The Political, Social, and Personal Effects of the Incarnation of Christ

During this time of year, when we celebrate the advent and incarnation of Christ Jesus, we must think more broadly regarding the amazing ramifications of the incarnation for our personal lives and civil society. His incarnation provided individual salvation to His elect and was the impetus to vast political and sociological transformation over the past 2,000 years. In essence, this short article articulates the fourfold process of how theology gives birth to a philosophy of life which gives birth to political theory resulting in public policy. The following observations explore the positive political and social effects of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Political Theory

When we realize that God became a man, we understand the dignity He has bestowed upon humanity. This understanding of dignity has enormous consequences regarding how political systems affected by the Gospel have viewed the relationship between civic rulers and those they lead. Jesus said that He came not to be served but to serve and that, despite being God, He took upon Himself the form of a servant (Matthew 20:28, Philippians 2:5-11). Because of this, a slow revolution has taken place with the potential to displace the theory that certain special people are born with a divine right to lead over others instead of representing their needs.

This Jesus concept, foreign to how kings ruled during and prior to the time of Christ, resulted in the English Magna Carta. This was the first document forced onto an English king by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. 

Years later, when the kings of England again became tyrannical, Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex, Rex which means “The Law is King.”. This book again stated that kings do not have a divine right to rule by birth, that they had to represent the people, and that they themselves were under the law. In addition, the lynchpin of the U.S. Declaration of Independence is the fact that humans have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

Conversely, if Jesus were not God but merely a created being, then the biblical answer to the philosophical challenge of the “one and the many” as modeled by the Trinity (which alone gives us the societal underpinning of experiencing unity in diversity) would have been denied. Thus it would have been left up to the political state to force unity through laws based on humanism and political coercion. There would have forever been a great divide between God and man in which God would have remained a mystery and unknowable to humanity. Therefore it would have been left up to a humanistic political entity to attempt to grant their subjects significance, unity in community, true meaning, and coherence through a large central government controlling their lives.

Finally, if Jesus were merely a created being who attempted to attain godhood, this would leave the door open for other men to be considered greater in divine stature (e.g., future political kings who could rule as tyrants). Thus, the idea of a republic built upon transcendent law with a democratic process of electing civil magistrates to represent the needs of the people originally came from the Old Testament (Exodus 18:13-27) and was further developed by Christian leaders after the incarnation of Christ.

Social Ramifications

When God took upon Himself human flesh, He further elevated the unique dignity of humanity as the crown of His creation made in His image and likeness (Psalm 8:4; Genesis 1:26-27). This elevation of man resulted in Christians leading the way in standing against abortion and infanticide; abolishing slavery; caring for the sick, dying and poor among them; crafting child labor laws; leading the fight for civil rights and universal human rights; and elevating the respect of women, children, and families. (For more on this subject read Why You Think the Way You Do by Glenn Sunshine and the life stories of Christian reformers such as Dr. Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce, and Charles Simeon.)

Consequently, billions of people throughout the centuries owe the orthodox Christian view of Christ’s incarnation a huge debt for its philosophy of serving humanity through political leadership and human service organizations. 

Please check out the latest book from Joseph Mattera here!

Deconstructing Passages Used for Cultural Dominion

Genesis 1:28 and its New Testament counterpart, Matthew 28:19, have been used by some to justify Christians exerting top-down dominion over society. While a case can arguably be made for cultural influence, we need to interpret said passages properly to not justify erroneous methodologies.  

In Genesis 1:28, God blessed mankind and instructed them to “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” This dominion was to be exerted over the created order. Some understand this as a cultural mandate, while others interpret it as a dominion mandate. It is a mistake to call this a “dominion mandate” relative to the church today since God never commanded Adam to have dominion over fellow human beings. The directive to have dominion was given to them before the earth was populated. Hence, it referred to dominion over the ecosystem, animal, and plant life.

A case can also be made that this was a command to all humanity, not just Christians. Adam was the federal head of all humanity, not just believers (Psalm 8:4-8 gives clarity to Genesis 1:28 and its reference to all humanity). Consequently, throughout history, all human beings have exerted dominion over creation by cultivating the ground, building civilizations, and utilizing ecosystems and raw materials for their benefit.

Nevertheless, some Christians can also rightly argue that God never initially intended to give the earth to those outside His covenant. From this perspective, the primary people who are the recipients of this command to exert dominion over the created order would be Christians. This is especially so since Jesus is called the last Adam by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15:45). While there may be a lot of truth to this last point, the fact remains that dominion was never meant to be dominion over people. We cannot utilize this verse to justify the advancement of Christianity by force or even by top-down political takeover. Voting and political influence remain a matter of Christian stewardship in democratic societies; these were never meant to be the only methods to influence culture.  

Jesus, as the last Adam, illustrated that the primary way to have kingdom influence was by washing the feet of others and being a servant-leader (John 13:34). He modeled for Christians, more than unbelievers, God’s mandate to cultivate the earth and serve humanity. He showed us how to become the greatest problem solvers and cultural creatives the world has ever seen. (In the past 2000 years since the birth of Christianity, especially in western civilization, the world experienced human flourishing as the Church developed hospitals, universities, classical music, and art and produced some of the world’s greatest scientists.) 

What about the call to disciple nations?

Many have interpreted Matthew 28:19 (to disciple all nations) to mean that the Church is called to use the Bible as a handbook to Christianize geopolitical nation-states. While there may be a ‘spillover effect’ after values derived from biblical ethics permeate every aspect of a society’s culture, this is not the primary meaning.

The word nation in the Greek language is “ethnē,” and in most places in the New Testament, it has been translated as Gentiles (Matthew 12:21, 25:32; Mark 13:10; Luke 12:30, 21:24, 24:47; Acts 4:25). This refers to non-Jewish people groups, not necessarily a geopolitical construct that we see in the modern day. The modern-day geopolitical construct of nation-states didn’t start until the “peace of Westphalia” in 1648. Thus, this political arrangement is less than 500 years old.

That Jesus wasn’t primarily giving a command for a top-down political takeover of a nation is made clear by the rest of the context in Matthew 28:19-20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, [even] to the end of the age.” In this context, “discipling the nations” meant planting churches in a non-Jewish cultural context among Gentile (ethnic) people groups, thereby expanding the influence of God’s Kingdom on earth.

We know this because Jesus described the process of discipleship as “being baptized” (which is part of the integration of a believer into church life), followed by “teaching” what Jesus commanded them (which has to do with catechism and teaching new converts the “first principles” – Acts 2:42; Hebrews 5:12-6:3.)  

Consequently, according to Jesus, the only ways ethnic groups will be transformed are by joining the church and becoming disciples. Many people vying for cultural transformation today make no mention of the impact of the local church. They make it seem like cultural transformation only depends on national elections. Although it’s important to elect godly leaders, we cannot focus merely on politics because, in doing so, we overlook the power of the gospel and the Church.

History attests to how effective this biblical methodology can be. We have seen what happens when “a critical mass” of specific ethnic groups join the Church and are discipled. The evident changes to a community, city, and region’s culture are visible after-effects. This was observed in the Roman empire and many subsequent barbarian groups who experienced Christianization (in the Middle Ages). They adopted biblical law as a standard for cultural norms and ethics.

However, history also illustrates that a Christianized nation, without the strong thriving power of the Church, will eventually become as equally corrupt as any heathen nation. For example, a case can be made that the Church grew weaker after Rome was Christianized because it became politically advantageous for a Roman to become a Christian (in name only) and join the church. The result was that many became ‘minimalist Christians’, thereby compromising the power of the Church. Many committed saints felt they had to flee this carnality by secluding themselves, becoming hermits, and joining monasteries. As defined by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church was to be built by Him to create a penetrating and lasting impact against which the gates of hell would not prevail.

My conclusion is that the political Christianization of a nation is not the ultimate answer. In my opinion, we are to perpetuate strong local churches that nurture disciples, who, in turn, will positively influence communities for the glory of God. The result is civilization’s flourishing by the supernatural power of the gospel and its inherent wisdom and revelation. This is the only way communities can be transformed without the Church being compromised.

Please check out the latest book from Joseph Mattera here!

Seven Ways We Neglect Our Salvation

The writer of Hebrews says, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation” (2:3, NKJV).

The Greek word for neglect, (“having neglected” in its original tense in Greek), is “amelēsantes.” This means to pay no attention to, to make light of, or to be negligent of. (See Matthew 22:5 for another instance when this word is used, i.e., “they paid no attention.” (ESV)

Many Christians, including Evangelicals, have made it a habit to neglect the basics of the faith, thus operating in a dangerous assumption that their salvation is always a settled fact despite how they live. However, this is not the teaching of the original apostles who wrote the sacred text. Even St. Peter admonished believers to ensure their calling and election (2 Peter 1:10).

The following are seven ways in which we can neglect our salvation:

1. Sporadic church attendance

When I first came to Christ in the late 1970s, committed Christians rarely missed Sunday services. Then about two decades ago, committed Christians came to church about three times per month. Then, around 14-15 years ago, so-called committed Christians started coming to church one to two times per month or less. Around 2008, our church attendance dropped by about 25%. I thought many people were leaving our church, but when I checked into it, I was shocked to find out that we were not losing members but that they were coming to church less frequently. 

The writer to the Hebrew Christians warned us not to neglect church assemblies but to exhort one another daily lest our hearts get hardened (Hebrews 3:12-13; Hebrews 10:25). The lack of frequent fellowship and mutual admonition is connected to the hardening of one’s heart resulting in the neglect of one’s salvation (Hebrews 10:26). 

2. No accountability in our life

Hebrews admonishes us to exhort one another daily which means believers cannot merely attend church on Sundays and think that is enough (Hebrews 3:13). The early church met daily in the temple as well as house to house (Acts 2:46).

Hence, we all need close relationships with mature Christians who will hold us accountable to biblical standards and encourage us to seek God and pursue our divine assignment. We neglect our salvation when we refuse to allow ourselves to be accountable to mature believers. 

3. Allowing ourselves to be led by every new trend

In the past several years, many sincere Christians have been distracted by conspiracy theories such as Q Anon, novel teachings, numerous failed prophetic declarations, and more. St. Peter instructed the church to crave pure spiritual milk so that they can grow (1 Peter 2:2). Satan tempts the saints by leading them astray from their sincere devotion to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3).

When we stop feeding on God’s word, we hinder our spiritual growth. This is why St. Paul admonished Timothy to keep his faith sincere with a pure heart and to avoid speculations, conspiracy theories, myths, and anything that promotes questions rather than faith (2 Timothy 1:6). Unfortunately, many have wandered away from the truth because their focus was not on the gospel (1 Timothy 1:6).

I once spoke to a Christian who was obsessed with COVID-related conspiracy theories, and he wanted me to spend hours discussing this with him. After several minutes on the phone, I asked him, “how many people are you winning to Christ, and are you discipling anybody?” He was silent on the phone for a moment, then answered, “no.” I told him to focus on that and forget the conspiracy theories. 

We could be neglecting our salvation by continually chasing every conspiracy theory and the latest novel teachings. (By novel teaching, I am referring to that which has not been taught previously in the historic church or has been cited as heretical in one of the major ecumenical councils.) 

4. Not participating in church-based corporate exposition of scripture

The Bible teaches us the importance of consistently sitting under the preaching and teaching of the word of God. St. Paul said, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God,” meaning that our posture of continual learning under anointed teachers should never stop (Romans 10:17).

When a believer stops getting fed by mature, reliable shepherds called to feed the flock of God, they neglect their salvation. Also, Peter said that we should be fed by our shepherd (1 Peter 5:2). Hence, he is not referring to listening to random preachers but sitting under those called to disciple and speak into our life so we can align with our divine assignment. We neglect our salvation when we infrequently sit under our local church’s corporate teaching and preaching. 

5. Not pursuing biblical discipleship

Every person is called to be a disciple and to make disciples. St. Paul admonished Timothy to focus on pouring into faithful men who can teach others. (2 Timothy 2:2). Jesus laid out a process of discipleship that included initiation into the Body of Christ through water baptism followed by learning the teachings of the faith (catechism) (see Matthew 28:19-20). Every person who converted in the early church was instructed in the Apostles doctrine (Acts 2:42; Hebrews 5:12-6:3). By refusing biblical discipleship, we are neglecting our salvation. 

6. Not pursuing the Lord and seeking His kingdom first.

Saint Paul instructed Timothy to flee youthful lusts and to pursue faith, love, and peace with those who called upon the Lord with a pure heart (2 Timothy 2:22). As a shepherd since the early 1980s, I have seen that not everybody who is a church member seeks first His kingdom with a pure heart. Jesus said the great commandment includes loving God with all the heart and loving our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:37-40). When we refuse to seek His kingdom first, we neglect our salvation (Matthew 6:33). 

7. Hardening our hearts because of trials and tribulations

Scripture makes it clear that God allows trials to test our faith so it can come forth as pure gold (1 Peter 1:7). Trials and tests can either make us better or make us bitter. According to the teachings of Jesus, those who harden their hearts because of worldly difficulties and distractions didn’t receive the word with the right heart (Mark 4:13-20).

When we harden our hearts instead of seeking the Lord during challenging seasons of our life, we are neglecting our salvation. 

11 Signs You Are A Functional Atheist 

Although the definition of an atheist is one that denies the existence of God, in this article, I use the word to depict those identified as Christians who live as though there is no God they are accountable to.

Unfortunately, in my estimation, a considerable percentage of Christians live as functional atheists. 

The following are eleven signs that you are a functional atheist:

1. You make important decisions about your career without consulting Scripture or praying.

I can’t tell you how many Christians I know choose a career based on how much money they will make. They do not consider how God internally wired them, how it would impact their ability to mature as a believer in the context of a local church, and how it will affect their key relationships; when a person does this, they behave like a functional atheist.

2. You choose a church solely on emotional connections.

As a pastor since 1984, I have seen more people leave a church because their friends left then because they genuinely heard from God. Consequently, people are led by their emotions more than by the Holy Spirit when it comes to this all-important matter regarding their church family. 

That being said, it is normal for a person to come to Christ and attend a church because a friend invited them. However, once they mature in the faith, God expects them to go from carnal reasoning to a spiritually informed process regarding the choice of a church, among other things. A mature believer will choose a church based on the will of God, where they are growing spiritually, and who God has placed in their life to be their spiritual parent (1 Corinthians 4: 15).

3. You choose a mate solely on mutual attraction. 

Based on my pastoral observation, I have seen countless numbers of Christians marry a person merely because of an emotional or physical attraction. Although God can work through any marital situation, deciding this is no different than an atheist who will also choose a mate merely on emotional and physical attraction (Romans 8:28). 

I believe God uses the way He has wired us emotionally, physically, and spiritually (I would never counsel a person to marry a person they were not physically attracted to). At the end of the day, God has a specific spouse that matches your calling and destiny, which comes from being led by the Spirit and hearing from God. (To be fair, I have seen many married couples come to Christ whom God brought together even though they were not believers, but after they are saved, much more is required regarding decision making.)

4. You have no consistent communion with God.

Any believer who does not seek the Lord regularly, aiming to be in continual communion with Him, is living like a functional atheist. Moses said to the Lord, “If your presence doesn’t go with us, then don’t send us”  (Exodus 33: 15). Being in communion with the Spirit and being led by Him continually is a staple of normal Christianity (Romans 8:14; Ephesians 5:15-18). Believers who constantly fill their lives with activities bereft of seeking Him, behave like functional atheists.

5. Scripture does not inform your worldview.

Every election season, it amazes me the unbiblical policies and candidates some believers support. Obviously, they are primarily informed by secular humanism and don’t understand how to integrate their personal faith with public policy. Those who are not informed by Scripture regarding their world and life view are functional atheists in this area.

6. You casually speak negatively about churches and spiritual leaders. 

The Bible teaches us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7). When a person casually speaks evil of other people, especially Christian leaders and churches, it demonstrates that they lack the fear of the Lord.  The Lord hates discord among His people (Proverbs 6:19; Ephesians 4:29-31). Slanderers and gossips in the church live like functional atheists.

7. You determine how many children you will have. 

One of God’s original commands was to bear fruit and multiply (which means to have children in Genesis 1:28). Biological children are a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). Having children is one of our primary callings because we partner with God to expand His eternal family. (Those who cannot have children or are called to be single should focus on having spiritual children.) With something as important as this, married couples should pray over Genesis 1:28 and ask God how many children He wants them to have. Those who determine family planning without God act like functional atheists.

8. You choose to divorce your spouse for unbiblical reasons.

I have known spiritual leaders who glibly divorce their spouses merely because they do not get along. Jesus did not make divorce that easy (Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:1-10). Those whose primary plumb line for divorce is happiness, break the covenant with God and their spouse and act like functional atheists. (Of course, if a believer chooses to divorce their spouse, the other person in the marriage is not responsible or in bondage (1 Corinthians 7:15).)

9. Your walk with God is based on blessing and convenience.

Those who only serve God when it is convenient or require a minimal sacrifice live as functional atheists. 

10. You live independently of His Body.

Once we come to Christ, He places us in His Body (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). Conversely, lone rangers who continually church hop and live without being in covenant or accountability with spiritual leadership live as functional atheists. Through studying the New Testament, I have learned that I cannot walk out my calling apart from a local church.

11. You make a geographical move without hearing from God.

I am amazed at how many Christians I have known since my conversion in 1978 who have moved away from the church God planted them in, only to waste years of their life floundering in a stagnant spiritual state. Before a geographical move impacts a life-giving church connection, I suggest you do the following: make sure you have heard from God in conjunction with the independent witness of other mature believers. Consult with your spiritual leaders. Make sure you are not being driven merely by money or convenience. Make sure there is another church in that new community that you have visited and sense a connection to. Make sure you do not burn any bridges if you make a mistake and must return—those who superficially make a huge geographical move act as a functional atheist. 

Since the original Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson and made official in 1776, the United States has made an about-turn from the values inscribed in that document. Anyone examining the Declaration of Independence is immediately impacted by the new nation’s utter dependence upon God, His providence, and its Judeo-Christian worldview.

The fact that the Founding Fathers’ decision to disassociate the nation from Britain and its political position was based upon “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” (“the laws of nature and nature’s God” is referring to scriptures like Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19-23, which show how God uses nature to teach humanity of His ways) and underpinned by the phrase: “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.”

Hence, Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers believed all civil authority is derivative. As God’s representatives, they can either lose or gain the right to lead the people based on conformity to His laws.  In other words, civil leaders gain legitimacy to lead based on how adequately they represent God’s laws in their principles and policies. One of the last things mentioned in this amazing Declaration were these words, which prove Thomas Jefferson and the other signers were not deistic in their religion. (Many claim that Jefferson, and most of the Founding Fathers, were not Christians but Deist. Deism is a religion that believes God created the world but had nothing to do with the personal affairs of  men. God was like a person who makes a watch, winds it up, and leaves it alone. They did not believe God answered prayers, intervened in human affairs, did miracles, or died on a cross and rose from the dead.) 

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.

Of course, any practicing deist would never appeal to God as the Supreme Judge of the world since it violates their most basic tenet that God as Creator has nothing to do with the world He made! Furthermore, the U.S.Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are not competing documents. The Declaration of Independence is the foundation for the values and birth of the nation and serves as the cornerstone of the US Constitution. Hence, there was no need for the Founding Fathers to mention God in this latter document because God and His laws are already assumed as its foundation. All that to say that the United States built its view of life, liberty, and justice upon biblical values and declared unambiguously that the burgeoning nation depended upon God for its existence, sustenance, and prosperity.

Our New Declaration of Independence From God

In the past century, our nation began to gradually stray from our biblical roots and dependence upon God as its anchor and sustainer. It seems to me that the greatest value many have in this nation is the value of autonomy. In comparison, past generations (World War II and beyond) celebrated the biblical virtues of self-sacrifice and service to humanity. The present generation values the right to self-expression and self-will, irrespective of how it negatively impacts society and stability for future generations. How far have we fallen as a nation from President Kennedy’s immortal words in the 1960s, “Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country”?

One decade after President Kennedy, we began to change the laws to reflect the values of human independence from God. This change includes values such as the “right to choose” (the so-called right of the mother to terminate the life of her unborn in the womb, or partial-birth abortion, which causes the infant to be partially born so they can terminate the small human), “no-fault divorce” (which made divorce easier and contributed to the rapid decline of two-parent households), alternate forms of family and marriage, gender identification (outside the bounds of one’s natural birth), and soon to come, trans-humanism, in which a robot equipped with artificial intelligence will be considered a humanoid. This will give way to birth humans marrying robots, counting robots along with their children as part of their family, further confusing the next generation and eroding the biblical concept of biological families.

America is now at the crossroads for survival. Some say it is on the precipice of another violent Civil War. (We are already a divided nation along political and ideological lines, replete with violent rhetoric and uncivil discord.) Its survival will not ultimately depend upon which political party triumphs, but upon which god wins. It will be either a continuing embrace of the god of self-expression and autonomy or a return to a dependence upon the biblical God who claims the earth for Himself and who laughs at all rulers, nations, and people who attempt to rebel against Him (Psalm 2 and 24).

May the United States of America not just have a Declaration of Independence but may this nation have total dependence upon the Creator God.

10 Contrasts Between a Conservative and Progressive Nation 

Hypothetically, if every conservative moved to a red state and every progressive moved to a blue state, and we had two nations instead of one, which nation would prosper the most? Would it be the conservative states or the progressive states of America?

The last thing I want is two separate nations; however, I desire to show which policies, in general, would cause a nation to prosper.

The seven core principles of conservatism include individual freedom, limited government, the Rule of Law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and human dignity.

Progressives tend to focus on legally enforcing equality among all people irrespective of merit and individual effort hence engineering predetermined results.

1. A conservative nation would have a low (flat) tax. Progressive states would have a high progressive tax rate.

Lowering taxes increases disposable income, allowing the consumer to spend additional sums, thereby increasing GNP. In which of the two nations do you think corporations and small businesses would want to move: The one with a high corporate tax or the one with low tax extraction? In which of the two nations would small businesses and individuals flourish? The one that allowed those who had more money to use after earnings or those who had less money?

2. A conservative nation would reward individuals based on merit and creativity. A progressive nation would entitle people based on ethnicity and minority status.

Dr. King’s dream of a nation not judging people based on their skin color but on their character’s content would be the conservative mantra. A country based upon an equal opportunity that rewards people based on diligence, individual effort, and creativity would inspire all people to greatness. Conversely, a nation that financially rewards people based upon their group classification will create a culture of entitlement instead of hard work and sacrifice. Which of these two countries do you think would catalyze human flourishing?

3. A conservative nation would espouse free-market capitalism. Progressives would espouse socialism.

Capitalism rewards individuals and businesses that produce wealth through investment and free trade within the market. Conversely, socialism strips away that wealth and redistributes it throughout the economy to people irrespective of their effort, sacrifice, education, or creativity. Capitalism rewards merit; socialism rewards mediocrity. Which of these two nations would prosper?

4. A conservative nation would honor the traditional view of family. Progressives would deconstruct the nuclear family.

A conservative nation would encourage parents to be committed together in marriage and foster healthy environments in providing for their children. A progressive state would deconstruct the nuclear family and encourage alternate forms of the family, which often leaves children without a committed two-parent home or an active father at home.

Statistically, as of March 2017, 70% of runaways, 70% of juvenile delinquents, and 70% of child murderers come from single-mother homes. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average. 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

Which of these two nations would cause families to flourish? 

5. A conservative nation would be tough on crime. Progressive states would defund the police.

“According to a YouGov/The Economist poll, the share of Americans who say crime is the most important issue facing America has increased since (progressive) Joe Biden became president.”

Which state would have a better quality of life in urban centers, the ones tough on crime or the ones weak on punishing criminals?

6. A conservative nation would empower parents in education. Progressives would bypass parents in education. 

“Parental involvement with their children’s education positively enhances their academic performance, their child’s attitude toward school, classroom conduct, self-esteem, absenteeism, and motivation.”

Conversely, many progressives do not want the parents involved at all in public education, especially when teaching controversial subjects dealing with human sexuality and gender identity. In which of the two states would children do better in education?

7. A conservative nation would encourage small business expansion. Progressive states would over-regulate business.

Conservatives would encourage businesses without onerous regulations. A progressive nation would likely over-regulate business ventures. According to some studies, government regulations disproportionately impact small businesses. Federal regulations cost the American economy as much as $1.9 trillion yearly in direct costs, lost productivity, and higher prices. In which of these two nations would businesses flourish?

8. A conservative nation would celebrate freedom of religion. Progressive states would celebrate freedom of worship.

A conservative nation believes it is impossible to separate faith, morality, and public policy. They believe in the separation of church and state but not in the separation of God and state. On the other hand, progressives would attempt to limit faith to the practice of worship within a building on a Sunday or another designated time. Which of these two nations would faith have the greatest ability to flourish and bless their communities? 

9. A conservative nation would protect its geographic borders. Progressive states would have open borders.

Most conservatives believe a nation is not a nation if it doesn’t have borders. They believe in a fair and just immigration policy that includes a process for legal entry that protects the nation’s interests.

Many also believe that undocumented immigrants that have lived and worked in the country for decades and have no felonies should be given a path to legal citizenship. Conversely, politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, promote open borders, which will allow illegal immigrants to enter the country irrespective of their criminal background or ability to assimilate into the nation economically. 

Which of the two nations would promote national flourishing through immigration?

10. A conservative nation would be pro-life. Progressive states would be pro-choice.

People in a pro-life nation will tend to be less promiscuous and generally consider the life of a human baby even if it includes giving a baby up for adoption. In a progressive nation, people will view sex as only a matter of pleasure and separate it from procreation. This will likely result in more sexual promiscuity, with much more children born out of wedlock or into single-parent homes. Which of the two nations will human life be more valued with children having a chance to flourish? 

Contrasting Four Biblical and Unbiblical Forms of Christian Nationalism

By Christian nationalism, I refer to a belief that a particular nation’s values, culture, and laws should respect or reflect biblical ethics and morality. The following are four popular historical views that I have observed related to this subject.

1. Religious nationalism 

The first view is when church and state are completely integrated so that the opinions and identity of a church will coincide with the values and identity of a particular nation and culture. A prime example of this is the Eastern Orthodox Church. Their churches are so intertwined with the culture and nation that they are named after their country (IE, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Polish Orthodox.)

If there is a civil war or a segment of a nation experiences a geo/political split, the Orthodox Church within that nation will also experience an ecclesial split based on its political alliances. Currently, we are witnessing ecclesial division between the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox leadership. They are each blessing the respective armies of their nation during the present Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is a very unbiblical form of Christian nationalism since the Gospel should never be subservient to the dictates and politics of any nation. 

2. Cultural Christian nationalism 

Since the early centuries of Christianity, church and state have been mingled in certain periods. During the Protestant Reformation, a person was considered either a Roman Catholic or a Protestant based on which nation they were born. (IE, “The Peace of Westphalia” in the 17th century ended the “30 years war” by allowing certain lands to either Roman Catholic or Protestant.) 

Even today, we have people born in Germany or Norway who consider themselves Lutheran, or if they were born in England, they tend to identify as Anglican. This is unbiblical since God has no grandchildren; every person has to be born from above, not of flesh and blood or through the will of men (John 1:12-13). Almost 80 years ago, the world witnessed a horrific example of Christian cultural nationalism when Hitler equated an Arian German with being a historic Lutheran Christian. He even used some of the later quotes of Martin Luther to rile up sentiment against Jewish people and support his notion of the so-called Reich Church. Consequently, just because you are born in a certain nation does not grant you citizenship in heaven. The Gospel of the Kingdom transcends all geo/political identities because, as King of kings, Jesus claims all nations for Himself (Psalm 2). 

3. Political/Christian nationalism 

Since the American Revolution, we have seen some Christians connect the Kingdom of God with the United States. Based on their interpretation of “Manifest Destiny,” some have even called America the “New Israel” because they claim this nation was the only other nation besides Israel that was founded upon a covenant with God. (IE. When men signed the Mayflower compact and initiated a covenant with God). However, Abraham, the father of Israel, never initiated a covenant with God. God initiated it with Abraham and the nation of Israel (Genesis 15:7-20; Hebrews 6:13-19). In recent days, some of the so-called prophets and their followers seemed to connect the Kingdom of God with the political destiny of America, with some even saying that Donald Trump has been crowned as the only recognized US president in heaven. Connecting any political party, person, or secular movement with the Kingdom is unbiblical. The Kingdom transcends all nations and systems and never depends upon a top-down political control to prosecute the will of God. 

4. Salt and light nationalism 

This form of Chrisitan nationalism comes about through Gospel permeation, not top-down political coercion. True gospel permeation in society eventually influences a nation with Judeo/Christian principles. After all, Jesus called His followers “the salt of the earth and the light of the world,” not the salt of the church and the light of the pew (Matthew 5:13-16). This is an express declaration by Jesus that He expects Believers to be prophets to the world. The Lord’s prayer takes it further as it involves praying for God’s Kingdom and will to be done on earth (not just in church buildings for two hours on a Sunday morning) as it is in heaven (Luke 11:2-4). Thus, since God claims the earth for Himself, there is no such thing as neutrality in this world. A nation bases its laws and policies upon Biblical ethos or autonomous humanism. 

Consequently, all Christ-followers should work for biblical righteousness in their civic government and model the values of the Kingdom in their particular sphere of influence. If every church were making disciples and releasing them to serve in the workplace, their nation would see transformation from the bottom up through changed hearts and minds.

As far as “salt and light” Christian nationalism, we are responsible for loving our neighbor as we love ourselves as individual believers. We cannot care for others if we do not take care of ourselves. The Apostle Paul also commands Christians to manage their household and care for their family members (1 Timothy 3:5; 1 Timothy 5:8). The command to take care of one’s own family first can be logically expanded to include providing first for your nation since a nation sustains the ecosystem needed for healthy biological families. Ergo, a responsible Christian should prioritize reaching their nation and support policies that advance the quality of life of their own country if they truly love their immediate family and community. (IE, if you’re a believer living in the USA, a case can be made for an “America First” mindset, as long as it doesn’t involve the abuse of other nations.) 

In conclusion, Christian nationalism is biblical if it is based upon influencing one’s nation through bottom-up community service, advanced problem solving, along with gospel permeation which then results in the exaltation of Christ in every sphere of society. 

(I just released my latest book, The Purpose, Power, and Process of Prophetic Ministry. To purchase click here. )

10 Reasons Why Jesus is the Big Story for Everyone’s Story

According to Hebrews 2:10, all things come from, to, and through Jesus. This has vast implications for how we should view the purpose of humanity and creation. Consequently, Jesus is the metanarrative of the cosmos, not just the Gospels. Every person’s story ultimately points to the Jesus narrative. When Jesus said that He was “The way, the truth, and the life,”  He was referring to what all of reality means in Him and how it is complete in Him (John 14:6).

The following are ten reasons why Jesus is the story for everyone’s story:

1. The beginning of all things points to Jesus.

The Genesis creation story correlates with Jesus as the word and logos of God who created all things (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3).

2. All truth emanates from Jesus. 

John 14:6 refers to Jesus as the Truth. This is not just referring to scripture, but all truth, including understanding the laws of physics, grammar, categories, mathematics, natural law, music, economics, etc. Hence, everything in all creation ultimately points to Him. 

3. Human history will be consummated in Jesus.

Paul, the apostle, speaks about all things, in heaven  and on earth, ultimately being united in Christ (Ephesians 1:9-11). Consequently, God works all things according to the council of His will, which is Christ over all and in all. 

4. Marriage speaks of Jesus and the Church.

The love Jesus has for His Church is the meta-narrative of marriage. Jesus receives the Church as His bride, culminating in the marriage supper of the Lamb at the end of human history. Furthermore, after Paul gives instructions regarding marriage, he says it is referring to Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:25-33, 1 Corinthians 6:17, Revelations 19:6-9).

5. Every person’s story points to Jesus.

According to Genesis 1:27, all people are image-bearers of God. According to Colossians 1:15, Jesus is the image of God. Hence, our whole life and purpose ultimately should image Jesus, (which is why we cannot understand anybody’s personal story and purpose until we interpret it in light of the life and redemption of Jesus.) Indeed, of Him, to Him, and through Him are all things (Romans 11:36).

6. All scripture ultimately points to Jesus.

In Luke 24:44-45, we see how the disciples could not comprehend the Scriptures until they understood them in light of Jesus. Consequently, proper biblical interpretation must begin and end with the story of Jesus. He is the metanarrative of scripture through which all individual passages, chapters, and books of the Bible should be interpreted. 

7. The story of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah.

The Exodus story was fulfilled in Christ when He came out of Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15). The 40-year wilderness story was fulfilled in Jesus’ 40 days wilderness experience (Matthew 4:1-11). The brazen serpent lifted for healing the Jews bitten by venomous snakes was fulfilled in Christ (Numbers 21:4-9, John 3:14-15). The manna God used to feed the Jews in the wilderness pointed to Jesus as the bread of life (John 6:32-35). The rock that dispensed water to sustain the Jews in the wilderness was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4). The Passover lamb pointed to Jesus (Exodus 12, John 1:29). The blood of the animal sacrifices in the levitical system saw fulfillment in Jesus (Hebrews 9:13-15). Jesus was the true tabernacle and/or temple of God (John 1:14, John 2:19-21, Hebrews 9:11:10:19). The fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, the fulfillment of all the Jewish feasts, the scapegoat, (the Yom Kippur ritual described in the Torah (Leviticus 16:8–10), the goat ritually burdened with the sins of the Jewish people, (Matt.8:16,17)), all pointed to Jesus as the bearer of sins (Matthew 5:17, John 7:37). 

8. All natural light points to Jesus.

Jesus said He was the light of the world. In the consummation of human history, we will not need the light of the sun or the moon anymore because the light of Jesus will be our Light (John 1:9, John 8:12, Revelations 22:5). 

9. All natural knowledge for logic and rational thinking comes from Jesus.

John 1:4-5 speaks of His life being the light (illumination) of all men, not just saved men! Without Jesus’ light, humankind could not function or cohere in this world. (This is what I call “creation grace” as contrasted to “saving grace.”) Paul says that Jesus holds all things together in the universe (Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3). 

Consequently, Christians, as the Body of Christ,  have an even bigger advantage since they are organically and spiritually connected to Jesus as the mastermind of the universe (Ephesians 1:22-23). Thus, the Church should lead the way with the mind of Christ. This will result in problem-solving, inventions, creativity, leadership, management, composing music, art, serving on the leading edge of the science, technology, educational spheres, etc.  (1 Corinthians 2:16). 

10. The essence of the Church should constitute a Jesus community.

The word “Christian” means “little Christ”. This is a category used by the apostle Peter to describe Christ-followers (1 Peter 4:16). The book of Acts 1:1 shows that the gospel of Luke was a narrative regarding what Jesus “began to do”. This implies that the Church’s narrative is what Jesus “continues to do” in the world. 

Jesus always had the Church in mind, even in the gospels when He said He was building His Church and told His followers that the works He did they would also do after He went to the Father (Matthew 16:16-18, John 14:12). Since the Church is called the “Body of Christ”, Christians are the physical image of the ascended invisible Christ. This is why John said, “As He is, so are we in this world” (Ephesians 1:22-23, 1 John 4:17). 

In conclusion, the life and reality of the Lord Jesus are the highest ideals for life, truth, and ethics. This is the summum bonum of the Church, Israel, humanity, and all creation. Christ is over all! Amen.

(I just released my latest book, The Purpose, Power, and Process of Prophetic Ministry. To purchase click here. )