I recently reconnected with an old friend with whom I had essentially lost contact with for 3 decades. Since we were young men when we last had a genuine discussion, our recent exchanges revealed that we had followed two starkly divergent paths in the intervening years.

We initially met at church and allied over shared interests along with a small circle of friends. While I won’t get into specifics right now – as I plan to share some details about my life and faith journey in my next post – I became far more devout and serious about my faith over time. Conversely, my friend let me know that he now self-identifies as a “lefty secularist.”

Despite our differences, I respect the fact that my old comrade has distinguished himself from so many friends and family who have taken a sharp left turn while refusing to engage over matters in dispute. In fact, it is out of deference to his openness that I have decided to write this blog as well as the penultimate one. I also want to address his concern that I suggested the cultural divide between our competing worldviews is likely irreconcilable – an eventuality I have long striven to prevent. My advocacy for a Christian theonomy as the only viable prospect to stave off such an eventuality.

The very existence of this blog was my attempt to build a bridge between reasonable people with competing worldviews so that we could coexist by breaking free from the activist left. My starting premise was that the activist left was imposing a bifurcated reality that demanded complete submission or a cage match to the death. I argued in defense of genuine tolerance and endeavoured to present an accurate representation of biblical Christian principles.

To gain a proper understanding, I need to start with some points of clarification.

First, it is important that unbelievers comprehend that Christ is speaking for God because he is God. Any mistaking this fact is understandable – since a huge number of mainline churches fail to grasp this reality. Many professing believers treat Jesus like the hippie son who came to moderate his square daddio’s intolerant views and bridge the generation gap to enlighten their square dad. This is easily dispelled by simply noting that the admonition that lusting after a woman was tantamount to committing adultery in one’s heart is found in the red letters.

Secondly, note that when we speak about God’s law or standard, many of the ones that atheists handpick to paint God as nuts (not mixing fabrics) or homophobic (stoning homosexuals) was directed at his chosen people to set them apart from the nations around them. Some of these were rules of social order for the Jews at that time. Others were moral laws that dealt with sinful acts, but the punishments were specific to the Jewish people of that time. Stay with me as the path through this will become clearer as you read on.

Before delving into specifics, it is vital to understand the overarching principles that may not be ignored, manipulated, or misinterpreted to suit an agenda. Christ offered the most succinct summary of the entirety of scriptural doctrine in a few verses. His words are given in response to a lawyer who approached our Lord with a question.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” And (Jesus) said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” – Matthew 22:36-40

Since we are talking about a system of governance, these are clearly delineated as the core convictions that must guide every policy. While his words are very specific, failure to properly put into context what is meant by the admonition to “love God” and “love your neighbour.” This is not mere semantics as, if we get this wrong, we immediately go off course.

Christ sets some very clear parameters for what it means to love him. In John 14:15, Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Furthermore, Jesus makes clear that he will deny he even has any knowledge of those who claim to be among his followers if they have acted out of lawlessness – regardless of what deeds they may have carried out in his name. (Matthew 7:21-23) Again in Matthew 5:17-20 during his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus articulates that he did not come to nullify, but the fulfill the Law and the Prophets. Together, these passages make it plain that it is impossible to love God while violating his law. This means that we are not at liberty to determine what is or is not lawful based on what we imagine to be loving based on shifting standards.

This is also not to suggest that loving God just means that we follow his law; but it does make this requirement non-negotiable. A central reason why devout Christians can come into conflict with earthly authorities is when the state demands compliance with manmade laws that contravene those established by God.

Christians know that loving God also places duties on the use of our time, money, gifts, sharing the gospel, and showing devotion through prayer and worship – to name but a few. For any unbeliever who is either enraged or prepared to denounce me for a fraudulent call to unity in order to corral everyone into a Christian theocratic dictatorship, stick with me.

It is impossible to love our neighbour – especially as ourselves – without consideration for our sin nature. To begin by ensuring there is no misunderstanding, those who fall under the category of a neighbour is all-inclusive. When asked: Who is my neighbour? Jesus responded with the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) Those unfamiliar with the relevance of the reference, Samaritans were despised by the Jews for holding to pagan practises in contravention of Jewish tradition. Jesus chose to use this illustration to nullify any attempt to parse the meaning of “neighbour.” In fact, Jesus tells us we must love our enemies, so there is no uncertainty, loophole, or equivocation permitted.

Believers know that any failure on our part to acknowledge the sin in our lives (based on irrevocable standards defined by God alone), means that we are unable to receive the gift of his grace and therefore, forgiveness for our sins. This is why accountability is a major aspect of the Christian life because any effort to evade such oversight is done for self-preservation and is no different from lying. Thus, deceiving either ourselves or others is failing to live out the second half of the Greatest Commandment.

This brings us to another passage that unbelievers and heretical Christians take out of context; namely: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1) I’ve addressed this topic before, but I’ll briefly hit the key points needed for our purposes.

Read in context, Matthew 7:1-6 is an admonition to not judge hypocritically. This deals with removing the plank from our own eye before (not instead of) moving the speck from our brother’s eye. Similarly, taking this verse on its own would nullify the standard of the Greatest Commandment by suggesting we now ought not concern ourselves with what God judges to be good or evil. After all, if judging is a sin, then this would make God a sinner. Finally, unbelievers – especially social justice warriors – deem judging to be a virtue, but insist that it is a one-way street with them as the ones directing traffic.

Let me state the obvious by pointing out that the reason that those who want to define their own morality apart from God do so because they don’t want to be held accountable for their actions. In Christian parlance, this is what judging hypocritically means. If we don’t judge, we can’t make laws or establish standards to govern a society. Critics of Christianity like to use this singular verse as a cudgel to prevent Christian’s from seeking laws that would restrict their indulgences – not because they know their wishes may not be wrong or sinful, but because they know or suspect that they are. It is this thinking that has led to our current condition (see my previous post).

For a satirical take on what it would look like if Christians claimed the same rights as the secular culture (written back in the heady days of 2019), here’s my article, “A Call for Secular Rights.”

Another verse that is deemed to be equally desirable to unbelievers is the admonition for Christians to turn the other cheek. (Matthew 5:39b) This one is more “problematic” for the Christ-follower since it does not establish the same parameters as those dealing with judging. In fact, it asks even more of the believer – informing us that we ought to expect persecution and rejoice in our suffering. I’m sure no atheist needs me to give the different citations for this.

Many might assume I am contradicting myself when I make the following points:

1. We should not expect that unbelievers share the biblical understanding of notions like objective justice, truth, and morality as they deny an objective source.
2. It is natural that unbelievers will not share the view that Christian principles are immutable or that sin (let alone objective good or evil) exist.
3. I am not making the case that those who deny faith in the existence and deity of Christ must adopt the Christian worldview that I have set out here and, in fact, I expect resistance.

Now that many unbelievers are salivating and Christians are sweating, let me make clear what I am saying:

1. The fact that those who reject biblical standards for truth, justice and morality does not negate their objective reality.
2. To have disagreements between believers and unbelievers on certain principles does not require that those with opposing views must be crushed, muffled, or forced to comply.
3. My argument is that a Christian theonomy is the best system of governance, not that all will embrace the tenets of biblical Christianity to live under this structure.
4. There must be a value system guiding a society since the concept of a values-neutral society is neither possible nor desirable and I say that a Christian framework provides the best structure.
5. The fact that Christians are called to suffer and face persecution is the consequence of our human nature toward sin and should not be used to rationalize mistreating others. To engage in such schadenfreude says far more about the malevolent nature of the perpetrator, spectator, or apologist than it does about any deficits of those being maltreated.

Now, let us delve into specifics of a biblical Christian theonomy:

• Biblical theonomy is non-coercive.

Contrary to socialism, communism, fascism, tyrannies, Muslim theocracies, or our current secular reality, a Christian theonomy does not require forced compliance. God does not demand that we submit to his will. In fact, one of the premiere bugaboos, especially among the new atheists and their adherents, is the complaint that God doesn’t physically manifest himself, doesn’t intervene to prevent evil, and rarely rewards good.

Setting aside any objective framework for determining good and evil, I have found that atheists have had no problems denouncing God without being struck by lightning. They are similarly uncharitable or outright derisive toward believers.

As I see it, the devout atheist maintains they will profess belief in God once Jehovah behaves like the boy in the classic Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a Good Life.” The plot deals with a young boy who elicits affirmations of everything he does by turning anyone voicing critical thoughts into grotesque creatures or wishing them into the cornfield. This corresponds with how these atheists insist God should behave if he is to be taken seriously. Such a being would eliminate any semblance of free will, since people would behave in a manner that earns them favour and compliance would be for purposes of self preservation. No person could, in a true sense, choose to love such a god.

A common truism among Christians is that the door to hell is locked on the inside. People are free to either accept or reject God’s gift of grace through the forgiveness of sins paid for by Jesus’s death on the cross.  Jesus tells us that he calls his sheep and he welcomes those who hear his voice. (John 10:27-28) Similarly, there is no compulsion that we work through items on our earthly “to do” list to earn us access. We are simply directed to put our trust in Christ and seek to do his will – even if it comes at a great cost.

Compare this with the secular approach addressed in my previous post where dissent is roundly punished and a value system is imposed that discriminates against any who dare oppose their premises. Everyone must agree or they are racists, sexists, misogynists, and guilty of any number of phobias. Christian businesses can be forced to violate their consciences and duties to God (which would be to violate both ends of the Greatest Commandment). The problem is not that Christians force unbelievers to adopt their beliefs, but that secularists feel entitled to supplant him as the ultimate authority and demand obeisance to their idols.

• Biblical theonomy does not unrighteously discriminate.

Much as we are told by the activist left that they seek to end discrimination, they do so by requiring it. The underlying strategy is known as social justice – as distinct from standard legal justice. Based on their calculations, discrimination is not bad, it just needs to be calibrated to would or excuse the right targets. They insist that this overcorrection is necessary to redress past grievances based on a series of immutable presuppositions.

• Oppression is unique to one’s social, racial, or other identity group status divorced from lived experience
• This monolithic approach assumes a deferential response through demography is just and/or necessary
• Meting out justice with a hyper-focus on race, socio-economic status, or similar consideration is a net benefit to society
• Such judicial favouritism is advantageous to the “victim” group
• The social justice approach does not exploit identity politics

One may admit and defend social (selective) justice, but don’t pretend that doing so is with the intent of equal justice for all. The Bible explicitly states that there is to be no preferential treatment shown to anyone. To choose one of many examples, in Leviticus 19:15, we read: You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall judge your neighbour. We are quick to rail against injustices that favour the privileged, but many make excuses when the criminal is poor. We have also transitioned into a time where one’s social or political views determine their guilt or innocence.

The Christian ethic – as set out in the US Constitution – establishes that all men are created equal. For those who struggle with the pronouns, “men” refers to both sexes since: God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. – Genesis 1:27. The account of our origins in scripture make clear that there is only one race of humans, so our distinctions are based on ethnicity alone. Thus, the view that when all are created equal, there is and never has been a justification for slavery.

Not only does this necessitate that laws must be equally applied to all of humanity, but it makes clear that all people have worth and thus warrant protection. In Paul’s letter to the Roman’s, he clarifies the role of government as: …rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. – Romans 13:3a. I encourage unbelievers to pass on to “progressive churches” that earthly rulers do not enjoy unrestricted authority. Romans 13:1 reads: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those who exist have been instituted by God. “Every person” comes from the Greek meaning “every person.” This means that those in government are also subject to God’s governing authority and have no right to usurp what belongs to him alone.

Past injustices cannot be wiped out by current injustices. This merely makes the innocent into political or religious prisoners and encourages criminal behaviour among other identity groups. Under such a scheme, neither side benefits and our social and moral structure is eroded. If you need to know the race, sex, politics, religious views, or other feature about a person to determine their guilt or innocence, you are perverting justice.

• Biblical theonomy holds one responsible for their own actions.

Under Christianity, our guilt or righteousness is not dependent on the deeds of others – whether it be those with a common ancestry, pigmentation, sex, or other feature. We are saved or damned based on our own actions or inactions. In fact, it would be offensive if we wished for favourable or unfavourable consequences simply based on group identity. Making excuses for or assessing guilt against someone by some imagined association is a direct violation of God’s law.

Seeing oneself as a victim and bemoaning one’s circumstance is decidedly ignoble and a sign of bad character. This is especially true for believers who know they will be unjustly treated and persecuted for the sake of Christ. If you support a political system that favours some over others, then you oppose equal justice.

• Biblical theonomy respects individual rights:

We have been deceived into the false assumption that the left are the champions of individual rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. They hand-pick who will or will not be extended rights and create a hierarchy that favours some over others – thus denying rights to those outside their circle.

Returning to the Constitutional form of government established in the US, rights are endowed by the God of creation, not man. Thus, government was granted enumerated rights that were to be applied for the benefit of all. The idea that a governmental system can either confer or negate personal, religious, or conscience rights is anathema to a theonomy. The selective endowment of rights has been responsible for every oppressive regime ever to exist. By empowering the secular state to become the gatekeepers of individual rights, we have permitted those making and enforcing the restrictions on some citizens to exempt themselves.

For instance, we have taken for granted that government is entitled to the fruits of our labour – currently roughly half of our earnings. They claim the authority to direct funds as they see fit. Similarly, the selective enforcement of COVID restrictions were whimsical and draconian at the same time. Some were fined or jailed based on the state arbitrarily deeming some essential and others non-essential. It is not as though churches that remained open or those participating in the Freedom Convoy were penalised because the state was concerned about their welfare. The fact that there was no outbreak among any in violation of the policy was irrelevant. The crime was in not submitting to state authorities in their partisan machinations in deferentially granting or denying rights.

• Biblical theonomy is guided by objective truth and morality:

Without being anchored in objective truth, there can be no cohesive way to bring about true liberty or justice. The denial of this reality is how a culture can commit egregious acts against segments of a population while claiming to be moral and compassionate.

We know that anyone claiming to speak “their truth” in contravention of reality is either lying or a fool. We are further aware that a domestic terrorist is one who blows up a crowd while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” not a parent telling their school board that pornography does not belong in the classroom or that boys have no place in a girl’s changeroom.

The hard left insists on denying objective truth while simultaneously self-identifying as the arbiters of truth. They claim the right to censor because they elevate themselves to the status of gatekeepers for defining mis or disinformation. To be fair, they don’t claim that their hand-picked “fact checkers” are separating lies from facts, but are winnowing out information that they don’t approve of. If this sounds familiar, that is what how state-run medias operate.

Note also that this is a partnership between public and private organizations. For those who have had a public-school education, you will be shocked to learn that this arrangement – not voting Republican – is the actual definition of fascism.

As far as morality, there is no one who pontificates more on claims to moral obligations than those on the left. After eradicating biblical morality and running it through the grinder, they have turned objective morality on its head. This is why pastors were arrested and churches were fined for fulfilling their scriptural calling, while antifa and BLM rioters and looters were celebrated as heroes and politicians and police officers even knelt at their feet in submission.

Leftists didn’t eradicate objective morals, only invented their own while punishing those upholding to genuine moral duties.

• Biblical theonomy requires few laws that respect human dignity and worth:

While Christians are accused of following a God who is a cosmic killjoy, reality paints a much different picture. As the brilliant Christian scholar and commentator, G.K. Chesterton noted, “When you break the big laws, you do not get liberty; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.” We plainly live in a hyper-regulated reality where even our breathing is taxed and plastic straws are contraband. Our societies preoccupation with thought crimes increasingly brings us into “precrime” territory.

The restrictions brought about by imposed secularism were addressed in my catalogue of previous posts – and that is only a portion of what would fill a library of legislative abuses.

A Christian theonomy would impose limited laws meant to protect the lives, freedoms, and bodily autonomy of all. The ethnicity, social status, religious, political, or sexual leanings of a murderer, thief, rapist, child sex trafficker, or similarly genuine threat to others has no bearing since the crime is the issue and the victim is worthy of protection. No one has the right to “not be offended” or be protected from ideas they don’t like.

Now, let me address the sacred cows of secularism: Abortion and “same-sex marriage.”

Abortion is murder. Since we are dealing with truth – and science – the unborn is a unique life from the moment of conception. The zygote carries the genetic code that determines their sex, physical traits, and even their fingerprints. They can be harmed by the mother’s drinking, abuse in the home, and other environmental factors – just as these harm children outside the womb. The “fetus” (young one) has value just as the mother, father, and all other human lives have inherent worth. Every argument used to defend abortion either denies the humanity of the child or ignores them altogether. To accept abortion is to revert to “Animal Farm” ethics where all are equal, but some are more equal than others. Pick your demographic and it becomes clear that abortion is not defensible.

As for so-called “same-sex marriage,” one needs to define what marriage is and clearly articulate the purpose. Proponents knew they were on shaky ground when their argument was that they wanted to visit their “partner” in the hospital and be able to benefit from each other’s insurance plan. Boy, the solution to that conundrum is a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma. We were also treated to slogans of “love is love.” If you cannot defend everyone’s claim to legal marriage based on those terms, you are only changing the boundaries for discrimination. Procreation requires a male and female. Any other pairing does not work anymore than a man can menstruate or give birth. Furthermore, the Bible establishes that homosexuality is a sin and this doesn’t change because one disagrees. The legalization of same sex unions has imposed duties on pastors, churches, Christian businesses, and other committed believers to violate their convictions or face penalties – thus nullifying tolerance and equal rights.

• A Christian theonomy is the best framework for a contented, generous, and tolerant society:

Countless studies show that devout Christians have the best marriages, sex lives, are the happiest and most generous of their time and money, regardless of circumstances. The old joke, “Question: How many feminists does it take to put in a lightbulb? Answer: That’s not funny” resonates because it has the ring of truth. All that has changed over time is that the demographic has expanded to members of the rainbow jihad, environmental activists, and other die-hard lefties.

The reason the church has allowed the culture to spin out of control to the point where evil is called good and good, evil, is not just because so many were not paying attention. We weren’t seeking to take control of every institution to force theocratic demands on everyone. For those rightly aligned with biblical principles, our focus was on faith, family, and witnessing. All of these elements are under attack and, to the extent we are “fighting back,” it is to preserve freedoms being taken by force – especially those that most impact our children.

As for those who dispute that Christians are the tolerant ones, keep in mind that tolerance requires a difference of opinion and, on that matter, I refer you back to my previous post.

• Biblical theonomy promotes forgiveness.

This is a highly significant point. Under the full flower of a secularized society, we have run up against what is referred to as cancel culture. Those who fall victim to the standards of approved opinion can never be forgiven for mistakes of the past. A post or comment made years ago will render one as irredeemably tarnished for life. Youthful indiscretions or ill-chosen words can land one indefinitely in social media purgatory.

Under the Christian ethic, we are not only encouraged to, but required to forgive others and not carry grudges. We are told that if we refuse to forgive others, God will not forgive us – Matthew 6:15. The social division being cultivated under our secular zeitgeist fosters a lack of forgiveness and breaks bonds that cannot be restored.

Sin involves the violation of God’s perfect standards and is so serious as to put a permanent divide between the individual and his creator. Only the one guilty of the sin can or needs to be forgiven for his thoughts, words, or deeds. Similarly, only God can grant us forgiveness since he is the one who is perfect and therefore able to demand this standard from his creation.

The beauty of a life redeemed by Christ is that we can have forgiveness for our transgressions. The practise of animal sacrifice was that a blood offering is required to sanctify the individual who has sinned against God. With God incarnate (in Christ) giving up his life as the ultimate blood sacrifice, we can claim forgiveness through his sacrifice.

Under our secular reality, one is guilty for the sins of their ancestors or even those with a common skin colour who committed evil and one’s victimhood status is similarly irreversible based on the same perverse claims of victimization by association. Secularism holds one responsible for what they didn’t do and applies an ideological conformity standard to serve as an offering to their idol of social justice.   

I’ll leave it here as the core principles have been covered. I will only address one more point (namely my comment that our differences are doubtless irreconcilable) – at least if we reject the biblical theonomy model I propose.

The hard left is akin to an abusive husband who demands the right to decide who their mate can see, what they can talk about, how long they may be gone, and whether they can even leave the house. The rules are arbitrary and don’t apply to him as he can come and go as he pleases. She is to do all the housework, bring in a paycheque, and give her earnings to her husband. If he lets her have any money, she needs to tell him how it will be spent and bring back receipts. He decides how they will spend their time together and she is not permitted to even question, offer a suggestion of her own, or opt out. He even brings prostitutes into the home. The children are forced to watch and be raised under the tutelage of their father, including participating in his porn addiction. Anyone who complains gets beaten.

The wife says she feels neglected, ignored, and disrespected and, as he doesn’t listen to her complaints, she insists she needs to leave with the kids because it just isn’t working out. He grumbles that she is the problem and is guilty of failing to live up to her vows. He owns the judge so he lets her know he will be keeping the kids.

This is a perfect analogy of the life of a Christian under the secular monopoly and my best explanation for why this arrangement is not reconcilable under the current trajectory.

Make no mistake, these are competing theocracies. The only ones who don’t benefit from the Christian option are those who rig the system in their favour. Worse yet, they insist that we pretend they are being sincere when even they know they are lying to our faces.