Evangelicals are outraged at the prospect of being kicked of Twitter, Facebook, or some other form of social media.
First of all I question the value of these formats and for
those that have built incomes and what functionally are businesses (as opposed
to so-called 'ministries') than I also must temper any sympathy I might have
for them.
But leaving that aside and what are in many cases political
sanctions as opposed to censuring the gospel – the fact that the world opposes
us is to be expected. We are strangers and pilgrims, a central point to the New
Testament framing of the Christian life – a point largely forgotten or even
deliberately abandoned in today's theological climate.
What should we do when the world comes after us and seeks to
silence our message? Should we 'lawyer up' and call Jay Sekulow or one of the
other Evangelical charlatans at ACLJ or ADF?
God forbid. Their work has nothing to do with Christ's
Kingdom. They're deceived deceivers, Babel-builders – far more interested in
the sword and coin than the cross of Christ.
Our response is already provided for us in the New Testament.
We are to rejoice and praise the Lord. It's not only expected but a sign of
God's blessing – and judgment on the world.
The New Testament teaches that we 'win' by being led like
sheep to the slaughter and by taking up the cross. To take up the sword (in
whatever form) is the way of the world, the easy flesh-pleasing route at that –
and a way of death.
The Church is dominated by worldly leaders and false prophets
that teach us to 'fight' in Saul's armour – and thus they fall prey to the fate
of that forerunner of antichrist. They lose their way and are choked by riches
and the cares of this world. They embrace consequentialism, ally with evil, and
finish their race poorly – many missing the mark, having lost their way.
For all the railing about 'Cancel Culture' it would seem that
many of today's Evangelicals have forgotten that this was once a tool their
movement employed. Christians were called to boycott everything from stores to
products, to movie studios and institutions.
And in some cases I say rightly so. There are many things we
should disassociate ourselves from. And yet the difference is this. Their
motives were political. In terms of the New Testament that's not our goal. To
the world we say – let the dead bury their dead. Worship your idols but we
won't. Our boycotts (as it were) are not to change the world per se but to bear
witness to the truth. The world isn't going to change until the eschaton and
the fire that comes with. In the meantime we're told to abide, bear witness,
and if necessary die – a message largely abandoned and even repudiated by the
Magisterial Reformation and Evangelical traditions.
The First Amendment is a great thing on a practical level –
but it's not Christian. We can live in a society that believes in free speech
and benefit from it but we can never absolutise it. I can never sanction sin, lies,
idolatry or other forms of wicked speech. If we benefit from the First
Amendment then praise the Lord, but if it's taken away – it makes no difference
to our calling.
I would certainly rather live in a liberal society than a
totalitarian state like North Korea but that doesn't mean that I therefore
endorse Enlightenment Classical Liberalism or any political system for that
matter. Regardless, it's still humanism, fallen and easily given over to
idolatry – as we've seen.
The ACLU absolutised Free Speech to the point of advocating
for KKK members and Neo-Nazis. It wasn't that they liked these people. Of
course not, but they believed so strongly in the principle that they were
willing to litigate when any move by the state challenged it.
And yet social tensions have pushed this principle to the
breaking point and now some on the political Left have come to question it. It
has caused no small stir as the Left is in a state of disarray over this
debate. Some insist that Free Speech must be limited – that society is facing a
proto-fascist insurgence – and there's something to that. Others insist that
the principle must be defended and that because the principles are true –
society can weather these storms.
It's interesting to watch but as is usually the case I don't
agree with either side.
And yet I must call out the hypocrisy taking place on the
Right. Suddenly they're greatly concerned about Free Speech and First Amendment
rights? Please, it's almost unbearable to listen to.
The Right has long opposed free speech and was more than
happy to suppress and censure anything that seemed culturally subversive or
opposed to tradition. The Right has always been the champion of authoritarian
government and the limitation of civil rights. This was especially true of the
Paleo-Right which not only questions the First Amendment but many of the
assumptions of Classical Liberalism itself. This always creates a dilemma for
them because their view (if applied consistently) would mean the undoing of the
1776 Revolution. By definition they were and are counter-revolutionaries even as they attempt to flag wave and
appropriate the narrative.
The Conservative Right now pretends to champion the principle
and while there are some strong Libertarian currents at work in the movement I
find their voiced concerns to be largely disingenuous and deceitful. What
they're doing is playing politics and seeking to take the moral high ground –
only because it's convenient for them to do so at this moment.
If given the chance (as they were in the autumn of 2001), they
would do all possible to suppress speech, religious freedom (that wasn't in
conformity with their social consensus), and certainly journalism, and the
right to petition the state. They've always opposed investigate journalism,
whistle-blowing, and popular protest. This is why the January 6 event is so
interesting and presents such a dilemma for them. As conservatives they have
allied with Right-wing forces but not necessarily conservative ones.
Again, practically speaking the First Amendment is great but
it's not absolute. I will die for Christ but not for the First Amendment. And
will I take up arms and kill for it? Absolutely not. I would rather live under
the Kim regime than do that.
For in doing so I would cease to be a Christian.
Filing lawsuits and calling on the sword of the state to
fight our battles and to administer justice represents the same kind of
betrayal of Christ and the abdication of Christian ethics. The state is the
sword and as Romans 12 makes clear – we live by a different ethic. It's a
necessary evil in a fallen world. In Providential terms it is a 'good' as it
holds back the tide of chaos as seen in parts of the world where the state has
utterly collapsed. Libertarianism is a blind and stupid myth rooted in a
Pelagian view of man. We have no such hope or expectation.
The state is there for a reason and we can be thankful for
it. But we don't endorse it. We don't assist it. We don't call on it for
justice or seek to appropriate its power to fight our battles for us. The
Christians that do so have lost their way and are in grave danger of apostasy.
If we're reduced to second-class citizenship than rejoice –
because it means we're being obedient. The contemporary Church that thinks its
facing persecution for the most part isn't. They're facing punishment and
political consequence. If they had been faithful they would have already felt
the social pressures and would have been toppled from their positions of power,
influence and status long ago. What's happening is not persecution but social
and political backlash – but even this isn't nearly as bad as they make it out
to be.
But because they've built their Christian Babel (their Pseudo-Zion)
on a false foundation it's no wonder it is governed by an ethical system that
is also removed from the New Testament. Their weapons are the sword and the
coin and they will turn to these when embattled – and they will also die by
them as they were warned.
It's time for the faithful to break ranks with these people.
The road they're on does not lead to Zion.