“You must not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.”
Exodus 22:28 NET
These words from Moses were quoted by Paul when he was accused of insulting the high priest, Ananias. (See Acts 23:12-35) Paul had been hauled in front of the high priest when a mob of Asian Jews saw Paul in Jerusalem and sought to kill him for the things he was saying.
The Roman authorities had to employ an army of soldiers to save Paul from the mob, and the Romans gave him his day in court with the Jewish council and high priest. When Paul got a chance to speak, he said, “Brothers, I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God to this day.”
Paul barely spoke the words of introduction before the high priest ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Paul responded, saying, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit there judging me according to law, and in violation of the law you order me to be struck?”
That is when the mob accused him of insulting “God’s high priest”, and Paul acknowledged, “You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.”
Some commentators have suggested that Paul really didn’t know he was in front of the high priest. When he found out, he apologized immediately.
Other speculate that Paul’s remarks were sarcastic. Maybe this was a backhanded compliment, false deference, a subtle challenge to the high priest’s authority, suggesting that he was not really God’s ruler.
In the Greek, the word translated “know” can also mean appreciate. So perhaps, Paul was saying he didn’t appreciate the fact that he was in front of the high priest when he said what he said. Perhaps, his outburst was a momentary lapse, and his response was an apology.
Whatever the actual nuance of the situation was, I take Paul at his word that he respected the words of Moses about respecting authority and God’s sovereignty that allowed rulers to rule. Paul would later write:
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
Romans 13:1
This is all by way of introduction to the things I want to write about today: the politics of the Church and of people who call themselves by the name of Christ. The disrespectful and polarizing political rhetoric of our times is understandable, given the tensions, emotions and level of disagreement in our country, but I maintain that the rhetoric of the Church and the people of God should be different.
This morning I watched two different videos about Donald Trump in the aftermath of the assassination attempt that came within millimeters of ending his life. Such an experience would sober the hardest of self-made men. Trump experienced the proof of the reality of personal mortality and the razor line between alternate fates.
The first video I might have ignored, but for the source. Capturing Christianity is a YouTuber who manages a thoughtful and circumspect apologetic presence online. He interviews good people and engages in civil conversation with people who disagree with him. I am attracted to people like that.
The video purported to be about a prophecy predicting the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. I don’t run after so-called prophecies. I am immediately skeptical when I see anyone claiming to be a prophet or to have some message from God.
With that said, I do not completely dismiss the idea that God could speak to or through anyone. If we believe anything in the Bible, we have to accept that God has spoken to and through people in the past. I also don’t see anything in the Bible that indicates God can no longer do that if He chooses to speak to or through people in the present.
I believe that skepticism is the right posture from which to consider any claimed prophecy, but I believe we also have to acknowledge and respect Paul’s admonition:
“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast to what is good.”
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (ESV)
The title of the video is, Viral Trump Prophet Now Admits THIS. I don’t like clickbait headlines either, though I admit to being persuaded to click on them sometimes. When I do, my Spidey senses are always tingling, expecting to be disappointed by another bait and switch or overblown story that has little to no factual support, is (likely) full of misinformation and disinformation, and (maybe) even outright misleading information. I have seen it too many times.
I respected the source, however, so I clicked.
The 15-minute video walks through a purported prophecy published by one, Brandon Biggs, four days before the assassination attempt. Mr. Biggs seems very sincere and forthright, but many people can be sincerely and forthrightly wrong. I will let you discern for yourself:
The gist of the Capturing Christianity take is that Biggs got some things wrong, though he accurately predicted the assassination attempt.
Of course, anyone could predict an assassination attempt. I have personally heard people speculate that such an attempt might be made, given the current, polarized and tensely emotional political climate.
The video commentary includes clips of what Mr. Biggs claims he saw in a vision and his interpretation of it. Some of what he saw and reported days before the incident are generally accurate to the events that occurred. In particular, he saw a bullet whiz past Trump’s right ear. He saw blood coming from Trump’s right ear, and he saw Trump down on his knees.
As the commentary points out, anyone might predict an assassination attempt, but the details of this vision are remarkably close to what actually happened. The bullet didn’t whiz past the left ear. It didn’t whiz past the top of the head, or chin, or cheeks, or neck or chest. It whizzed past Trump’s right ear.
Biggs added that Trump’s eardrum was ruptured and that he was “radically born again”. This is where the reality differs. Donald Trump’s eardrum was not ruptured. We also have no way of knowing what happened in Donald Trump’s mind or heart.
The central point of the commentary focused on Mr. Biggs’s “admission” that he added to what he saw in the vision. Biggs says that he didn’t see the bullet pierce Trump’s ear, but he saw the blood coming from the ear. He also mentioned seeing sonic waves behind the bullet, as in the movie, Matrix.
(I am reminded in this comment that prophets are people who perceive things in the context of their culture, experience, and understanding. Food for thought as we read the Old Testament prophets – not that Brandon Biggs should be compared to an Old Testament prophet.)
Briggs admits that he assumed the bullet somehow caused Trump’s eardrum to burst. He added that part, because it seemed like be a logical conclusion to him from what he believed he saw. What he saw, and what he assumed are two different things.
I believe Biggs was sincere and forthright, as I said above, and he was humble in explaining these things. He wasn’t defensive. He didn’t seem intent on defending himself. In fact, he was apologetic and called himself “immature” in not recognizing the difference between what he saw and what he assumed.
So much for these basic facts. They aren’t what I want to focus on here.
As I stated just three days ago, the original prophecy about Trump being President (in 2011) and the miraculous escape from death this week (even if we admit God’s hand in the prophecies and the saving of Trump’s life) do not mean that Trump is God’s man and that Christians should uncritically support him in whatever he says and does.
Paul said we need to “test everything” (1 Thess. 5), so I think that is exactly what we should do. Some people may say that I am vacillating, but I am not. I am keeping an open mind in taking a closer look.
“Now in those days, when the disciples were growing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the native Hebraic Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.”
Acts 6:1
Even in the early church led by the 12 apostles who lived with Jesus and learned at his feet, the Church was susceptible to favoritism. The early church embraced a radical, communal life in which they pooled their resources, and everyone in need was taken care of. More or less!
The native, Hebrew widows were being taken care of, but the foreign, Greek-speaking widows were being overlooked. Things were not perfect then, and they never are. People are people, and we tend to fall short, even in our best moments.
People naturally tend to look after our own. “Me and mine”, as Pete might have said in the iconic Coen brothers film, O Brother Where Are Thou?
This human characteristic is not all bad. It prompts mothers and fathers to care for and look after their own children. It inspires family members to look after other family members and friends to look after friends.
At the same time, this human characteristic causes us to care more for our own children and families than for others and to care more for our friends than for our neighbors. It causes us to “take care of our own” to the exclusion of “others”, and that can lead to things like racial discrimination, nepotism, and a failure to have empathy for strangers.
James, the half-brother of Jesus, also deals with favoritism in his letter to the early Church. (James 2:1-13) He called the Church to account for showing “special attention” to men “wearing fine clothes” by giving them the best seats while making the poor churchgoers stand or sit on the floor. (James 2:1-4)
James called favoring the wealthy over the poor sin in no uncertain terms! (James 2:9) He described it as breaking the law of God – the law of loving your neighbor as yourself. (James 2:1-2)
James was clear that this kind of favoritism has no place in the family of God. If any favoritism is sanctioned by God, it is the kind of favoritism that focuses on the poor, the less fortunate, and the people that are marginalized by our human tendencies to show favoritism for our own, personal benefit.
When our favoritism is motivated by selfishness, it is sin. James was particularly strong in his condemnation of favoritism motivated by selfish desires. If we “favor” the marginalized, the vulnerable, and the ones who have less influence in this world, we do it without expectation of personal benefit, and we follow in the example of Jesus.
The world is chattering about the Trump assassination attempt. Some people are gnashing their teeth, and others are thumping their chests and pumping their fists. I don’t want to rush to conclusions about anything. There is far too much of rushing to conclusions in our world – or reflexively doubling down on the conclusions we reached long ago.
The assassination attempt, however warrants some kind of response. No one is without some thoughts on the matter. My goal, though, is to be circumspect and seek perspective
As I write this, I recognize that Trump may likely become the next President of the United States – an unlikely two-time President. I also recognize the prophecies about the first Trump presidency and the prophecies predicting a second Trump presidency that did not come to fruition four years ago. They appear (to me) about to be vindicated in 2024.
If Donald Trump is elected for a second time, we must admit that these prophecies came true. The test of a true prophet and of a prophecy from God is whether the events predicted happen.
That isn’t the end of the story, however. Paul exhorts us to test everything and hold onto only what is good. (1 Thess. 5:21) The context in which these words were spoke is prophecies, among other things:
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
What do we hold on to here? What is God saying, and what is God doing in these times
Does a second Trump presidency as prophesied mean that Trump is God’s anointed? Like David? Or Like Saul? Does it mean that the American church must put its uncritical allegiance behind Donald Trump, including all that he says, all that he does, every position he takes, and all that he stands for?
These questions are ways of asking, “What God is doing in our times?” And, maybe more importantly, “What should we be doing in these times?”
We need to be careful – to test everything. God has a way of doing things that we don’t expect and don’t understand. If we don’t believe that, we are not reading our Bible closely enough.
In Episode 20 of the Christian Atheist Podcast (Ethics (Part 3): the Origin on Ought), John Wise focuses on a primary difference between human beings and animals. Though humans beings are animals, human beings are qualitatively different than other animals in rational capacity, and the rational capacity of humans allows humans to exercise agency over the natural world. This unique human capacity to exercise rationality through agency is the focus of my thoughts today.
Human beings exercise their agency and rational capacity to change and redirect the laws of nature. Other animals can do this in very primitive ways, but the human capacity to manipulate nature through human agency, rationality, and ingenuity is light years beyond what other animals can do.
Of course, humans cannot do things that defy the laws of nature. Rather, human beings use their understanding of those natural laws to manipulate them.
Wise observes that the human ability to manipulate the laws of nature includes the ability to separate cause from effect to acheive a desired result. For instance, human beings have learned to breed various types of plants and animals to achieve results imagined by humans which would never likely have occurred in the natural world left to random, natural processes.
Human beings can exercise their rationality to imagine different effects and to manipulate causes to achieve those desired effects. In this sense, human imagine the effects they desire to achieve, and they manipulate the causes in the natural world to achieve natural effects by design that the natural world would not obtain randomly.
The world seems to act randomly, unless agency acts upon the world. The examples of agency acting on the world to achieve results that would not obtain without such agency are legion. All of human endeavor is replete with examples of agency imagined and initiated by humans to obtain designed effects that we desire.
Human beings are able to produce effects that would never have occurred in the natural world but for human agency manipulating the natural processes. In other words, human input redirects the natural processes to produce results that would not have occurred if the natural processes were left alone.
Our ability to separate cause from effect to achieve desired ends that would not occur in the natural world by manipulating those causes to achieve the effects we desire is an example of supranatural agency in the world. In other words, we are in and of the natural world, and we use our knowledge of the natural world to manipulate natural causes to create natural effects.
We do not suspend the laws of nature or violate the laws of nature to accomplish our desires ends. We use the laws of nature to achieve our desired ends – albeit, ends that would not have occurred but for our intervention.
Ocean liners and skyscrapers are things that do not occur through the laws of nature, but for human agency. Even so, human agency des not suspend or violate the laws of nature to create them. Human agency uses the laws of nature to create them.
These observations are a model for understanding God. The fact that laws of nature act in very rational ways that are predictable and dependable suggests design. The way the laws of nature act suggest an intelligent agency that set them in motion just so. We would call that intelligent agent God.
If God created the laws of nature, He would certainly know how to manipulate natural causes to achieve His desired effects. God would have much greater capacity than us to manipulate natural causes to achieve desired effects. Exponentially so!
Many skeptics, like David Hume, reject the idea of miracles because they assume that miracles violate natural laws. The foundational premise of Hume’s logic, though, is false. The God that created the natural laws would not need to suspend or violate those laws to obtain desired effects. God could manipulate natural causes to achieve His desired effects without the need to “suspend” or “violate” natural laws just as we do.
God’s knowledge of those natural laws and the possible effects that can be achieved through the manipulation of them is certainly greater than ours. Exponentially greater.
Many people have called phenomena they didn’t understand miracles, but subsequent discoveries about the way the natural world works have provided explanations to us of natural laws and how they work that we didn’t previously understand. Once we understand the laws at work on those phenomena, we no longer call them miracles.
A primitive intelligent being might think that human beings are violating natural laws to fly airplanes, for instance. We know this is not true, but a more primitive being may not understand the principles of natural laws being manipulated to achieve the end of flying a heavy chunk of metal through the air.
Just as we manipulate natural causes to create effects that do not occur naturally, God may do the same. Thus, what we call miracles may be nothing more than the manipulation of natural causes by God to achieve effects that would not ordinarily occur in nature without the involvement of an agent.
Just because the primitive being does not know the principles being manipulated does not mean that a violation of natural laws has occurred. In this same way, a human being, who is certainly a more primitive intelligent being than God, may not be able to know or understand the principles of natural laws being manipulated by God to achieve a result that we call a miracle.
We call occurrences miracles that we cannot explain based our understanding of natural laws. But our measure of understanding is constantly changing. For this reason, modern people often say they no longer believe in miracles (and, by extension, God). Experience shows that many things we didn’t previously understand we now understand, and they assume, then, that we will find explanations in the natural laws to explain all the things we do not presently understand.
I note that this belief is not necessarily warranted, nor can we prove it. People who make this assertion do it on the basis of faith in the human ability to know and understand the world.
Further, our mere understanding of the way natural laws work, does not negate the need for intelligent agency to achieve desired ends. It isn’t enough for us to think something up; we must exercise our agency to act on the laws of nature to achieve our desired ends. Our understanding doesn’t create anything.
Imagine Aristotle seeing a pilot entering into a Boeing 737 and taking off into the air. Aristotle did not know enough about the law of gravity or aerodynamic lift to generate a good explanation based on the natural laws that were understood at the time. He may have called it a miracle because it defied explanation to him based on the level of knowledge he had.
The more often Aristotle might have seen a Boeing 737 takeoff, the less likely he might have considered it a miracle, even if the phenomenon still defied natural explanation to him. In fact, we still don’t really understand aerodynamic lift. (See No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air, by Ed Regis, Scientific American, February 1, 2020)
It is such a common phenomenon today, however, that we take it for granted even though we don’t completely understand it. Understanding that such a thing as aerodynamic lift occurs allows us to manipulate it, even if we don’t fully understand it.
Even if we think we fully understand natural laws, we probably don’t. One big example is the Big Bang. We know what happened from the “point” of the Big Bang, but we know virtually nothing before that “point”. We also have no idea how life formed.
Even if we did know exactly how the first living cell or organism developed. Our ability to trace the process and understand it does not tell us how or why it developed in the first place.
More precisely to the point, our understanding doesn’t create anything (without exercising our agency to act on that understanding), and it doesn’t eliminate the need for agency in our world to achieve desirous (beneficial) ends.
In fact, our experience suggests just the opposite. Our experience tells us that fire happens only randomly and often destructively in nature. We have learned to create fire and use it beneficially by exercising our agency in light of our understanding of the causes of fire. Agency is required to manipulate the natural causes for beneficial effects.
Our own experience affirms this. If I leave may backyard to nature, nothing is likely to grow there that is particularly beneficial. I might find a wild strawberry plant or wild raspberry vine with very small fruit on it. If I am lucky. The vast majority of it will be weeds and undesirable plants.
If I plant a garden with seeds cultivated by human ingenuity over many years of gathering seeds from the right kind of plants and developing new, heartier and more fruitful plants, I can turn my backyard into a cornucopia of beneficial plants that will feed my family and my neighbors’ families. This kind of benefit requires my agency.
I have to plant it, water it, weed it, and maintain it with much care and intentionality. If I stop maintaining it, my garden will relatively quickly return to a tangle of undesirable plants that will choke out and eventually replace my desirable plants.
It requires my agency to develop a garden and to maintain it. Nature, left to its own devices, will not do that. This is our common experience.
If you like archaeology, as I do, you become aware that time and nature destroys all the improvements generated by human agency and endeavor over time. Whole cities are reduced to rubble over time, and rubble becomes overgrown with windblown sediments, scrub brush and weeds such that we do not even recognize that a city once existed there, but for some remnants we can find by digging up the site.
We have made much about evolution since Charles Darwin first championed it as a theory. Evolution (the gradual improvement of life forms over time (by whatever means it occurs)) runs counter to our common experience. The formation of life from nonlife (the complex from the simple) (by whatever means it occurred)) runs counter to our common experience.
Does that mean that evolution is not fact or that life did not arise from nonlife? Not necessarily, but our common experience does suggest that this did not happen by natural forces acting according to their laws. Our common experience demonstrates that complex, beneficial effects arising from natural causes occur through agency and intentionality.
Human endeavor obviously did not create evolution or the formation of life from nonlife. Most scientists concede the appearance of design in the mind-bendingly complex interaction of amino acids, DNA, epigenetic materials, mechanical processes and other features of a living cell. If evidence of design appears in the world that was not achieved through human agency, that fact leaves us with the suggestion that some other intelligent agency is at work in the world.
Navigating by Faith 