Obeying God Rather than Men

Although orthodox Christians in America have become oriented over the course of the “conservative era” of the last generation to thinking and behaving as if political and social liberalism were unsustainable in the long run, it is now very evident in the second Obama Administration that, if this is true, it will be the very long run. The post-World War II resurgence of conservative Christianity reinforced and in some measure restored orthodoxy after the loss of the mainline Protestant denominations in the modernist/fundamentalist conflict of the early twentieth century. At the same time, in the political world, the success of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher gave hope of undoing, in the foreseeable future, the collectivism of the twentieth century. But as conservatives rallied religiously, won 49 state Presidential landslides, and at times, dominated in Congress, an adversary radicalism came to dominate the academic world, the influential entertainment industry, and secured key court rulings creating a hostile legal landscape. While there are always people of conviction, a substantial part of the public will go with the flow, with the result that what is now called social liberalism, centering on self-fulfillment rather than obedience to God, and fully accepting the sexual revolution, is now the moral position of much of the nation, perhaps even a majority.

But this unpleasant reality, which might cause a mere political movement to question its continued reason for being, cannot signal any change of heart for Christians, whose real engagement in the world is religious, not political. Our duty to obey God is absolute, non-negotiable, and we find our instruction to obey him in his Word. We must continue to obey God in all of our lives, and that means continually proclaiming the truth, extolling virtue, condemning sin, seeking to bring the world into conformity with his will, and always obeying him, regardless of legal or social requirements. To the world, we may seem partisans of a defeated cause, in denial of what has happened, but we should know that we remain active for the truth because obedience to God demands no less.

However, the developing situation does mean there can be no return to the promise of a better world that existed in the time of Reagan and Thatcher, let alone actually returning to a society based on Judeo-Christian morality. Rather, we must determine to take the penalty, where necessary, for our obedience to God, and continue to testify to the truth. State hostility to obeying God’s moral precepts, which already requires Christians to sin in such areas as provision of goods and services that facilitate homosexuality, rental of property which facilitates sexual sin, instruction required of teachers in public school, religious education which is restricted or eliminated, the corporal punishment of children, and hiring and dismissal from Christian organizations, will very possibly become much greater in the future. It has to be emphasized that faithful Christians simply cannot comply with the law’s requirements in these areas, because to do so contributes to sin, and is thus sin itself, as the present writer insisted in an earlier article on the current crisis of conscience in the public square.

Most immediately, intensified state hostility will be felt if the current HHS mandate is upheld by the Supreme Court against Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, and even more if the mandate is upheld against religious non-profit corporations. Sustaining the HHS mandate will effectively destroy much of the Christian sub-culture, since the affected organizations must either close, pay heavy fines (which likely comes to the same thing), or cooperate in sin. But regardless of the outcome of the case, the continued existence of a Christian sector to society will be gravely endangered if the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, as well as if there is a clear liberal majority of the Supreme Court, which is very likely if another Democratic President follows Obama. A liberal Supreme Court majority will also end, at least for a generation, any hope of overturning Roe v. Wade, thus making the objective of the pro-life movement much more remote. That movement can continue to testify to the truth and save life where possible as it has been doing, but sustaining morale without a prospect of victory in the foreseeable future may be difficult.

In presenting our case to the wider world, we must emphasize that it is right to obey God rather than men, because he has absolute authority, and it is the duty of everyone to obey him. But also that his commands lead to a better life, or in contemporary terminology, to human flourishing. This will show the adversary claim to self-determination to be dogmatic. Beyond that, it is simply wrong to require people to take action that they believe to be wrong, which in the case of faithful Christians means disobedience to God.

The secularist claim against religious freedom today takes the form of the anti-theocracy polemic. It effectively says that personal obedience to God as an absolute monarch is theocracy and a threat to democracy. This is very similar to the old Protestant claim of past generations that Roman Catholicism is medieval, monarchical, and a threat to American freedom. To the contrary, true theocracy will occur only when Christ reigns on earth, and the kind of theocracy which is actually seen in the world, rule by religious leaders according to religious law, is precluded by liberty of conscience. Secularists are effectively defining theocracy as the religiously informed society that existed before the sexual revolution, which is clearly wrong, or even so defining religious freedom, the legal right to obey God, which is also clearly wrong.

Faithful Christians may have to live many years under increasingly hostile regimes and in increasingly hostile societies in the Western world. To do so without compromise will involve foregoing employment in a substantial number of business and professional positions where there will be a legal requirement to contribute to sin, closure of Christian organizations or businesses faced with such requirements, refusal to patronize or participate in Christian bodies formerly faithful which have compromised, forgoing the rental of property in view of antidiscrimination requirements, application of church and family discipline regardless of state law and policy, enduring the legal penalties of fines or imprisonment when legal penalties cannot be avoided, and social stigma as the wider society, molded by elite opinion, becomes increasingly hostile to Biblical morality.

To be faithful in the ways just outlined requires a firm conviction that one is right. And to know that, we need to know that traditional Christian morality is clearly derived from the Bible, especially from the words of Jesus and the apostles. In particular, in the present world, we must be able to argue Jesus’ ministry was one of salvation from sin, not merely salvation from suffering, as the social gospel would claim. Beyond that, we should able to defend Scripture as well, not necessarily to the degree that a scholar would, but enough to give a reason for the hope we have. This means some involvement with apologetics, which has been an increasing focus for Christians in this generation.

It could well be a generation, or more, before more tolerance is shown to religious and moral views that were once dominant, indeed from which there was no serious dissent, in societies once characterized by a strong commitment to freedom. We need to understand that our commitment to obey God is a matter of duty, not part of a strategy to either recover dominance or religious freedom. Perhaps, however, if the wider society sees a significant minority of Christians who do not comply with state law and regulations requiring them to sin, and the resultant loss of talent and service to society, there may be accommodation. No doubt such loss will for some time be blamed on “fundamentalists” holding to their religious dogma, but as it is seen that noncompliance is persistent with the Christian minority and principled (rather than simply a matter of grousing at new things in society) this stock criticism will be overcome for many people.

But whatever happens in the status of Christians in the wider society, our duty to God is clear. Our first commitment is as disciples of Christ – Christians – and only after that as Americans, or whatever other identities and allegiances we have.