Category: Book Plunge

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 13

Can’t we all just get along? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The time has come to wrap up this book looking at the topic of racism. As I write this, right now in America there have been two fundraisers recently. One involves a black boy who killed a white boy saying it was self-defense. Another involves a woman who was threatened to be cancelled because she used a racial slur. Now I happen to think both people did something wrong, but they do show where we are at. Some are donating to both sides because of the race of the person.

So biblically, there is a lot I agree with Longman on.  I do agree that there is one race, the human race. I do agree we are all descendants of Adam. I do agree that we are all sinners and we all need redemption in Jesus.

I also agree on bad arguments such as the mark of Cain and the curse of Ham. Unfortunately, once again, while I agree with Longman on what Scripture says so much, when we come to application, it is a different matter.

First off, he speaks about affirmative action. Could it be right to punish one people group for what their ancestors did by giving preferences in affirmative action? Longman argues, yes.

His argument looks at the figures of Daniel and Ezra. Both of these people are righteous in the Old Testament. Yet when they pray, they repent of the sins the community did as if they themselves did them. They were suffering for the sins of the people before them.

Well first off, this was a punishment done by God. It doesn’t mean we can do the same thing.

Second, the society of the past was much more community oriented. If anything, affirmative action breaks the community by putting one race in the community against another and favoring one race over another. Perhaps Longman should have considered a parallel in Acts 6, such as Hebrew widows getting more support than the Hellenistic ones.

Third, is the program even helping? How long should it be in place? All of these are questions we should be asking. We can ask if minorities are getting into jobs and getting into schools, but what does it matter if they get a job if they are not capable of it? What does it matter if they get into a school if they don’t graduate? I am not saying all are like that, but these are questions Thomas Sowell also asks.

As for reparations, the same applies. How much is owed to a person? Who owes it? Technically, everyone alive is likely descended from someone who was a slave and someone who was a slave owner. That’s because slavery was a worldwide system and all races enslaved any other race they could, even their own. This also will not heal any divide. It will instead make it worse.

In the end, Longman’s book shows me he should really stick with Scripture. If he had just said this is what the Bible says and think about it as you vote, that would have been a whole lot better. Instead, when he gets to application, I see it as apparent he sticks with one side only and doesn’t understand the nuances of the positions he takes.

Next time, we start something new.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 12

How do we help the poor? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There is an increasing refrain in these later chapters where I largely agree with Longman’s exegesis of the text. Instead, I disagree when we get to the application. Once again, the same has happened here. I do fully agree that there is a mandate to help the poor in Scripture. I do agree that there are times someone is poor not because of laziness, but because of tragedy or injustice.

I also do agree that the prosperity gospel should be thoroughly condemned. Jesus is not meant to serve you on the path to riches. I do not think that being wealthy means being an evil man. You can be a devout Christian and be extremely wealthy.

Also, in case anyone asks, no. I am not one of those rich people. I make minimum wage and I don’t want to see minimum wage go up. I personally would like to see it abolished. I simply try to watch my spending and I have a Patreon. You can donate to that here. For now, let’s get back to Longman.

I am pleased to see that Longman acknowledges that capitalism has brought many nations out of poverty. He is quite correct on that one. However, he does say the Bible could be used to support both socialism and capitalism. I do not see how it could be used for both without being contradictory. Both systems are opposed and how could Scripture consistently teach two systems that oppose one another? He does say both socialism and capitalism could help people thrive and are both subject to corruption. Unfortunately, he shows us no examples of these places where socialism produces a thriving populace. I do agree that both are subject to corruption, but the difference is capitalism is the free exchange of goods without force, theft, or fraud. As soon as you change that, it’s not capitalism anymore.

He does say a book could be written on the topic, but it already has. Consider E. Calvin Beisner’s book Prosperity and Poverty. I also recommend reading Thomas Sowell’s books.

He also says some people think government should not be in the charity business. I’m one of them, and for the reason that he gives, because I think the church should be doing it. He says that the problem is that the church isn’t. Indeed, if the government keeps doing it, what reason does the church have to step up? Unfortunately, all of this creates government dependence. When I see someone say “If we shut down government program XYZ, what will happen to all these people in need?” My thinking is “Don’t you think it’s a problem that they’re that dependent on the government anyway?”

Also Longman, yes, the government is inefficient. We have an organization that is $36 trillion in debt and you want to tell me I should trust that organization to help the poor? Do I agree the church needs to step up its game? 100%.

Finally, I should say something about how this goes when I talk with people of a left-leaning persuasion.

Me: I think we should help the poor.

Leftist: Great! Here’s a program that we think will help the poor.

Me: I don’t think that will work.

Leftist: So you don’t really want to help the poor?

Saying you want to help the poor doesn’t mean that you agree with every way to help the poor. An excellent read on this is When Helping Hurts. Our government has declared war on poverty, drugs, and terror. How many of those have we eliminated? People can have really good intentions for when they want to help out the poor, but good intentions do not equal good results. They’re not all about helping the poor, but for examples of this, see Reason TV’s Great Moments in Unintended Consequences.

Reality determines if your method works. Your intentions don’t.

Next time, we will wrap up with discussing racism.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 11

What should we do about the environment? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Something I note about Longman’s book is that many times, I don’t disagree with what he says, until he gets outside of the area of Old Testament studies and gets into personal application. Here, he normally does not look at both sides of the matter and speaks on topics he is not informed on. If he wanted to write on the subject, he would have been far better presenting just what the Bible says or when looking at the issues in application saying something like “Some people think X and here’s why, and others think Y and here’s why.”

So it should not be a shock that when we get to an end of a chapter on the environment, what is brought up is climate change. Longman brings up that this is the settled science so we should accept it. Sorry, but after Covid, many of us are not so quick to accept the “accepted science.”

For instance, here is the settled science from 1978:

Now let us suppose that in that time we had said, “Dang! We have to stop this! We have to take steps to heat the Earth!” Where exactly would we be now if we had done that according to the climate change alarmists? At this rate, we would be well underwater due to the ice caps melting and everything else.

But this was the settled science.

When Covid came, we were being given all these alarmist policies and told about how many people would die if we didn’t do this. Now we look back and many people now see what those of us who actually thought about the data then saw, that this was not the case. The precautions we took were highly unnecessary. I realize this is anecdotal, but I went about my business as usual, only wore a mask when I had to do my job, and never got a vaccine.

I have also never had Covid to this day.

Also, color us suspicious when every time that there is a “crisis” the solution is always along the lines of “government intervention” which usually leads to communism or socialism. Generally, I have made it a policy to not take national “panics” seriously. So far, this has worked well in my life.

Longman didn’t go to a site ever like the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. I find this strange since if one is an evangelical writing for an evangelical audience, you would think that you would, I don’t know, go to an evangelical environmental association. Could it be he just doesn’t want to hear the other side?

He also brings up the argument of religion vs science, but notice that in all of what I said above about climate change, I did not make it a point about religion. It is not religion vs science, but scientific models vs other scientific models. To bring up the argument of religion vs science in the climate change debate is a red herring.

So in the end, I still say what I said at the beginning. I wish that Longman had largely just provided the biblical data and then if he had to go with application, at least give both sides of the issue.

Next time, we’ll talk about poverty.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 10

Should we redefine marriage? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start, it looks like there’s not a lot to disagree with. To his credit, Longman does agree that the desire to redefine marriage in the church even is something new. The Bible speaks about flourishing sexual relationships, but those are only heterosexual ones, and only in a certain context, between a husband and a wife.

So let’s go to the end where we do find disagreement. Should Christians try to seek to have the Supreme Court ruling on redefining marriage overturned? (I will not use the term “same-sex marriage” because that is as meaningful as talking about a square circle.) Longman doesn’t address that directly, but he does say some things that are concerning.

Rightly, he says we should not be anxious when the world does not go the way Christians prefer. The world will be the world. With this, I am in complete agreement. I understand that this is difficult and yes, I do struggle at times with this as well. That being said, this is our Father’s world and He will have the final say. Psalm 2 reminds us that the one who sits enthroned in Heaven laughs at the plans the wicked make.

He then says the church should not try to impose its sexual ethic on the world and this is where we start having problems. For one, what is imposing? If I go and vote according to my Christian principles? Am I imposing? If so, then why did he even write this book? Why write a book on how Christians should think on political issues if we are not to act at all on these political issues?

If it is not imposing, then there is not a problem. A worldview is going to be enforced one way or another. If Longman thinks all Christians have is the Bible, then I see his cause for concern, but Christians also have natural law thinking. It is not as if Christians just arbitrarily say “Scripture says it and there’s no other reason for it so we go along with it.” I am not saying that would be bad, but I am saying we do have more and Longman needs to acknowledge that. Most any book on Christian ethics would have helped him out in this case.

He does say Christians aren’t arguing for laws against adultery, but an important difference between that and the redefining marriage laws is that government can take one of three positions on actions. They can prohibit, permit, or promote. Now I would not object to a prohibition on adultery, but until that happens, the state simply permits it. If it were to promote adultery, that would be another matter. However, in a way, they are, because they are not only permitting the redefinition of marriage, but promoting it, and giving it the power of the State such as if you want to support a realist position on Christian ethics, you are going against the State. Redefining marriage gives more power to the State.

If the State promotes something, then that means it gets some benefit out of it. What is the benefit in this case? How is the State helped by having a registry of people of the same-sex being together who are incapable of producing children on their own for society? This lowers marriage down to just friends with benefits.

Longman would have been better served by reading material by the other side on natural law thinking and ethics. He should listen to his sparring partner Robert Gagnon. He should also consider a group like the Ruth Institute.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 9

Should we build the wall? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Friday was about abortion. Today, it’s immigration. I told you it would be fiery topics from here on.

Longman brings up several examples of people being wanderers as he calls them, including Abraham and Moses. That part is not so controversial. He also talks about laws to care for the foreigners among other groups in Israel and to make sure that they get justice.

So let’s get to something more interesting. Foreigners were expected to observe the Sabbath. Keep in mind, the Sabbath was a law that breaking it was possibly a capital offense. Thus, when a foreigner came in, they were expected to also abide by those laws.

The unstated assumption of a foreigner seeking a refuge in Israel would be that he would, even if he didn’t embrace YHWH, heed the laws of the new country and adapt to their way of life. It would be unheard of to have a foreigner come to Israel and set up “Alexander’s Idol Shop” in the kingdom’s center. This is something we need to keep in mind in our American context today.

Unfortunately, when he gets there, Longman has nothing to say about our nation’s laws and how immigration should be done. For instance, can people come here seeking asylum? Yes, but when you are asylum seeking, you are to declare that in the first safe country you come to, which in many cases would be Mexico. You don’t just declare asylum when you get to where you want to go.

Second, those seeking asylum are to do so through valid ports of entry.  Most major cities have one in or near them. These are called airports. There are other obvious ones like Ellis Island and there are checkpoints on our norther and southern borders for immigrants to come through.

If you come into a country illegally, you are already disrespecting the country you are wanting to come into. Not only that, there are several people who spend time seeking to get into the country the legal way. Rewards people who come in illegally encourages the wrong behavior and disincentivizes the right behavior. Most Americans have no problem with immigration. They just want it to be done legally.

Longman also comes out in favor of sanctuary cities, but in the Bible, those were set up for people who did not intentionally commit a crime. Sanctuary cities today are for people who DO intentionally commit crimes. Longman thinks the Christians should show compassion for those who come here illegally, but why? If they commit crimes to get here, why should I reward that?

What about the part about separating families? Happens every day in America even to citizens of our country. It’s called jail. (It’s also called divorce, sadly) Suppose a father goes to jail. We don’t lock his kid in there with him. If a drunk driver gets pulled over and the kid is in the backseat, the family is getting separated.

Longman needs to show me why it should be different in this case.

Unfortunately, it looks like Longman is supporting that we encourage behavior that is illegal and I argue immoral in the name of compassion. Such compassion is not compassion to all the people who work to come here legally. Longman says we can’t let everyone come into our country rightly, but why should we reward those who cheated to get in?

No answer from him. Again, Longman seems to make a mistake of not looking at the legal issues here in our own country and does not study the laws surrounding immigration.

Next time, we’ll cover what Longman calls “Same-sex marriage”, which I argue makes as much sense as a square circle.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 8

How should we treat criminals? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Longman looks at criminal justice. I think we can all easily agree that capital punishment is taught in the Old Testament and even performed by God Himself at times. However, it also has the famous rule of lex talionis. The idea is that the punishment must fit the crime. There cannot be more and there cannot be less.

Naturally, things change in the New Testament to an extent. This is no longer a nation one is talking about, but rather a community that has no legal power to enforce something like a death penalty. Longman brings up the man sleeping with his father’s wife in 1 Corinthians. In the Old Testament, there would be no question. Death awaits both of them. In the New Testament, it’s being cut off from the community.

Longman does bring up some concerns he has personally with the death penalty. One is that life in prison wasn’t as much an option there as it is now. Perhaps that is so, but again, what is the point? For one, they did still have prisons and someone could have easily been imprisoned for a crime. Second, the death penalty is done because human life is sacred and to wrongfully and intentionally take that life is a crime against God and an attack on His nature.

The second is a bit more problematic in that Longman appeals to fairness, claiming that poor, and likely black, defendants don’t usually have as good attorneys as do rich, and likely white, defendants do. If anything, I would say it is the opposite today. As soon as race is brought into it, the whole dynamic changes such that if anyone did sentence an “oppressed group” they are seen as the villains immediately. He also claims that there are studies that back this, but unfortunately, he does not cite them.

Also, we are told that sometimes the evidence has been retried and a person who got the death penalty turned out to be innocent. First, this is why I only recommend using the death penalty in cases of absolute certainty. Second, while it is true that we cannot bring back someone who wrongfully got the death penalty, neither can we bring back years of their life that they lose if we wrongfully sentence them to prison, but does that mean we should avoid prison sentences?

I also noticed that Longman did not cite Lewis’s final article that he wrote about the prison system that you can find here. While Longman encourages restorative justice, in this article, Lewis argued to return to retributive justice and this on behalf of the criminal. I cannot do his article justice in this post.

So in the end, I do not think Longman has made a case and when he has spoken out of his area, there is a definite lack. Those who are wanting something really controversial should know the remaining chapters all deal with that. We will start next time with immigration.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 7

So what about abortion? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Well, I suspect this chapter will get some responses from readers. After all, abortion is one of those hot topics today. So let’s dive in and see what it says.

Longman does say the Bible doesn’t say exactly when life begins, but even granting this, the evidence on when life begins is clear.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” — Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” –Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16.

“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” — E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of life of a new individual.” –Bradley M. Patton, Human Embryology, 3rd Ed., (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), p. 43.

“The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” –J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 1974), p. 17 (cf. 23).

“We talk of human development not because a jumble of cells, which is perhaps initially atypical, gradually turns more and more into a human, but rather because the human being develops from a uniquely human cell. There is no state in human development prior to which one could claim that a being exists with not-yet-human individuality. On the basis of anatomical studies, we know today that no developmental phase exists that constitutes a transition from the not-yet-human to the human.” –Erich Blechschmidt, Brian Freeman, The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: The Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Adulthood, North Atlantic Books, 2004, p. 7.

So even if the biblical witness was silent, the scientific witness is there.

What about a passage like Exodus 21:22-25?

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Longman brings up several translations and interpretations. I will not dare challenge him on the Hebrew of the passage. He concludes that this passage cannot really be used for either side in the abortion debate. I meanwhile think it’s interesting that the eye for an eye concept is there, including life for life. One aspect to consider is that if two men are quarreling, punching a nearby pregnant woman is likely not an intentional act.

What about the situation in Numbers 5 of a woman undergoing a ritual to prove she has not been unfaithful to her husband. Longman says in this case, a divine abortion could be going on, but I find this quite lacking. If a man has not been with his wife in a long time and she winds up pregnant, he doesn’t need a test. He knows the answer. I do not see anything in here that indicates an abortion takes place.

He does argue that according to Ecclesiastes 6:3-5, a stillborn fetus does not have the same position as a live child after birth. I do not think the Teacher is interested in saying that. I think he is saying a live child sees life, but a child that is dead never has to see it. It is not about the status of the persons involved.

On p. 150, he does say that abortion is the end of potential life and is wrong and sinful. The problem here is that it is not potential life. It is life. Why did Longman not cite any references in biology on this? Furthermore, what makes stopping potential life wrong? Is it wrong for a couple to not have abundant sex because they could be stopping life coming into the world? (Why do I suddenly picture a lot of my male readers insisting that yes, we should have abundant sex?)

He also says the most ardent pro-life supporter does not have a funeral or a gravesite for a miscarriage. Some do. At worst, he can say pro-lifers are inconsistent. If this is the strongest objection he has, it is a weak one.

In the end, I wish that Longman had looked at various other experts in the field before writing. It’s disappointing he did not seriously engage.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 6

War. What is it good for? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was quite surprised at the start to see that Longman says the Old Testament battles are not relevant to the question of warfare. Really? Imagine if we saw in the Old Testament this said whenever Israel went to war.

“And behold, the Israelites went out to meet the enemy and the Earth opened up and swallowed the enemy whole. The Israelites offered up sacrifices in praise to God and returned peacefully to their own towns.”

Would that be relevant if the Israelites never themselves actually engaged in warfare, but God fought all their battles? Could that not give a message then of saying, “God will handle all your physical enemies?” Instead, the Israelites were trained for war. Actually, Preston Sprinkle begins his case for pacifism in his book Fight by looking at the Old Testament.

Longman is right when he points out that while Israel fought battles and God fought their enemies at times, when Israel was disobedient, God fought them as well. God kept His standards the same. Impurity was not to be in the land and if that meant Israel was impure, then they could not be in the land.

Then of course, we get to the New Testament with spiritual battles and eventually, battles taking place in Revelation. (Which I largely think have already happened, but it is still warfare.) This is all well and good, but readers are left wondering, “Okay. That’s how it was then. What about today? Should a nation ever go to war and if so, under what conditions?”

Longman starts with self-defense. Here he looks to Exodus 22:2-3 where if a thief is killed robbing someone’s house, there will be no guilt if it happened at night, but there will be if it happened during the day. Why the difference? Longman thinks it is because the occupants will be gone during the day or more likely to tell if the thief is a threat or not. I think the latter part is more likely in that during the night, one can’t see if the thief is armed or not. During the day, they can.

As much as I hold the Bible allows for self-defense, I do not think Longman’s use of the New Testament Last Supper account where Jesus tells the disciples to buy a sword is sufficient. What good would two swords do against the Roman army? If anything, this seems like exasperation on the part of Jesus that the disciples misunderstood again.

However, I do think a stronger case is found in that throughout the New Testament, and Longman does make this case, whenever military people are encountered, they are treated respectfully and never told to change their career. If anyone wants to say Cornelius dropped out of the Roman military after his conversion, the impetus is on them to demonstrate it. No one is ever told to cease being a soldier.

Also, it shouldn’t be a surprise the New Testament doesn’t give a direct answer to this question. It is not concerned with how a government should be run. It is concerned about the kingdom of God and the lives of ordinary Christians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot: Chapter 5

What about religious liberty? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter was surprising. In all fairness, the Bible doesn’t say much about religious liberty. In the Old Testament, Israelites were expected to be loyal to YHWH as part of the covenant people and within a nation, that was the way it lived. You didn’t want to be a part of the covenant people? Clear out of dodge. Don’t go trying to be a pagan in Israel.

Do you want to come to Israel? Sure, but you are not allowed to set up Bob’s House of Idols while you’re there. You enter the land of Israel and you play by the rules of Israel.

When we get to the New Testament, we are never given a system of governance on how people are to be led. Christians are expected to be loyal to King Jesus. It is not until we get to the Fathers struggling in a pagan culture that we first see arguments for religious liberty. Robert Wilken says this started with Tertullian.

In fairness to Longman, Wilken’s book came out just months before Longman’s so it’s likely he didn’t have time to get it for that perspective. Book writing can be a lengthy process. Had there been a few years difference between the books, there would be an issue, but I urge Longman to read Wilkens’s book.

Longman does rightly go to the first amendment and says that it is most likely this did not mean no religious voices in the public square. It just meant there wouldn’t be a national religion mandated by the government. That is correct, but at the time the founders still held to blasphemy laws. Government funds were used to support missionary endeavors.

Longman then brings up conflicts the church has with the LGBTQ community in the area of law. Indeed, this is part of the problem that many of us saw when the State decided that somehow, the founders thought that two men could declare themselves married. When you try to redefine marriage, you have to defend that redefinition by going after anyone who disagrees with it.

However, there is one paragraph I will quote in full here since I was so dumbfounded by it.

We should begin by remembering that Christianity was birthed in a culture that had virtually no religious liberty (at least toward the new Christian religion). Religious liberty, in short, is not a biblical principle. p. 70

I’m sorry. What?

I even asked some professors here if I was misreading that to make sure. Nope. They thought it said the same thing.

So let’s see if we can rephrase this:

We should begin by remembering that Christianity was birthed in a culture that had virtually no faithful monogamy. Faithful monogamy, in short, is not a biblical principle.

We should begin by remembering that Christianity was birthed in a culture that had virtually no value for female children. Value for female children, in short, is not a biblical principle.

Does any of this make sense?

Now Longman does believe we should value our liberty, but we should not demand it. I am not sure what he means by this. Should a preacher being told to marry a same-sex attracted couple or else not stand up? It’s unclear.

Longman does refer to C.S. Lewis talking about the criminalization of homosexual behavior and Lewis asking what business of the State is that. To this, I suggest we keep in mind that when it comes to behavior, the state can do one of three things. It can permit, promote, or prohibit. This should also not be dependent on if a religious tradition says so or not.

For instance, is there any secularist who would like to have the laws against murder repealed because the Ten Commandments also have a law against murder? Doubtful. If murder is wrong, it is wrong regardless of what any religion says about it.

So looking at same-sex behavior as Lewis was concerned about, he did not want it prohibited, probably in the sense of breaking into peoples’ bedrooms. In this case, it is permitted. Going out in public and doing it would be a different matter just as much as if a heterosexual couple did that. Our society has now gone the route of promote, such as the Biden White House having pride flags on it. I suspect Lewis would say the same thing. “What business of that is the State’s?”

So in the end, I think Longman’s chapter has the big flaw in saying that religious liberty is not a biblical principle because the Roman Empire didn’t practice it. Even if the conclusion was correct, he has given a horrible reason for thinking it. We should not expect the Bible to give us a model on how to run a multicultural government. That is not its place.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 4

What about nationalism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There are a lot of myths I see going around on the interwebs. Some people have this idea that Christians want to set up a theocracy. I could probably count on one hand the number of Christians I know who are interested in that. If a Christians wants to ban abortions or undo the decision to redefine marriage, why that’s just making Christianity the official religion.

Because believing marriage is between a man and a woman which is what everyone else believed up until 5 seconds ago means making going to church on Sunday a law of the land.

So having said that, let’s see what Longman says. At the start, I will agree with him that a large part of our problem in society is that we are individualistic. Individualism is a major problem in our culture today and it gets us more and more focused on ourselves. Our churches are filled with pastors who will talk more about their own lives than they will the life of Jesus. Don’t believe me? See how many times your pastor tells a story about himself in his sermon and how many times he tells you something about the life of Jesus.

There will also be no disagreement with Longman on God calling Abraham to make him a great nation known as Israel and that that nation would bless the other nations. Christians should celebrate the calling of Israel in the past. We should realize the Jews are our ancestors through Abraham, as Paul implies in 1 Cor. 10 when he talks about “our ancestors” passing through the waters of the Red Sea.

We can also agree with Longman that we are indeed citizens of a heavenly country. Still, that does not dispute that we can be earthly citizens as well. Paul himself often used to his benefit when he thought it necessary the fact that he was a Roman citizen. When in Acts he is about to be flogged, the text doesn’t say, “And Paul remembered he was really a citizen of Heaven, so he said nothing about being a Roman citizen which would have prevented the flogging.” He makes an appeal to Caesar later in the book which he could do because he was a Roman citizen.

Something I do disagree with Longman on is that we can love our nation too much. He says it is wrong to want to see America thrive at the expense or neglect of other nations. Longman describes this as dangerous.

First off, on a technical point, Lewis once said you can never love something too much. What you are actually doing is loving what you should love too little. The solution is never to decrease love for the one thing, but increase the love for what is really more important.

Second, Longman gives no examples of what he means by this. While there is no problem with helping others in need, there is a point when what we consider help is not really helping at all. The classic example of this is the little boy who tries to help the butterfly emerge, not realizing he is really killing the butterfly in doing such. For a look at this, see my review of When Helping Hurts. Often, people look at an economic policy and say “We want to really help these people and our hearts are in the right place, so this is the right thing to do.” No. Good intentions do not always lead to good results.

If we do try to help another nation, we should try to help not in the sense of building a relationship of dependence, but in a sense of trying to get the nation to be independent to some extent. Good parents do not raise children to be dependent on them. Good parents try to work themselves out of a job so the children will not need them, because the time will come when the parents aren’t around.

Along those lines, I see many times on X nowadays that some leftists are posting the allegation that Trump and/or Musk want to eliminate Social Security or Medicaid. They then ask “What will happen to all these people who depend on these systems?”! We can debate if the allegations are true or not all day long, but no one seems to stop and say “Isn’t it a problem that we have so many people dependent on the government to survive anyway?”

That should also be an indictment on the church that we are not doing our part to take care of our neighbor.

Next time, we’ll see what Longman has to say about religious liberty.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)