The issue of marriage with particular reference to a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage is dangerous for conservative Christians who disagree with the majority who are in favor of such an amendment. It’s dangerous in that one who is not in favor of banning homosexual marriage is considered to be in favor of homosexual marriage, liberal, and unbiblical, none of which is the case. To favor a ban on homosexual marriage is actually the unbiblical position despite the fact that homosexuality is indeed sin and not marriage according to God Himself. Let me explain.

This issue comes up most often in conversation surrounding political candidates and their positions on social issues. It’s not uncommon for Christian pundits to agree with certain candidates who are conservative in a number of areas but castigate them profusely when those same candidates don’t support a government ban on homosexual marriage. The argument in favor of the ban usually centers on two issues: the fact that homosexuality is sin and the assertion that government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare by promoting institutions that give stability to society.

Let’s take the issue of homosexuality first. As noted, the Bible is clear that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is sin. Scriptures could be marshaled from both the Old and New Testaments. Despite the fact that liberal and unbelieving theologians have unsuccessfully tried to twist the plain meaning of Rom. 1:26-27 in which God condemns homosexuality, 1 Cor. 6:9 boldly says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Christians cannot support homosexual marriage. Such a marriage is not only sin but not marriage at all. God defines marriage between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31). However, that does not mean Christians must favor a government ban on homosexual marriage. Stay with me . . .

What about the assertion that government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare by promoting institutions that give stability to society? While the Constitution does say one of the reasons it was established is to promote the general welfare, the founding fathers did not define that promotion as broadly as some do today. They did not conceive of entitlement programs or policies that restrict liberty as part of government’s role. (And, while marriage is a stabilizing force in society in the sense that long-term commitment of men and women raising children fosters stability, banning homosexual marriage won’t keep homosexuals from living together or somehow stabilize society. A ban won’t change their behavior).

But, regardless of what the founders meant, or what a ban on homosexual marriage may or may not do, what does the Bible say? Where does the Bible say the role of government is to promote the general welfare? Where does the Bible say the government has a responsibility to promote institutions that give stability to society? You can’t argue from the Old Testament; America does not stand in the same covenant relationship with God that Israel did. America is not a theocracy. You can’t argue from the New Testament; no where does it say government should promote the general welfare. Even Rom. 13:4 doesn’t say that.[1]

God says that Christians who practice homosexuality must be disciplined by the church and even put out if they don’t repent. But, nowhere does God say the government should ban homosexuality. He does say that Christians should call homosexuals to repentance and faith in Christ but no where does He say Christians should outlaw their behavior.

Let’s talk about marriage then. Marriage is defined by God, not the government. As noted, homosexual marriage then is not marriage before God. So how should Christians think about homosexuals who “get married?” We think about them the same way we think about other sinners and their sinful activity. People do all kinds of things contrary to the Word of God and we try to persuade them through the gospel to repent and look to Christ for salvation. Just because a homosexual couple calls themselves married doesn’t mean they are. And why would we ban them calling themselves married? Do we want the government to ban heterosexual couples living together; or unbiblical divorce; or adultery; or pre-marital relations? What would be the penalty for pre-marital relations? We have to be consistent if we go down the road of banning immoral behavior.

Now, does that mean we’re in favor of unmarried couples living together, unbiblical divorce, adultery, or pre-marital relations? Of course not! It simply means we don’t want the government forcing our moral choices. Christians have the responsibility to tell people what’s right and wrong, not force them by the government to conform to our moral standard. Certainly the government must protect us from things like murder, theft, rape, extortion, etc. But that’s what it means to be free. We’re not free to infringe on someone else’s liberty and right to life, property, and pursuit of happiness. That’s why we can’t murder (abort babies), steal, or . . . ban homosexuals from living together or marrying. Again, we’re not in favor of homosexual marriage any more than we’re in favor of pre-marital relations. But, neither are we in favor of government imposing a moral standard on us. What happens when the government’s moral standard is different than ours? What if the government decides it’s immoral to read the Bible, homeschool my children, or teach them Christian values?

But more importantly than what we want is what God wants. He wants us to persuade others with the gospel to make good moral choices, not force them through the government.

Finally, here’s the real implication of banning homosexual marriage or letting government say anything about marriage at all: if we allow the government to define marriage, we allow the government to usurp God’s role and authority. It is not the government that defines marriage but God. Let the government stay completely out of it. Practically, do you want the government telling you who you can or cannot marry; that you can or cannot get married? Do you really need a license from the government to get married? Didn’t God ordain marriage before human government came along? And theologically/philosophically, if we allow the government to define marriage, then it can define it any way it wants to.

No, we have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness granted to us by God, not the government. If government grants those rights, then the government can take them away. Let’s not go down that road. Let God be God and let Him define marriage and what’s right and wrong. Let the government stay out of God’s business and maintain liberty by protecting us so that we can persuade others what marriage is and what’s right and wrong and to give their lives to Christ. When others give their lives to Christ, that’s when society will be more moral and truly more stable.

There is no doubt Edward Bulwer-Lytton was right when he coined the phrase for his 1839 play The Conspiracy, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Ideas take root in the minds of people and bear real consequences. When ideas take root in a culture there is a pressure to conform to those ideas, at least publically. That pressure is not only felt externally from the culture at large but internally whether one agrees with the idea or not. That’s the power of political correctness and its increasing influence on all of us.

By way of example, I was watching a little of the 2011 Kentucky Derby coverage when Today Show reporter Jenna Wolfe was talking to an NBC race analyst about the weather. He predicted clear skies to which Wolfe responded, “From your lips to, uh . . . everybody’s ears.” Of course, the saying is “from your lips to God’s ears,” which is an expression that God would hear the statement as a prayer and answer. She was obviously about to say “God,” caught herself, and changed up. She stuttered for a split second, appeared to be searching for what to say, and then made a nice save (from a reporting perspective).

The fact that she wasn’t sure should could or should say “God” and changed up is revealing. It wasn’t that long ago when no one was afraid to say “God” and invoked His name in normal conversation. But the politically correct climate that prevails today has changed all that. While there is the perfunctory “God bless America” from political candidates seeking to gain the evangelical vote, and the use of God’s name in vain in a number of settings, it seems that most others are not sure if they should or are even afraid to use the word “God.” This hesitancy or fear certainly represents a massive culture shift. The relatively short time-span over which this shift has occurred is astounding to say the least. Again, it’s the power of an idea (political correctness) that has brought this transformation about.

For Christians, three major implications suggest themselves. The first has to do with whether or not we have felt that internal pressure. It may be that we’re in conversation with someone and the natural thing for us to say has something to do with God. For example, when something happens my wife will say without hesitation, “that’s part of God’s good providence.” But now, it may be that we’re tempted to revise our words around people we don’t think are committed Christians. It used to be that we feared what they might think of us. Now it goes beyond that. We may fear that our words at best are inappropriate or at worst offensive. The power of cultural ideas affects all of us.

The second implication has to do with the fact that we should not be afraid to invoke or use the Name of God on a regular basis in everyday conversation. That’s who we are as Christians. And while we don’t want to be offensive and while we have the responsibility to be wise in our witness, the fact that we are different from the culture at large is part of what puts the power and reality of Christ on display in our lives. We can say things like “that’s part of God’s good providence” without being obnoxious. We can say things like “the Lord was gracious to me today” without coming across as strange. We simply need to be who we are without forcing an issue or shying away from the way we express ourselves. Someone may be offended if we say “from your lips to God’s ears” but that’s not an offensive act per se and simply points out the reality that people are different. If someone asks us not to share Christ with him we should respect that request. We should never intentionally offend others. But neither should we change who we are because of cultural pressure to be politically correct. The early Christians obeyed the rules of their respective cultures but they also went everywhere talking about Jesus. Their lives had been radically changed and they couldn’t help but show it.

The third implication concerns the power of ideas proper. We have the most profound message there is and the power of the Holy Spirit to energize that message when He sees fit. In a much greater way than political correctness has permeated this culture of ours, the Christian worldview, that is the biblical message of the reality of God and its implications, could once again turn this culture around. But it will never do that unless we put it out there in our everyday talk.

To borrow from the title of Richard M. Weaver’s 1948 philosophical work, “ideas have consequences.” The spread of the gospel in Western civilization and its beneficial influence gives testimony to that fact even as the spread of political correctness in our culture and its negative consequences does the same. The gospel can spread again. People’s lives and the culture at large can be changed. We need only remember that “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Or, to use God’s language on the subject: “the weapons of our warfare are not physical but spiritual and mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4).

We’ve all heard of “spin” or “spinning a story.” Newscasters give us their spin on different events everyday and we understand that. That’s why we watch our favorite stories analyzed to death; we want to get as much information and opinion as we can. But we’ve moved beyond spin as a culture and it’s not a good thing. We’ve moved into changing reality itself.

An eye-opening statement caught my attention the other day. Stephen J. Hadley, a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, was on CNN’s “State of the Union” show talking about the situation in Libya.[i] He noted, “The narrative we want to come out of this is that the Libyan people overthrew a dictator, not that we came in and toppled a despot.” The truth is that the American government does want a despot toppled and is indeed working toward that. But that reality doesn’t look good so the story has to be changed.

The statement caught my attention not because of its brazenness or because I believe the U.S. government is always truthful. No, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It’s the language that caught my attention, specifically, Hadley’s use of the term “narrative.” He’s talking about the narrative or story he wants people to believe and history to record. “Narrative” is a big term in postmodern thought. Let me explain.

In answer to the question, “What is truth,” the postmodern answers, “Truth is what you make it to be.” We create our own reality; what’s true for me may not be true for you. There is no such thing as objective truth or something that’s true for everyone; each person makes his own truth claim and every truth claim is equally valid (except for the claim that there is absolute truth).

But let’s think further. Postmodernism says there is no metanarrative, or big story, that explains everything (like the Bible); whatever metanarrative we’ve been taught cannot be believed. There is no big story; there are only many little stories. Because we create our own reality, we really don’t have a true sense of history; we can even revise it. We can’t believe things like the Bible because we don’t understand what the writers meant with the language they used based on their understanding of reality; therefore we can make the Bible say what we want it to say. The French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard defined postmodernism as the incredulity of all metanarratives. They are inadequate to represent or contain us all. In other words, we must be suspicious of all big stories. All we can talk about is our own little stories.

Here’s the issue: if all we can talk about is our own little stories, then facts go out the window. All that matters is our interpretation of the facts; our feelings about a matter; our impressions; our desires; our perception of or perspective on the facts; what we want the truth to be.

This idea has so penetrated our culture that we can now speak openly of the story we want to create regardless of what the real story is. Stephen Hadley has no problem manipulating the facts in Libya to create a pleasant story for us because facts are not real; only what we want to be real is real. And in the end, those who have the power to put forth their story have the right story. In a postmodern construct, might makes right.

Obviously such a development is deeply troubling. If we are not committed to the truth or the facts, how can we really communicate, have a sense of what’s right and wrong, make sound judgments and decisions, or even understand our world? These are massive idea shifts in our culture with equally substantial consequences.

This language and way of thinking is everywhere now. MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow said recently, “The idea behind President Obama’s insistence on talking to other nations, is to change the narrative. Do you want the narrative of America’s role in the world to be ‘America leads Western aggression against Arab countries?’ President Obama wants the narrative to be something different by showing reluctance to partake in the struggle. He wants everybody to know how reluctant he was while trying to force to the forefront the Arab world.”[ii] Again, it’s not about the real story but the story we create for our benefit.

And isn’t it this kind of thinking, this philosophy, that explains the evolving narrative regarding the death of Osama bin Laden? Certain facts have been put forth, disputed, and retracted. The story has changed in some way almost daily since the raid. And there have been admissions that some of the false facts were put forth to avoid possible negative public opinion. Regardless of where we fall down on the Osama bin Laden issue, we don’t want the White House’s best narrative: we want the truth.

So what do we do? As always, we tell the truth. The truth of a situation is what matters because there is objective truth and we can know it. And that notion is rooted in the reality of Christ, truth itself. Yes there are different perspectives on facts, but the facts are the facts regardless of how you perceive them. It’s that message alone that will bring sanity to a world “spinning” out of control.

Suppose you owned a restaurant. Would you want the government telling you that you couldn’t give something to your customers? Would you want it to ban you from giving away a toy to children if your “Kids Meal” had slightly less calories than two pieces of pizza? Well, that’s exactly what the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has done to McDonalds, according to the New York Times. The “Happy Meal” must have less than 600 calories, fewer than 640 milligrams of sodium, and less than 35% of calories from fat (unless the item that pushes the meal past the limit is deemed healthy — like nuts). If those standards are not met, McDonalds will be banned from giving away a toy.

Of course, the issue is childhood obesity. But, if we’re going to jump on the “ban-wagon,” why not ban video-games that create couch-potatoes? Better yet, let’s ban couches. When we get on this track, it’s a slippery slope that can spiral down rather quickly. Further, not all kids have that problem. Should everyone suffer because some are struggling?

Here are some other questions that come to mind: What if customers like the “Happy Meal” and the toy? What if the reason some kids like the “Happy Meal” includes those high fat French fries? Wouldn’t people go somewhere else if they wanted nuts? Does the government have a right to tell a restaurant it can’t give something away? Does it have a right to restrict my freedom in this way? Is it the role of government to micro-manage our lives? Don’t I have the right to pursue happiness? What if giving away toys makes me happy? What if a super sized order of fries makes me happy? Don’t you have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the “Happy Meal?” Should the government systematically force you to eat what some bureaucrat thinks you ought to eat or ban you from eating what he thinks you shouldn’t eat? Should the government limit your calorie intake per day? Some days I do pretty well; some days I don’t. Sh ould I be forced to eat nuts instead of fries by the government? Sometimes I feel like a nut; sometimes I don’t.

Here’s a question: is there any way to determine a universal answer to the above questions? Yes, there is. Because God is the Creator of all things, He is the one who determines how human beings ought to interact with one another in civil society. Inherent in the definition of civil society is civility. That’s why there must be laws against harming others. Human beings often harm others because it’s in our nature to do so. Government should promote law and order to keep people from doing that. But, because God has given human beings no right to violate the consciences of others, it is not the role of government to determine how individuals should pursue happiness. The “Happy Meal” makes some people happy! It’s unwise to eat too much fat. But it’s for me to decide how much is too much for me, not the government.

The truth is that government is power; it’s force. On the other hand, promoting the ways of God (the gospel) is not by force but by persuasion. So, God’s way to promote His way in the world is through persuasion, not force. God doesn’t want His people forcing Christianity on others; neither does he want others forcing their views on Christians. Therefore, government should limit itself to protecting the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For government to ban McDonalds from giving away a toy is to overstep the bounds God has set for it. That’s universal.

And yet, my point here is not that we should grumble, complain, or rebel. Those things dishonor God as well. The point is that Christians should understand these things and add their voice to the ongoing national conversation about what’s happening with American government. But more than that, they should add their voice with a view toward opening the door for further dialog about Christ. People need Christ more than they need good government. When they get Christ, they get true happiness and can handle difficulties in life, including government intrusion. Of course, when people get Christ, they begin to think more biblically about government. And then, when people begin do that, the less talk of banning “Happy Meals” we’ll have.

Where do you stand on the national debt and what we should do about it? Christians should have an informed opinion on these issues.

“Christianity Today” reports that The House of Representatives is working to cut $60 billion from the federal budget. While it includes deep cuts for environmental agencies, education, and foreign aid, it makes modest reductions for defense, homeland security, and police. That’s a paltry amount considering the debt crisis upon us. We as a nation, and indeed the church, find ourselves in a serious situation.

The good news is that these cuts are in line with the spending priorities of most American evangelicals. Further, a Pew Research Center survey found that evangelicals were more likely to favor reductions in federal spending over other Americans.

But here’s the bad news, like other Americans, many evangelicals wanted most areas to remain the same or increased. A large percentage of Christians favored spending increases in a variety of areas including public schools, health care, Medicare, social security, agriculture, energy, college financial aid, the environment, and scientific research to name a few. In many of those areas, a higher percentage of evangelicals favor increased government spending than non-evangelicals.

This dynamic is cause for alarm. Practically, it’s cause for alarm in that we can’t sustain our current level of debt accumulation: there is a pay day some day and that pay day could be catastrophic. It’s cause for alarm morally in that taxing the citizenry to pay for things the market could better provide only contributes to the financial burden laid upon us.

But here’s the larger issue for evangelicals: their desire to increase government spending is cause for alarm philosophically in that the role of government is that of protection, not the provision of goods and services that the market, again, could much better provide. When I say philosophically, I mean biblically. Christians, of all people, must look at the world through a biblical lens. Government does not exist to provide our every need and it certainly doesn’t exist to provide our every whim. Government is simply necessary (among other options) to maintain civil law in a fallen world.

By way of simple illustration, to forcibly take money from one group of individuals (taxation) to provide for the needs/desires of other individuals is not rooted in gospel freedom but in force. That is not to say that we shouldn’t be compassionate toward others and give to those in need. But that’s different. Would you think it right if someone came up to you on the street and held a gun to your head and demanded you hand your wallet to the homeless man lying on the bench beside you? Of course you wouldn’t. But you might voluntarily help him or anyone else. Force and volunteerism are two different things.

Laying aside legitimate purposes for taxation (and there are some), one might say that the people have voted for certain government programs and that makes them legitimate and the illustration fails. But, not all have voted for them and are therefore coerced to give to the cause of others. That’s one reason our founders rejected a pure democracy and opted for a Constitutional Republic. There are many things the majority would vote for in connection to their own interests that would not be right for the country as a whole or that would violate moral principles that are foundational to the proper role of government (think abortion for example). The programs in question go beyond the biblical role of government and those who vote for them are not taking into account gospel principles.

The Scriptural formula for financial security is hard work, saving for the future, and compassionate, voluntary gifts for those truly in need. Those principles apply to nations as well as individuals. It matters what we Christians think on these things. It matters so we may be more rightly related to God and so that we can influence our world in this area as ambassadors for Christ. The gospel is a comprehensive view on all of reality including government debt and spending. May we do our part in training fellow evangelicals in the ways of God? Perhaps then, we can influence our culture a little better in this area and have more opportunities to turn the conversation to Christ as people want to know where we get our ideas.

Written by

Dr. Paul Dean  

The national conversation concerning politics is widespread and we find ourselves at, a moment of truth. Christians are in on that conversation, but, The AP reports that Christian activists are split over whether to keep the movement’s focus on abortion, marriage and sexual chastity – or scrap that approach as too narrow. While some would broaden the agenda to include global warming, AIDS, and torture, others see such as a dangerous distraction.” It’s an ongoing debate.

Such a debate is part of the problem. Since when can we remain silent on something because it doesn’t suit the larger political agenda? The Christian worldview is not something to be pulled out like a weapon. It’s not a particular angle on a particular issue. It’s not a decision to be made in the back room of a political organization masquerading as an agent of gospel advance. The Christian worldview is the way a Christian views the world. To turn the evangelical world into one massive political action committee is to distort our calling, to blunt our message, and to compromise our position. We have become political pawns to be pandered to and courted and we have adopted our agenda and adapted our message to be seen as relevant.

Our allegiance is compromised. Why would evangelicals agree on abortion but disagree on torture? Could it be that we are more influenced by a political agenda than we are the Scriptures?

We must not be pawns in someone else’s game. In the marketplace of ideas, we cannot pick and choose which issues we will address, for we cannot help but proclaim that which we’ve seen and heard, that which is in the scriptures.

Written by Paul Dean   

Tuesday, 10 April 2007

When David fled from King Saul, he declared to Jonathan that there was but one step between himself and death (1 Sam. 20:3). He found himself at, a moment of truth. Sadly, there are many in our land in the same situation. But help is on the way.

A South Carolina bill requires women to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. Is this measure constitutional? Yes. The documents & the principles upon which this country was built include an affirmation that the people have certain unalienable rights granted to them by God and among those are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The reality is that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and abortion should be outlawed.

Should Christians be in favor of this requirement for women? Liberty must be guarded, but we must be protected from predators. Any measure that would protect human life is to be desired. This bill is a step in the right direction.

“Opponents called the bill ‘emotional blackmail.’” Such an idea is as absurd as it is hypocritical. Long have women been told that the living baby in their womb is nothing but a glob of tissue. But she must be as informed as possible when life hangs in the balance. Her own future emotional well-being is also on the line. Emotion should play a role. To eliminate emotion from the equation is to objectify a real baby. As the Jews in Nazi Germany were so objectified, such talk is truly Hitlarian.

Republicans were railed against for opposing an amendment to exempt rape and incest victims. Todd Rutherford asserted, “You are forcing her to relive the ordeal. You all are doing it to her once again.” Such arguments are only marshaled to confuse. If we followed that logic we would never have a woman testify against a rapist. Does one tragedy justify another?

Some pro-life advocates are concerned this bill will prolong the abortion scourge. A valid concern. But, this bill must increase our vigilance, not reduce it, as more women will know what they are about to do. As they see their babies, more will speak out that this curse might be removed from our land. Let us take this step. As we do, millions of unborn babies will take one step closer to life.

Written by

Dr. Paul Dean

Editor’s Note: This commentary aired last year (2008) and was never published in print form. The content is still relevant.

Mara Vanderslice wondered how the gospel made people Republicans until she went to work for Howard Dean. Far from courting religious groups, he attacked them. When she went to work for John Kerry, he refused to take calls from Christianity Today. But, it’s a different election season and Christians find themselves at, a moment of truth.

According to TIME Magazine, “If Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are any measure, there will be nothing unusual in Democrats’ talking about. . .God. . .Clinton has hired. . .an evangelical Baptist [to assemble] a faith steering group. . .Edwards has been organizing conference calls with progressive religious leaders. . .In the past month alone, Obama’s campaign has run six faith forums. . .”

While we want elected officials to have a commitment to the Christian principles that under-gird the Constitution, let us not be fooled by hollow talk. Hear John Leland, a Baptist minister who was directly responsible for the Bill of Rights: “Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch, characterize the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined.”

Let us be wise and vote for liberty, not lip-service.

Written by

Dr. Paul Dean

The use of language in argument is an art secularists have mastered. Many Christians often embrace a godless worldview by virtue of a lack of discernment in this area. Thus, Christians are forced to fight the culture war on enemy ground.

Consider this line from a recent article, “A disturbing number of doctors do not feel obligated to tell patients about medical options they oppose morally, such as abortion and teen birth control.”

Referring to abortion or the morning after pill as a “treatment option” frames the debate in biased terms. Treatment generally presupposes that something is wrong with a person. The use of such language blunts the reality of the subject matter and facilitates the notion that the killing of unborn children is a routine medical procedure with no ethical implications.

Such language denigrates the essential dignity that is inherent to human beings and puts them on the same plane with animals or even excess tissue to be discarded. Further, the language of ethics becomes mere artillery in the debate as ethics do not exist on a naturalist worldview.

To refer to a doctor as coercive because he won’t do a procedure; phraseology like “abandon the patient;” the reference to a disturbing number of doctors and how they hinder care; are also examples of linguistic sophistry. To speak of patients’ rights while denying an unborn child his God-given right to life is patently contradictory.

Let us be discerning of the fallacies in secularist debate that we might frame the debate with truth, that hearts and minds might be won for Christ.

“God and Country” captures the sentiment that scores of American Christians possess; Christian commitment and patriotism are almost synonymous. This idea is expressed in different ways rooted in different views, but the upshot is the same; America has a special place in God’s heart or plan.

Here’s one idea that’s catching on: Christians should work for an America that’s a “city on a hill” that will draw all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ. The thought is that America was that “city” in the past and will be such again. America will teach the nations to subdue the earth for the advance of God’s kingdom. What should we make of this notion?

The phrase “city on a hill” comes from the Lord Jesus as He was talking to His disciples: “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden” (Matt. 5:14). His point is that Christians are (salt and) light; the church is a city on a hill that can’t be hidden. Its message and work will influence people. It’s the church, comprised of individual Christians, that promotes the ways of God in the world, not any geo-political state (nation).

The Bible says, “It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it” (Isa. 2:2). God declares that all nations will flow to the Lord’s house. That’s why the Lord Jesus Himself told us to make disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18f). As folk from every nation (people group) come to Christ, the promise of God is being fulfilled. This promise and commission is given to God’s people, not America.

American Christians should work for a better America by promoting the ways of God. But that doesn’t mean that America can be a city on a hill in the sense that Jesus meant it. No matter how many Christians live in America and no matter how much America is influenced by Christians, America and the church will always be two different things.

Can America draw all nations to Christ? Didn’t Jesus say He would draw all nations to Himself (Jn. 12:32) through the gospel (Rom. 1:16) by the church (Matt. 28:18f; Eph. 3:10)? Is the role of America to subdue the earth for the advance of God’s kingdom? Aren’t all earthly kingdoms rivals to the kingdom of God and won’t they one day be destroyed (Dan. 2:44)? Isn’t God’s kingdom the only one that will last forever? Isn’t our hope in Christ and His kingdom as opposed to any earthly kingdom (government)?

It’s important for Christians to think biblically about “God and Country.” What is the connection between the two, if any? And how do we make sense out of popular notions like America is a Christian nation; America is the New Israel; America will one day establish a Christian government and be the light of the world; or that to be a good Christian is to be a good American and vice versa?

The Bible answers those questions and clarifies the different roles of government, the church, and individual citizens within a nation. When we get those roles straight, the church truly will be the light of the world.