The founding fathers recognized at the very beginning of the Republic that some of our enemies would come from within. However, we’ve mostly been taught that our Revolutionary War against the British was fully supported by all the colonists. It wasn’t. Only 40-45% of the then population supported independence. It’s estimated that roughly up to 25% of the people wished to remain British subjects, and many even fought with the British against their fellow Americans. New York remained pro-British right until the end. The rest of the population often vacillated in loyalty, depending on how things were going.
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote “The Federalist Papers” in order to make the various Continental Congress delegates understand the importance of the republican form of government, and what would be needed to hold it together.
In essence, they were aware that the fight was more than what happened on the battlefield. They were fighting with fellow citizens who were not only complacent, but who wished to be complicit with the status quo of loyalty to Britain.
You’d think that after 250 years, this type of mindset in regard to our nation would have faded. You’d be terribly wrong.
It’s too easy to start pointing fingers at the usual suspects who indulge in this thinking. You know-Demsheviks who continually salivate over Islam and Communism. We’re all aware of who these people are and what they’re doing and saying constantly.
There’s a growing empirical awareness that this mindset is also prevalent in another institution: the church. Now, understand that by using the word “church”, it’s in reference to the overly organized, denominational institution, in all it’s various forms, not the true Church that Christ has built through believers.
So, what has “the church” become complicit and therefore complacent about? Here are some examples.
Sanctuary Cities
There is a misconception, even among some Christians, that the Bible mentions sanctuary cities. It does not. The Jews of the O.T. had what were known as cities of refuge (Ex.21:13,14; Num. 35:11-32; Deut.4:41-43; 19:2-13; Josh.20:1-9).
Here’s the difference. Jewish culture as they settled into Canaan was largely agrarian. Most people did some form of manual labor.
They were also organized by clans within the 12 tribes. If a couple of clans were working together and someone was injured and they died accidently, a member of the clan of the victim could seek vengeance (Num.35:19)against whomever caused the death. The accused person could flee to one of the six cities of refuge (Josh. 20:7-9) until his case could be heard by the judges. (An example of this scenario is found in Deut. 19:2-13.)
Biblical cities of refuge were never sanctuaries for criminals who thought they would never face consequences.
What Would Jesus Do
One of the most pervasive heresies that has infested the church since the mid-1990s is the WWJD mindset. This supposes that Jesus is just a limp wristed, mild, non-judgmental hippie type who was never confrontational. Once again, wrong.
Read Luke 11:37-54. A brief synopsis of the passage: Christ was invited by a Pharisee to have dinner with him at his home. When the guy saw that Christ didn’t wash before eating, as was the custom, he got on his case. Big mistake.
Christ basically carved the Pharisee a new one. Read the passage for yourself. Our Lord didn’t put up with nonsense, even when He was an invited guest in someone else’s home. Christ even got on the case of a lawyer who was also present.
The church doesn’t like confrontation, especially when it calls out hypocrisy. No one wants to be seen as the person who points out the fact that woke, liberal social justice has replaced the gospel in way too many pulpits.
Another Look At The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)
We’re all familiar with this parable as taught by Christ. What makes this significant are a couple of points. First off, it was the younger of the two sons who was the Prodigal. He wasn’t in line yet to receive his inheritance according to the culture of the time. But that’s what he requested.
The second point is that his father didn’t try to talk him out of it. He let him go and find out for himself what the consequences would be.
Granted, there are a lot of deep lessons in this parable: the loving father, pride and willfulness, regret, repentance, etc. The real lesson is that the father let him make the mistake. Woke social justice is often sold as compassion that shields people from consequences. That only delays the inevitable and stifles true growth.
I recently encountered two philosophical concepts that are an interesting look at why some of these aforementioned mindsets are becoming ingrained.
Epistemic adequacy is a concept that requires only approximate or partial theories. In simpler terms, it’s about the context of how a word/phrase/idea is actually used as a tool to prove a predetermined point. The concept will therefore be deemed acceptable even when underlying structures and/or evidence does not offer valid support.
The second concept is known as Brandolini’s Law. This was coined by Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini. Basically, it states that the effort needed to debunk or disprove a falsehood is far greater than the effort need to create it. Think in terms of what we went through with The Great Wuhan Kungflu Overrreaction. (i.e. COVID)
All of this is about control and who ultimately gets to control the narrative. Sadly, the institutional “church” has not only bought into the popular narrative, but they do little to make corrections even when proven wrong.
This couldn’t be more applicable: “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2nd Tim. 2:15)
In closing: The midterms are now just at 8 months away. Pay attention and plan accordingly. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
