, autonomous sexual legitimacy.

Upon the speciously contrived principle of the separation of Church and State, along with the equally specious principle of universal and absolute inclusiveness, the plainly stated constitutional principle of free religious expression is abrogated. Thus, a high school or college football coach is not at liberty to publicly pray, alone or with his players, before, during, or after a game. Thus, someone recommended for governmental service is subjected to a religious test, again contrary to the explicit dictates of the Constitution, and is implicitly disqualified from that service based solely upon sincerely held religious beliefs, and the consistent practice of same. Thus, constitutionally approved religious freedom is discriminated against in favor of supposed neutrality in religious matters, and upon the principle of absolute and universal inclusiveness. 

While those who adhere to these aforementioned principles, and others like them, profess to truthfully and honestly practice them, in reality they are used prejudicially by exerting both a positive and negative discrimination. In this way they seek to sustain their authority by means of governmental policy, law, and the administration of justice. They also seek to establish and sustain a general social and cultural ethos. The sheer arbitrariness of their arguments and actions betrays the fact that in truth there is nothing objectively absolute about them. They have no truly objective, authoritative, and definitive standard which guides them. They make it up as they go along, according to the needs of the immediate moment. The end which they must have in view, though not overtly stated, is to establish themselves as a law unto themselves and subject only to themselves.

It might be easy to conclude from all this that the art of debate and persuasion is pointless, or nearly so, but this we must not do. No doubt there will be many of our fellow Americans who are subject to persuasion and change. Those of us who believe in a God who is Truth and Light and Love; those of us who believe in the power of the gospel to change hearts and minds and lives; those of us who believe in a God who hears and answers prayer, must pray and act accordingly. As it becomes possible, we must implement changes in law, government, the administration of justice, and social and cultural morality, according to our objective, authoritative, and definitive principles. This we must do confidently and without fear or apology 

The words freedom and liberty are commonly used synonymously or interchangeably. That is, they are used as if there are no real distinctions to be made between them. However, with some consideration important distinctions can be made as we approach each word from a biblical or Christian point of reference. 

Human freedom is a reality which is distinctly and uniquely individual in nature. This involves what I would call the state of created order rather than the state of nature. The term state of nature has been used prominently in moral and political philosophy, but this idea, in my mind anyway, falls short for one primary reason: It is acknowledged that such a consideration is purely hypothetical. We can find no instance in history, biblical or otherwise, where mankind actually lived and operated under conditions which could be described as an actual state of nature; a condition whereby men are completely free of all restraint and consideration but that of purely individual desires, and are under no governing reality other than unrestrained self-will.

On the other hand, the term state of created order assumes a Creator, and this assumes a created order involving both physical and moral law. The Bible, in chapters one and two of the book of Romans, plainly declares that mankind, in his created state, has an inherent knowledge and understanding of both physical and moral law, and the testimony each bears toward the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Being created in the image of God, mankind is above all created free. This freedom we have retained notwithstanding Adam’s fall from his created state of innocence. 

From the Lord’s treatment of Cain in Genesis chapter four, and throughout the Scriptures, God treats all humanity as responsibly free and individually accountable for the use of that freedom, notwithstanding instances where the Bible also reveals God’s sovereignty in superintending human history according to His purpose. One of the greatest elements of God’s glory resides in the fact that He is able to bring His purpose to pass without the least violation of any man’s freedom to do as he will. 

Thus, every human soul who inhabits this earth is equally free under God, and is equally accountable before God for the way in which that freedom is used. But, it is important to stress that the soul is free under God; that is, human life and human freedom is a stewardship given to man by God with its requisite limitations and ultimate accountability. The Bible states in Hebrews 9:27 that “it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” Every one of us is free while we live our earthly lives, but none of us are truly, absolutely, or ultimately autonomous, that is, independent of God in any way, shape, or form. As the apostle Paul told the Athenians so long ago, “In Him we live and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’” (Acts 17:28) 

All human souls are born into this world equally free. But all are not equally at liberty to exercise that freedom as they otherwise might absent outside factors which restrain that liberty, or constrain it into undesired action or inaction. Herein lies the important distinction between that freedom in which all participate equally, and the varying degrees of liberty we commonly find throughout the communities and nations of this world. In this regard we find that whereas freedom is uniquely an individual concept, liberty is uniquely corporate in nature; something which is dependent on the many different levels and degrees of human governance which are in operation all around us. While this is true of families, businesses, schools, churches, the military, and so on, we usually, and most specifically relate this idea to national governments, especially as they exert a tremendous authoritative influence over the aforementioned entities. Let us consider a couple of specific examples which illustrate this distinction between freedom and liberty.

A Christian in North Korea or Saudi Arabia is as free under God as an American Christian to stand on a street corner in Pyongyang or Mecca and preach the gospel. Corporately, Christians in those countries are equally free under God to organize a local church in order to teach the saints and preach the gospel to the lost. But Christians in North Korea or Saudi Arabia are not equally at liberty to exercise that freedom. The costs of liberty are far greater in those countries than in America, and wisdom and prudence dictate that those costs should be considered in determining appropriate action. 

A woman under the governance of a strict Muslim family in a strict Islamic nation like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is equally as free under God as an American woman to dress as she pleases, to marry whom she pleases, to go where she pleases, to drive if she pleases, and to worship God as she pleases, according the dictates of her conscience, if she is willing to pay the price required for the liberty of exercising that freedom. The cost of liberty for an Arabian or Afghanistani woman is far higher than for an American woman. 

Examples such as those mentioned above could be multiplied many times over if we were to continue comparing life in America to life in many other nations of the world. But we should not therefore conclude that there is not a cost involved in maintaining the liberties we so often take for granted here in the USA. This is strongly implied in the statement of Benjamin Franklin, who, when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created answered, “… a Republic, if you can keep it.” 

Knowing that there are many who will question this statement I will make it anyway: The power and influence of Christianity established the liberties which we Americans have enjoyed since our founding, and the truths which undergird that power and influence have also established and defined the cost of maintaining these liberties. In the first instance, these costs are moral and spiritual in nature. Among them are faith in God, adherence to the Truth as it is in Jesus, submission to the rule and will of God, a commitment to righteous living under God, and a resolute vigilance in maintaining a system of law which reflects both the goodness and holiness of God. Comprehended in this are all the traits we think of as describing a virtuous citizenry. Prudence, self-control, fortitude, honesty, integrity, and loyalty are some of the those traits.

From the days of the First Great Awakening, and throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Church in America, though by no means perfect, was nonetheless a faithful custodian of these things. This is an uncontested fact of history, historical revisionists notwithstanding. Tragically, during the twentieth century the Church became increasingly superficial and worldly in its approach to the proclamation, inculcation, and public upholding of the gospel, and consequently of those things which are necessary to the maintenance of the American Republic. 

As the power and influence of the Church in America has declined (and let no one doubt that it has, in fact, declined) ideas relative to liberty and what that concept means and requires have been, and continue to be corrupted. While the skeleton of a constitutional republic may remain, these corrupt ideas relative to the possession and exercise of true liberty are bringing about a decisive foundational shift; a shift which portends the end of liberty as defined by biblical truth and as exemplified by the Spirit of ‘76 and the American nation it gave birth to.

Though it is beyond the scope of this essay to go into great detail, these “new” ideas, as expounded in government, education, the media, and the arts, amount to a false liberty derived from arbitrary, totalitarian human authority. These “new” ideas are nothing but the same “old” ideas which are grounded in a defiant rebellion against God. The Psalmist described these “new” ideas many generations ago: Why are the nations in an uproar, and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed: “Let us tear their fetters apart, and cast away their cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury: “But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain.” (Psalm 2:1-6)

A foundation based upon rebellion against God, and a liberty which is derived from that foundation cannot be sustained. It is no accident that as those who ply these waters begin to prevail, chaos, corruption, confusion, a spirit of mutual enmity, and an increasing attempt to restrict the liberty of those who support a God ordained governmental order, follows in their wake. And if, in fact, their influence and power continues to increase, we can only expect more and more restrictions to our liberties; restrictions which will require a quiet compliance or an overt and godly defiance, trusting that a holy and sovereign God will act on His behalf, and ours, to reestablish a right and true foundation.

Many in the Church will give lip service to the need for a genuine awakening; a genuine spirit of repentance and reformation in the life and functioning of our churches. Sadly, the reality on the ground is that the Church continues to do nothing, lulled to sleep by the dreamy illusion of peace and prosperity, of blessing and well-being, of a false sense of the grace of God, and of a false hope that somehow we shall escape the righteous judgment of God. Apart from a true, Holy Spirit induced and empowered awakening in the Church and in society at large, our Sovereign Lord will act, but not as many vainly imagine. He will act, first of all, to remove the illusions under which the Church currently lives and operates, some of which were mentioned above. He will act to restrain the liberty which we Americans have vainly and defiantly abused as free men and women under God. And He will act to prove again what He has proven so many times throughout human history, namely, that we should not allow ourselves to be deceived. God will not allow Himself to be mocked forever. At the right time, and in the right way, He will act and show once again that under His divine government whatever men and nations sow, they shall reap.