Pastor Plek's Podcast
Pastor Plek's Podcast
Biblical Insights for Political Engagement
319: This week Pastor Plek and Pastor Holland Greig explore the complex intersection of Christianity, government, and political responsibility. They unravel the biblical foundations that shape our understanding of rulers and their divine accountability, drawing insights from Romans 13 and Psalms. Pastor Holland sheds light on how Christians can navigate the political landscape, even in the absence of explicitly Christian candidates, and offers thought-provoking perspectives on the historical context of religious tolerance.
Got questions? Text us at 737-231-0605!
Like, share, and subscribe! We love seeing and responding to your reviews and comments.
Support the show: https://wbcc.churchcenter.com/giving
And welcome back to Pastor Plex Podcast. I'm your host, pastor Plex. I'm so glad all of you are joining us, and in studio with me is none other than Eastside Community Church Pastor Holland Gregg. Welcome, holland. Thanks so much. You know we got a question from our people and, as you know, we are here to answer questions. So we do. On Pastor Plex podcast and Holland, I got a question that only probably you can answer, but no, here it is. How does the church address the upcoming election, specifically voting according to Christian principles, and you and I had a little bit of discussion about this this week and I want to kind of talk about like, as we're approaching November 5th, I believe, the Super Tuesday we are going to be voting for either President Trump or Vice President Harris to take over the country and lead the charge into the next four years, and so how should we, as Christians, sort of deal with that reality? What are your thoughts there, holland?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think this is an issue that there's not well, I would say there's not a lot of teaching on what the Bible actually says about government and rulers, what God's expectations for rulers are, how we should think about government as Christians.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Because I think there's this reality that aren't we not supposed to talk about that? You know, I feel like there's-.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's what we're told, yeah.
Speaker 1:There's this like unwritten rule You're not supposed to talk about politics or mix religion and politics or something along that lines, and I think, for the most part, you could say that you or something along that lines, and I think, for the most part, you could say that you would say Christianity isn't political. However, I think one of the things I love that you've said over the years is that Jesus is king and so therefore clearly political.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely, and the Bible speaks a lot to lesser kings. Jesus is the king of kings, meaning all kings, all rulers obviously are accountable to him for how they rule. And God's word has a lot to say about what the expectations for rulers are, the idea of not mixing church and politics and stuff. I think there's some misunderstanding around where that idea comes from, what it means, what the Bible has to say about that. A lot of it comes back to that idea of the separation of church and state. What does that mean? And, yeah, I think there's a lot of confusion about that, and so most talk about politics is just kind of like hey, love the people that you disagree with politically and have unity, you know, and not actual teaching and discipleship about how to think biblically with regard to government authority, rulers, that type of thing All right, so let's talk real quick.
Speaker 1:I know you did a sermon series on this recently which I was privy to see. I think one of the messages but there is God has a unique relationship. God and the government, god and the church, god and the family, and I love the way that you broke those three things down. Talk to me a little bit about how you see that breaking down, where you got that thought process from.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the idea of God establishing three institutions of the family, the church and the state or the government is something that's been acknowledged or recognized throughout her church history in a lot of ways and that was what our sermon series was about was understanding what God's will for each of those institutions is, and that each one has a unique mandate from God and there is some overlap between all of them. But they're not the same, and so God has meaning, like God has a specific purpose that the family fulfills. That is not the same as the purpose that the church fulfills or that the government fulfills, even though there's some overlap. God's called the church, for instance, to make disciples practice. You know church membership, church discipline, administer this, you know when you practice, like the Lord's supper, baptism, sacraments or ordinances, whichever one you call them.
Speaker 2:And the government Romans 13, talks about the institution of the government is designed by God, instituted by God. That God has given the government the sword to, essentially to promote what is good and to punish what is evil. That's the government's mandate from God, and so that's not what the church is called to do. But there is some overlap in the sense that you can have people who belong to the church or belong to a family that are also part of a government. Or if there's an issue, let's say, of abuse in a family, the church is going to speak to that from a disciplinary standpoint. The state might speak to that from a legal standpoint, from a legal standpoint. So there's overlap in these three things, but they're distinct institutions that God has a specific call for. And this is what I'm saying. I think doesn't get much teaching today.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so here's, and this is, I think, the idea of church, and I don't want to call it separation of church and state, because I think we understand maybe that premise. But how about toleration? Religious toleration where you don't promote one religion over another, has not been a thing really. The United States, really coming in to its existence, where it didn't have like the Anglican Church in England or whatever, maybe the Catholic Church in France, where there wasn't a primary religious institution, it was like just generally, they made laws initially that said like, hey, we're going to you, you know, saturday and sunday are off, um, but for the most part, up until, uh, the american revolution there, whatever the religion of the monarch was was religion of the entire state for the, for the most part, yeah, um, and.
Speaker 1:And then when you saw with christianity, it was this or sorry, christian, with democracy, uh, and a republic, democracy at that is now, instead of, like you just kind of are you're receiving the religion of the state and the laws that that uh monarch are putting forward, for example, uh, you know the the monarch may implement, you're going to be catholic and anybody not catholic you're off with your head. You know that sort of reality where the morality was the faith tradition of that monarch to then a democracy where there isn't a faith tradition that's supported by the state in any way other than freedom of general religion. And so how do we, as Christians lean into that, and what should we be looking for as people who now have? We may not be the monarch, but we have a role in deciding what is law for our country.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So I would even just to back up a little bit. You know, when the separation of church and state thing you're saying, I think we for the most part kind of get that, I would say I think that's an area that a lot of people don't understand what that phrase means or where it comes from. It has to do with what you were just describing Originally comes from, I believe, a letter from Thomas Jefferson talking about a wall of separation. But the purpose was to protect the church from government overreach, from saying, you know, hey, you have to be Catholic or you have to, you know, be Anglican or whatever it is. The freedom of religion was originally intended, the freedom to worship God according to your conscience, but it was in the context of the Christian faith still, so it wasn't. Religious tolerance was about, you know, different expressions of faith in God.
Speaker 1:I think he wrote in that letter what does it matter if there's three gods or 20 gods? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. And I think that's the reference that he gives to the sort of like why are we so worried about something that, uh, in a sense you couldn't prove, I guess, is where he was going with that, as he was a theist and clearly not a Christian.
Speaker 2:but yeah, yeah, yeah, and I mean the the overall, um, religious, um context of the day, though. Like, if you look at the state constitutions, um, original colonies, even our state, every state constitution today, I think, if not every, then like 48 out of 50 references almighty God, or supreme judge of the earth, or like a supreme deity, like all still make reference to God. My point is saying that separation of church and state is not about separation of God and state. Right, and so there's still and that's something that people misunderstand today because now people are saying, hey, don't bring religion into politics at all, keep God out of the government. That is never what separation of church or state was intended to mean and it's not how all the founders of our country thought about that idea either.
Speaker 1:Right. I mean, it was a primarily Judeo-Christian In fact. This is probably why I probably should get my sources right. But there's uh, without the Judeo-Christian backdrop, construct a, a nation of freedom of religion that we're talking about, isn't possible. Um, I think it's kind of where that that came.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and you know, the idea of having being able to enjoy freedom and liberty requires I posted some quotes about this recently requires moral, requires right, religion, requires virtue, otherwise that freedom devolves into destruction. And like, if you don't have a source that you're accountable to as a government for morality, a standard of truth and justice, morality, then, um, essentially, the government becomes God, you become, the government becomes the ones who are the arbiters of truth and morality and justice, deciding what's right, what's wrong, what's love, what's hate. And so there will always be a, a God of a particular people. Um, if it's not the God of the universe, the true God, then it's, um, some God, then, yeah, it's either an idol, a pagan God, um, uh, or it's or it's. The government itself fills that role socially.
Speaker 1:Okay. So this is the part I think that we all. The part where this gets messy is, uh, I'm gonna throw out the the the messy topics. It's messy is I'm going to throw out the messy topics abortion, gay marriage, like those are things where that is a moral thing. That Christians would say abortion is murder. Like that's where our generally we're going to go. Abortion is murder, is murder. Like that's where our generally we're going to go. Abortion is murder. Then we're going to say same-sex marriage is outside the will of God. That is sin, all right, so, or you know, adultery or whatever, whatever sin word you want to put on that. So then how do we as Christians sort of talk about that amongst a pluralistic society where people don't have that same viewpoint on that being sin?
Speaker 2:Yeah, and so a lot of people will say, as Christians, we shouldn't try to force our beliefs on other people. Take that to the issue of slavery, though, and everyone's going to go well, you know, you say okay, so if you should people not have forced their idea of abolishing slavery on this, you know, and so there's some people that might. Who knows what answers you'll get with that, but for a lot of people, they're going to go oh well, yeah, that was one that it was good that we fought to abolish, right, that we fought to abolish Right, so people actually understand this idea of if a culture has bad morals, that does not love your neighbor, that does not help your neighbor, that hurts people, right, and therefore superior morals need to be taught and legislated into society, even when it's counter-culture.
Speaker 2:We know that deep down but we don't think about it deeply and so people say these surface level platitudes you know about don't force your, legislate your um morality yeah but that's all that you can do. All legislation is inherently moral.
Speaker 1:you are saying this is moral, uh so, and maybe the the problem is, you know, does everything get the death penalty? Probably not, but I do feel like, like, even like jim crow, laws are separate but equal. We would say that is immoral, based upon the dignity of each human being, regardless of um red, yellow, black or white. Yeah, I, I think that's the part where, um, I think we've said don't legislate morality for so long that we didn't realize that Makes no sense, because, like, oh, some things you can legislate, except for the things that I disagree with. Yes, and I think that's the problem. So I think, as Christians, we are called to then sort of vote, probably in a way that would legislate morality.
Speaker 2:Exactly, there's the only possibility when it comes to voting. Voting, you know you're essentially Okay, so, before voting, the less civilized way was war you would have no, I don't want the land, I don't want these to be the laws of this land, and if you disagree, we will fight you. And voting is a way. Is war by proxy right to be the laws of this land? And if you disagree, we will fight you. And voting is a way. Is a war by proxy right. You cast your vote instead of draw your sword and um. But the same premise is there of we want to establish the best morals, that if God's purpose for government is to promote what is good and to punish what is evil, that is an inherently moral thing. You're talking about good and evil, okay, and so we want laws that promote good and punish evil. And that's when you're voting. You are participating in an inherently moral activity.
Speaker 1:Yes, Okay, so how do you just Now? This is where we know not all All sins are equal, in that every sin prevents you from getting to God. However, equally damning, not all all sins are equal, in that every sin prevents you from getting to God.
Speaker 2:However, Equally damning, not equally destructive.
Speaker 1:Thank you, they're equally damning. That's man. Thank you, that was really good.
Speaker 2:Stole it somewhere, I can't remember where.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but it sounded like it was you, so it was genius. So, as Holland said, equally damning, but not equally destructive. So a white lie and murder are equally damning but not equally destructive. And I think sometimes we throw this verbiage around meaning one thing, but then we apply it to another, kind of like don't legislate morality. That doesn't make sense. We say all sins are equal, so why are we lifting one up? And we're not making a law about white lying, but we are making a law about abortion or gay marriage, about abortion or gay marriage.
Speaker 1:So let's, how do we, how do we sort of differentiate when we're looking at candidates, let's just like talking presidential candidates how are we to differentiate? Because it's not like right now we have Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It's not like either of these people really like beacon of hope, of righteousness and talking about Jesus and all that. So how do we then, from the standpoint of like I don't have someone that's clearly uh, for Jesus, but I can make a decision that's best for my country with the options that I have, and let's just talk through what those options are.
Speaker 2:Yeah, Um, can we do. Can I bring a couple of Bible verses?
Speaker 1:Yeah, please, okay, I think the whole Bible verse thing it's actually a win. You guys are into that here. Yeah, we like the Bible around here. It's good.
Speaker 2:Um, yeah, so let's go. I think, first of all, romans 13 talked about this earlier. Yep, um, verse three rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good and you'll receive his approval. So approving of what is good is one purpose, and it says verse four, for he is God's servant for your good. So again, that's the role of the government you serve God.
Speaker 1:Same word deacon, a deacon of God for your good. That's why we get the word minister like a minister of defense or minister of whatever it's the same thing From that yeah.
Speaker 2:So a servant of God for the public good, to approve what is good. And then the next part it says but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God. Now, instead of approving what is good, it says he's a servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. And so, and earlier again, it says there's no authority except from God. Those that exist have been instituted by God. So you do have this sense that God created the government approve what is good, punish what is evil. So, when it comes to voting and assessing candidates, I think the options that you have are well. Ideally you would have Christian candidates. That's not even something people would agree with, though you know. Again, keep religion out of politics. But again, you can't when politics is inherently moral, when government is God's servant for the public good. Ideally you would have a Christian candidate who rules according to God's law. One more verse Can I bring up?
Speaker 1:one more, you get one more.
Speaker 2:Psalm 2, verse 10 through 12. Now therefore, O kings, be wise, be warned. O rulers of the earth, serve the Lord with fear. Again, this is not Israel. He's not saying Israelite Rulers of the earth, all the kings, that's what he's talking to. Rulers the Christ, and we know Psalm 2 is about Jesus from its allusions in the New Testament as well. So you have this expectation that all rulers are accountable to God. Daniel gives you examples of Gentile rulers that are accountable to God. Daniel gives you examples of Gentile rulers that are judged by God for their arrogance and their refusal to fear him, their pride, their injustice that they were responsible for.
Speaker 1:I think of Nebuchadnezzar, right off the top.
Speaker 2:Yeah, belshazzar. So you have these examples of pagan Gentile kings that are judged for their refusal to fear God. So when it comes to the president of the United States, they're accountable to God, whether they want to acknowledge it or not.
Speaker 2:Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, and so that's why it's terrible that presidential debates and stuff, no scriptures brought up. You know nothing about the fear of God, nothing about what the Bible says about justice, and that takes politics and government out of the context of what it's designed for, which is why, you know, a lot of us think no, we can't bring God into the government. You know we're talking about policy, but again, it's all. It's all under God and all accountable to God. So if you don't have Christian candidates to vote for, I think your, in my opinion, I think your options are either one don't vote at all, to say I'm not going to cast a vote for someone who I think is unfit for this role, someone who's not going to fear God, not going to cast a vote for them. You can write in a third party Write yourself in.
Speaker 2:Write yourself in. Do you know? I was voted most likely to be president in high school hey.
Speaker 2:Holling Craig, this is your year 2024. Or your other option is to vote for the one that you think will either two sides of the same coin do the most good or do the least harm. Not necessarily the ideal, not a Christian, not someone who's going to rule in a fear of God, but someone who will do the most good, who will be most fit for approving things that are good and punishing things that are evil. And so I think you have to look at the track record of the candidates and what things they approve and what things they punish. And if they're not someone who acknowledges God, they themselves are essentially taking that position of deciding what's right and wrong, what's good and evil, what they're going to approve, what they're going to punish. So that's one way, I'd say, to think about it.
Speaker 1:So Martin Luther had a nuanced view of this, like back in the day, he had the two kingdoms. View One was that you'd have a secular. It was established by God to maintain order and justice in society, regardless of personal faith. And then you had the sacred rule of the church and the two would overlap, but the church wasn't to have power over the government, but it should be able to speak into the government as a whole, and I think that's where we're at government as a whole. And I think that's where we're at.
Speaker 1:But I guess I think the problem for us we don't live in a monarchy as, or with the princes or however you know the feudal system of the 1500s. We live in a republic democracy, which is challenging to understand in and of itself. And so here we are because, as I listen to you, it's like okay, not vote best of or the candidate that promotes the best well-being for the country, or the candidate that would hurt the least or do the least evil. And so how do we know where the candidates are as far as good, evil, like? How would he even process that to know? Kind of like, okay, I want to have the candidate that's going to promote the most good. I want to have the candidate that's going to promote the least evil. Yeah.
Speaker 2:A couple of things. You look at their history. Trump served as president. You can assess what he did, what he accomplished, how he led, his character, his policies, kamala, vice president last few years, other political roles that she filled. You look at those. You look at the policies that they claim to, that they're claiming to move forward, with which there's no guarantee that'll actually happen. But you do have. Like you know, the Republican platform is posted online. Trump gave an updated one recently. Kamala posted hers recently for the democrats and you can look policy by policy and assess it according to the word.
Speaker 2:Okay, what's their status, their stance on, like you brought up abortion, marriage, immigration, how, what, how are they approaching, how are they justifying their positions? How does that line up with the Bible? And I think another verse I'll bring up 1 Timothy 2, we're commanded to Paul says I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. So that's what Paul says to pray for when it comes to rulers. I think that makes sense, to vote in the same direction that we're commanded to pray. What is going to lead to us being able to have a peaceful, quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. Quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. What policies are going to interfere the least with our ability to gather for worship, our ability to raise our children in the Christian faith? What is going to hinder that the least or help that the most?
Speaker 1:Right. So let's think that through. I think the peaceful and quiet life thing is probably something that nobody thinks about, and, in general, I don't think our social media feeds are full of peaceful and quiet. Where they're more, full of, like, you're the worst, my team's the best Um, like I think you know, as I, as I look at the vitriol that comes across social media from candidates and, uh, their supporters, it just it's like not a godly space, and so that's where it gets to be a struggle.
Speaker 1:So let's just kind of parse through some of this. Um, I don't even know where we'd start. Like I think that's the part where you go, okay, like I think usually the thing that most Christians look at is like who's the most pro-life candidate? Uh, and that's where and even even that's changed over time on where people's stances are. Yeah, like I think donald trump and kamala harris at one time uh probably were aligned, and then another time trump shifted and another time trump shifted again. So it's kind of one of those things where you look at I think at one point you know he's the one that nominated the most pro-life supreme court of all time, that reversed Roe v Wade, and you look at that and you're like well, he must be a pro-life candidate. But what I've seen is that he's actually sort of backed off that position.
Speaker 2:Yes, yeah, majorly, and is in the recent, like the policy platform, republican platform doesn't say really anything in a pro-life position other than trying to avoid late-term abortions, which is, I would say, kamala is very vocal about. I mean, she's a champion for abortion, trump is not, but he's also not a champion for the pro-life cause. He backed up I don't know why, maybe to try to gain some moderate voters or something like that or win some people over, but he totally backed off on where he was years ago.
Speaker 1:I mean years ago he was like— there's not a pro-life candidate right now Speaking at pro-life events, I think when the Million Woman March or some sort of thing, where they had it on the Capitol and he went to it and spoke at it and and Roe v Wade was overturned at some point after that, which is sort of wild to think about.
Speaker 2:Um, okay, so then, uh, so you can take an issue like that, I think, and you go okay, what does the word say about this Before, before? It's a political issue, it's a theological, moral issue. That um, there's political, um, ramifications, effects, decisions that need to be made, but at the core of it there's a theological and moral issue, right? So you know abortion is is it moral to terminate the life of an unborn child? And you can look to the word and it's pretty clear to me no, it's not. It's the work of God in the womb. I talked about this this past Sunday at our church.
Speaker 2:This is stuff where people say you know, don't mix religion and politics, you can't talk about politics. And again you got to say before it's a political thing, it's a biblical, theological, moral thing. And so if God is the one knitting us together in the mother's womb, he's forming a human life, that it's wrong, immoral, unjust to take an innocent human life, then that applies to abortion. You can say abortion is unjust, immoral, unjust to take an innocent human life. Um, then that applies to abortion. You can say abortion is unjust, immoral, it's the murder of an unborn child. The political implications of that are we should not.
Speaker 1:We should punish what is evil right and not approve of it, and I think this gets to the point where it gets a little challenging, because where do you, where do you apply the punishment? Because I think at some places you're like, oh well, it should be on the doctors. But then you're like, what about the, the woman, or the family, or the people woman really ultimately, uh, getting going in for the abortion? Should that person be punished? I think that's that's a question that is, I feel like for a long time that that has to be to be fair, to get to a place of where we're at, where Roe v Wade is no longer the law of the land. Pro-life advocates haven't been abortion abolitionists maybe the best way to put that, because I think you're now seeing.
Speaker 1:There's some that are, but but for the most part it's like, For the most part, you're right yeah.
Speaker 1:And so Because I think we would say don't we want to like if it were slavery? You would say we don't want any remnant of slavery around, we want that completely abolished. And the same thing I think we'd say with abortion. If we're viewing that as a murder of an unborn child, then you'd want that to be completely out. And I don't think any candidate is kind of talking in those types of terms. Having to I know it's compromise the right word whenever you vote for that, because you're going this is going to move morality forward towards God, even if it won't get me all the way there.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, you're not voting for someone who you think is going to champion Christian values and principles, but for someone who is going to try to, or someone who's going to be less or more helpful or harmful. Right, it's a strategic or a tactical, I don't know which one, but essentially that's what I think. I know some people who are like I'm not going to vote at all because I can't do so in good conscience. I respect that opinion or that position. I mean and I also have respect and understanding for people who go I am going to vote because I think you know, if this person were to win, it would be detrimental to our society for X, y, z ways. I think either of those positions is understandable and you have yeah, you can justify either one.
Speaker 1:So let's talk through some of the primary issues. If I were to talk talk to her I think abortion is one. I think, uh, probably. I think same sex marriage is not really even a topic to be talked about, because I think we're beyond that as a country. But as a Christian, you would want to have the. You know, up until what? 2014,? The law of the land was a man and a woman.
Speaker 1:And you know, barack Obama would have said when he ran, like a marriage between a man and a woman, and then until it's not Um and and so then you go. You know, the past 10 years is is that has been the amount of history we've had. Marriage is between whoever you want it to be with. I guess it's limited to one person, at least at this point. But where on the hierarchy of political thought and I think this is really where the rubber meets the road in voting is where do we rank abortion? Where do we rank same-sex marriage? Where do we rank immigration? Where do we rank economic policy? Where do we rank, you know, all of that sort of leads to quiet, still quiet, lives at some point. But there's gotta be some sort of and maybe this is, this could be the discernment of the Christian, of which one is hierarchically most important.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think if okay, so if you have the three institutions family, church, government- so if you have, the three institutions family, church, government you want the government to protect the rights of the family, the other two institutions to be able to do what God's called them to do, not to interfere with those things. And so you go. Well, what does God call the family and the church to do? You think of the cultural mandate in Genesis 1 and 2, be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth. So you know what are. What are godly families to do?
Speaker 2:Get married, have children, raise your children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, teach your children to obey the Lord, deuteronomy 6, right, so you have the institution of the family, is you have marriage and child rearing, essentially so. When it comes to something like same-sex marriage, well, that's immediately relevant to God's command from the beginning and the institution of the family, immediately relevant and one of the purposes. If you look at the Reformation and they talked about the different purposes of the law, speaking to God's law, but law in general, it can expose our sin, it can serve as a tutor or teach it can. One of the purposes of law is to teach, and so the idea of having the law of the land be something immoral. We have to understand that that is teaching something to people.
Speaker 2:It does establish a culture. Sometimes culture influences politics, right, but the laws of a land are always going to influence the culture as well. So when you have a culture where anything goes with marriage, you end up where we are today with, yeah, stuff you know very concerning things being taught to children in elementary schools, and you have a culture where kids are very confused about their gender and sexuality and, yeah, growing up in a culture that's totally lost when it comes to that, and so I would say something like it's disruptive to the family, it is.
Speaker 2:Yeah, what is the church called to do? Gather for worship, make disciples preach the gospel, lord's Supper, baptism. So you have things that are going to impede religious freedom, your ability to assemble, to gather, freedom of speech, you know, is something that you start to lose, freedom of speech, and now you cannot preach the gospel right without being punished or hindered. So I would say there's things, if you look at what are the mandates for the other two institutions as well, as go to the ten commandments. That's god's moral law. Abortion is going to run up against murder. I shall not murder, right, um?
Speaker 1:uh, but I think the hard part is then what about like blasphemy? Or what about don't make any graven images? I think that's where it gets challenging. Right as a, as a, I think, in a culture, and I think it comes back from the Jefferson letter of separation of church and state, when he said if it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, then why I'm not going to worry about it.
Speaker 2:Here's how it does, though. Again, if you don't honor God as a government, as a nation, the government becomes God. Yes, there will always be blasphemy. It's it's. It's just what is going to be considered. There's meaning.
Speaker 1:there's always going to be things that you're not allowed to say, um, and you're not allowed to say something about like assassinating a sitting or president or something like that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's things that are forbidden to say or condemn. So what? What a lot of people today would just. You know, the idea of hate speech is essentially a form of blasphemous speech.
Speaker 1:Wow, you're right, so we already have that.
Speaker 2:You're exactly right, we already have that. There are things that you're not allowed to say, whether it's punished legally or socially. There are things that are taboo, forbidden, that if you say, if you speak against this, you're going to get canceled.
Speaker 1:And so LGBTQ stuff, abortion, these are some of those things where but Jesus's name can be taken in vain all over the place, right.
Speaker 2:And nobody blinks an eye. So it's not whether or not you have blasphemy laws, it's which ones you have.
Speaker 1:I think that's huge and I think what happens, I think, for Christians? We've punted on this because we're not offended. Why Should we not be offended? Or is there a part where we've been not offended for so long? We've been conditioned to not be offended? Offended, or is there a part where we've been not offended for so long? We've been conditioned to not be offended, whereas people that are not believers have blasphemy laws that they're essentially ripping their clothes for when they hear someone say something that they might deem racist or sexist or transist or whatever. The thing is, yeah, Because the religion of the government has become supreme.
Speaker 2:Secular humanism, I would say, is the religion of our government, Right, and it has its own forms of blasphemy that are going to be punished. And Kamala even said, I think, recently, speaking of, like, social media platforms, and you know she's like I'm going to go after them and um criminally criminalize hate speech on social media, essentially. And so who decides what's hateful? Well, the government does so. If it's something that she hates, if it goes against her policies, you lose freedom of speech. To speak the truth about, um gender, about sexuality, about marriage, about abortion, that can all be categorized as hate speech that is now punishable, a form of blasphemy laws.
Speaker 1:So I think we're seeing the negative consequences of Christians not speaking out, speaking up for what we see as true blasphemy maybe, and I've always thought that just oh my, why are you so upset about who cares what that person says, but when you're not offended by it, is it like.
Speaker 2:when you're not offended by it, yeah it's not as much about that hurt my feelings or that personally offended me. I think it's about upholding a standard of what is right and wrong and should people be allowed to, you know, publicly blaspheme their creator? Wow and um, you know, not because it offends me or it hurts my feelings or something, but what kind of culture does it create when that is tolerated or even celebrated?
Speaker 1:But I feel like every show I've ever watched like Adrian and I usually watch action shows Jesus's name is taken in vain at least 20 times.
Speaker 2:What is the effect that has on culture? Over years and years and years, it just deteriorates your view of Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1:And it just turns Jesus's name into an expletive. Exactly.
Speaker 2:And we have to understand that as a strategy of the enemy to really disillusion people and to mislead people into thinking yeah, that name is just an expletive, it's a curse word, there's no honor in his name, there's no you know, especially when that name is what sets you free from.
Speaker 1:The demonic sets you free from Exactly. It's wild to think about, so that's why I know that. How can?
Speaker 2:we make society think the remedy to their problem is actually something dirty and foul to say when you're upset or mad, you know.
Speaker 1:So you know, you go back 70 years ago and I think you had a high honor for Jesus's name, but maybe a low honor for the Imago Dei and people. I don't know.
Speaker 1:I'm just going to kind'm throwing stuff out there before the 64 civil rights law and a lot of the civil rights stuff. You, you just saw a reversal of like, high honor for jesus's name, low honor for the imago day, and now the imago day has taken sec to what your point is. Secular humanism has become the religion uh du jour. And then christianity is something that we're like poo-pooing that and we just need to kind of relegate it to the relic of the past and to bring it up into public policy is draconian and very dated, and I would say probably, as we're watching the disruption, destruction of American culture, it's probably, in one way, it's being built right in the sense, for the darkness and the kingdom of light seems to be taking a hit as far as an American culture for what is right and what is wrong, and it gets very difficult to distinguish it when a lot of it is more morally being promoted by the government that, um, sex is just a part of life and we need to train you that you're probably you might not be a the right, whatever you're born. It could be different that you might not be the right, whatever you're born. It could be different If you're a four-year-old boy. You might be a four-year-old girl, and so let's not put any labels on anything and let's let you make your own choices, and that goes clearly against the biblical teaching of how to raise a family. So this is where the government is impeding the family by making laws, legislating morality to tell you that your child should be able to choose their gender, that sex should never be, ever should be at any time, anywhere, as long as it's consensual, that murder is something that is a woman's choice if it's within her own body. And I think that's where we're just really struggling and I think maybe we've deviated from the actual thing of who we're going to vote for.
Speaker 2:But I think there's a lot of stuff underneath that that you've got to understand before you can answer that question.
Speaker 1:I've been painting the picture of what is government supposed to do Now. Back in the there was a thousand years-ish of where you saw the Holy Roman Empire or the emperor and the pope and everyone sort of. It was like this power struggle where you would have certain rulers that would be keen on supporting a certain religious view and would sort of murder off the entire culture that didn't support it. They would take death penalty seriously and blasphemy If someone argued for a round earth that didn't go with the teaching of the day of the church. They were, you know, potential to be killed or at least imprisoned. So what do we do with that history?
Speaker 2:I think that's where people look back at and they go see, clearly it didn't work, yeah, so I think a common error that people make is to look at how something has not worked and then throw the thing out completely Right, and so we see that in a lot of different ways, like with marriage, people go.
Speaker 1:I've never seen a marriage work so clearly. Marriage is dumb.
Speaker 2:Yeah, or that's what's going on, I think, culturally. What's going on with masculinity and male authority right now? Hey, we've seen toxic masculinity, we've seen abusive men, and therefore masculinity is bad. Right, men in leadership is bad man, you know. And so let's oppose that. And, um, as opposed, I think the right way to do it is to say, okay, maybe let's. This was done poorly in this instance. How was it meant to be done, though? Um, and let's pursue that.
Speaker 2:And so some people will look at hey, uh, christian, um, christian, uh, rulers, or Christian government, or something like that has been done poorly in the past. Let's abandon it completely. That's how a lot of people think of it, instead of saying how, how could we reform it? How could we do it right? How could we do it as intended in scripture? Does that make sense? Yeah, so I think that's the route to go is not abandoning the idea of, you know, really seeking a nation and a government that honors God in the way that it rules and legislates and looks to scripture as the standard for morality. I think that's the the right direction, and this is what this is what, um, you know, has been.
Speaker 2:A lot of people don't understand that, like, if you look at like the Westminster confession of faith or the second London London Baptist confession of faith and some of these like catechisms and documents as the church Calvin's Institutes, I mean there's chapters and chapters and questions and answers. This was something that used to be taught really thoroughly and you know we don't have to try to figure it out right now. Like you know, people love a lot of people will take the reform teaching on soteriology. You know this. You know God's sovereignty and salvation, but but don't look at all in what you know, the reform teaching on government Right, and there's there's tons of resources on this and how to think about this. It's not a new, novel idea, um. So I think we got to look backward a little bit, um, uh, and recover some things that, uh, you know that we've lost in the modern evangelical church today to get some wisdom and insight.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that's what's the challenge is like it. It it feels so overwhelming, um that it's almost hopeless, Right, I think that's where I think a lot of Christians go. It's like there's no point. Think that's where I think a lot of Christians go. It's like there's no point, Um, and I think we need to challenge that. And here's what I mean by that in the golden age of a theocracy and theocracy is just where God is the King and he had judges, or God is the King and he had a earthly King like David or Solomon or Saul it still was jacked up. Yeah, the government still did wrong things, Right.
Speaker 2:And although as long as humans are involved, there will be problems, even.
Speaker 1:Solomon like conscription of his own people to build the temple and to build his palaces and to build all the public works. It's like, dude, you might've been wise but you were just shrewd in in the in like, and then he left the faith.
Speaker 2:I mean, he kind of went to a place where I threw it away by the end of his life.
Speaker 1:And you're like why?
Speaker 1:And so if we look at that, I think this is my struggle I go.
Speaker 1:When we have the opportunity, with a theocracy where God literally had prophets telling the Kings what to do and priests, you know, implementing the king's rule and an army that fought by the power of God, we still had corruption, we still had brokenness and it could only last for, let's just call it, we'll give King Saul.
Speaker 1:He had 40 years, david had another 40-ish and Saul Solomon of course. So for 120 years you had this one monotheistic monarchy that ruled with God's law, and even then, even beyond that, you still didn't take down the high places which God commanded, that ultimately were led for reform, that were missed by kings who literally were all their whole job was and they had all the wealth and all the money and all the power to implement, but because of their own dark hearts, maybe fear of the people, and they couldn't see God to implement morality as the way they should, they failed. And I think, if we're looking for on this side of heaven and this is why my p, my pitch for, don't not vote- yeah, uh vote, in other words, vote like when you just take yourself fully out.
Speaker 1:Well, I feel like you. It it is a and I get I. I think I like where you say you respect people who don't do who who don't I understand.
Speaker 2:You understand, that you respect it for what it is.
Speaker 1:But, man, I think for me it's like we have an opportunity to you know, we're not going to wage war, um, and I think you know, obviously, that that doesn't fit within a christian context, unless you have a sovereign, a sovereign state declaring war and power the sword and all that.
Speaker 2:But now we get into just war theory uh, but within, within the state, as the way you're talking about, uh, as the church, as an institution. We're not going to wage war, we're not going to wage war unless you develop a new state.
Speaker 1:That's not part of the church Cause, that's the state waging war?
Speaker 2:That'd be the state wage war.
Speaker 1:And I think that's the struggle that we have is the church doesn't have and rightfully so, as the way Jesus it doesn't have the power of the sword. That is clearly given to the state, and so our role is to prophetically speak into the state and do it righteously, do it boldly and do it humbly. I think that's the part of this that I think has been pressed on my heart as I've watched the starting in 20, I guess it was 2014,. I think has been pressed on my heart as I've watched the uh, starting on 20, I guess it was 2014,. Whenever the um, um, the gay marriage law came out.
Speaker 1:And then and I honestly I remember when Adrian and Leah and Tay uh all made the um Like we're going to see Roe v Wade taken away in our lifetime, and I remember when Adrian did that video with Leah, I was like there's no way, yeah, there is no way that's changing. And then when that changed I was like wow, yeah, wow. So we do not that we don't matter, but we do matter and our political participation matters of moving the gospel forward and righteousness moving forward.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely. And so you said, the church speaking prophetically to the state is one. Our vote is another aspect. So you know our witness, the way that, all the way up to a presidential level, christian president who says I'm going to rule in the fear of God and we're going to set our moral standards according to what God says is right and wrong, we're going to protect the innocent, we're going to punish evil, we're going to approve what is good, like how, and there there are Christian um, there are Christians in those kinds of roles at local levels who are serving.
Speaker 2:You know, it's kind of rare to see that a lot of people in the political world are fearful of sharing their Christian convictions for sake of. I'm not going to win if I do that, but there are some who do win and who are doing well. There's also people who just give lip service to God and say that they're Christians and yet the way that they rule is totally, you know, pagan and unchristian, like and so. But I would say it's, it's totally possible, um, because with God all things are possible. To see, the see, the culture of our country change, um, to see, like you said, I never thought you know honestly, I thought that was.
Speaker 1:I thought I was like Leah, that's really cute, but that's never going to happen.
Speaker 2:And God we. It is possible to live in a country where abortion is abolished and? Um it is possible to live in a country that upholds biblical standards for marriage and children and gender and sexuality. We often think that um only think in terms of the institution of the church and the family, and that the government is belongs to the secular world. But the government belongs to God. Yeah, um.
Speaker 1:I feel like I need to. I need to make a Venn diagram of, like the different roles of government, church and family.
Speaker 2:And part of what it means to you know, have dominion, to subdue the earth. The command that we're given as image bearers of God involves the political realm um, to have dominion in the in the way of ruling justly, um. That's part of how we love our neighbors. Laws that don't protect people from evil are not loving. Laws that leave the poor vulnerable to being exploited and taken advantage of, it's not a loving law, um. So we have to think more holistically about what it means to love our neighbor, to have dominion that it's not just the family and the church that belong to God. The government, the state belongs to God and is accountable to God.
Speaker 1:So I want to talk just real quickly on a couple of things, and I know this might be overdoing it, but we talked about abortion. I think we hammered that. We talked about same-sex marriage got that. Let's talk immigration for a second. And where? How should a Christian view that Uh?
Speaker 2:yeah, there is. I think there's an aspect of it that is again a moral, theological principle, but then there's also um political, um paths or political approaches to take, that you could share the same biblical convictions about certain principles and yet end up in different places politically Right. I think that's totally understandable.
Speaker 1:I feel like, as long as you're coming from a, not just I'm following whatever my political party says, but I actually have biblical conviction that I'm following, and then if the political party lines up, I either agree with it or I speak truth into it.
Speaker 2:And you've got to be able to go deeper than just the platitudes that so like. I think there's just some foolishness that people say when it comes to this issue and it, you know, is like, essentially equate any, any kind of stance about being, you know, certain immigration policies or secure borders, or you know walls things like this is immediately interpreted as you don't love your neighbor or you're racist or something, whereas you know most of the people having these conversations that push back against that live in some walls and lock their doors at night and don't allow just anyone to come in. Um, you know, there's, uh, the idea of um, there's a hypocrisy that we're seeing clearly.
Speaker 1:Yes, there's just shallow level of conversation, but let's talk biblically, cause I think that, like for me, when I look at like boundaries or walls or whatever borders, the Bible says don't move a sacred boundary stone and what it was talking about don't take a border and move it and say that that's mine. Yeah, uh, that was. That was kind of like a a Levitical Leviticus law in Leviticus of moving boundary stones and what you were doing is like I want to take your property, move in and farm your land and say that it's mine, okay. And then also, just when you look at that, if a state doesn't have the ability to say this is what I'm here to protect and preserve, then it doesn't have any power at all, because there is no state Without a boundary. There is no state, exactly Because. Then it kind of reminds me and within the church has this, the church has members.
Speaker 1:We always are going to have non-believers, non-christians, coming to our church, but there are certain people that we have authority over in a sense, and there are people that we want to love and care for and all of that. But what happens is you're not called to have. You don't hold a non-believer to the same standard as a believer. In the same way, you don't allow non-citizens to have all the rights and privileges of citizens without being a citizen of that country, because the country is there to protect and provide and secure its own citizens. Would you agree with that? Yeah, uh, how? How do we cause? I think what happens is, is we call borders? Um, I think there's a, there's a whole movement. I think a lot of Christians would call this and this is a. I have a hard time, uh, theologically justifying that position of how you would say a border is sinful, or I don't, but there's gotta be somebody that has a perspective on how borders are actually a problem.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I don't. I don't know the biblical justification. Usually you hear that's justified with things like generally love your neighbor or love the foreigner among you, Right, you know the ancient Israelite laws in Deuteronomy or something. Which is funny because it's usually the same people who say don't force your morality on me, Don't legislate morality, Right. But then they'll point to A Bible verse and you know a biblical law from the old Testament to support their position on immigration.
Speaker 1:It's funny and hypocritical to me, Um but uh, and also on that, it's so, whenever a foreigner did sojourn or travel to Israel amongst God's people, they had to agree to live under the laws of Israel. Like they had to keep the Sabbath day, they had to do everything other than get circumcised. I mean, it was sort of like a wild, like reality of like they can worship their own, I guess God in the privacy of their own home, but they weren't allowed to blaspheme, they weren't allowed to do a whole lot of stuff. Uh, that would that. Everyone else would say that's, that's crazy. They had to live under the laws of the of the community of Israel, which would probably include a proper immigration status, correct?
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, there's um again. I think it's wise to draw some principles from that, more than just seek to copy paste some of those laws, but to draw principles from it. But I think it's important to establish that you can love the stranger and love the foreigner and love the. A wise policy about how people cross that border, enter into your nation, become a citizen, and the idea that any level of borders, anytime you say no, that's unloving and evil. I think that's foolishness and it's not how we live our own lives. It's not how we conduct our families, our own households. We have boundaries in our home and we do that for safety and security in terms of who comes in and who we let in. A nation is not the same thing as a family, but a nation. If you think of creation of the world, nations are what happened when families grew and became more families and more families and you had to think of well, how do we govern and have order with a collection of families? And you're going to apply a lot of similar principles that you apply to a household.
Speaker 2:The reform tradition viewed rulers, national rulers, as the father of that nation. It was a fatherly role, in the same way that, you know, paul talks about the church being the household of God. Government and church those institutions, really look to the family as a model. The church is a household model. It's your brothers and sisters right. First Timothy five don't rebuke an older man, but encourage him as a father. 1 Timothy 5, don't rebuke an older man, but encourage him as a father. Older women as mothers. It's built on family principles. In the same way, a government shares a lot of similarities in essentially being a very, very large family and a household in a sense. And so to have borders and to be wise about who comes in and out is very biblical. It's not an unloving or hateful thing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I think that's a struggle. Let's talk about the poor for a second, because I think this is one that usually conservatives are seen as like they don't love the poor and liberals are like all about the poor. And to be fair, I think, at least when I'm looking, at least on social media it looks like a lot more liberal churches are supporting the poor than conservative. But I mean, you would say that's not true and I would say that's not true, but I feel like that's the stereotype is, conservatives don't care about the poor, only the liberals do. But let's just talk real quick about what's the Bible say about caring for the poor, that you should do it, that you should do it, that you should do it Like right. I think it's like. You know, it's a pretty big deal to God.
Speaker 1:Religion that's pure. Is this taking care of orphans and widows in their distress? Yeah, and so I feel like there's a I'm preaching on that here in a couple of weeks. Oh yeah, that's right. You don't want to miss it, that's right. And so what happens, I think, is we find that I think what happens with church is a lot of what we do, especially with poor, isn't shouted from the rooftops, right? I mean, it's almost like what do you mean? Well, like we're sort of commanded giving to the poor, like that's between you and God.
Speaker 2:Oh, like don't let your right hand know what you're left with Right yeah.
Speaker 1:And, honestly, when it comes to giving, that's the only type of giving that you're supposed to keep secret, right? Yeah, because clearly the widow, when she gives her two, whatever two coins, that's in front of everybody and like when that and God or Jesus didn't like go well, well, well, look what that widow was doing, right, but it is when it comes to giving to the poor. I don't know if that is why we're not like more out loud about it, I guess. I mean, one of the things that we love at our church is and I know that you guys do as well is our benevolence ministry. We give away a lot of money, pay a lot of rent, but one of the things we do here is we, um, we go over your budget. Uh.
Speaker 1:Zach bice, uh is our benevolence guy, and and aaron swanland, our um deacon of compassion okay is is goes through people with their budget to help them see what they're they're bringing in and what they're going out, and we're not trying to just give someone you know, here's the next drug money for your next hit. We want to pay a specific bill, and so we pay rent, we pay car payments, we pay specific things to help them keep going. But I feel like this gets back to the government as religion. When the government takes that over and then makes people get paid without working, I think that becomes problematic.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, there's wise and foolish ways to help the poor, right, there are ways that you can do something for someone that maybe feels to you like you're helping and maybe even feels to them in the moment like you're helping but is actually perpetuating some poor habits and what you guys are talking about with hey, let me see your budget, let me you're offering discipleship and accountability to not just meet an immediate need but actually help care for a person toward a biblical understanding of stewarding their resources.
Speaker 1:Aren't you doing that at your church right now?
Speaker 2:Um, as far as like teaching people about how to handle money, yeah, I, yeah, I mean we, yeah, we just finished a little Bible study, um series on that, teaching through it biblical principles about, um, financial stewardship, wealth giving, saving, all that kind of stuff. Um, we do the same kind of thing when we help someone with, uh, with bills. It's coupled with um accountability and discipleship and you know it's it's relational Um, and so, yeah, when it comes to, okay, how do we help the poor, depending on what, I think you'd have to look at specific policies and assess, you know, one by one.
Speaker 1:Okay, so I think you can't just blanket say all welfare programs are bad or all welfare programs are good. I think that's the struggle. So I think, for me, when I look, I remember that book that we had to read. I don't know if we had to read, but we did read when we worked back in Dallas with I Am Second with when Helping Hurts, yeah, yeah, and I think we talked about Haiti, I think specifically, and how more money has been given to Haiti than any other nation, I think combined, and it's still in poverty.
Speaker 1:So money doesn't solve the problem, it's righteousness, like right government structure. That's where I feel like government becomes. I don't want to say the solution, but handling, administering money well, so that you're not when. I think you know, in Proverbs, when the fool rules over the prince, the whole nation fails, or whatever. I think that's the struggle that you saw is like money was spent or money was given to people who were fools and didn't have wisdom and insight, and Haiti is still struggling because of the corruption, because of the impropriety, because of all those different aspects of the impropriety of, because of all those different aspects, and so I think that's where you got to look at spending money wisely and that's why I love, um, a lot of our countries always investigating like where's money being spent and why? What do you any any thoughts on that, as far as when you're talking about giving to the poor or not giving to poor, like just how a country manages loving taking care of the poor as part of being righteous.
Speaker 2:I think we have to understand poverty is more than just financial. It is. There is a relational and spiritual aspect to poverty that, um, that, uh, you know a lot of if. If I were to, um, if my car were to break down right now you know I go outside and it doesn't start the relationships that I have I'm not worried. I know that I could get a ride. I know someone could pick me up. I know someone, if I needed to, could help me. Right, there's relation. I know someone could pick me up. I know someone if I needed to could help me. Right, there's relation. I am relationally wealthy and that I have relationships with people who are invested in my life.
Speaker 2:Um, if you don't have that, um, you're uh, you know, in a financial problem comes. You know you're screwed, um, you don't have anyone that you know who can help you. That you can call. So relational poverty, spiritual poverty. If you don't understand spiritual principles about finances, you're going to be a poor steward of what you do have. Someone could give you 10 grand, you know, and you don't know what to do with that you don't know.
Speaker 2:No one's taught you wisdom, what Proverbs says, what scriptures say about finances. So there's a spiritual and relational aspect to poverty that I don't necessarily think the government is, the government is not equipped to. The government has a role in caring for the poor, but so does the church, and so do families. Paul said if anyone doesn't care for his relatives, he's worse than an unbeliever. So families are the first line of defense, in a sense, in terms of caring for poverty.
Speaker 2:You're responsible for your relatives. And then the church. You know, when Paul talks about widows, it says first, if she has any children who are able to help her, let them take care of her. So the church is not burdened, right. The church is there to help those who have no one, what Paul calls who are truly widows, true widows, those who are really left all alone.
Speaker 1:And you had to be over what 60?
Speaker 2:Yeah, meet a number of qualifications. To have washed the feet of the saints, you know like you had, to be righteous and godly Very much, all about dedicating yourself to prayer.
Speaker 2:So they didn't just throw money to everyone. They wanted to be wise stewards. Paul had rules If you don't work, you don't eat. That could apply to the poor and the lazy as well as the rich, who exploited the poor and didn't work, and so there was a. I like that. There was an expectation, though yeah, you need to work, you need a hard worker. If you're a widow and you have children, you go to your family first. So family's first line of defense, then church and then you know, because that's who's going to be able to provide the relational wealth and the spiritual wealth that is needed to accompany the financial wealth. So family and church really have to should really be the first line, um, first lines of defense when it comes to helping um with, uh, poverty.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so, okay, so let's just kind of I want to wrap this up because we've been on this for a bit but I do like, where do we go to find out? Like I think that if you want to, if you go, if you went to just sort of Google uh, democrat platform or Google Republican platform, you could see kind of where people are standing and you'll be able to see the moral issues pretty clearly. And I think the wisdom is is this producing in our country the righteousness that God would desire, and being bold about that? I think that's an okay thing to be bold about.
Speaker 1:Um at the same time compassionate, humble and all of those uh things, um. But I think that's where you go to sort of figure out, like where um, and and, and I think you could end up at different spots. Like you have a believer that you know, within the hierarchy of their beliefs puts, you know, same-sex marriage above immigration, or you know, like you're going to, you're going to hierarchically put those things at different spots but for the most part you're going to want to push towards what most aligns with a Christian worldview that will be for the most good. His glory, our good, even through government.
Speaker 2:Peaceful, quiet life, going to not hinder your family and your church as much as possible. Yeah, I mean those are really real possibilities and there's, you know, churches losing, you know being. Think of how to go about this quickly, since you said you wanted to wrap up no, no, we don't the possibility to lose your freedom to gather as a church if you don't believe X, y, z right.
Speaker 1:We don't want to end up in that situation.
Speaker 2:We celebrate the underground church movements in different places around the world and we're like man, those guys are awesome. I don't want that to be the case here, though. Right, I love living in a place where we can preach the gospel and gather for worship freely, and that's not a guarantee depending on who the president is, it's just, it's not a guarantee. We've got to understand, like, if we want to live in a place where we can live in, you know, peaceful, quiet life where we can gather for worship, raise our kids to know and follow Jesus we like, so, like, I mean, we're homeschooling our kids right now, but there's some places where homeschooling, you know, has been illegal historically, right, and you've got to put your kid in the state school, right, where, who knows what, secular humanism or Islam or what you know whatever, the state is Right. So, you know, there's real ramifications for a government that does not honor God, and I would say go back to 1 Timothy 2, pray for kings and all who are in high, pray for our rulers. Pray for presidents to get saved and fall on their face, come to faith in Jesus Christ and rule in the fear of God. Like you know, that is totally possible. You mentioned Nebuchadnezzar earlier. Yeah, like you know, that is totally possible.
Speaker 2:You mentioned Nebuchadnezzar earlier. I mean, he, he, he changed the law of the land from if you don't, you know, bow down to this golden idol, this statue you die to. No one is allowed to speak a word against Yahweh. He changed the law of the land to that. That was legislating morality, it was and and it's. It's presented in a positive way of like that was a win. So I think, man, praying, praying for that, we got to be people who pray for our nation, for our rulers, for our governors state, local, national level, like we. Really, that was never something that was an emphasis in churches that I, you know that I belong to, or I just didn't notice it because I didn't care about it, right, yeah.
Speaker 1:Um and I think for evangelicals for the most part have been like let's not worry so much about the government, let's worry about discipling people to make the right decisions. And I I don't know if we've lost COVID, I think cause a lot of loss of ground, in that it was like this political weird spot where if you um allowed people to worship without mass, clearly you were of the devil and you wanted to kill people and you lost an entire left, cent, left of center, um Christian base and so that all that you were left with was the right of center. And so I think that's where you know if you've lost. All that you were left with was the right of center. And so I think that's where you know if you've lost all that entire swath of people that were no longer.
Speaker 1:Those people generally said I'm done, they're the ex-evangelicals right, like they've in the past four years, have said no to the church. I'm out for Christians to sort of like, speak into truth and have a wise, discerning reason, not just um cause I said so, but because here's what God's word says and don't. And if we're everybody, I think, just saying everything legislates morality, don't ever get away from like the government shouldn't legislate morality. The government is legislative.
Speaker 2:Yeah, which morality do you want to um, submit to and give the final say in this nation? Yeah, not all moralities are equal. I love it.
Speaker 1:Well, hey, thanks so much for watching. If you've got any further questions, you can text us here at 737-231-0605 or go to pastorplekcom. We would love to answer you. Go through questions. We love this stuff and it's tough to wrestle through, and so, yeah, let us know. We'd love to hear from you, From our house to yours. Have an awesome week of worship.