Religious and Political Hypocrisy

I’ve been thinking a lot about hypocrisy since the U.S. presidential election because I’ve heard a lot of it, as I’m sure you have. It has caused me to think about what Jesus had to say about it while he was on Earth, as recorded in the Bible.

First of all, the word “hypocrite” is usually taken to mean a person whose actions do not match his words. In that regard, it usually refers to someone who expects something of others that he is not willing to do himself. It can also mean a person whose words or actions are not consistent in or for different situations. Jesus denounced the Pharisees of His day over and over for their hypocrisy. For example, in Matthew 15:7-8, Jesus says, “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.'” In Matthew 7:5, which is the culmination of the well-known passage about judging others, Jesus says, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

In the “seven woes” chapter, Matthew 23, Jesus repeatedly denounces the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. In verses 13-15, Jesus says, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” These words sound harsh to our ears, but Jesus was speaking to people who not only professed to be God’s people, but who were leading God’s people!

One thing that should be clear by now is that Jesus was denouncing the hypocrisy of religious teachers who had rejected Him as Savior and Lord. What about those who are currently leaders of God’s people? Is it possible for them to be hypocritical as well? I’m sorry to say that the answer is yes. For example, some women came forward recently to say that a well-known, internationally-recognized Christian leader had behaved inappropriately towards them in a sexual manner. I was very saddened to hear that because this man (who went to heaven this year) was someone who I admired very much and learned a lot from. Unlike the vast majority of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, this man was a believer, but he will have to answer to the Lord. I have no doubt that you can come up with your own examples of such people as well.

What does all this have to do with modern politics? Simply this: those in politics are by definition leaders: not religious, mind you, but leaders nonetheless. Two prominent passages in Scripture that deal with political leadership are Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. Romans 13:1 tells us, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” First of all, as Christians we are expected to obey those in political leadership. (There are exceptions, of course, but this post has a different focus.) Second, because those authorities have been established by God, those individuals in leadership are accountable to Him, and that’s why the post-election hypocrisy has been maddening at times. Here are three egregious examples:

  • Before the election, our President and his supporters were vilified by the left (both political leaders and most of the media) for “super-spreader” rallies; they were accused of recklessly spreading COVID-19. Contrast that with crowds celebrating the apparent victory by our President’s opponent three days after the election; very few in the media denounced these rallies. While it’s true that mask-wearing was more common in the latter rallies than the former, social distancing was practiced in neither. (I also wrote about this phenomenon in June in a post responding to recent riots and protests: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/06/06/a-christian-response-to-recent-u-s-riots-and-protests/)
  • The apparent winner of the presidential election has called for “unity” and “healing.” Compare that with his calling Trump supporters “chumps” prior to the election and his comparing Trump to the infamous Nazi leader Joseph Goebbels. There are also many others on the left who did their utmost to promote disunity throughout the last four years. Not only that, but there are leftists who are now calling for the keeping of lists of Trump “sycophants.” One prominent media leader, Jake Tapper, even tweeted this not-so-thinly-veiled threat to those on the right: “At a certain point one has to think not only about what’s best for the nation (peaceful transfer of power) but how any future employers might see your character defined during adversity.”
  • Those on the right, including our President, are being told to “suck it up” and accept the (apparent) result of the presidential election because that’s what those on the left have had to do for the last four years. Really? First of all, many on the left have done anything but “suck it up” for the last four years. For example, Hillary Clinton demanded a recount in Wisconsin and other states in 2016 despite the relative absence of voting irregularities. Then even last year, during an interview with CBS, she stated, “He [Trump] knows he’s an illegitimate President.” Contrast Clinton’s demands for recounts in 2016 and her continuing refusal to accept that election outcome with the current demands for investigations into voting irregularities in last week’s election. In fact, what will be happening in some states over the coming weeks is not merely recounting votes but auditing them because of the multitude of documented voting irregularities of various kinds.

I suppose it’s obvious which direction I “lean” politically, so let me add this: four years ago, there were allegations of Russian “collusion,” which were investigated for two years, at great taxpayer expense, and ultimately found to not be credible. Why can’t we take a few weeks to investigate what happened last week?

The Lord holds those in leadership, whether religious or political, as well as whether they are His people or not, to a higher standard. Those who engage in hypocrisy will be held accountable. Although this post has been about hypocrisy in leadership, I should add that those of us who are not in leadership are accountable as well. As God’s people, let’s be men and women of integrity, which in its most basic sense means “wholeness.” We should be people who are whole and consistent in our words and actions.

God Is in Control

This morning (Nov. 4, 2020), I woke up to a lot of uncertainty in the political realm. I would imagine that you, like me, would like to know who our President will be for the next four years, along with which party will be in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. And then of course there are races at the state, county, and city levels that are undecided. This is a good time for us to be reminded of God’s sovereignty; nothing happens outside of His control. He is in control of who will fill the various seats of power. That doesn’t mean that whenever a Christian runs for office, he or she will win; it means that whatever the Lord wills to happen, will happen.

Sometimes from our perspective, what happens not only isn’t what we want; it doesn’t even seem “right.” In the book of Job, Chapter 1:1, Job is described like this: “This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.” He had ten children and a multitude of material blessings. However, the Lord allowed Satan to take away everything: Job’s sons and daughters all died when the house they were in collapsed because of a mighty wind; all of his camels, oxen, and donkeys were carried off by raiders; all of his sheep were burned up; almost all of his servants were killed; and finally, Job himself was afflicted with painful sores over his entire body. Furthermore, for the most part, his friends and his wife thought he had somehow brought all of this upon himself by not being faithful. Why did the Lord allow all of this to happen to Job? We aren’t told directly, but I think that at least one reason was so that everyone, including us who read his story, could see how Job remained faithful to the Lord. At the end of the book, in Chapter 42, the Lord not only gives Job exactly as many sons and daughters as he had at the beginning of the book; He also doubles the number of sheep, camels, oxen, and donkeys that he had had at the beginning. I should add this, however: let’s not make the mistake of thinking that the Lord will also bless us in this way. Just think of the multitude of martyrs over the last almost 2000 years who remained faithful; in their case, the Lord gave them the honor of dying for Him, and their reward was waiting for them in heaven.

What does the story of Job have to do with the results of this year’s election? God is in control, regardless of whether the results turn out the way we want them to or not. Like you, I have preferences for who will end up in various offices, but I refuse to worry, regardless of the outcome. I refuse to worry about COVID-19, either. Read these words from Twila Paris’s song “God Is in Control:”

God is in control
We believe that His children will not be forsaken
God is in control
We will choose to remember and never be shaken
There is no power above or beside Him, we know
God is in control

Take comfort and strength from verses like Job 42:2, where Job says to the Lord, “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.” Here’s another: Proverbs 19:21 says, “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails.” No matter what happens or what we think about what happens, God is in control!

Are Christians Obligated to Obey the Old Testament Law?

Several months ago, I read a post by someone whose argument went something like this: In Leviticus 19:19, the Lord commanded the Israelites: “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” The writer asked whether Christians follow this command; since most Christians are not even aware of this command (or even if they are, they don’t see a need to obey it), he accused them of disobeying God’s law. He went on to say that Christians should either be obligated to obey all of the Old Testament (OT) law or none of it. However, if we obey none of it, then we are free to kill or commit adultery. His conclusion was that Christianity was either not possible to live by or that we Christians are just a bunch of hypocrites.

Let me begin my response by saying that the law this blogger cites, like all OT laws, had spiritual significance to the Israelites. It was an example of the Lord’s saying that they should not be defiled by “mixing with” the pagan nations around them; the one-material clothing served to remind the Israelites of this spiritual principle.

Another example of this is the complex system of sacrifices that the Israelites were required to perform; it’s no wonder there was a tribe (the Levites) that was set aside by the Lord to, among other things, perform these sacrifices as well as many other tabernacle (and then later temple) duties. The purpose of the sacrificial system was to point the way to a Savior who would one day sacrifice Himself for all people who believe in Him for all time. Why don’t Christians still kill and sacrifice animals today? Because Jesus is the only sacrifice we need.

Now let’s look at the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:

  • “You shall have no other gods before me.”
  • “You shall not make for yourself an idol.”
  • “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.”
  • “Remember the Sabbath Day by keeping it holy.”
  • “Honor your father and your mother.”
  • “You shall not murder.”
  • “You shall not commit adultery.”
  • “You shall not steal.”
  • “You shall not give false testimony.”
  • “You shall not covet.”

The first four are focused specifically on loving the Lord; the last six are focused on loving people. When you think about it, you can probably see the difference between the Ten Commandments and the laws regarding clothing and sacrifices; the latter kinds of laws are ceremonial, while the Ten Commandments and others like it are moral laws. Christians are obligated to obey OT moral laws, but not ceremonial ones. That is the fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the person who argued that Christians should either obey all of the OT law or none of it. Some laws are more obvious than others, but as you read the first five books of the Bible, it’s good to keep this ceremonial/moral distinction in mind. (There are also OT civil laws; the theocratic state of Israel carried out the punishments for breaking these laws.)

I want to comment on the fourth commandment: “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” For the Israelites, that day was Saturday; in the early church, that day became Sunday because that was the day Jesus rose from the dead. I grew up in small towns where stores were closed on Sundays; not working was a way of keeping the fourth commandment. Now, however, it’s difficult to find stores and other businesses in the U.S. that are not open on Sundays. I know believers, for example, who before COVID-19 would usually eat out after Sunday morning church. What are we to make of this? I’ll keep this brief: the Lord wants us to rest, not work, one day of the week. Your doctor will tell you that doing this is good for both your physical and mental health. Historically in the U.S., that day of rest has been Sunday; however, some people–pastors and medical personnel, for example–have to work on Sundays. My father was a pastor; his day of rest was Monday. My wife and I don’t work, shop, or eat out on Sunday because that is our day of rest, and we don’t want to “make” other people work on that day, either. Here’s what Romans 14:5 says: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”

Sometimes there is a gray area when it comes to obeying OT laws or not; tithing comes to mind. That kind of law requires study of the whole Bible, discernment, and a God-informed conscience. However, there are plenty of laws which are very clear; we who are 21st-century Christians should be obeying all of the OT laws that are moral, but we are not bound by the ceremonial ones.

When Is It Right to Die?

In 2014, a U.K. judge ruled that, at the request of the mother, food and water should be withdrawn from her daughter Nancy Fitzmaurice, who was 12 years old and had significant disabilities which made her unable to talk, walk, eat, or drink; it took 14 days for her to die. One of the things that made this case particularly shocking was that at the time, the U.K. did not even have legalized euthanasia; in fact, it still doesn’t.

In 1992, Joni Eareckson Tada wrote a book with the title of this post; in 2018 the publisher came out with a revised edition, with some new material. It’s clear from the preface that the infamous decision by the U.K. judge is one of the things that prompted Joni to revise her book. I have no doubt that other developments also spurred her on. For example, there are now nine states, plus the District of Columbia, that have “Death with Dignity” laws; they permit doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Assisted dying in one form or another is now legal in ten countries; interestingly, nine of them are majority-white. Here are some definitions to clarify matters:

  • Euthanasia (“mercy killing”): steps are taken to end a person’s life by someone else
  • Assisted suicide: as the term implies, a person who wants to die is assisted by someone else
  • Assisted dying: this is an umbrella term including euthanasia and assisted suicide

I regard Joni as being especially “qualified” to write about this topic because she has been a quadriplegic since 1967, when she was 18. She is also a Christian and thus gives a Biblical perspective on this issue. To give further context: Joni is a staunch advocate for those with various kinds of special needs, whether they be physical (e.g. blindness), intellectual (e.g. autism), or both.

When I started reading Joni’s book, what I wanted was a Biblical answer to the issue of euthanasia. I got my answer, and much more. One important distinction she makes is between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia refers to the intentional withdrawing or withholding of treatment. An example of withdrawing treatment is “pulling the plug;” an example of withholding is not carrying out surgery that will extend life for a short time. Active euthanasia refers to a person’s directly and deliberately causing someone’s death; for example, a person could deliberately be given an overdose of pain-killers.

Joni comes to the conclusion that if a person is dying, then passive euthanasia is Biblically permissible. “Dying” is defined as a person’s having a relatively short estimated time remaining, as determined by medical professionals. Notice the plural here; this helps protect the dying person from anyone who might decide to take matters into his or her own hands. Maybe it goes without saying that if the dying person has expressed a desire not to have “aggressive” measures taken to extend his or her life, this also makes the decision much easier for the family; without that, such a decision may be too much for anyone to handle. Having a DNR order is also wise in that regard.

All of this explains what happened recently in a family I know. An elderly member of that family had been diagnosed with an illness so advanced that doctors estimated she had a matter of months, maybe even just weeks, remaining. She was mentally handicapped, so she was not able to make her own decisions. Furthermore, she had repeatedly over the years expressed how much she was looking forward to going to heaven to be with Jesus and her parents. Her family made the decision not to subject her to surgery which might extend her life a few months but which would make her remaining days more uncomfortable. Instead, they chose to make her as comfortable as possible at her home, where she had regular visits from a hospice nurse. She was allowed to eat and drink as she pleased. She went to heaven a matter of weeks later and is now indeed in the presence of the Lord and with her parents.

If you have never had these kinds of conversations with your loved ones, I would encourage you to do so; that way, if you face life-and-death decisions, you can make them and have the peace of God in doing so.

LGBTQ: From Tolerance to Acceptance to Celebration

The LGBTQ community has been making very steady gains in terms of rights and other legal protections for decades in the U.S. as well as in other majority-white countries. As I have thought about the changes over my lifetime, it is truly astounding. I think that these changes can be understood as part of a change in non-LGBTQ people’s perceptions of the LGBTQ community over time in three stages: tolerance, acceptance, and celebration.

In the 1960s, I was totally unaware that gays and lesbians existed. In the 1970s, a guy brought an issue of Time magazine to school; on the cover was a man, with the quote, “I am gay.” By that time (high school), I had heard of gays. Then one day while I was reading a novel, I came across the word “lesbian,” and I had no idea what it meant. Moving on to the 1980s, I heard and read about mostly gay men in San Francisco and a couple of other cities being diagnosed with something that later became known as AIDS. Perhaps this is when the idea of tolerance began to take hold in the U.S., as some felt compassion for those whose bodies were being ravaged by this mysterious illness. However, the vast majority of people understood that homosexuality was a behavior of choice. In 1977, only 13% of Americans believed that people were born lesbian or gay, whereas in 2019 that figure had jumped to an astonishing 49%.

Although that huge percentage change tells us a lot about changes in people’s perceptions over four decades, it’s impossible to document the change from tolerance to acceptance; it’s been gradual, I suppose something like the change from one season to another. “Tolerance” means allowing something that you don’t like or agree with; “acceptance” means agreeing with or going along with. And some have written about “forced acceptance,” which is not true acceptance at all. However, eventually the push for more and more rights by the LGBTQ community causes backlash. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the public restroom issue; those who are transgender are allowed in some places to use the restroom of the gender that they identify with. Target became well-known for its “inclusive” policy established in 2016, but experienced backlash. As a result, Target installed more single-occupancy restrooms in all of its stores. However, in 2018 a man exposed himself to a girl in a Target women’s restroom. Target defended itself by saying that the man was drunk and that there was “no indication” he was transgender–which completely misses the point. These kinds of incidents will only increase as long as the push continues for people to be able to use the restroom of the gender they identify with. Eventually, the only solution will be single-occupancy restrooms only–not a bad thing, by the way, but very expensive.

Let’s move on to the third stage, celebration, which is easier to document. There are gay parades and festivals, for example, and since 2015, same-sex marriage has been legal in the U.S. It is at this third stage that there has been an especially noticeable amount of pushback against the LGBTQ community. To give one example: some non-LGBTQ people who have attended LGBTQ parades and festivals in order to show their support have reported their disgust at some of the behavior displayed at these events. When people are openly having sex in public, that’s a problem. And when law enforcement refuses to arrest such people, that’s an even bigger problem.

Another example is of Christian bakers who have refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. The first well-documented one is of Jack Phillips, a baker in Colorado. The incident happened in 2012; six years later, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker. The second case is Melissa and Aaron Klein, bakers in Oregon in 2013; six years later, the Supreme Court again ruled in the bakers’ favor. In both cases, the Court ruled that the same-sex couples could not make the bakers do something that violated their religiously-informed consciences. While I was very happy about these rulings, what bothered me most was the fact that rather than just find a different baker to make their wedding cakes, these same-sex couples tried to punish those who refused to serve them in the first place.

Sometimes celebration is not at a gay parade, festival, or same-sex wedding, but more benignly at a workplace event. At a place where I used to work, there was a large gathering with various speakers. One of them chose to share that she now had a wife. The vast majority of people in the room spontaneously stood up and applauded; one man that I knew was one of the first up, like a jack-in-the-box. I and some of the other people in the room neither stood up nor applauded, but I felt the pressure.

I read something recently that pleasantly surprised me: acceptance of the LGBTQ community is declining, and most noticeably among young people ages 18-34. The percentage of young Americans who are comfortable with LGBT people in various situations dropped from 63% in 2016, to 53% in 2017, to 45% in 2018. These seven situations include learning that a family member is LGBT and having your child placed in a class with an LGBT teacher. Newsweek and some other media outlets blame the Trump administration, of course, but Nicole Russell of The Daily Signal writes this: “A better way to understand the survey results might be to look at how pushy, even aggressive, the LGBT movement has been in ensuring its rights supersede the rights of others. Whether it’s lawsuits for ‘bathroom rights’ or lawsuits against religious people who can’t in good conscience bake a certain cake, the LGBT community is not advocating ‘equal rights’ but supreme rights that marginalize everyone else’s. This aggressive push for LGBT ‘equality’ may actually be backfiring, causing even young people to feel discomfort and alienation.” https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/28/lgbt-activists-could-be-to-blame-for-falling-lgbt-acceptance/ Now that is wisdom!

And let’s not put our heads in the sand. As time marches on, there will be tremendous pressure on churches to compromise the truth by not speaking out against homosexuality and by hosting same-sex weddings. If you think that’s unlikely, just look at what is happening in the U.K.

By now, maybe you think I’m just a religious gay-hater. While there are many things that the LGBTQ community pushes for that make me angry, the truth is that I rejoice when one of them turns to Jesus Christ in saving faith and leaves their life of sin; that is an incredibly powerful testimony. Let’s continue to speak the truth in love.