While Christians may not like the alternatives, voting for a party that celebrates murder in the womb, transgenderism, and a host of other sexual deviancies is at best exceedingly unwise and at worst sinful. Christians live as dual citizens of an earthly nation and the heavenly kingdom. 

To paraphrase Aristotle, politics is the science and art of governing men. We normally use the word politics to refer to governing people at the level of the government or the governing authorities or the state.[1]
Today many evangelical churches in America feel tension about how to approach politics. All Christians care about justice, but we don’t always agree about how to identify injustice and how to right those wrongs.
I plan to address politics, conscience, and the church by recommending a way forward. I’ll do that by answering three questions:

Why do Christians sometimes disagree with one another over politics?
Why should Christians distinguish between straight-line and jagged-line political issues? For a clear biblical command, there is a straight line from a biblical or theological principle to a political position (e.g., the Bible forbids murder, so we oppose abortion). For an issue that requires wisdom, there is a multistep process (or a jagged line) from a biblical or theological principle to a political position (e.g., immigration policy).
How should Christians disagree over jagged-line political issues?

I have opinions about politics, and I think my political judgments about issues such as immigration, tax policy, healthcare, welfare, global warming, and gun control are right. (And you think your opinions about politics are right, too.) But as much as I would enjoy arguing for my personal convictions, my goal in this article is to help you understand why, when, and how you should agree to disagree in political matters.
1. Why Do Christians Sometimes Disagree with One Another over Politics?
Christians disagree with one another over politics for at least two reasons.
Reason 1. Because Christians Care about Justice and Believe That Their Political Convictions Promote Justice
Let’s break this first reason down into four components:
1. Justice according to the Bible is (1) getting what you deserve and (2) giving others what they deserve.[2]
Justice is doing what is right according to the standard of God’s will and character as he has revealed it in his word.
It’s important to carefully define our terms because some people have recently redefined justice and fairness and equity to refer to equal outcomes. They think that God is unfair if unequal outcomes exist. An example of an unequal outcome is that some people have more wealth than others.
But we must distinguish between (1) equal outcomes and (2) justice or fairness or equity or impartiality. God is just and fair and equitable and impartial, but that does not mean everyone experiences equal outcomes because God has the freedom to show undeserved kindness to whomever he wants.
Case in point is Jesus’s parable of the laborers in the vineyard in Matthew 20:1–16. The master gives each laborer what he deserves, and he gives some laborers more than they deserve. To get justice is to get what you deserve. It is not unfair to give extra to some, even when they are less deserving than others. As long as God gives each person what he deserves, God is not unfair when he sovereignly chooses to be undeservedly kind to some and not others. And not one of us deserves God’s kindness. God is always fair: “all his ways are justice” (Deut. 32:4).
2. Christians care about justice.
Why? Because justice characterizes God: “he has established his throne for justice” (Ps. 9:7), and he “is exalted in justice” (Isa. 5:16). And the just God has justified Christians. Justification is to justice what faith is to good works. Faith results in good works; doing good deeds gives evidence of faith (Matt. 7:15–20; James 2:14–26). Similarly, being justified results in a desire to do justice; doing justice gives evidence of being justified.
3. Governments exist for the purpose of justice.
Remember, justice according to the Bible is (1) getting what you deserve and (2) giving others what they deserve. God instituted governments to do justice for everyone created in his image (Gen. 9:5–6; Rom. 13:1–7; cf. 2 Sam. 8:15; 1 Kgs. 10:9; Prov. 29:4). So when Christians talk about abortion, immigration, poverty, or so-called same-sex marriage, they are fundamentally talking about doing justice and opposing injustice.
What are some examples of public injustice that Christians should be concerned about today? In a WORLD Opinions article in March 2022, Thaddeus Williams wisely presents four issues that our pursuit of justice should include even if it’s unpopular in our culture (I’ll quote and paraphrase him):

Abortion: Our pursuit of justice should include “these tiny humans exterminated because larger humans consider them inconvenient, genetically inferior, or too female.”
Pornography and its connection to child porn, human trafficking, rape, domestic violence, impaired brain function, broken relationships, and depression: Our pursuit of justice should include “the victims of the exploitative pornography industry.”
The persecution of believers around the world: Christians are “being targeted, imprisoned, beaten, raped, hanged, crucified, and bombed for claiming Jesus as Lord.” Our pursuit of justice should include “the millions of Christians imprisoned or executed around the globe.”
Socialism: “The quest to achieve economic equality between the rich and poor through communist and socialist policies has resulted in more than 100 million casualties in the 20th century alone.” Our pursuit of justice should include “the desperately oppressed victims of far-left economic systems.”[3]

Each of those four issues is a matter of systemic injustice. Those are just four examples of public justice issues.
4. The world has redefined justice by attaching certain adjectives before it.
Here are five examples:

LGBT justice: Everyone must affirm and celebrate the ideology of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people—and any sexual orientations or gender identities that do not correspond to heterosexual norms. That’s LGBT justice. (I think that justice would look more like Genesis 19:24: “The LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.”)
Reproductive justice: Pregnant people (not women but pregnant people since now “men” can get pregnant, too) have a human right to have personal bodily autonomy—to choose to keep or to kill the unborn baby in one’s womb. That’s reproductive justice. (I think that justice would look more like what God commanded the Israelites in Leviticus 20:2: “Any one  . . . who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death.”)
Distributive justice: Society must distribute (or allocate) power and resources so that there are equal outcomes. That’s distributive justice. (I think that justice is that God-ordained authorities impartially punish lawbreaking and right wrongs.)
Racial justice: Society must remove systemic racial disparities in areas such as wealth, income, education, and employment. Justice is equal outcomes, and a failure to have equal outcomes is racism. That’s racial justice. (I think that justice is that society treats all ethnicities impartially.)
Social justice: In order to understand what social justice typically means in our culture today, you have to understand what Critical Theory is. In a nutshell Critical Theory affirms four beliefs:[4]

(1) Society is divided into two groups: oppressors and oppressed. The oppressors have power, and they are evil bullies; the oppressed do not have power, and they are innocent victims.(2) Oppressors (the dominant group) maintain their power by imposing their ideology on everyone.(3) Lived experience gives oppressed people special access to truths about their oppression.(4) Society needs social justice—that is, society needs to pursue equal outcomes by deconstructing and eliminating all forms of social oppression. Social oppression includes not just disparities regarding race and ethnicity but also gender, sexual orientation, religion, physical ability, mental ability, and economic class. The term wokeness refers to the state of being consciously aware of and “awake” to this social injustice. The term woke is “a shorthand to describe someone who, whether consciously or unconsciously, has adopted grievances and activism rooted in Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory, especially related to the intersectional oppression matrix of race, gender, and sexuality.”[5] That’s social justice. (Is that justice? I think that justice is that God-ordained authorities oppose partiality in civic life by impartially punishing unjust perpetrators and righting wrongs.)[6]

So the first reason Christians sometimes disagree over politics is that Christians care about justice and believe that their political convictions promote what they perceive as justice. The second reason is like the first.
Reason 2. Because Christians Have Different Degrees of Wisdom for Making Political Judgments and Tend to Believe That They Have More Wisdom Than Those Who Differ
Most political judgments depend on wisdom, and only God is all-wise. Some political judgments are difficult because we lack wisdom. Even if we agree on biblical principles, we may disagree over methods and tactics and timing and more.
The goal of politics is justice; the means is wisdom. Two examples may help illustrate that most controversial political issues depend on wisdom: abortion and immigration.
Example 1: Abortion
The Bible forbids abortion since deliberately killing an unborn person is a form of murder. Therefore, churches should take a stand against abortion—both in their preaching and in their membership decisions. We should not affirm that a person is a Christian—a church member in good standing—if he or she is unrepentantly promoting abortion, whether by personally encouraging women to seek abortions or by politically advocating for abortion.
But Christians do not agree on all the political tactics for opposing the injustice of abortion. For example, should a church promote a pro-life march? Maybe. Maybe not. A particular march may or may not be wise, and a pastor should use his pastoral authority wisely.
Example 2: Immigration
Consider the controversy surrounding migrants crossing the southern United States border. One group of Christians believes the present laws that limit immigration are just fine. If anything, they believe we need to tighten the restrictions in order to protect our nation and our children. Another group of Christians argues that humanitarian considerations mean allowing as many migrants in as the present law allows, or even changing the laws to accommodate more.
So how many migrants should a nation permit a year? How many asylum seekers? How will that affect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens? How should we combat lawlessness and terrorism? What is the best way to prevent and combat drug and human trafficking? Is a nation obligated to undertake all the costs of processing the hundreds of thousands of migrants who might show up at the borders?
Answering those questions requires wisdom. Political judgments require a person to rightly understand biblical principles and then to apply those principles based on social dynamics, legal precedent, political feasibility, historical factors, economic projections, criminal justice considerations, and more.
So those are two reasons that Christians sometimes disagree over politics. Now let’s consider Question 2:
2. Why Should Christians Distinguish between Straight-Line and Jagged-Line Political Issues?
Before I answer that question, I need to define what I mean by straight-line and jagged-line political issues.[7]

For a straight-line issue, there is a straight line from a biblical or theological principle to a political position. For instance, the Bible teaches that murder is sinful; abortion is a form of murder; therefore, we should oppose abortion. That’s a straight line. That is why a church should initiate the church-discipline process with a member who is advocating for abortion—such as encouraging a single pregnant woman to get an abortion or supporting Planned Parenthood.
But for a jagged-line issue, there is a multistep process from a biblical or theological principle to a political position. Fellow church members should agree on straight-line political issues, and they should recognize Christian freedom on jagged-line political issues.

Many political issues are not straight-line issues. Probably most are jagged-line issues—issues like immigration caps and tax rates and trade policy and healthcare and carbon dioxide emission caps. For such issues, I’m not sure we can say there is “the” Christian position—though some positions are better than others.
It’s right for churches to take a stand on straight-line issues through preaching and membership decisions. But church leaders need to be careful about whether to take institutional stands on jagged-line issues. Straight-line issues are about what we might call “the Christian position,” and jagged-line issues belong to the domain of Christian freedom (which doesn’t mean the issues are unimportant or that some views are not incorrect).
Now that we’ve explained jagged-line vs. straight-line political issues, we are ready to answer the question Why should Christians agree to disagree over jagged-line political issues? For at least two reasons:
Reason 1. Because Christians Should Respect Fellow Christians Who Have Differently Calibrated Consciences on Jagged-Line Issues[8]
Jagged-line issues correspond to what Paul in Romans 14:1 calls “disputable matters” (NIV) or “opinions” (ESV) or matters of conscience. Your conscience is your consciousness of what you believe is right and wrong. That implies that your conscience is not necessarily correct on every issue. What you believe is right and wrong is not necessarily the same thing as what God believes is right and wrong. You might believe with deep conviction in your conscience that a ten-year-old boy has the right to choose to become a female. If so, your conscience is not functioning correctly for that issue because it is based on immoral standards. You should calibrate your conscience.
The idea of calibrating your conscience pictures your conscience as an instrument. Instruments can be incorrect: your bathroom scale may say you weigh 142 pounds when you actually weigh 139. When an instrument is incorrect, it needs to be calibrated. To calibrate an instrument is to align it with a standard to ensure that it’s functioning accurately.
The standard for what’s right and wrong is God, who has revealed himself to us particularly through the Bible. So when your conscience is not functioning accurately, you should endeavor to align it with God’s words. The classic example of this in the Bible is the Apostle Peter. He was convinced in his conscience that it was sinful to eat certain foods—like pork. God told Peter three times to “kill and eat” animals that Peter considered to be unclean. Peter had the gall to reply to God, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” But because the Lord was commanding Peter to eat those foods, Peter had to calibrate his conscience so that he would have the confidence to accept food and people that he previously could not accept (see Acts 10:9–16).
Read More
Related Posts:

Melchizedek brought out bread and wine, and bread and wine symbolize the broken body of the new and greater Melchizedek. I think this is another example of picture prophecy (i.e., typology) that God intended all along. When Jesus the Messiah died, he inaugurated the new covenant—the better covenant. And we remember that with bread and wine. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine.” I think that’s another example in which Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek.[5]

The Old Testament mentions Melchizedek only twice:
[1] And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Gen. 14:18–20)
[2] The Lord has swornand will not change his mind,“You are a priest foreverAfter [in (NIV, NLT)] the order [pattern (CSB, NET)] of Melchizedek.” (Ps. 110:4)
Here’s the context of that strange Melchizedek passage in Genesis 14: A group of local “kings” (more like small-town governors) banded together to fight another group of local “kings” (Gen. 14:8–10). One of those groups of “kings” included the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah, where Abram’s brother Lot was dwelling. That group lost the battle, and the enemy took Lot and his possessions as spoil (Gen. 14:11–12). When Abram learned that Lot was taken, he led 318 of his trained men to pursue Lot, and Abram successfully rescued Lot and his possessions along with other people (Gen. 14:13–16). The king of Sodom met with Abram (Gen. 14:17) and asked for his people back but said that Abram may keep the possessions (Gen. 14:21). But Abram gave both the people and the possessions back (Gen. 14:22–24).
Genesis 14 would make perfect sense without verses 18–20. This passage sticks out and makes you scratch your head and go, “What?” The Book of Hebrews helps us make sense of all this.
Melchizedek appears in the Bible three times with about one thousand years between each occurrence:

Genesis 14: Around 2,000 BC, Melchizedek appears to Abraham.
Psalm 110: About 1,000 years later, King David writes about the Messiah as a priest in the pattern of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 5–7: About 1,000 years later, the author of Hebrews exults in Jesus the Messiah as our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek.

The author of Hebrews teaches us how to put the whole Bible together. He is reading Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 very carefully, and he draws at least eight conclusions about Jesus the Messiah.
1. Because Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek, he is the supreme priest (Heb. 4:14–5:10).
Jesus is the “great high priest” (Heb. 4:14) who is better than “every [other] high priest chosen from among men” (Heb. 5:1):
And no one takes this honor [i.e., the honor of serving as high priest] for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, / today I have begotten you” [Ps. 2:7]; as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, / after the order of Melchizedek” [Ps. 110:4]. … Being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Heb. 5:4–6, 9–10)
2. Because Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek, he has entered the Most Holy Place on our behalf (Heb. 6:19–20).
We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (Heb. 6:19–20)
The “inner place behind the curtain” refers to the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle where God’s holy presence dwelt. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Most Holy Place, and he could only do so only once a year on the Day of Atonement to atone for Israel’s sin. Jesus, however, has entered this place “once for all at the end of ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26).
3. Because Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek, he is both king and priest (Heb. 7:1–2).
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. (Heb. 7:1–2)
Melchizedek was both a king and a priest. His name means king (Hebrew: mlk) of righteousness (Hebrew: zdk). And he was the king of Salem (probably Jerusalem). Shalom means peace, so as the king of Salem, he is the king of peace.
A king-priest is an unusual combination. The Mosaic law distinguished between the office of priest and the office of king (e.g., Deut. 17:8–20); priests came from the tribe of Levi, and kings came from the tribe of Judah. The same person wasn’t supposed to serve as both priest and king. Saul, the first king of Israel, tried to combine those roles by offering a priestly sacrifice instead of waiting for Samuel the priest, and God severely judged him for it (1 Sam. 13).
David recognizes in Psalm 110 that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with the same person serving as both king and priest. God created Adam to be a royal priest,[1] and that’s what Melchizedek was. David knows that he isn’t supposed to do that under the Mosaic law, but he recognizes that before the Mosaic law there was a king-priest, and David sees himself as part of a pattern that culminates in the Messiah, who is both king and priest—in the pattern of Melchizedek.[2]
4. Because Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek, his priesthood is eternal (Heb. 7:3).
He is without [record of] father or mother or genealogy, having [no record of] neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. (Heb. 7:3)
All the important humans in the Book of Genesis have a genealogy. Melchizedek stands out because Genesis doesn’t say anything about his genealogy. He just shows up out of nowhere.
Read More
Related Posts:

At this moment in my American context, I think it is wise for Christians not to prematurely separate from each other based on different political theologies. The reason is that the orcs are not just at the gates; they are infiltrating the city as citizens and magistrates. While a sexual revolution is rapidly transforming our culture, I don’t think fellow Christians should divide right now over the hypothetical scenario—which might occur decades in the future—of how to govern a nation if the vast majority of its citizens are Christians. There are more pressing matters to band together to address—evils such as abortion and wokeness and LGBT ideology and socialism.[69] The strategy for faithful Christians right now involves basics that we should be able to agree on—such as be a good egg, love your wife, stay in fellowship, worship every week, teach your kids, work patiently, and keep politics in perspective.[70]

Christians have increasingly discussed political theology over the past several years—at least in my conservative evangelical circles. A lot of Christians are both interested and confused. They are fascinated by the topic, but they are having trouble thinking clearly about it because it is so complicated. This article is my attempt to add some clarity by framing a debated topic. I proceed in three parts: (1) I start by briefly defining religion, politics, and political theology; (2) then I propose seven views on religion and government; (3) and I conclude with seven reflections.[1]
Part 1. Starting with Definitions: Religion, Politics, and Political Theology
Let’s start by defining three basic terms: religion, politics, and political theology.

Religion is “an organized system of beliefs that answers ultimate questions and commends certain actions or behaviors based on the answers to those questions.”[2] Those questions concern ultimate reality (i.e., God), the nature of the universe, the nature of mankind, what happens to a man at death, and how we know right and wrong.[3] As a Christian, I believe that the religious institution God has ordained is Christ’s church.
Politics is the science and art of governing men (to paraphrase Aristotle).[4] In this article I’m referring specifically to politics at the civil level of the government or the governing authorities or the state.[5]
Political theology is a theology of politics—particularly how religion and politics should relate. So a particular view of political theology is a philosophy or system of ideas that attempts to explain how religion and politics should relate.[6]

Throughout this article I typically refer to the broader categories of religion and government instead of the narrower categories of church and state.

I use the label religion instead of church because religion is broader than the Christian church. Religion encompasses organized institutions like Islam. In a sense, religion also includes less formal belief systems like secularism (i.e., the view that the state must be separate from religious institutions), but secularism is not an organized religion.
I use the label government instead of state because government can be broader than state. For many people the word state refers to a modern nation-state, but the term government broadly encompasses all sorts of civic rule.[7]

It is challenging to use terms for political theology that apply equally well in all historical settings. In the ancient world, religion and politics are fitting terms. In the Middle Ages and magisterial Protestantism (which includes Christendom), ecclesiastical government and civil government are fitting terms. In early modern political thought, church and state (and the separation of church of state) are fitting terms.
Part 2. Seven Views on Religion and Government
In this article I propose a taxonomy of seven views on religion and government. In other words, people have held at least seven distinct major views on political theology. (I am including both Christians and non-Christians for breadth.) I am proposing a taxonomy in the form of a spectrum that moves from views that separate religion from the government to views that combine religion and the government. I concisely describe each view and then conclude with some reflections.[9]
Introductory Qualification
My concluding reflections include some qualifications, but I should mention one upfront: The people and groups I list to illustrate a view—both historic examples and modern examples—do not necessarily share the exact same political theology. There is a spectrum of views within each view, and those I list within a particular view may be different in significant ways. But they share some similarities given the criteria I lay out. This article is simply my attempt to sketch a spectrum of views on political theology—both historically and currently—in order to gain clarity on a complicated topic so that we better understand before we evaluate.
View 1. Secular Suppression: The secular government suppresses religion.

Position: The government and religion should be totally separate in the sense that the government should be secular because God does not exist. The government should not merely separate from religion but should suppress religion. (A militantly atheist government does not consider its belief system to be a religion.)
Historic example: Karl Marx[10]
Modern examples: the former Soviet Union (Marxist-Leninist atheism), North Korea (officially an atheist government); secular progressivism

For view 1, the government affirms secularism in a way that I would call religious, but I contrast secularism with religion in the heading because secularism is not an organized religion in the same sense as Christianity or Judaism or Islam.[11] In the headings for views 1–7, the term religion refers to organized religion.
For view 1, the government protects itself from being contaminated by religion. For view 2, religion protects itself from being contaminated by the government.
View 2. Religious Separation: Religion must radically separate from the government.

Position: The government and religion should be totally separate in the sense that they are distinct spheres that must not overlap because the government is worldly. Consequently, individual Christians must separate from the government by not wielding the sword as combatants or as magistrates because to do so would be to cooperate with a sinful institution.
Historic example: Anabaptists[12]
Modern examples: traditional Mennonites,[13] Stanley Hauerwas,[14] Greg Boyd[15]

Views 1 and 2 see hostility between the government and religion. View 3 envisions neutrality with no intermingling.
View 3. Religious Neutrality: The government must be religiously neutral.

Position: The government and religion should be separate in the sense that the government should be religiously neutral and particular religions should not influence the government. The government may be religiously neutral in one of two ways: (1) by promoting no religion—that is, a pluralistic secularism that does not necessarily deny God’s existence but wants to keep the peace between opposing religions—or (2) by promoting a civil religion, which is “a set of practices, symbols and beliefs distinct from traditional religion, yet providing a universal values paradigm around which the citizenry can unite.”[16] Either way, the public square should be religiously neutral; religious people should publicly argue based on natural law and not their particular religion.
Historic examples: classical liberalism (John Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc.; emphasis on a free market; to some degree America had a Protestant civil religion until the 1950s),[17] libertarianism (emphasis on individual autonomy),[18] progressive liberalism (emphasis on the welfare state and freedom from traditional sexual ethics)[19]
Modern examples: John Rawls, who emphasizes religious neutrality in the government;[20] Darryl Hart, who emphasizes political neutrality in the church[21]

For view 4 (in contrast to view 3), the public square should not be religiously neutral.
View 4. Religious Influence: The government should not promote only one particular religion, yet religion may influence the government within limited parameters.

Position: The government and the church are separate in the sense that they have distinct God-authorized jurisdictions. God authorizes the government to wield the sword (which a government may justly do against an individual Christian who has broken the law), and God authorizes the church to exercise the keys (which a church may rightly do by refusing to affirm that an individual person with governmental authority is a Christian). The government should not exclusively promote a particular religion (e.g., the government recognizes religious freedom and does not institute a state church or spread doctrine that is explicitly Christian), and the government should not restrict the spread of false religious beliefs (e.g., the government should not refuse to allow a Mosque to be built in the town square).[22] But religion may influence the government. An individual governmental authority (like a United States senator) may argue for a political position based on religion, and the government may adopt that position—but not on the basis of religion. The public square cannot be religiously neutral; it is a religious battleground. For Christians, the church’s mission is to make disciples; individual Christians should significantly influence the government; and the government should not institutionalize Christianity (e.g., the government should not put the Apostle’s Creed in the constitution).
Historic examples: most Baptists[23]—e.g., the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689),[24] Isaac Backus;[25] English non-conformists/Separatists such as Congregationalists and Quakers
Modern examples: Wayne Grudem,[26] Jonathan Leeman,[27] John Piper,[28] Andrew Walker,[29] Scott Aniol,[30] David VanDrunen,[31] Robert George[32]

For view 5, religion should not merely influence the government. The government should identify as a Christian government.
View 5. Christian Government: The government and religion overlap.
By labeling view 5 as “Christian government,” I am using the specific adjective Christian instead of the more general adjective religious because this view is peculiar to Protestant Christianity.

Position: The government and the Christian church are two God-ordained institutions that have distinct and overlapping God-authorized jurisdictions, and they should work together under God’s ultimate authority. For Christians, the church’s mission is to make disciples of all nations; individual Christians should significantly influence the government; and the government may institutionalize Christianity to some degree (e.g., by putting God in the constitution and by having a religious test for office). The government should identify as a Christian government in the sense that the laws and customs it promotes derive from the ultimate authority of God. The governing authorities should know that they are accountable to God for how they rule (cf. Daniel 4:26), and it is fitting for the government to exhort citizens to fear the living God (cf. Daniel 6:26). The government should pursue justice by promoting the natural law (which the Ten Commandments summarize) as much as prudently possible. The government should (along with the church and society) help create cultural conditions conducive for conversion and for the common good.[33] While the government should promote and to some degree enforce a just social order based on a right understanding of God and man (e.g., the government should promote marriage and the family and demote no-fault divorce, adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, and pornography), the government should not force citizens to follow Christianity since only the Spirit’s regeneration produces a heart change; the church’s weapon is not the sword but instead the word, water, bread, and wine. This model is not feasible long-term if many of the citizens are not genuine Christians.
Historic examples: magisterial Reformers (e.g., Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, Richard Hooker, Johannes Althusius),[34] the Reformed scholastics, the church of England,[35] John Gill,[36] American Puritans (e.g., John Winthrop, William Bradford, John Cotton, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards), the basic approach in various colonies and states at the time of America’s founding[37]
Modern examples: Brad Littlejohn,[38] Doug Wilson,[39] Joe Rigney,[40] Daniel Strand,[41] some versions of “Christian nationalism” (though many who hold this position do not prefer that label)[42]

For view 5, the government enforces a particular ethic that is tied to a religion. For view 6, religion controls the government to such a degree that the government enforces the religion itself.
View 6. Religion over Government: Religion governs the government and directs the government to enforce religion.

Position: A particular religion governs the government and directs the government to enforce that religion. Some call this view the doctrine of the two swords in which the sword of religion trumps the sword of the government. (For medieval Roman Catholics, both swords belong to the Pope, and the Pope directly wields the spiritual sword and indirectly wields the temporal sword by commanding government authorities.) God ordains the government to ensure peace in society, which includes to some extent governing church assemblies, ensuring that the church maintains orthodoxy, and punishing people who refuse to comply. The magistrate might say, “The Pope is telling me that John Doe is a heretic, so the government must punish him.”
Historic example: the two-swords view of medieval Roman Catholicism[43]
Modern example: I’m not sure what to suggest as a good modern example. Some might classify Rousas J. Rushdoony in this view, but Andrew Sandlin, a former colleague of Rushdoony, disagrees in his Christ Over All interview. Sandlin argues that Rushdoony, the basic architect of Christian reconstructionism (i.e., reconstruct America as a Christian republic by rebuilding it on the foundation of the Mosaic law’s moral and civil aspects), does not include governmental coercion of Christian religion in his political theology. Rather, Rushdoony advocates a principled application of the Mosaic law—something closer to what I propose as view 5 above. [44]

Read More
Related Posts:

Don’t mistake Butterfield’s confidence for pride. Her heart throughout the book proclaims this message (my paraphrase): “God the sovereign creator brilliantly and beautifully designed men and women. We should obey what he tells us. We should live according to his design. We shouldn’t believe lies.” That assertiveness may strike some people as arrogant since it goes against the grain of worldly thinking, but worldly thinking goes against the grain of reality. Christians should not be embarrassed of anything that is true, especially anything that God has revealed in Scripture: “This book is for Christians not embarrassed by the Bible and its teaching on women’s roles and callings. An unbreakable biblical logic connects God’s design for men and women, God’s standards for sexual behavior, and the Bible’s teaching on sex roles in the family, church, and world” (p. xx).

Rosaria Butterfield used to be a lesbian activist who lived with a woman partner while serving as a tenured professor of English and women’s studies at Syracuse University in New York. Now she is a Christian who is married to a Presbyterian pastor and who invests her time as a homeschool mom and grandmother and as a hospitable neighbor in North Carolina. (When she wrote this book, her four adopted children spanned ages sixteen to thirty-four.) The title of her new book specifies what she is warning against: Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023).
Butterfield’s Thesis
Here is one way to summarize Butterfield’s thesis: Don’t believe our culture’s lies about God’s design for men and women. She presents five lies and explains, “What all these lies have in common is they don’t think that God had a plan and purpose when he created men and women” (p. 290). At the root of the lies is what she calls “our nation’s reigning idol, a formidable monolith represented by the letters LGBTQ and the symbol +” (p. xxi; cf. p. 91).
Lie #1: Homosexuality Is Normal
The lie: The way you feel defines who you are. For example, if you are a female who feels sexually attracted only to women, then you are a lesbian. You have a homosexual orientation that is immutable. That is your core truth. That is your identity. And it is an identity that is good and normal.
According to “gay Christians,” a person’s homosexual orientation is morally neutral—like being blind or deaf. It’s not a sin that you should repent of. The church should not just welcome but empathetically approve of “sexual minorities.” When people sin in heterosexual and homosexual ways, the nature of the sexual sin is equally fallen.
The truth: Our sinful feelings do not determine our core identity. Those with homosexual desires are responsible to mortify their sinful desires. “The normalization of homosexuality is the central controlling narrative of our anti-Christian age” (p. 33). “Sexual orientation, a secular concept, began in the nineteenth century. You will not find the concept of sexual orientation in the Bible” (p. 67). “It all comes down to this: Do you trust your feelings, or do you trust the word of God?” (p. 98). We should have sympathy for those enslaved to sexual sin, but we should not empathize with the sin itself.
The identity narrative makes sense in our culture because people have swallowed the lie of intersectionality—the idea that the world consists of power struggles between oppressors (e.g., white, male, heterosexual, Christian, fit, free) and the oppressed (e.g., person of color, female, LGBTQ+, non-Christian, overweight, incarcerated). “Today, failing to affirm LGBTQ+ rights is considered an act of harm. … Today, even in the church, it seems, accepting someone without approving her is to reject her” (p. 59). Harm is now psychological, not material. The way to accrue social status is to claim an intersection of victim statuses. This creates a community that is “fractured, victim-minded, angry, and inconsolable”; it is “identity politics on steroids” and devoid of “a biblical category of sin” (p. 61). “The victimized identities that emerge from intersectionality are perpetually immature and in constant need of therapy and affirmation” (p. 62).
When people sin in heterosexual and homosexual ways, the nature of the sexual sin is not equally fallen: “The heterosexual pattern is natural even if a particular practice is sinful, as in adultery. If a man and a woman are committing fornication but they come to Christ and repent of their sin, they could someday get married and live in God’s obedience and blessing. But if a man and a man in a homosexual relationship come to Christ, they would need to break up in order to live in obedience and blessing. … Homosexual sin is a violation against both God’s pattern of creation and the moral law of God, while heterosexual sin violates the moral law of God exclusively” (p. 304). The hermeneutic that justifies women pastors is the same hermeneutic that justifies LGBTQ+. “Egalitarianism is the highway to LGBTQ+ church leadership” (p. 75).
Lie #2: Being a Spiritual Person Is Kinder Than Being a Biblical Christian
The lie: A spiritual person finds true spirituality inside himself or herself. Everything shares in a single divine power. Distinctions and hierarchies are abusive and violent.
The truth: There are two realities—God and not-God (i.e., the Creator and creation). And there are two kinds of people—those who love the triune God and those who defy him. It is not kind to be a person who misleads others to defy the Creator by living contrary to reality.
Lie #3: Feminism Is Good for the World and the Church
The lie: The traditional biblical view about God’s design for men and women is wrong. Male headship is a result of the fall. The Bible does not require a wife to submit to her husband, nor does the Bible forbid women from serving as pastors or elders. The traditional view results in sexual abuse. Any male-female sexual relationship that rejects sameness (i.e., interchangeability) and calls a wife to submit to her husband is foundational to rape culture.
The truth: The traditional biblical view about God’s design for men and women is true, good, and beautiful.

“A godly woman who is the wife of a godly man is receptive, teachable, and life-giving, her beauty increasing with her age because her Christian character is being more and more sanctified. … At its most basic distinction, God created men for strength, women for nurturance, and both for the other, her submission yielding to his headship creating the harmony of mutual work and worship of God. The simplicity, beauty, and perfection of the creation ordinance may be marred by sin but not by the designer’s perfect plan” (p. 158).
“A helpmate is not a doormat. She is smart and strong and knows how to think and advise her husband when called upon. While she may also have a job or career that contributes to the household, being a helpmate means that the husband’s vocation comes first” (p. 172).
“A godly woman is not called to universal submission. She is called to submit to her husband, elders, and civil authorities” (p. 161).
“A Christian’s best defense against abuse of all authority is membership in a biblically faithful church” (p. 162).
“When feminism is the interpretative tool for reading Scripture, the powerful, supernatural word of God shrinks into an easily manipulated tool of sociology, revealing power plays and oppressors and offering no hope beyond its creation of new possibilities and new words to express one’s never-ending hurt” (p. 177).
“Feminism’s war against patriarchy isn’t its only problem. By denying the centrality of the creation ordinance in defining woman and her glory, feminism insults women. Worse still, feminism can’t offer the protections against violence that it promises. In fact, feminism has become a place of such confusion that it cannot define what a woman is without offending the LGBTQ+ movement—especially the T part (transgenderism)” (p. 189).

Lie #4: Transgenderism Is Normal
The lie: Your sex is gender-fluid. The biological sex you are born as does not necessarily correspond to your gender. It is normal for a person recognized as a male at birth to later realize that he is actually a woman trapped in a man’s body. How you feel is the real you. There are more than just two sexes (the traditional gender binary is wrong), and there are even more genders. If your child is transitioning, you must comply or else you will be guilty of that child’s suicide: “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?”
The truth: God created mankind as either male or female. There are only two sexes—male and female. God designed males to be masculine, and God designed females to be feminine. It is sinful for a man to be effeminate or for a woman to be masculine.
Tragically, transgenderism has become “the cool and cutting-edge expression of individuality” (p. 198). The question “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?” is manipulative. The solution to a sinful desire—in this case, the sin of envy—is to put that sinful desire to death. The solution is not to enable your child’s sinful desires by pumping the body with hormones that do irreparable damage and by mutilating healthy body parts (“to lance off breasts and purge ovaries in the name of emancipation” [p. 199]).​​ “Love holds people to the impartial, objective, and safe standard of God’s truth, not the malleability of sinful desires and the posturing of sinful people” (p. 204).
Lie #5: Modesty Is an Outdated Burden That Serves Male Dominance and Holds Women Back
The lie: It is oppressive to call women to dress and act differently than men. If a woman dresses provocatively and entices a man to sinfully lust after her, then that is not the concern of the woman at all; it is solely the man’s problem. If a woman wants to exhibit her body or to express herself loudly and freely in an “unladylike” way, then male oppression shouldn’t hold her back.
The truth: “A godly woman is a modest woman” (p. 267). Butterfield approvingly quotes how Martha Peace and Kent Keller define modesty and immodesty:

modesty: “an inner attitude of the heart motivated by a love for God that seeks His glory through purity and humility; it often reveals itself in words, actions, expressions, and clothes”
immodesty: “an attitude of the heart that expresses itself with inappropriate words, actions, expressions and/or clothes that are flirtatious, manipulative, revealing, or suggestive of sensuality or pride”

Butterfield asserts, “No Christian woman wants to be seen in the eyes of God as a ‘provoking object.’ Women, don’t minimize the seriousness to your own soul if Satan uses you as a tool for any reason” (p. 278).
Read More
Related Posts:

Gentleness requires wisdom because there are times when we should not be gentle. We need God’s wisdom to know when to be gentle and to what degree. Gentleness is not simply niceness or mildness. I’m guessing that most English speakers today misunderstand gentleness as essentially being nice—that is, to be pleasant and agreeable like Mr. Rogers.

Everybody agrees that it is virtuous for a man to be gentle. Gentleness is a virtue that all Christians should value and grow in:

Jesus taught, “Blessed are the meek [NASB: gentle], for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).1
Gentleness is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23).
God exhorts us to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:1–2).
God commands us, “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness [NASB, NIV, CSB, NET, NLT: gentleness], and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Colossians 3:12–13).
The man of God must pursue gentleness (1 Timothy 6:11).
Peter tells wives that “a gentle and quiet spirit” is “very precious” in God’s sight (1 Peter 3:4).
God commands, “Let your reasonableness [ESV note, NIV, NET: gentleness; CSB: graciousness] be known to everyone” (Philippians 4:5).

God commands us to be gentle. But what exactly does it mean to be gentle? And what does it mean for a man to be gentle? Is a gentleman a soft man?
It’s crucial that we define gentleness according to the Bible and not according to modern cultural sensitivities. Is it sinful for a man to be aggressive? What exactly does the Bible say about gentleness?2
What Words in the Bible Refer to Gentleness?
In order to discover what the Bible says about gentleness, a word study on gentleness is a good place to start.3 It’s challenging to study the concept of gentleness because there’s not just one Hebrew word and one Greek word that our English translations render as gentle. There is a cluster of at least thirteen words—five Hebrew and eight Greek. 
I did an exhaustive word study, and I’ll spare you all the details. The gist is that I studied every passage that uses a word for gentleness, and as I reflected on the various passages, I attempted to synthesize them. I unfold that synthesis in the rest of this article.4
What Is Gentleness Like and Not Like?Ten Illustrations
As I reflected on the various Bible passages in which the word or concept of gentleness appears, I discovered the range of meanings and determined what these words for gentleness most likely mean in key passages. What most helped me define the word was meditating on ten pictures that illustrate gentleness. In these illustrations, the Bible compares and contrasts gentleness. In other words, God tells us what gentleness is like and what gentleness is not like:

Isaiah 8:6 says, “The waters of Shiloah … flow gently” or “slowly” (CSB). Running water can flow gently or violently. Gentleness is like a slowly flowing stream. Gentleness is not like dangerously surging rapids.
The word of the Lord came to Elijah, “‘Go out and stand on the mount before the LORD.’ And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper (KJV: a still small voice; NASB: a gentle blowing; LSB, NIV, NLT: a gentle whisper; CSB, NET: a soft whisper)” (1 Kings 19:11–12). Gentleness is like a soft whisper. Gentleness is not like a great and strong wind or an earthquake or a fire.
King David ordered his military commanders Joab and Abishai and Ittai, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom” (2 Samuel 18:5). This illustrates the qualifications for an elder in 1 Timothy 3:3: “not violent (NASB, CSB: not a bully) but gentle.” Violence is intentionally using physical force to hurt, damage, or kill. A bully tries to harm or intimidate people he thinks are vulnerable. Gentleness is like soldiers dealing mercifully with an enemy. Gentleness is not like violence.
“Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘I myself will take a sprig from the lofty top of the cedar and will set it out. I will break off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I myself will plant it on a high and lofty mountain” (Ezekiel 17:22). The word for gentle here is tender with reference to a twig. It seems that the concept of gentleness here is how God treats a tender twig—that is, gentleness is like carefully handling a tender twig and nurturing it so that it can flourish. Gentleness is not like breaking a twig.
“A soft (NLT: gentle) answer turns away wrath, / but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). Gentleness is like speaking in a peaceful way that reduces the intensity. When someone is angry, you can respond with speech that de-escalates, calms, and subdues. In contrast, gentleness is not like speaking harshly. When someone is angry, you can respond in a harsh way that intensifies someone’s anger into a flaring temper.
“With patience a ruler may be persuaded, / and a soft (NASB, NIV, CSB: gentle) tongue will break a bone” (Proverbs 25:15).5 The tongue is one of the softest parts of your body, and bone is the hardest. In this proverb, “tongue” symbolizes your speech, and “a bone” symbolizes an authority who seems immovable. Gentle or soft speech can persuade someone who stiffly opposes you. Gentleness is like speaking softly and patiently with the result that you disarm and persuade. Gentleness is not like speaking harshly.
When Paul appears before Felix at Caesarea, he politely requests, “To detain you no further, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly” (Acts 24:4). Gentleness is like a disposition that is kind, generous, and gracious. Gentleness is not like a disposition that is unkind, ungenerous, and ungracious.
“Now when the south wind blew gently [NLT: When a light wind began blowing], supposing that they had obtained their purpose, they weighed anchor and sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind [NASB: a violent wind; NIV: a wind of hurricane force; NET: a hurricane-force wind; CSB: a fierce wind; NLT: a wind of typhoon strength], called the northeaster, struck down from the land” (Acts 27:13–14). “Blew gently” translates a Greek word that contrasts with a tempestuous wind. Gentleness is like a light breeze that is refreshing, desirable, pleasant, and helpful. Gentleness is not like a hurricane-force wind.
“Servants [CSB: Household slaves], be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle [NIV: considerate] but also to the unjust [NIV: those who are harsh]” (1 Peter 2:18). Gentleness is like a good and considerate master. Gentleness is not like an unjustly harsh master.
Jesus exhorts, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:29). Paul appeals to Jesus’s gentleness: “I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:1). Jesus embodied gentleness in his triumphal entry: “Behold, your king is coming to you, / humble [NIV: gentle; NET: unassuming], and mounted on a donkey, / on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden” (Matthew 21:5). Gentleness is intertwined with humility. Gentleness is like Jesus. Gentleness is not like people who are arrogant, hardened, and brash.

Here are all ten contrasts in a table.
So How Should We Define Gentleness?
Here’s my attempt to define gentleness:
Gentleness is the virtue of humbly and wisely showing tender kindness to someone.6
Let’s unpack that definition in four parts:

Gentleness is a virtue—that is, a morally good quality in a person.7 A Christian should be growing in this virtue (2 Peter 1:8).
You express the virtue of gentleness when you treat a person with tender kindness. Kindness is “the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate” (New Oxford American Dictionary). But expressing kindness alone is not gentleness. You must express that kindness tenderly—that is, with compassion or sympathy.

So what might it look like for a father to be gentle toward his children? Fathers, you should honor the Lord and serve your children by responding gently when they are hurting, sick, scared, confused, squabbling, obnoxious, inconveniencing you, or irritating you. This is obviously easier said than done. We need God’s grace to be gentlemen!

Gentleness requires both strength and humility. One of the main Greek words for gentleness (πραΰτης, praütēs) refers to not being overly impressed by a sense of your self-importance. A gentle person is not so insecure that he needs to show off his full strength. A gentle person has the strength to be forceful and harsh—like surging rapids or a hurricane-force wind. But a gentle person humbly harnesses that strength for the good of others—like a slowly flowing stream or a light breeze.8

Contrast two scenarios: (1) An infant is incessantly crying, and an irritated father becomes irrationally angry and violently shakes the baby. That is not gentleness. (2) An infant is crying after pinching her finger, and a patient father securely holds and comforts the baby. That is gentleness. As David Mathis explains,
Gentleness is not the absence of strength but the addition of virtue to strength. … Gentleness is often used as a positive spin for weakness. But gentleness in the Bible is emphatically not a lack of strength; it’s the godly exercise of power. Gentleness does not signal a lack of ability but the added ability to steward one’s strength so that it serves good, life-giving ends rather than harmful ends. …
We want gentle leaders, not weak ones. We want leaders with strength and power, not to use against us to our harm, but to wield on our behalf for our good to help us. This is what makes the image of a shepherd so fitting in both the Old and New Testaments. Sheep are manifestly weak and vulnerable. They need strong shepherds, not weak ones. They need shepherds who are “good and gentle” and will use their power to help the sheep, not use and abuse them.9

Gentleness requires wisdom. That’s why I include the word wisely in the definition: “Gentleness is the virtue of humbly and wisely showing tender kindness to someone.” 

Wisdom is skill or ability. Here are five examples:10

Joseph is wise in that he can skillfully govern Egypt (Genesis 41:33).
Bezalel is wise in that he is skillful at craftmanship and artistic designs (Exodus 31:2–5).
Hiram is wise in that he can skillfully make any work in bronze (1 Kings 7:13–14).

Read More
Related Posts:

Specific strengths I appreciate about the book: Clary explains how men and women flourish when they live according to God’s good design. This is insightful: “Men are prone to certain vices that are curbed by social relations with women. … Women have the power to help men become the best version of themselves. … Women have a different power than men. A woman’s presence can catalyze male virtue and direct his masculine strength toward her desires. Put simply, masculine virtue can flourish under feminine influence because masculine strength was given for the protection and provision of a woman. Men tend to be at their best when their masculine energy, strength, and independence is channeled for the benefit of the women (and children) who are depending on them” (pp. 227–28).

The author of a new book on human sexuality knows what time it is in our culture. Michael Clary, lead pastor of Christ the King Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, is the author of God’s Good Design: A Biblical, Theological, and Practical Guide to Human Sexuality (Ann Arbor, MI: Reformation Zion, 2023).
Clary’s Thesis
Clary’s thesis is that God’s design for sex is true, good, and beautiful. Embracing God’s design should delight you, not frighten you.
What is actually frightening is how the world has twisted God’s design by means of Gnosticism (which undergirds the modern idea that a person’s sex and gender may be different), feminism and androgyny (which pressure women to try to act like men), contraception (which encourages casual sex by separating marriage, sex, and childbearing), so-called gay marriage (which reduces marriage to a legal sex contract), and transgenderism (which is the offspring of feminism that is now devouring its mother). “The sexual revolution is like a runaway train that has no breaks” (p. 17). Next up: pedophilia, polygamy, polyamory, and bestiality.
Clary’s Argument
Clary develops his thesis in eleven chapters:
1. The human household is a copy of the cosmic household of God the Father. God reveals himself in Scripture as masculine: “The Bible never describes God’s being with feminine language. God may do things that seem more feminine, but God’s being is never described that way” (p. 34, italics original). “Headship is masculine,” and it’s good for both men and women (p. 38).
2. God beautifully designed men to have male bodies with masculine souls and a masculine nature, and he beautifully designed women to have female bodies with feminine souls and a feminine nature. A woman is a potential mother—physically and expressed in other ways.
3. Stereotypes recognize patterns, and it is wise to recognize that men and women are different. Men are better equipped to lead and provide and protect, and women are better equipped to help and nurture and refine. That doesn’t mean that men don’t help or nurture or refine or that women don’t lead or provide or protect. It simply recognizes that men are better at structuring society and that women are better at domesticating and beautifying. It’s in their DNA. For example, a woman’s “entire body is designed for and oriented towards reproduction. Her brain, hormones, joints, bones, cardiovascular system, immune system, breasts, and reproductive organs are all designed for the bearing and nurturing of children” (pp. 74–75).
4. Modern industrial households are very different from older agrarian ones. In Bible times, a household consisted of several generations living together who worked together within a community. A husband and wife worked as a team with the man tending toward outward “forming” tasks (like subduing the earth) and the woman tending toward inward “filling” tasks (like child-bearing and managing a household, which was no small job). Men can relate to others in the household in four ways—as sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers. And women can relate as daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers.
5. The way men and women sin and express virtue are not identical. Men sin and express virtue as men, and women sin and express virtue as women. The world (and even some Christians) encourages men to behave in more characteristically feminine ways and encourages women to behave in more characteristically masculine ways. “For example, strong-willed, independent, truth-oriented, and direct-speaking men are often considered arrogant, whereas passive, compliant, and egalitarian men are considered more Christlike” (p. 107). Masculine virtue includes courage, and feminine virtue includes giving life. Masculine vice includes exaggerating masculinity (e.g., using strength to oppress others) and diminishing masculinity (e.g., failing to use strength properly and instead being passive and effeminate). Feminine vice includes exaggerating femininity (e.g., using sexual desirability to manipulate men, immodesty, playing the victim) and diminishing femininity (e.g., grasping for power, lesbianism).
6. Pursuing a common mission is what holds a household together and makes it productive. People in the industrial world typically think of work as something you do away from home, which is a place to retreat and relax. Before the industrial revolution, the household and work were inseparable. We shouldn’t idealize the past as if the Amish way is the godly way, but “it is arrogant to regard the modern world as more advanced, liberated, and enlightened than previous generations” (p. 148).
7. Fathers are critically important to the health of a home. According to modern sociological studies, “The single biggest indicator of adult success is growing up with an intact family” (p. 166). A boy becomes a father by maturing in strength, leadership, courage, and wisdom and by marrying a virtuous woman who will help him accomplish his mission.
8. Our culture conditions us to devalue motherhood and to more highly value a woman who pursues a successful career outside the home. Feminists “asserted that the key to overturning the oppressive family structure was to dismantle marriage, separate sex from procreation, and promote sex as recreation” (p. 194). But nature is a stubborn thing. God designed women to instinctively want to be a mother—physically and metaphorically. That’s why struggles with infertility can be so crushing for a woman. Homemaking is a list of chores that you can outsource, but mothering requires a mother’s nurturing presence. A woman may work outside the home, but home should be her primary domain.
Read More
Related Posts:

The circumstance in which a baby is conceived may be wicked, but that does not make the unborn baby less valuable. Murdering an unborn baby who is conceived by rape does not righteously fix a situation but only adds crime upon crime. Punish the rapist—not the baby. Justice is getting what you deserve and giving others what they deserve. Murdering an unborn baby is unjust because an unborn baby does not deserve to die. You don’t have the right to tell my fourteen-year-old daughter she has to carry her rapist’s baby.” That’s what Joe Rogan, the most popular podcaster in the world, recently argued when he interviewed Seth Dillon, owner and CEO of the satire website The Babylon Bee.

Justice is getting what you deserve and giving others what they deserve. And the standard for what is just is God’s righteousness. This is what Francis Schaeffer argued forty years ago, and it is something we need to recover today. 

Where do human rights come from?
Are these five alleged “human rights” actually right?
1. LGBT justice2. Reproductive justice3. Distributive justice4. Racial justice5. Social justice
It depends on how you define them. But back to that in a moment. before we do this, consider three parallel contrasts:
First, It is wholesome for kids to play in a secure treehouse. But it is foolish to cut a tall tree branch that you are sitting on when the saw is between you and the tree’s trunk.
Second, It is responsible for a carpenter to pay for a truck so that he can better fulfill his vocation. But it is reckless and immoral for a thief to steal that carpenter’s truck to take it on a high-speed joy ride through a neighborhood.
Third and similarly, it is wholesome and responsible to defend human rights. But it is foolish to defend human rights without the foundation that human rights come from the Creator. Further, it is reckless and immoral to claim to defend human rights when you are actually defending injustice.
Now back to those five alleged human rights. If you define them as follows, then they are examples of folly, recklessness, and immorality:

LGBT justice. Everyone must affirm and celebrate the ideology of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people—and any sexual orientations or gender identities that do not correspond to heterosexual norms.
Reproductive justice. Pregnant people (that’s the new term—not women but pregnant people since “men” can get pregnant, too) have a human right to have personal bodily autonomy—to choose to keep or to kill the unborn baby in one’s womb.
Distributive justice. Society must distribute (or allocate) power and resources so that there are equal outcomes. (This is different from arguing that God-ordained authorities must impartially punish lawbreaking and right wrongs.)
Racial justice. Society must remove systemic racial disparities in areas such as wealth, income, education, and employment. Justice is equal outcomes, and a failure to have equal outcomes is racism. (This is different from arguing that society must treat all ethnicities impartially.)
Social justice. In order to understand what social justice typically means in our culture today, you have to understand what Critical Theory is. In a nutshell Critical Theory affirms four beliefs (I’m paraphrasing Neil Shenvi): (1) Society is divided into two groups: oppressors and oppressed. The oppressors have power, and they are evil bullies; the oppressed do not have power, and they are innocent victims. (2) Oppressors (the dominant group) maintain their power by imposing their ideology on everyone. (3) Lived experience gives oppressed people special access to truths about their oppression. (4) Society needs social justice—that is, society needs to pursue equal outcomes by deconstructing and eliminating all forms of social oppression. Social oppression includes not just disparities regarding race and ethnicity but also gender, sexual orientation, religion, physical ability, mental ability, and economic class. The term wokeness refers to the state of being consciously aware of and “awake” to this social injustice. (This is different from arguing that God-ordained authorities must oppose partiality in civic life by impartially punishing unjust perpetrators and righting wrongs.)

Read More
Related Posts: