What About Politics? (Articles of Faith Series)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. We were all born and raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, more commonly referred to as the Mormon faith. All of us have left that religion and have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on biblical teachings. The name of our podcast, Outer Brightness, reflects John 1-9, which calls Jesus, the true light which gives light to everyone. We have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told it would be, and the light we have is not our own.

It comes to us from without, thus, outer brightness. Our purpose is to share our journeys of faith and what God has done in drawing us to His Son. We have conversations about all aspects of that transition, the fears, challenges, joys, and everything in between.

We're glad you found us, and we hope you'll stick around. You are listening to Outer Brightness, a podcast for post-Mormons who are drawn by God to walk with Jesus rather than turn away. I'm Matthew, the nuclear colonist. I'm Michael, the ex-Mormon apologist.

I'm Paul Bunyan. Let's get into it. In the United States, the 2020 election cycle has been particularly contentious. Donald Trump is perhaps the most revered and reviled U.S. president in my lifetime.

I guess it depends on who you ask. We've had economic challenges caused by COVID-19, and disputes over that as well. Police brutality has been protested and there has been rioting and looting and vigilantism on display in the streets of many U.S. cities. The country seems to be crying out for justice, and there are disagreements even over what constitutes justice in high-profile cases. As two of my children have recently taken AP government and politics in high school, one during the 2016 election cycle and one during the 2020 election cycle, I've commented to them that this must be what it was like to live through the 1960s.

There has not been, in my years on this spinning globe, a time when U.S. political divisions and activism have been as fractious as they are today. The 12th LDS article of faith states, We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. During times like these, Christians rightly ask themselves what role should my faith play in politics.

Does the Bible have anything to say about this? Post Mormons may be asking some of the same questions. In our conversation today, I and my co-hosts Michael and Matthew tackle some of those questions. Where do we land? We attempt to make a biblical case for educated involvement in politics and for advocating for a peaceful and just society.

Thank you for listening. You know, Paul, there's this thing called campaigning. And you should have come up with this idea like a couple months ago because we could have actually gotten you into the White House. But now, I don't know.

Yes, it might be it might be a stretch at this point. But so, yeah, let's let's kind of remind our our listeners like how old we are. So like, what was the first U.S. presidential election that you remember voting in?

Go with you first, Michael. For me, the first election that I remember being excited about was what was that 2012 when when Mitt Romney was running for president. You know, I was still LDS and I was really excited about the idea of a Latter-day Saint getting in. And that was probably the first year that I watched all the debates and I was just on top of everything and felt really interested in the politics of the country. So that was the first time that I voted as well.

OK, what about you, Matthew? Yes. Well, as far as like so it was a question again, exactly like when I first remember being involved or being interested in politics or. Yeah, you can answer that. And like when when the first what the first election was that you voted in the first presidential election you voted in.

So I see that smirk coming up. So, well, I do remember that 2000 was like a huge year for elections. And actually, I was looking in the to the history of that. And that's the first time where Republicans were solidified as being red and Democrats were solidified as being blue, because in the past 30 years before that, they'd kind of gone back and forth like some news anchors or news sites. They did it one way and then they did it another way. And it was actually opposite for a long time. So Republicans are blue and Democrats are red. And I remember had to do something with like the Tory party in England having similar similar political stances to the Republicans, I think.

And so that's why they made them blue. But then, like when 2000 came along, that's when they kind of fixed it. Republicans are red and Democrats are blue.

So that was just kind of an aside there. But yeah, so 2000 was probably the biggest one that I remember in history as far as the first one I voted in. I know it's going to sound bad, but every time there's been an election, there was always some excuse that I had where I didn't vote. So the first time when I turned 18, that was the that was after the 2004 election, right, with Bush and Kerry. And then so the next time that I could vote would be 2008. And I was on my mission and I didn't get, you know, like the chance to vote.

I didn't set all that up. I kind of just ignored it. 2012, I don't know what my excuse was at that point. I think it was more just like ambivalence because I'm like, well, I'm in Utah, everybody's going to vote for, you know, for Romney. And then 2016, I was at a conference. I was set up to go to a conference in Vegas for school. And it was the exact same night as election night. And I forgot to do the early voting thing.

You had to set it up like a month or something in advance. And I totally forgot about that. So I went to the conference.

I'm like, shoot, I can't believe I forgot. So I've never actually elected or voted for a president ever. So I feel kind of terrible about that.

But so, yeah, kind of a long-winded answer. Get on the, you know, on the interweb and look and see in New York where your early voting options are and you can do it this time. Yep. I am a registered vote. So also this election. So hopefully it'll be my first. Awesome.

Yeah. So I I've always kind of I always kind of remember being moderately interested in politics, even at a young age, like when I was a kid. We had my parents and my older sister and I had a paper route that we would do in the mornings before we would go to school. My parents, you know, we help my parents get up and help my parents fold papers.

And we delivered the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune and we'd get up and help fold papers and then drive around and deliver them before we went to school. And so I remember, you know, reading when I was supposed to be folding papers, like reading articles about Reagan and Mondale and and that kind of stuff in 84. And then the first I remember really being interested in the 92 election.

H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and Ross Perot when he was he was right back out again. He was it was kind of a fun thing to see like a third party candidate jump in and kind of make a make a splash. It was interesting.

But the first one I voted in after I turned 18 was Clinton versus Bob Dole in 96. So, yeah, I I've always been really like as an adult, I've always been really interested and kind of try to pay attention, you know, listen to the like political radio. I try to listen to kind of both sides. Like I'll listen to like back in the day, I would listen to like Sean Hannity, but I would also listen to like NPR, you know, try to get both sides of of things. And so do the same today.

But yeah. So, you know, we're kind of talking about the 12th article of faith today. So how did you understand the 12th article, 12th LDS article of faith as when you were a Latter-day Saint?

And how do you how did you apply it then? Matthew, you go first. I should have had the guide up and I actually have to Google what the article of faith is being subject to rulers and principalities and powers or whatever.

Not principalities and powers. No. Yeah, let's let's read it.

Do you want me to go ahead and read it? Yeah. OK. Yeah.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. Yeah. You know, I was I was close.

I got in the ballpark. But yeah, I mean, I thought it was kind of self-explanatory, you know, like you're we were just asked as Latter-day Saints to be good citizens of whatever nation we're in. So the LDS church is where, you know, the LDS church is kind of, you know, America centric, where we're kind of like a lot of the church is based in America. But since it's been expanding throughout the world, you know, that that rule is applied to wherever you go. So as long as as long as it was not contradicting what the LDS leaders taught, then you should obey the leaders. So like if we were serving our mission abroad, we would do the same. So, I mean, we didn't really pay our taxes.

The mission office kind of did that thing. But, you know, we were supposed to be kind of respectful to authorities, police officers, things like that. And, yeah, not not not break the law in any kind of severe way or commit any infractions or any felonies, things like that. Good.

Michael. Yeah. So I also believed in not committing felonies.

And, yeah. So, you know, when I was LDS, one of the things that you believe is that the Constitution of the United States is inspired by God. It's actually an inspired document. And so, you know, you believe that the the law itself, I mean, is is pretty, pretty close to that. It's a and I thought that obeying the law was very much in line with obeying the commandments of God and the church.

It all kind of fell in the same category. I don't think I started to have any any issues at all until the Supreme Court voted that that gay marriage was legal, you know, and that started to kind of go against my beliefs. I think up until that point, I didn't think that there were there were any issues that I that I'd come across. I had no problem with the 12th Article of Faith. I'm like, yeah, I mean, obviously, if you're a God fearing person, then you should keep the law. I mean, you know, the law is always good.

The law is always right. So, yeah, I think that's pretty much how I how I viewed it at the time. So I think I was pretty probably pretty similar to the two of you. I kind of understood it as as like an injunction to kind of respect the government authorities and and obey the laws of whatever country you lived in. I think later, as I started to learn more about Mormon history and the LDS church's practice of polygamy and kind of the legal trouble that that got them into in Nauvoo and then later in Utah territory or Deseret territory, it kind of bothered me a little bit that, you know, that there seemed to be some areas where the LDS church leadership kind of went against what's stated there in that Article of Faith in terms of keeping polygamy secret.

Both before it was practiced openly, I think, beginning in 1852, I think it was. And then even towards the end of its practice with the manifesto and post manifesto polygamy, that kind of stuff started to bother me a little bit because it seemed to go against what the LDS, what the 12th Article of Faith kind of kind of stands for. And I also kind of read a book, I think the guy's name, if I remember correctly, is Thomas Alexander. And it was a history of Mormonism from, I want to say it was like 1830 to early 1900s or something like that. And it was it was supposed to be part of a series of books on LDS history that was going to be published when Leonard Arrington was the church historian.

But that series never came to be. And so some of the authors who had been commissioned to write books in that series went ahead and released what they had done on their own. And that book by Thomas Alexander was one of them. And it really kind of covered that period of change from kind of a smaller sect to a larger kind of on the cusp of becoming a larger religion in the world and in the country.

And so there were a lot of interesting things I learned from that. And so some of the admixture that you read about in a book like that in Utah territory, especially where it almost was like a theocracy. That kind of bothered me as well with regard to the 12th Article of Faith.

But just for the most part, when I was LDS, I think I viewed it like we see a lot of Latter-day Saints online kind of present it today. You know, as kind of like, you know, just they put it out there like, you know, we believe in respecting the law and being of race citizens. And so I think that's kind of what it is.

And this kind of came to me while you were talking to Paul. And that is like when you're Mormon, it's really natural to follow your leaders in the church. You know, I mean, obedience is just hammered into you your whole life. And so I think it just kind of naturally flows that you would also just be obedient to civil authorities as well. I mean, it's just really a natural fit.

No issue there at all. Yeah. So as a post-Mormon Christian, is there anything in the 12th Article of Faith that you disagree with now? Yeah. I mean, sort of. Let me just put it that way. I think that it's important to obey God rather than men. I think I realize now that men are fallen and that men make mistakes. And so as long as the law is, you know, is something that I can sustain as a Christian, then absolutely.

I'm behind it 100 percent. You know, so like things like not stealing or killing from people. I'm like, did I just? Yeah, I think I mixed up that sentence anyways. All right.

That. But I mean, I was kind of thinking, too, like even as a Latter-day Saint, I mean, I don't think it really follows to obey the law no matter what it is. I mean, they had an extermination order in Missouri for Latter-day Saints. And although the 12th Article of Faith didn't exist yet at the time, in principle, if something like that were to happen again, you know, what is a Latter-day Saint supposed to do? Like, go and exterminate the other people in their ward because it's the law or because it's legal to do it? So, yeah, I would say that I disagree sometimes with that Article of Faith now.

Okay. Matthew, what about you? Yeah, so it kind of as a Latter-day Saint, like, I think I kind of mentioned that when I explained what I thought it was positively. I think implicit in there is that you wouldn't do anything that is contrary to what God has commanded.

It doesn't say that explicitly. It just says you believe in being subject to rulers in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. But I think, you know, we want to be careful not to misrepresent Latter-day Saints. I think, you know, even if it doesn't explicitly say that in the 12th Article of Faith, I think it's implicit that you wouldn't, if the government, like Michael's explaining, if the government tells you to do something that's unlawful according to God's commands, then you shouldn't follow that law. So, no, I mean, I don't think I would really go against that principle of what it says there. I might disagree with how it's applied, you know, according to what we view and what Latter-day Saints may view. But I think the principle in and of itself that's taught in the Article of Faith is correct. Yeah, I think I agree with that.

It's kind of tough. I mean, if it's just read as kind of a straightforward statement about the concept of being a responsible and upright citizen of whatever type of government is ruling in the country where you live, whether that's monarchy or democracy, what have you, then no, there's nothing there that I disagree with per se. But like Michael noted, if the law of the land is contrary to God's law, then there are some implications for that as Christians, I think. So, kind of playing off of that, does the Bible say anything about Christian involvement in politics?

And if so, what? Matthew, what do you think? Yeah, so this is the question that I kind of prepared for the most. I kind of thought or brought up what came to mind were three big examples of either people that demonstrated their involvement in politics and in government or taught about them. And the biggest one from the Old Testament would be Daniel. Daniel lived during the time when the Babylonians, they captured Jerusalem and they kind of took over and, you know, the tribes were scattered and things like that. And so they were now the ones who had civil authority over Israel. And so at that time, they were not the ones in power.

They were the ones who were in the minority. They were the ones who were subject to the Babylonians. And so in the Book of Daniel, we see that he was willfully submitting to the rulers, to the rule and the authority of the Babylonians. So he was not invoking anarchy.

He was not invoking revolt against their leaders. He was submitting to them. And not only that, but he cooperated with them and he kind of worked his way through the political hierarchies. And he made his way all the way up to the king and gained his favor.

Again, if I mess any of the details up, please correct me. But so basically he worked his way up to the King Nebuchadnezzar. And when the king asked for, so there are several examples where Daniel demonstrated how Christians or how believers in God, because we believe in the same God that Daniel did, how we are to behave when we are in a government authority that's not Christian or is not believing. So there's one example where there were several wise men who tried to give the explanation to the Nebuchadnezzar's dream. And the king kind of threatened to put them to death because they did not interpret his dream correctly.

So instead of putting him to death, Daniel kind of convinced the king to spare their lives and then he offered to interpret the dream correctly. Not only that, but he had his three friends. Everybody knows them as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, but that's the name the Babylonians gave them. So they were also called Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.

I think that's how you pronounce it. So they were, that's their Hebrew names. So they were also friends with Daniel and they were going to be punished by the government because they did not, they absolutely refused to bow down to the idol that Nebuchadnezzar had made. And because of that, they were threatened to be put to death. And that's when they were placed in the furnace and God protected him by his miraculous power. He protected them and their lives. And then we see Christ who is in the furnace with them. So that's a second example of their demonstrating that they were submitting to the authorities.

However, when they were asked to commit idolatry, they refused. We see, is it, is it Medes or is it Medes, the empire that came after Babylon? I think it's Medes, right? I thought it was Medes. I think so.

I don't know. So when they, when they conquered Babylon and they kind of took over, you know, Daniel was still faithful to the rulers in power, so he was still submitting to them. But then again, they were also threatening anyone who would pray openly to God that they would be put in the lion's den. So Daniel, he openly disobeyed the rule or the decree, opened up his windows and he prayed out loud to God. And, you know, he didn't do so bashfully. He did so, you know, because that was his faith.

That's what he felt was right. And he was threatened to be put to death. And we know the story about Daniel being placed in the lion's den and he was kept safe also by God's intervention. So that's that's Daniel's example. So the second example that I think of was Peter and the apostles. So not only by their examples, but by their teachings. So they also during the Book of Acts, they submitted to the government of the Roman government. And but there were many times where they were imprisoned for what they were teaching.

They were. But they're also miraculously freed. So in Acts Chapter five, that's when they were preaching. And then I believe it was the Sanhedrin that complained and they didn't they didn't appreciate what was being taught about Christ in Jerusalem. So they had them placed in imprisonment and they were they escaped that basically the prison was destroyed and they escaped.

So then they said, hey, these guys escaped the ones we put in jail. And their kind of response before the council is that, as Michael said earlier, we must obey God rather than men. So they submitted to the government when in all things, except for those cases where they were told not to preach the gospel or they were told not to do what God commanded them to do, which was in that case, preach the gospel. And throughout the epistles in the New Testament, we see that both Peter and Paul, they taught that slaves should submit to their masters just as Christians are commanded to submit to their rulers.

So there's kind of you know, you can see it kind of like a hierarchy that whoever has authority over us is to submit to that authority. In Romans Chapter 13, that's one of the great texts on this topic. Paul says, let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God. And those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. And Peter agreed with this by saying in 1 Peter Chapter 2 verses 13 and 14, quote, be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do and to praise those who do good, end quote. Finally, I wanted to mention, too, that Jesus and we'll probably have a feeling Michael's going to want to go in more depth in Chapter 22 in terms of, you know, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

So I won't get into that. But but a lot of people like to claim that Jesus was like some kind of anarchist, that he was trying to overthrow the government or something like that. And the early Jews are socialist or a socialist or. Yeah, Jesus is kind of malleable. He's kind of whatever people want him to be, unfortunately, rather than trying to understand him in his context.

But yeah, he never he never espoused any kind of anarchy that I think he never really espoused, you know, open revolt. And I think he was a perfect you know, he was a perfect example of submission when he submitted to willingly to the father, first of all, and also when he submitted to the authorities. When he was presented to Pilate, Jesus admitted that Pilate only had authority because God gave it to him. And so in John Chapter 19, verses 10 to 16 says, Pilate said to him, You will not speak to me. Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you? Jesus answered him, You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.

Therefore, he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin. So even there, Jesus admitted that the only authority the pilot has because it was given to him by God. So we see here that even Jesus is admitting, along with Peter and Paul that spoke earlier, that authorities have this authority, not just from people, but from God. And that's really the difference that government has in the mind and the worldview of the Christian versus the atheist or secularist view is that we're not all just, you know, the authority doesn't just come by the people alone. It's not like we just come together and say, Hey, this is going to be our leader now only because we chose him.

Even if we do elect or vote for a leader, ultimately they only have the authority because God allows them or grants them that authority. So sorry, it's kind of a long way to answer, but those are the three major points I kind of wanted to talk about. No, yeah, it's good. And sorry, just jumping in real quick, Michael, before I go to you. I think it's interesting to kind of note that that that concept, right, that that the authority of the earthly rulers is given them by God. That's something that's very consistent from Jesus to the apostles, right? You see Paul and Peter both give similar messages in their epistles, and I'll touch on that when I talk about it a little bit.

But I just think it's interesting to note this note that at this point. So, Michael, go ahead. Just had a quick question for Matthew, just to play devil's advocate for a second here. I'm sure you have a really good answer for this.

So I'm just I'm asking, I'm not trying to corner you or anything. But so the scriptures did say there that God gives the authority to these people. But in the system like ours, you know, assuming that that God is going to put the next president in the White House, whether it's Trump or Biden or Paul Nuremberg. So why why do we need to go vote then?

So I think that God. Hang on, hang on. You're going to ask the guy who's never voted? Well, let's see. So that I don't need to ask, do I?

He's already answered my question. No, I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding.

Go ahead. I'm not voting. There's no need to to do it because you can't supplant God's will. Right.

Yeah. I mean, I guess I could play the hyper Calvinist. You know, we don't need to preach the gospel. We don't need to vote. I'm just going to let the elect come to my house. And then if they want to be baptized.

But yeah, no, for sure. God definitely does use means to accomplish his will. So it's not just that God accomplishes as well through miraculous intervention, but also through providence.

So the reformed tradition has always had a very high view of providence because all things are under God's sovereign authority. So all events are under God's purview and he works all things according to the counsel of his will. And so even when we see like in the instance of Acts chapter two, maybe it's chapter one, I forget which, where they were trying to fill the the role of the apostle due to the death of Judas Iscariot, they drew lots. Now, I'm not sure exactly what that means, if they had straws or they rolled dice or whatever, but it just says that they drew lots between two candidates and it said that it fell upon Matthias to replace Judas. So I don't think that that was just random chance that that happened to be Matthias that was chosen.

I think that God, you know, actually in his providence, provided that that would occur, that he would be this apostle. So in the same sense, we can see that God can use the means of election and the, you know, the voting process, you know, where representation of the people is done by by voting or however it is in each government that is used by God to accomplish his will. So if we vote for someone who is not a great candidate to be president, then that is still God's will.

And there is a quote that I've posted on Facebook and elsewhere that came from John Calvin. Of course, I don't worship John Calvin, but I think he's right in this respect where he said to an effect that one way that God demonstrates his wrath against us or his people is in giving us idolatrous or unjust rulers. So if we vote for somebody who is an unjust ruler, that's basically because of our decision, of our hard heartedness, of our wanting to have a ruler over us that is not a suitable ruler. And so God can use that to chase in us and bring his wrath upon us, in a sense, not not wrath like death, but wrath in terms of punishment.

So as I answer your question, it's basically at the end of the road, at the end of the day, it's just God uses means to accomplish his purposes. Yeah, no, I like your answer a lot, especially what you said at the end. You know, kind of specifying that just because God puts somebody in power, it does not mean that that is a good person for us, you know, necessarily like that it's a blessing because God did it, you know, and the example that kind of comes to my mind is Pharaoh because I was reading, I've been reading Exodus. Right. And yeah, it says for this cause, I have raised you up.

So again, God put Pharaoh in that position, but it was for the demise, for his demise and for the demise of Egypt. And so, and I know I'm going to try not to sound like an anarchist in this episode, I'm going to be playing devil's advocate against you guys a little bit because I think there are some, just some things that kind of need to be looked at. But I'm not an anarchist, I'm going to say that right now.

Just so you know. But where was I, where was I going with that I was going to not right now or you're not. So you're not yet an anarchist or you're well I'm, I'm still Dr. Pepper right now, Mr.

I was gonna say you need to change your name tag right now if you're not the anarchist and then switch it back over to Mr. Pibb. Yeah, yeah, and the anarchist comes out. But yes, as you say, I mean, but then you've got Moses and he is told to go to Pharaoh and basically say let my people go and he's, you know, basically saying that this is what's going to happen if you don't do it, and so it's not as big of a submission I mean they don't just leave without his, his go ahead so there is still some submission there, even to Pharaoh, it seems like and you can correct me if I'm wrong but, but there's also a lot of them going against him in other ways you know it's it's they're, they're, they're going with God and there's this war with God against Pharaoh in that whole first part of Exodus.

And so, I don't know, I just, I see that I'm like there's, there's definitely a time. It seems like to me where you've got this wicked ruler and, and in this case too it's different because God's telling Moses, specifically, to do this it's not just me saying well it's a wicked ruler so I'm not gonna obey him so I don't know if there would even be a parallel to that now, you know, unless, I mean, the Bible is, I guess, you know, what are you guys's thoughts on if the leaders are telling us to do something that is completely unbiblical? I mean isn't that the same thing as, as Moses coming out and saying you know, we need to leave Egypt now?

It's a good question. So yeah, it kind of goes to the next to the next question right is there. Does the Bible say anything about civil disobedience, right because you think of somebody like a like a Dietrich Bonhoeffer right who openly kind of came out in rebellion against the Nazis in Germany, right as a Lutheran pastor, and was imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it. Or you think of, you think of somebody like Martin Luther King Jr. right, pushing for justice for his people within, within the confines of our structure of government. Right.

And so, yeah, you know, what do you what do you do when, when the civil authorities are pushing you to do something that you don't agree with I mean I think there's there's opportunity to abstain from, you know, what, what may be required of you like, like Daniel. Right. And, but I think there's there are ways to do it like Daniel was able to do it and and gain influence. Right. It wasn't his wasn't an open violent rebellion against the authorities. It was a simple. I'm not going to do that because it, it goes against my, my beliefs my conscience.

Right. So, Matthew, what do you think, well I've had, I've had a lot of thoughts about it and and I think, yeah, I agree with what you're saying Paul, that there, that it's not, there's not any kind of blanket statements that you cannot dissent with the government is kind of I mentioned a little bit. When Peter and the apostles they're thrown in prison for preaching the gospel, and they said that they would rather obey God than men so they were they were submissive to the point where they were asked to do something against God's law, against what God had commanded them specifically the apostles to do is to go forth in the Great Commission, he said to the apostles, but that was also to the whole church, you know, to go preach the gospel baptize those who believe make disciples of all nations, and so they couldn't go against that. And it's interesting when you see throughout, and I said it, I said the I word. Sorry, but there's a really great series from RC Sproul that I think I linked to both of you. It's on the church and state, and he admits that it's very complicated it's not easy, and there's it's, it's difficult in practical situations to to implement what seems like a simple principle okay we submit to the rulers except for when they contradict the Bible.

Great, got it. Not so easy in practice, there are even some Christians not only back then at that time, but even today, who believe that the American Revolution was not biblical, because, you know, the whole kind of rallying cry was no taxation without representation. Okay, but where in the Bible does it say that you can revolt from your read your rulers, just because you don't have representatives in the government, do you know what I mean so there's some that say that even the founding fathers and those who were rebelling against the British government, they did not have the right to do so.

The American Revolution was also called the Presbyterian rebellion. And there were a lot of people that feel that they had the right to rebel against the British government because they feel that government should submit to the authority of Christ, and one thing that I was going to quote was the Great Commission, so let me pull that up real quick. So this is a great commission Matthew 28. So it says, starting with verse 16. Now the 11 disciples went to Galilee to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him in Jesus, they worshiped him but some doubted, and Jesus came and said to them, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them, them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you and behold, I am with you always to the end of the age, and so there were a lot of Scottish Presbyterians, who were called covenanters who felt that the British government was not submitting to the authority of Christ, and they felt that they had kind of broken a covenant or they had not made a covenant with God that they should have so by virtue of that fact, they did not have to submit to that authority.

Does that make sense? But it's interesting because then what we do have today is, I mean, we have God in, we have, we still have it in our Pledge of Allegiance, we have God on our money, but in essence, we're slowly removing specifically the Triune God, the God of the Bible, out of politics. And so it's interesting that they revolted over, you know, in that time period, and I wonder what how they would have reacted today. So there's different ideas as to reasons why someone may dissent from authority and they felt that that was a reason. But then, then again, like I said, many Christians disagreed with them and said, we should be submitting to this authority. And that's why many Christians were loyalists. So it's difficult to really kind of pin down exactly when rebellion is allowable or not, from a biblical viewpoint. Yeah, so that's, that's true.

It is, it is a difficult question. I think there's a, there are a couple of passages, I think in the New Testament specifically that while they don't, you know, really state explicitly, Michael how we should live in a in a republican democracy, like we have here in the United States. They do kind of give guiding principles for how Christians should engage politically, regardless of the type of government that they are under. One of them, and the first one really isn't necessarily political but it's, it kind of gives the same principle that is stated elsewhere in other passages that are more, more explicitly related to governing rulers. But the first one is First Thessalonians 4, 9 to 12.

Let me pull that up real quick. So here, Paul's writing to the believers at Thessalonica and he says, Now, as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to you for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another, for indeed you do practice it toward all brethren who are in all Macedonia, but we urge you brethren to excel, to excel still more, and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands just as we commanded you. So there's this concept of leading a quiet life that you kind of see in various passages throughout the Pauline epistles.

John MacArthur says about that, that, you know, leading a quiet life, it refers to a person who does not present social problems, or generate conflict among others but whose soul rests easy, even in the midst of difficulty. And the other, the other passage that is a little bit more explicitly related to civic responsibility of Christians is Titus 3, 1, 2, 3. And let me get that up. Okay, and I'm going to, I've got the KJV handy so I'm going to go ahead and read it in that.

It says, this is a true saying if a man desire the office of a bishop. No, I'm sorry, I must be wrong. It's got to be chapter two.

I apologize. I must have messed up my notes. Yeah, it's chapter two.

Sorry, so chapter two, one to three in Titus. I exhort you, therefore, first of all, I exhort you, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet life, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior. So you see again this concept of leading a quiet life.

And I'm going to read a little bit more from MacArthur on that. He says on verse two, specifically related to the idea of praying for kings and all who are in authority. He says, quote, because so many powerful and influential political rulers are hostile to God, they are often the targets of bitterness and animosity, but Paul urges believers to pray that these leaders might repent of their sins and embrace the gospel, which meant that the Ephesians were even to pray for the salvation of the Roman Emperor Nero, a cruel and vicious blasphemer and persecutor of the faith. And then he comments on that phrase, a quiet and peaceable life. He says, quiet refers to the absence of external disturbances. Peaceable refers to the absence of internal ones. While it remains uncompromising in its commitment to the truth, the church is not to agitate or disrupt the national life. When it manifests love and goodness to all and prays passionately for the lost, including rulers, the church may experience a certain amount of religious freedom. Persecution should only be the result of righteous living, not civil disobedience.

So, you know, again, it's a tough question to answer. Is there a place, an argument to be made biblically for civil disobedience? I think in certain cases there are. It might be a tough case to make. You might point to Moses when he lashes out against the slave master who is beating one of his fellow Israelites. Did he do right there? Did he do wrong there? That's a tough question to answer. He ended up killing the slave master and so he's essentially a murderer. But is that kind of action against unrighteous acts of government ever justified?

I don't know. It's a tough case to make, especially if you look at those New Testament passages where the argument seems to be that the best way to be an influence is to lead that quiet life. Whether you're within society, you are respected and you're not bringing shame or dishonor upon the brethren, upon Christians. And that's something that if you look at our political discourse right now, especially in the United States, the question I think can seriously be asked whether Christians or some Christians are leading a quiet life or bringing dishonor. Yeah, that is for sure.

I mean, if I was still LDS and I was seeing some of the things that I'm seeing on Christians' walls, like on Facebook and stuff, I would just be like, wow, they're crazy. I mean, there's a lot of people that are very, very vocal about politics and it's kind of one of those things where I'm like, I don't even know if I want to talk to anybody until after the election is over because everybody is so opinionated about things. But one thing that kind of jumps into my mind, too, is I think you kind of have to have some room for dissension because you look at our history and the United States wouldn't exist if there hadn't been some dissent to the British government. So, you know, otherwise you have to say that, you know, America did the wrong thing and we shouldn't have broken away, you know, if we're supposed to. I mean, isn't that correct? I mean, it was definitely a rebellion, you know, revolt, and we broke away and became our own country. Yeah. Yeah. Kind of what I was saying earlier, I think there are people that are honestly on both sides, I think that maybe it wasn't lawful for them to rebel.

So, and the series that I mentioned about Dr. Sproul, it's really interesting to listen to, so I'd recommend that. And he talks about how it's not, yeah, it's not a black and white issue. There's a big gray area, especially when we see, you know, our country's involvement with other countries. You know, was it right for us to go into Iraq and even Afghanistan or, you know, Vietnam? Is it right for us to really go to war with other countries for the reasons that we did? I think there can be a case made for lawful wars, but did these qualify?

You know, some people would differ on this opinion. And should we go to war to countries right now where people are being placed in camps today and being killed and being, you know, raped and taken advantage of and things like that in China? You have Muslims and Christians are being placed in camps and being trying to be re-educated to reject their gods and basically accept the state as their god.

You know, how should Christians in that country react and how should we as Christians in a free nation, how should we react towards that situation? You know, it's all very complicated. We also have an Outer Brightness group on Facebook where you can join and interact with us and others as we discuss the podcast, past episodes and suggestions for future episodes, etc. You can also send us an email at outerbrightness at gmail.com.

We hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to the Outer Brightness podcast on Apple Podcasts, Cast Box, Google Podcasts, Pocket Casts, Podbean, Spotify and Stitcher. Also, you can check out our new YouTube channel and if you like it, be sure to lay hands on that subscribe button and confirm it. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating and review wherever you listen and help spread the word. You can also connect with Michael the Ex-Mormon apologist at fromwater2wine.org where he blogs and sometimes Paul and Matthew do as well. Music for the Outer Brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Brianna Flournoy and by Adams Road.

Learn more about Adams Road by visiting their ministry page at adamsroadministry.com. Stay Bright, Flyer Flies! Take my yoke upon you and learn from me For I am gentle and I'm holy in heart And you will find rest for your soul For my yoke is easy and my burden is light I am the way and the truth And if you love me, I'll keep my word, I'll make my hope in you No one comes to the Father but through me There's nothing and no one else to believe I stand at the door you're hiding behind Can you hear me? I'm knocking, won't you wrap me inside? And you will find rest for your soul For my yoke is easy and my burden is light I am the way and the truth And if you love me, I'll keep my word, I'll make my hope in you Give my life to set you free And now I live so that you will be a life in me And you will find rest for your soul For my yoke is easy and my burden is light I am the way and the truth And if you love me, I'll keep my word, I'll make my hope in you And you will find rest for your soul For my yoke is easy and my burden is light I am the way and the truth And if you love me, I'll keep my word, I'll make my hope in you I'll make my hope in you