Life with people is always a bit weird; we’re often selfish, crotchety, moody and ungrateful.  Yet we’re also sometimes kind and giving and thoughtful and even fun.  Aah…the people we get to do life with.  Sometimes we think about some of our family and friends, when they’ve done something particularly crazy, and ask “what were you thinking?”  And the answer almost is, “seemed like a good idea at the time.”  I don’t know of anyone that doesn’t have someone in their near family relationships that has made some life choices that have been the source of pain to themselves as well as the broader family unit.  And in varying ways, we all have encouraged, cajoled, admonished (and more) to try to shake them free from whatever stupidity that they insist on doing to their (and other’s) harm.  Sometimes that intervention might be pretty firm, and the individual may not take it well, and the relationship is totally fractured.  Sometimes years will go by as people will not speak to one another.  There are obviously many ways that all this plays out, and it is clouded by the sinful nature of all involved.  Yet most interventions are grounded in love, as those intervening see the destructive path that the other is on, and are willing, often reluctantly, to take on that tough conversation that they know will not be received well.  To do nothing, or worse, to encourage them to keep going down that path, would be the most unloving thing they could do.

So it is with the proclamation of truth and the exclusivity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  We are called to tell the world that there is a savior, who can save them from their sin, if they will repent and believe.  But…what sin?  Why do I need a savior?  And that is where the modern culture is, and that is where every culture always has been.  The core Christian message—that we are fallen, broken creatures that cannot be made whole without the grace of a sovereign loving God who paid the price for our sin on the cross—is and always has been and always will be offensive.  And the message of the preceding posts is that humanity will either be a child of God or they will be a child of wrath.  One of the biggest lies that circulates around even Christian circles is that “we’re all God’s children.”  That is clearly unbiblical and counter to the gospel.  We are all created in God’s image, and have dignity due to that, but it is only by his grace that we can be adopted into his family.  Otherwise we remain under His wrath. Yet we cannot miss that we are all image-bearers, and are due respect and dignity because of that.  So how do we deal with people that differ from us?  How do we engage in the hateful toxic environment that is our current time?  My reason for writing this series is to add to what Dr. Smith had earlier.  I do not think he is at all wrong; I just think that in some ways his discussion was incomplete.  A realization that we do have enemies, that there are evil people who intend to harm others*, and that sometimes these differences are simply irreconcilable, leads us to perhaps a different application of his general conclusion.  He is absolutely right that we must love our enemies.  But I say that love looks different depending on the circumstances, and indeed, can sometimes feel to those receiving it as not loving at all. 

I was privileged to speak in Cedarville’s chapel a few years ago, and I’d like to summarize and link to that chapel here, as in it I had the time to flesh out more adequately this argument; if you haven’t seen that I encourage you to do so.  But here is the summary.  I argue that we treat people differently according to whether they fall into the biblical categories of sheep, shepherd, goat or wolf.  A sheep is a believer who needs to be shepherded and guarded well, which includes helping them grow in biblical wisdom.  If a sheep is walking in error, one is much gentler than with others.  This might be illustrated by Priscilla and Aquila pulling Apollos aside to “more adequately” instruct him in the way of God. A goat is similar in the level of knowledge and error but is an unbeliever.  A goat may think he or she is actually a sheep, and for our purposes, we generally treat them the same—trying to communicate the truth to them, especially when it will be often hard to discern between sheep and goats.  And even if they are a goat, we hope to help them become sheep.  A shepherd is a servant of God, and there is a much higher standard for someone in that capacity.  If they are in error they have the potential to do much harm, so the response is much more forceful when they deviate from God’s will.  “Get behind me Satan” probably didn’t feel very loving to Peter, but it was the most loving thing that Jesus could do at that moment.  Finally there are wolves that seek to destroy the church and they attack the truth of God.  For a wolf, there is no possibility of dialogue—they must be confronted and fought off or they will destroy the sheep.  And there are wolves both within and without the church.

I think that this model of Shepherd, Sheep, Goats and Wolves is good, but as I’ve thought about it I think it likewise needs expansion. The time of engagement is also part of the story, especially as it will take a longer time to know if you’re dealing with a goat, a sheep, or a wolf. And as in most things, as a person insists on staying in error, the nature of interaction will get much firmer. Related to the timing issue is also the context of how we relate to that person. So, for example, I’ve argued that it is not biblical thinking to support abortion, or income redistribution. But if I meet someone on the street, or most any situation, to include church, I almost never get to this issue–the context will determine whether an issue is appropriate to be raised. But on a blog devoted to helping Christians think more biblically about issues in our political economy, I’m going to get right into it. There is a reason our tagline is:

Engaging today’s political economy with truth and reason

Someone coming to this venue should understand and expect that we’re making claims about the application of biblical truth to these issues. And if they disagree with our interpretation, we will say that they are wrong until they show us biblically why we are wrong. So as an example, I’m going to side with Jeff Adams over Daniel in Mr. Adam’s interpretation of me in a previous post in this series:

Jeff Haymond is putting the stand of “thinking biblically” on his own political position regarding the modern welfare state and minimum wage. If one disagrees with him, the implication is that one is NOT “thinking biblically.”

Mr. Adams is right (at least the second sentence); I do argue that people that disagree with my interpretation on this are not thinking biblically about the issue. But notice what I’m not saying. I’m not necessarily saying they aren’t Christians, or that they aren’t even good Christians. What I am saying is that if they study and apply God’s word more fully to the issue, they are likely to come to a conclusion that looks much more like mine. And I’m also arguing that when the policies that I’m against are enacted (often with support of well-meaning Christians) it will cause harm that they do not intend. Now I have said here (and many, many times on this blog) that Christians are free to disagree with me, but they should develop a biblical way to come to a different conclusion. If they can’t, it may be that they are just unwilling to allow biblical authority over that area of life.

Two other areas of my message that are appropriate to emphasize. Many of my Christian readers may agree 100% with what I’m saying vis a vis clear salvation issues, but they are much more reluctant to follow me to apply this same level of thinking about economics, politics, science, etc. I want to first encourage them that this is very healthy to be cautious. As our critic Mr. Adams notes, there is often precious little explicitly written on many of the subjects we discuss. Yet I argue that the Bible provides principles that guide us, so I join Abraham Kuyper in his famous quotation, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” Further, I acknowledge that to the extent political economy issues are not explicit, we give a lot more grace to people that disagree with us. But that doesn’t mean we don’t challenge their thinking. The grace that we give people is also coupled by the urgency of the error and whether they are the wolves championing this error. Embracing forced collectivism, for example, is such a catastrophic error that it ought to be vigorously contested and and condemned as intellectual sloth. For those professing Christians who are outspoken champions of intellectual error, then we will be more forceful than with those who simply don’t understand and may embrace a particular position.

One of Edmond Burke’s famous statements was “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” At BATG, we will continue to do our very small part of shining light on the error of unbiblical thinking in the world of political economy.

 * Whether they realize what they are doing is harmful or not is irrelevant.