I seldom write publicly two days in a row—my workload simply does not allow for it. In fact, right now I should be reading a cognitive psychology article for my dissertation, but the wide proliferation of erroneous claims has caught my attention. This list is not exhaustive, but every item on this list I have seen repeated multiple times in differing forms.
(𝟏) “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐖𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐞 𝐀𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐲”
No, the Scriptures do not teach this, and I am a little surprised that I have to address this point. In 1 Samuel 11, Nahash the Ammonite besieges Jabesh-gilead, and he tells the people of the city that he will make a treaty with them if each person gouges out their right eye. When word of Ammonite oppression against God’s people reaches Saul, we read a very interesting and important note: “When Saul heard these words, the Spirit of God rushed upon him and his anger was greatly kindled” (ותצלח רוח אלהים על שאול בשמעו את הדברים האלה ויחר אפו מאד). The result of YHWH’s Spirit coming upon Saul is that he becomes enraged at the unjust attack of the enemy, and he rallies the forces of Israel to fight and address the problem. Anger can actually be the result of being in sync with God’s Spirit. Said otherwise, anger can emerge because God’s Spirit is stirring you to action on behalf of the kingdom. Some people would do well to be angrier at the evil that permeates this world. Let me get more specific: passive, emotionless, effeminate men who are either calloused or scared to address the growing evil of our day is how we got here in the first place. Yes, heed the biblical warnings on anger (e.g., Jas 1:19–20; Eph 4:26–27; Col 3:8), but if you are never angry and stirred to confront evil with prophetic witness, you may be complacent and useless to the Kingdom. God’s people may suffer because you refuse to speak truth about the ideologies that have poisoned our culture.
(𝟐) “𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡”
Once again, the Scriptures do not teach this. In fact, this belief suggests that somehow the physical world can be separated from spiritual realities, the two never overlap, and must be kept apart. This strange belief sounds more like the first-century heresy of Gnosticism than orthodox Christianity. The Gnostics thought the material world was evil and that the human spirit needed to escape it through secret knowledge. Usually this phrase is parroted by people who do not want to engage in cultural issues because they desire to look impartial and sophisticated spiritually.
What we see in the Scriptures is a God who cares deeply about the world He created, and that He continually acts to suppress the forces of chaos by sustaining creation Himself (Jer 33:20-22). Even when the ungodly seem to reign unfettered, God does not allow them to tear asunder the seams of the created order. The Lord does not merely want a people of His own, He desires the general welfare of all people (Matt 5:45). He desires order and justice to prevail everywhere. This is why Paul writes that God has given human government the sword to maintain justice and order (Rom 13:1–7).
So, while the church should not be the arm of any human institution, it is decidedly false that God only cares about those agendas we deem “spiritual” matters. God cares that socialism bankrupted Venezuela and families have been starving there for years. God cares that babies in the womb are ripped limb from limb (and please note, modern science tells us that these children can feel pain). God cares about modern slavery in China and human trafficking here in the States. God cares about human atrocities committed by those who have no regard for the rule of law. God cares about the opioid crisis that has killed unnamed thousands of people.
Our founding fathers did not draw a firm line between religion and politics either—they saw the cause of liberty as God’s general grace to humanity—a grace worth dying for. Here is Patrick Henry: “An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! … Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”
(𝟑) “𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭”
After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we were quickly told that radicals exist on both sides of the political spectrum. This is somewhat obvious, but it is also an exercise in missing the point. The argument is not that only the far-left is violent; rather, the argument is that political violence has become 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 on the left, and the data backs up this point. The Rutgers University social lab and the NCRI recently released a study showing that 45% of liberals think killing Elon Musk is at least somewhat justified and 55% said the same thing of Trump. To quote the findings of the study itself: “Political violence appears to have surged, especially among politically left-leaning segments of the population.” The results mean that more than one in two self-identifying liberals believe that political violence is justified. Any movement whose 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 believes violence is the answer is not putting out “fringe” crazies who want to kill their political opponents—they have made political violence mainstream.
A different YouGov poll found that liberal Americans, particularly young liberals, are far more likely to consider political violence acceptable. Among “very conservative” individuals, 90% of those polled said that celebrating the death of political opponents is always or usually unacceptable. Only 56% of those who identified as “very liberal” could say the same—a very wide margin of difference. Likewise, 88% of “very conservative” individuals said political violence is never justified, while only 55% of “very liberal” individuals were opposed to political violence. Here, one need not think beyond the recent assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, which spurred on excessive celebration and excitement among younger liberals (on this point, see also the discussion in the Rutgers/NCRI study).
Furthermore, if political violence on the left is not mainstream, why are there thousands of liberals celebrating Kirk’s death on social media? Conservatives have never celebrated the death of liberal politicians in mass numbers like this. Yes, there are always a few idiots who make ridiculous statements, but again, the point here is the mainstream nature of the support for political violence. Thousands upon thousands of people on the left have been celebrating the death of a husband and father on social media, and they are not from the periphery of society—they are teachers, lawyers, professors, doctors, politicians, firefighters, and other seemingly “normal” members of society. Even classical liberals like Bill Maher (who has earned the ire of the radical left for his rejection of transgenderism and other woke policies) have denounced the far left for its violent tendencies. When I was in high school, Bill Maher was about as liberal as you could get, which illustrates just how radical the far left has become.
Here is Maher: “Charlie Kirk was a guy who was always willing to talk — and I talked to him here [on this show]. The right-wingers — say what you want about them — but they talk to you…The left really has much more of a ‘I don’t talk to you, I don’t want to deal with you, you’re deplorable, I can’t break bread with you’ attitude…Charlie Kirk and I certainly don’t agree on much politically — but he sat here, he’s a human being, he’s not a monster!”
The difference is also starkly evident on college campuses, which just happens to be where Charlie Kirk was murdered. Progressive professors and students can say whatever they want without fear of retribution. They do not need to hire security detail. Liberals say things conservatives disagree with every day, yet the conservatives do not attack them, shout down their speakers, tear down their posters, trash their opponents’ tables, and the like. It just doesn’t happen. But progressive students do it all the time and the administrators play nice with them. We also do not see conservatives on campus calling for and celebrating the death of their political opponents. We don’t see them burning down buildings and looting stores. There are no violent Antifa-like protests. All they want is the freedom to speak freely without having a sniper take them out.
But none of this is surprising given the Marxist ideology that undergirds a majority the current progressive movement. In this thought system, the world is made up of “oppressors” and the “oppressed,” and the oppressed must be liberated by any means necessary, even violence. Said otherwise, when it comes to “tearing down systems of oppression,” the means justify the ends. When I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, a foreign student in my “ethics of war” class told me that terrorism was justified if it attacked those who supported “systems of oppression.” Of course, all the Marxist students nodded in agreement. And so here we are. Behold, the consequences of worldview.
