Are Democrat Evangelicals Driving the Get Away Car?

 Why is Christianity Today silent about children confined and separated from their  families at the border? What has any major Evangelical leader said about Mario Cuomo's negligence that caused so many Covid deaths or worse yet his sexual misconduct? Where is the outrage over the uncouth sexist remarks of Joe Biden? Where are Piper, Lucado, Christianity Today, Keller and others decrying Biden's hapless pull out of Afghanistan and his callous attitude toward people we have betrayed?. I'm waiting for the outrage and condemnation toward those who voted for him. I'm waiting...

Where are those who are claiming that those who voted for Trump can not witness for their faith, because of his policies and lifestyle now that we have one of the most corrupt President's in history in the White House? Why the silence? Where is the consternation when the President calls the winner of the Masters "boy," or when her refers to the late Satchel Paige as "that negro ball player" Where are the cries about Biden's silence about Chinese slavery and genocide? Instead we have Max Lucado apologizing for his past Biblical statements about sexuality. How can evangelicals who embrace a political party that stands for the policies of the modern Democrat party so vociferously excoriate Donald Trump and his supporters and then be deafly silent about the most corrupt anti-Christian President in history? Do you really think you can vote Democrat when policies are so clearly reprobate, and say "oh well, we don't believe those things." Isn't that the equivalent of pleading not guilty to bank robbery on the grounds that all you did was drove the getaway car?

Woke evangelicals deny the very essence of the gospel, because Christianity is incompatible with socialism in any form. The gospel does not always demand civil discourse. There are times when we have a responsibility to be outraged. Paul said it himself "[11] But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." (Galatians 2:11ESV) I've heard the calls for civility and grace usually the reference is to Paul's admonition to "let you speech be seasoned with salt." Yet salt at the time of the writing of Paul was actually a catalyst and a preservative. Speech seasoned with salt, though neither slanderous nor profane, may well be offensive and even harsh to the modern person. There are times we must speak boldly and sternly against unrighteousness. If we define righteousness as that which is opposed to God's character and purpose, then if anything the woke gospel of social justice is unrighteous. I would argue that the consequences of silence in the name of civility, ignoring evil so as not to offend or be seen as uncouth is the equivalent of driving the get away car. 

The principle of socialism, Marxism, CRT are antithetical to a Christian world view. The next few posts' are going to look at a biblical view of economics and government comparing social Justice Marxism and CRT to the Bible. Whereas socialism believes in the possession of wealth by the collective for the common good, a biblical culture is one where individuals possesses property and wealth and take care of themselves and society from the wealth of individuals. 

A while ago I was a member of a FACEBOOK group where a  very prominent minister was an administrator. This person was nationally known well beyond my denomination, and at times aligns himself with social justice causes. In the context of one of the chats where he was affirming one of the group members views of the churches responsibility to support government redistribution of wealth. He said, "The Old Testament never affirmed a concept of absolute property ownership." My response in the chat was, "Then why was there an 8th commandment: 'You shall not steal.' " I was immediately was removed from the group with out explanation. In some circles it is apostasy to deny the basic premise of Marxism "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." In much of evangelicalism pastors teaches and followers of Christ are told that the Biblical view of economy is that we collectively meet the needs of each other. That the accumulation of wealth for the sake of enjoyment is greedy, selfish and sinful.

While neither of the economic system we now call capitalism nor Marxism had full been developed during any period of Biblical history social justice Christian would assert that the cultural mandate given at creation is more aligned with a collectivist social system such as socialism, than an individualized one such as capitalism. Samson's Jawbone asserts the the possession and control of personal property for individual prosperity is incipient to the cultural mandate Adam was given in the garden. Capitalism is fundamentally rooted in a Judeo Christian world view where a Marxism is antithetical to it. Many Christians today who embrace social justice, believing it is compassionate, have been deceived by the doctrine of the devil. 

The first issue we must deal with in this debate is the issue of personal property. Capitalism asserts that property ownership is a moral right, and the possession of individual wealth is a sign of God's blessing. Marxism argues that there is no such thing as individual property ownership. That the economy should be managed in such away that every person has all they need all the time and no one has more or less than anyone else. One of the ways God made man unique was by making him a co-regent over the earth. God, Creator, assigned human beings authority, including ownership authority over property.

Genesis 1:18 God created man, gave him authority over the earth and called upon him to work. One of the way man revealed the image of God was through work, was through the product of his own individual labor. Man was to build a society and culture. So God gave man authority over the planet to produce for himself for God's glory. He gave man dominion over the animals, so the very essence of God's image was productivity. All this occurred before man fell. So before the fall God established a culture of individual possession and productivity, but did that continue after the fall? 

The Ten Commandments  (Ex 20: 1-7) are the basic moral code of the Bible, and are the foundation of law and economics in Western Culture. It is these commandments that Jesus fulfills, expands and elaborates in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7),  are organized in two sections. The first five have to do with how to have a meaningful relationship with God. The last five are how have an honorable relationship among people and a civil society. The eighth commandment "Thou shalt not steal" is central to those five. All of the last five involve stealing in some form a person taking something that does not belong to them. Incipient to the eight commandment is individual ownership of property. If property is owned communally, then each person has the same rights to everything, and and the purpose of production is to produce equity. Nothing is exclusively mine. Even children are owned by the state and the state determines their value and assess their morality. If my grass is high and you have a mower in your garage, I can take your mower with out compensation or consideration as it belongs to me as much as it does to you. The eighth commandment, “You shall not steal." (Exodus 20:15ESV) assume that individual property ownership is fundamental to human relationships, civil society and our relationship with God; otherwise it has no meaning. 

The right of individual ownership of property is a fundamental human right according to scripture. I Kings 21 is an account of the downfall of one the Bible's chief protagonist couple, King Ahab and his Queen, Jezebel. They are two of the ultimate wicked rulers recorded in scripture. Ahab and Jezebel had been in constant conflict with the prophet Elijah over their devotion to God. They continually broke all of the first five commandments and raised other God's ahead of Jehovah, Elijah's God. That conflict reach it's culmination in an event on MT Carmel where after nearly three years of drought, Elijah uses an excessive amount of water on to inundate pile. He waste a precious scarce resource. leaving the  so wet that they cannon even be used for fire in the most arid conditions. It is also a scheme to prove that Ahab's God is inept.  The prophets call  of his false god calls for fire to consume the wood pile, to no avail. Elijah, openly mocks, Ball, the false god, then calls on God to consume the wood. Fire falls from heaven consuming them, showing God is the true God. God restores the rain and the life to Israel in a way that brings disgrace to Ahab Jezebel and their God. Ahab and Jezebel hold the first five commandment is contempt leading the nation to turn from God's ways, and God shows himself true. (I Kings 17 & 18) Yet God does not judge these two despots, even after that. He still seeks their repentance.

But their condemnation is secured when Jezebel and Ahab  steal what does not belong to them: Ahab approaches Nabot, who owns property near the palace, and offers to buy it from him. He even offers him a fair price. Naboth refuses to sell his property. After sharing his disappointment with the Queen she becomes angry that Naboth can refuse the King's request:

[5] But Jezebel his wife came to him and said to him, “Why is your spirit so vexed that you eat no food?” [6] And he said to her, “Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money, or else, if it please you, I will give you another vineyard for it.’ And he answered, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’” [7] And Jezebel his wife said to him, “Do you now govern Israel? Arise and eat bread and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.” (1 Kings 21:5–7ESV)

Jezebel responds "Do you now govern Israel?" In her mind Naboth had no right to deny the King access to property in other words, he did not have "absolute ownership." If the King needed it he had the right to take it. They developed  a scheme to falsely accuse Naboth of a crime, which results in his being stoned to death unjustly then they confiscated his property, "[16] And as soon as Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab arose to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it. (1 Kings 21:16ESV)".They coveted, their neighbors property, bore false witness against him and confiscates his property breaking the last five of the commandments. While some will argue that this is not related to collective ownership of property Jezebel's words refute that. She says that the King has the right to the property because he is governor of Israel. In other words, the King (the state )owns the property. Naboth has no claim to it, and should be grateful for what compensation Ahab offers. This is the very foundation of socialism, that the state is the one who owns property and determines who has the right to use it. God makes it very clear that Ahab and Jezebel's actions are morally anathema:

[17] Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, [18] “Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who is in Samaria; behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone to take possession. [19] And you shall say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Have you killed and also taken possession?”’ And you shall say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD: “In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood.” (1 Kings 21:17–19ESV)

Clearly God condemned and deposed Ahab and Jezebel for a litany of sins, but the final act was when they took property that did not belong to them, strictly because they were royalty, completely denying the right of private ownership to a private citizen. This was as great an indignity to God as was their idolatry. One of the ways that human are distinct from animals, and that sets them apart as sacred is their ability to own and control material resources, and God honors our productivity.

God promises to bless the works of our hand and to give us joy form the things we produce (Deut 16:15). The law required restitution beyond compensatory value for an act that destroyed or took possession of some else's property (Ex 21: 33 - 22:15).  In Psalm 90: 17 Moses asks God to "establish the work of his hands. God rebukes the person who is impoverished because of their own laziness (Proverbs 6: 6- 11) Proverbs 10:4 praises the person who gets rich by his own production: 

[4] A slack hand causes poverty,

but the hand of the diligent makes rich.

[5] He who gathers in summer is a prudent son,

but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame. (Proverbs 10:4–5ESV). 

Man works to fill his appetite. Consumption for self pleasure is not greed:

[26] A worker’s appetite works for him;

his mouth urges him on. (Proverbs 16:26 ESV).

The Bible even supports the concept of wages based on a salary  rather than on an hourly wage (Matthew 20- 1-16), and concept of compounding profit is look on with approval (Matthew 25: 14-30). Discipleship and faithfulness to Christ is characterizes by diligent productive work (Col 1:10;  3:23; 1 Thess 2:9). A faithful Christian life is characterized by minding our own business and working hard (1 Thessalonians 4:9). As a matter of fact Paul makes it very clear that the person who refuses to work "should not eat." 

So the basic principle of Marx on which socialism is built "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is completely foreign to a life that lives for the glory of God. So to those evangelicals who are teaching their congregation the view that it is government responsibility to gather taxes and redistribute wealth so that all outcomes are equitable, have adopted an anti-biblical world view. They are false teachers. 

We live in an imperfect society both American political  parties have people among them who are corrupt  and people who are virtuous, yet the question must be for the voter is what does the party advocate? The Republican party has it's share of scoundrels.  Donald Trump is no icon of virtue, Barak Obama seems to be a morally upright man who is a loving husband and faithful father. Yet the principles and policies the two parties advocate are radically different. Can Evangelicals who vote Democratic (which undoubtedly, in its modern form is advancing socialism) get away with saying, "well I don't believe those things."  When they vote for a person whose world view is contrary to the gospel are they endorsing the sins of Ahab and Jezebel? When they vote for redistributive socialism they may not be  robbing their neighbor, but  they are approving what the Bible would clearly label as theft. Evangelicals who vote Democratic are driving the getaway car.