Sunday, September 28, 2025

The question "Politically, what side should a Christian take?", carries some traps

I once saw a Christian asking a political question of someone he looked to as spiritual leader. (I would add a disclaimer that the spiritual leader had no official capacity in any church, as far as I know.) He was asking in good faith, trying to discern his way through complicated times, concerned how a certain conflict was being handled by the then-current president. (Nevermind which president that was, so that the scenario could be relevant to anyone.) The answer was another question: Do you support the president? 

Accepting that question into the conversation was a misstep; I'll come back to that. 

The questioner said Yes, he supported the president. And the responder moved on as if that answered the question about the conflict and its handling. In a way it did: unconditional support for a worldly leader, or party, carries risks that people have not always thought through. 

When the question became, "Do you support the president?", the question stopped being, "What is the faithful Christian stance?" A better answer to "Do you support the president?" would be "When I think he's right." That response would have guided the conversation back to relevant territory. I've heard similar questions over the years where "Do you support the party?" was the question that moved the conversation off of meaningful spiritual ground. And many worldly calls to pick a side are baited with pride. 

The question of which political party should guide our spiritual discernment is already on faulty premises. It "looks past the sale," as some would say, about whether a political party should be guiding our spiritual discernment in the first place. Our support of a political party can never bring light to the world. Our insistence on bringing light to the world -- if we seek it first -- might. 

If we try to tie two things together -- faith and politics -- whichever one is more flexible is going to bend. 


Sunday, September 21, 2025

To everything there is a season

To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. (Ecclesiastes 3:1)

Ecclesiastes' most famous passage reminds me that there is an appropriate time for so many opposing actions in life, without spelling out for the reader what those may be. 

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. 

This passage is eloquent and beautiful about the times, but does not offer guidance on discerning the times. This leaves us with people who read the times differently: Is it a time to kill or a time to heal? Is it a time to weep or a time to laugh? A time to keep silence or a time to speak? 

I'm looking for more wisdom on that point, and the first step I have spotted is what Paul once said to the church in Corinth: 

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things are not edifying. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's prosperity. ... So whether you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do it all to the glory of God. Give offence to none: neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, that they may be saved. (1 Corinthians 10:23-24, 31-33)

If I am looking to justify myself, I have the easy job of finding a way to justify myself since most things have their season. If I am looking to seek the glory of God, give offense to none, and seek the benefit of others in general, I have a more difficult job. This keeps a godly restraint on the tendency to read the times to justify myself, instead of conducting myself to redeem the times. 

Sunday, September 14, 2025

Essential Bible Verses for Social Media Storms

As is my practice in the middle of polarizing and contentious events, this week I will not be posting a "business as usual" post. In some ways this post is a continuation of the post on Essential Bible Verses for Posting on Social Media

  1. Avoid pouring fuel on the fire (Proverbs 15:1: A gentle answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger). 
  2. Give focus to those who are loving and humble. (Ephesians 4:15: Speak the truth with love; Philippians 4:8 whatever is worthy of praise, think on these things.) 
  3. Focus on earnest work for peace. (Romans 12:18: As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.)
  4. Grieve with those who grieve. (Romans 12:15: "Mourn with those who mourn." There are times when rejoicing is out of place, so the remainder of the verse is not implied by the quotation of the current part.) 
  5. Do not believe the first report without reservation, and do not disbelieve a report merely because it differs from a previous report. (Proverbs 18:17: The first to present a case seems right til another comes forward and questions him.) 
  6. We are called to be discerning about what we believe. (1 Thessalonians 5:21: Test everything, hold onto what is good.) 
  7. We are called to be discerning about what we say. (Ephesians 4:29: Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful in building up others according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.) 
  8. Be as unfailingly kind as our humanity can manage. (Ephesians 4:32: Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ has forgiven you.)


Sunday, September 07, 2025

Help from the inside: the work of the Holy Spirit

I have been working towards a fuller understanding of the Holy Spirit, beginning with various things the Spirit is credited with accomplishing. 

  • The Spirit of God is described as the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord, rejoicing in the presence of God, particularly resting on God's anointed (Isaiah 11:1-3)
  • The Holy Spirit is the spirit by which we call God "Abba", "Father" (Romans 8:15, Galatian 4:6)
  • The Holy Spirit is particularly credited with fellowship among believers (2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:1)
  • The Holy Spirit is to lead the apostles into truth (John 16:13)
  • The Holy Spirit is known as Comforter or Advocate (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7)
  • The Holy Spirit makes intercession for us when we do not know what to pray (Romans 8:26)
  • The Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles to supply the words to say during trials (Mark 13:11) and to teach them what to say on those occasions (Luke 12:11-12)

In some ways the Spirit is the least-seen among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Still, in some ways the Spirit is the most intimate: with us, in our hearts, in our minds, living within us and helping from the inside. 

Sunday, August 31, 2025

When is "Self-Defense" a deflection from other conversations?

I have heard more than one conversation lately about self-defense, which is natural in the wake of this week's events. While that question is necessary in our fallen world, I've seen it misapplied in various ways. So before taking a look at self-defense, the first step is to be sure that "self-defense" is the topic on the table. 

If the question is about the ethics of self-defense, that question is specifically about defending the self: the one person asking the question. If the person being attacked is responsible for the defense of others, it is no longer a question of self-defense and the person does not have the latitude to decide on personal preference alone. For anyone in a responsible position, there is a duty to protect those under our care. 

Again, if the question is about the ethics of self-defense, that question is about defending from an attack. It does not cover a "pre-emptive strike", something that comes up more often in international conflicts. The question of self-defense does not cover the question of being the initiator. This is not to comment on whether it is ever justified to strike first, but to state plainly that striking first is not a question of self-defense. 

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

A second moral conundrum

This post responds to a comment from the comments section of the previous post. I thought it deserved a better answer than fit into the comment box. 

There's some similarity between the new conundrum and the previous post's conundrum, "Suppose you have to steal a million dollars to save a life," which seems custom-made to argue from "there are situations where different moral rules are in conflict" to "there is no real right or wrong", and has the options unrealistically limited. If that ever happened in real life, there would be an option to give the money back with interest, plus record the blackmail to show to the police. But that conundrum is artificially gamed to take real-life options off the table. 

The new scenario has a few things in common with that, but at least it's closer to real life. The comment runs: 

Thank you for this post. I'd be happy if you helped me with the following:

A follower of Christ while running away from a war-torn country meets members of a militia who are out to kill religious people and is asked whether he's a Christian. If the militia stay true to their words and kill all who acknowledge religious faith but allow those who deny it to live, should the right response from the Christian after considering the principle you've described be "yes" or "no"?

To the commenter: I'm not sure of your personal backstory so I want to mention: there's no level of "principle" that creates an *obligation* to allow yourself to be killed. That is: in general it is morally required to look for ways to preserve life, while knowingly allowing yourself to be killed is only *acceptable* if better options have been exhausted. ("Heroic sacrifice" scenarios exist, but that's not our scenario here.) When St Paul first faced the option of being killed for his faith, he ran away. (If anyone is not familiar with that, see Acts 9:23-25 and again 2 Corinthians 11:32-33.) Even though St Paul did eventually die for his faith, there were alternatives that first time -- not presented in the conundrum that he was placed in but created by the motivation to preserve life, which is a positive good in general circumstances. 

The commenter mentions considering the principle I've described: the good that's of higher importance or value takes precedence. Notice that everyone does that, regardless which choice they make: If the person values their life over their faith then they will act to make sure they live. Or if the person values their faith over their life then they *might* not act to preserve their life, but they also might go off-script like Paul going over the city wall in a basket, and not play by the script of wannabe murderers. When there are two good things in conflict, we look for ways to preserve both, even if we have to proactively create new alternatives. 

Whenever this kind of thing happens in real life, one factor that comes into play is human weakness. A human being might wish for the courage to stick by their faith but just not have it when the price tag is dying on the spot. Some might also weigh how it would affect their families. The early church had plenty of experience with that. There were people who died for thought-crimes/group membership in various persecutions. But the early church acknowledged the reality that there were people whose courage failed even if their faith was still there, and they would (eventually) forgive people whose nerve failed them when they had the ancient-world equivalent of a gun to their heads. St Peter springs to mind in this connection, who denied knowing Jesus on the night of Jesus' arrest and trial. 

Speaking of artificially limited options, the options would not be limited to answering with the single word "yes" or "no" except to the unimaginative. If we've exhausted our options, and if (as a Christian) the person plans to give an answer that is essentially "yes", they might want to make it count for something rather than simply playing the villains' game. St Paul at his trial said something to the effect, "It is for my faith in the resurrection that I'm on trial." Even on his way out of this world, he was looking to bring that hope to other people around him. Jesus set the example there with some choice answers at his own trial, including "You would have no power over me unless it were given to you from above," "My kingdom is not of this world," "Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to me," and "You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven." Sure, those words provide guidance for people wanting to understand his mindset at the moment. But those words also had a way of making the opposition see what they were doing in a new light. Which is the scenic tour of saying: The canned answers of "yes" and "no" are for those too unnerved to think on their feet. Lots of people in that situation find if they're going all the way, they're going to do it with a bang not a whimper. If I were the person in the hypothetical scenario and couldn't find a way to preserve my life, I'd hope to give a "yes" that moved the needle, maybe like: "If by Christian you mean someone who joins God in loving the world, then yes." I'd just hope I could string that many words together if I had that much adrenaline going, and could hope to manage that short version or better. 

Either way they answered in that scenario, they may have missed one of their moral obligations: to be more proactive in stopping people who go around killing others. You mentioned there's a war going so they might be outside any territory where they were a participant in the culture. But if they were still on home turf, regardless of whether the person answered "Yes" or "No", there is some chance they've dropped the ball previously by letting things get to that point. 


Sunday, August 24, 2025

A moral conundrum, and Jesus' answer

I recently came across an old post at a skeptic's blog discussing a moral conundrum. There are layers of conversation in that post, which in itself was a response to this very brief hypothetical in moral philosophy, which runs (with one correction to the text): 

Here is an interesting ethical question. Suppose Smith knows for sure that if he steals $1.000,000, Jones will not murder Williams. But if he does not steal $1,000,000, then Jones will murder Williams. If he steals, of course he's a thief, but if he doesn't steal, does that mean he's an accessory before the fact to murder? See what trouble you get into when you ask questions like this to a philosopher?

The conundrum is too far-fetched to be interesting as more than an armchair exercise, but for those interested in armchair exercises, there it is. To me, the more interesting comment is the skeptic's follow-up: 
Why is it a dilemma?  Because to most religious believers, there is apparently no "correct" answer.  Either choice is wrong.  But that simply illustrates a big problem with religious ethical systems in general: they don't work in real life.  The believer sees moral values as being concrete and absolute.  Murder is wrong.  Stealing is wrong.  Period.  In this situation, you'd be wrong, no matter which choice you make.  Under Divine Command Theory, God dictates whether things are right or wrong, but since moral values are absolute, there seems to be no wiggle room.  There is no right thing to do.  In deontological ethics, it is one's duty to follow the rules (as set out by God), but the rules say we shouldn't make either of these choices.  This is indeed a conundrum for the religious believer.  And let me add here that this particular scenario might never occur in real life, but there are many situations where one is faced with a choice between two things that are both considered to be wrong.  In fact, it happens all the time.
The part that troubles me is that there is so clearly a way to resolve it within Christianity (and within Judaism), but this seems relatively unknown in modern discussions. It is covered explicitly in the Bible. It is something that Jesus discussed and the religious philosophers and moralists studied intently. The fact that it could get into a modern discussion as an unexpected twist or unsolvable problem, that is the baffling part. 

Here is a recorded example of Jesus addressing the exact situation where two paths for action are each against a different moral law, and how that is resolved: the greater law is kept and the person is blameless with regards to the lesser law. Let's look at Jesus' comments first, and then some more follow-up: 
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say to you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (Matthew 12:5-6)
Again as part of the same train of thought, later in the same chapter: 
And he said to them, "What man shall there be among you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the sabbath day, will not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath days." (Matthew 12:11-12; same or similar conversation also recorded in Luke 14)
While Jesus teaches that the principle of greater good is in effect, he is hardly breaking new ground here. It's the driving force behind the question of which law is the greatest, since the greater law is the one that takes precedence in case of conflict. Discussions of "Which is the greatest commandment?" are recorded in three of the gospels (see Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27). For those who followed the ethical and philosophical discussions of the day, this was not about which commandments have bragging rights, but about which ones could not be transgressed, which took precedence in case of conflict. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart (etc)" takes the top priority, and "love your neighbor as yourself" takes the next, according to Jesus. 

These are not just philosophers' questions like the murderer-and-thief puzzle. This is the guarantee that conundrums can be resolved without blame, when the lesser commandment yields to the greater. It also upholds the desirability of reconciliation even in cases when there is blame: love is generally the greater law than the one transgressed.