Not of this world – Lessons from John 18:36

Posted on June 27, 2015 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

Lately I’ve been thinking about how the church should interact with the surrounding culture. In my country, society is moving rapidly away from the Judeo/Christian moral framework. Seemingly, every point of view is tolerated with the exception of an overtly Christian one.

In response to this, it is not difficult to find “culture wars” rhetoric that seeks to drive me to political action. The rhetoric plays to my fears of a culture that is alien or even hostile to the standards that are set by Scripture.

A book that I was reading today made reference to John 18:36 which says:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (ESV)

It struck me that this statement informs me about how I should respond to those in power that often make decisions with which I do not agree.

Not a political agenda

The Kingdom of God will not be advanced through a political agenda. Jesus’ Kingdom has different rules of engagement than Pilate’s political world.

Not through coercion

Jesus repudiates the use of force for external coercion. Otherwise, Jesus would get his servants to fight.

In addition to Jesus’ Earthly servants, he also has the command of the angels. When you consider that one angel single-handedly took out an army of 185,000 soldiers (2 Kings 19:35), imagine the power of a whole legion of angels.

If Jesus had a political agenda, he certainly had enough resources to implement that agenda.

Bigger than this world

Our focus should not be on reformation of our society. Yes, the church has had an impact on society, but that effect cannot be the church’s primary goal. We are called to make disciples. In the process of making disciples, we trust that God will change people’s hearts and minds so that they want to live according to Scripture.

If there is any change in society, it is a result of God changing the hearts of a sufficient number of people for the societal change to take place.

The church cannot be satisfied with only a temporal change in the surrounding society. We are called to be agents used by God to bring about eternal change. We are called to help people move into a much larger kingdom.

Conclusion

While God does call some to engage in the political process to bring about temporal change (think of William Wilberforce), this cannot be the primary focus of the church. Our allegiance is to a much bigger King and a much bigger kingdom.

You shall not be in dread of them

Posted on March 7, 2014 Written by Mark McIntyre 7 Comments

Moses said to the Israelites:

“You shall not be in dread of them, for the Lord your God is in your midst, a great and awesome God.” (Deuteronomy 7:21, ESV)

Yet being in dread of the Canaanites is exactly what the Israelites had experienced. They allowed their fear to overwhelm their faith. They had ample evidence that their fear was unfounded and ample evidence that faith in God was a logical response, but they were still plagued by fear.

We might like to think that if we were in that desert and had seen the things that God had done through Moses that we would have responded differently. I can’t speak for everyone, but if I am typical of Christendom, then I think that we would have responded the same way the Israelites responded. Two thousand years of church history seems to back me up on this.

For example, too much of the political speech within Christian circles seems driven by fear that if a certain party comes to power or a certain person gets elected, that life as we know it will end. Which party is vilified is dependent upon the philosophical underpinnings of that particular group within Christendom. But at times it seems that fear bordering on panic sets in. It is almost like we think that God is control of the world on every day other than the first Tuesday in November (election day in the United States).

We can give in to fear about the economic stability of our country. We can worry about healthcare and retirement and . . .” The list of things that can cause fear is seemingly inexhaustible. As a result of the fall, the world is indeed a dangerous place.

We have to operate with the knowledge that God remains in control at all times and he is good and he is fair.

That being said, there is one difficulty I should acknowledge. Sometimes God allows people to suffer and this scares me. I suppose that only a madman would look forward to suffering with anything other than dread. But I also have to suppose that if God calls me to suffer, he will give me the grace to suffer well. Yet just thinking about suffering can be a source of fear. Our culture is becoming less tolerant of anyone who claims allegiance to Jesus Christ. Given the current trajectory of sentiment against Christianity, it is not hard to imagine that real persecution might take place.

Like the Israelites with the Canaanites, I can be in dread of what my circumstances will bring to me. The dread can come despite the testimony of many that God is faithful and will not cease to uphold those who rely on him.

I should be comforted by Paul’s words at the end of Romans 8:

“For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38–39, ESV)

Jesus also promised to be with me “to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

Let us not forget that “you shall not be in dread of them” is a command. The command demands a choice to obey or disobey. Fear may come, but I have to choose to give in to it or to trust God.

But sometimes I choose badly and respond in fear. This always goes wrong and the only proper response is to repent and choose to trust.

On corruption in government

Posted on May 20, 2013 Written by Mark McIntyre 6 Comments

I recently heard a radio commentator say that according to a survey done around the world, one of the foremost concerns of people is corruption in government. I doubt that many people are shocked by this since it is not a new problem. From the beginning, human government, made up of flawed and fallen humans, has been corrupt because the men and women who make up the government have been corrupt.

Saint Augustine, writing in the early 5th Century addressed this issue when he wrote the following:

“. . . it was the business of such men as were prudent and wise to deceive the people in matters of religion, and in that very thing not only to worship, but also to imitate the demons, whose greatest lust is to deceive. For just as the demons cannot possess any but those whom they have deceived with guile, so also men in princely office, not indeed being just, but like demons, have persuaded the people in the name of religion to receive as true those things which they themselves knew to be false; in this way, as it were, binding them up more firmly in civil society, so that they might in like manner possess them as subjects. But who that was weak and unlearned could escape the deceits of both the princes of the state and the demons?”

As Augustine points out, the result is that those who rule are likely to espouse positions that they do not believe so that they can remain in power. Whether or not religion is involved, deception remains.

Now, you might argue that in 21st Century America, we do not have a state religion. But is this true? Are we not moving into a period where there is indeed a new state religion, that of evolving morality and tolerance?

The dirty little secret of the tolerance movement is that they themselves are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. I have yet to meet the man (or woman) who lives as though all opinions on any subject are equally valid. Yet, this is the mantra of what appears to be the new state religion of the United States, a religion that is forced upon us despite the establishment clause.

What is the Christian supposed to do in response to this? A few thoughts come to mind.

God remains in control, even when governments are corrupt and antithetical to Christian belief. The power of the gospel to change lives cannot be thwarted by any human government, religious or irreligious.
We should not be dismayed when we learn of corruption because our ultimate hope is in God alone. Neither should we be surprised, when we understand that each of us carries the taint of Adam’s sin and corruption lies within our hearts (see Matthew 5 – 8).
We should use whatever power we are given to help reform government and fight corruption when it is found. This power may be limited to the right to vote. Some are called to participate in government as elected officials and have a higher responsibility for their response to corruption.

The accusation of lying – what politics reveals about our need for truth

Posted on October 10, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 4 Comments

In a social climate where a majority of people claim to believe that truth is relative, I find it curious that one of the most effective accusations leveled at a political opponent is that of lying. We have partisan “fact-checkers” who masquerade as neutral agents in an effort to bolster these claims. Both sides accuse the other of lying or of intentional deception.

I am not shocked that politicians lie or embellish the truth; we have several millennia of evidence to substantiate this claim. I am not shocked that opponents would loudly condemn the lying. What shocks me is the ease in which the accusations are leveled and the effectiveness of the accusations in achieving political gains.

If truth is relative, as our secular philosophers would argue, then why get all worked up over a few flip-flops, falsehoods or misrepresentations? Why should it matter that the candidate says whatever he thinks will get him elected? Is this not Darwinism in action? Is this not a legitimate means of political survival?

Yet the fact that accusations of lying do change people’s perception is an indication to me that there is a dichotomy between what people claim to believe and what they really believe. The mantra of current secular religion is that tolerance is the ultimate virtue. No-one has the right to denigrate the truth claims of another. We are told that there is no ultimate right or wrong. In our age, the only time when tolerance is not appropriate is when someone makes an ultimate truth claim.

In this moral and intellectual climate, why then do political groups so loudly denounce lying?

I believe the reason is that we have an innate sense of fairness. We do not have to teach this fairness to children. Without prompting, children loudly protest, “that’s not fair!” My experience has shown that children come wired with that sense of fairness. It’s part of the base package and not an option.

In this election season, when you hear accusations of lying and deception between political opponents, reflect on the innate sense of fairness that you possess. Then ask yourself if that sense of fairness is more than just a preference for a particular idea or ideology.

The Apostle Paul tells us that even those who do not acknowledge God have “the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them” (Romans 2:15, NASB)

Could it be that the Apostle Paul identified the reason why the accusation of lying is so effective? Is there a standard by which we innately know we should live? Is that standard written on our hearts by God?

These questions are of greater significance than who is put into office in November. The election has temporal consequences but these questions have an impact on eternity.