How Far Should Christians Go in Obeying the Government?

How Far Should Christians Go in Obeying the Government?

Posted by Clark Bates April 28, 2016

       In Romans 13 we read this, “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.”¹ Often this passage accompanies a message of submission to the government, and rightly so; but how far is this command meant to extend? Are believers to be expected to submit to Sharia law in the Middle East? Were they meant to kneel before the Nazi regime's command to reveal all Jews hiding among them? Did not even the Hebrew midwives violate this command under Pharaoh in Exodus?

      To ask this question closer to home, are believers being called to cease from protesting the increased laws denying them religious freedom for the sake of homosexual civil rights? For Christians, standing before God with a right conscience is paramount, and we should all seek to live in accordance to His will. Given the tumultuous political and legal climate of the day, I'd like to seek a solution to this text regarding “subjection to ruling authorities.” While there may not exist a clear command for each instance, what follows is an attempt to see the Word of God and the writings of the apostle Paul in a clear fashion, so that Christians might understand what is expected of them.

Romans 13:1-7

 

      While it has been argued that the “authorities” that Paul speaks of in chapter 13 are spiritual powers, similar to those mentioned by the apostle in Ephesians 6:12, the use of the Greek word exousia (authority) in verses 1 and 2 synonymously with archontes (ruler) in verse 3 clearly demonstrates that Paul is speaking of earthly, human rulers.^{2 3} This being the case, the next word in need of definition in 13:1 is “submit” or to “be in subject to” as the ESV translates it. As is commonly the case, the use of hypotassso (be in subjection to) in the New Testament indicates a position of hierarchical status in which one is to be “under” another.⁴

      In the context, Paul is commanding Christians to recognize that they stand under the authority of human rulers, be it, Caesar, King, Pharaoh, or President. Paul's reasoning for this command is found in verses 1, 2 and 4. No authority has been put in place outside of that which God has placed there. Because of this, to disobey the government is to disobey God. Romans 13:1-7 serves a twofold purpose: to remind believers that the Christ-like character being produced within them should be manifestly evident, preventing them from needing to fear the government and producing the benefit of a clear conscience (v.3-5); and to provide instruction regarding the paying of taxes to the authorities, amplifying the words of Jesus (Matthew 22:15-22) and likely a contentious subject matter for the Roman congregation.

 

What About....

       How can Paul make such a statement given the numerous wicked kingdoms and rulers that have arisen throughout history? Even the history of the apostles' own people, the Jews, is replete with wicked rulers and the devastation they had caused. Worse still, Paul is commanding subjection to the Roman church under Nero Caesar, the man who would have them burned and eventually execute Paul himself! Such an order seems ridiculous even to the ears of Westerners who serve under relatively mild governmental restrictions, let alone to those who serve under murderous despots.

       The very offense we may feel at the concept of Paul's command, in light of evil and corrupt regimes throughout the world and the apostle's own personal experience, should serve as an indicator that Romans 13 cannot stand without exception. Historically, this passage has never been accepted to mean so causing scholars like Thomas Schreiner to write, “This text is misunderstood if it is taken out of context and used as an absolute word so that Christians uncritically comply with the state no matter what is being demanded,” rather, “What we have here is a general exhortation that delineates what is usually the case: people should normally obey ruling authorities .”^{5 6}

 

      The apostle, knowing his own people's history, was in no way so naive as to think that there would be no Adolf Hitler's or Joseph Stalin's in the world. The teaching he affirms in Romans 13 is merely a reinforcement of that under which he was raised, that God raises up and casts down human rulers for His own purposes.⁷ What's more, as stated above, the apostle is expounding upon the teachings of his lord and master. However, in Romans 13 and all other writings of Paul regarding subjection, the One who all must be subject to is God. According to Douglas Moo, “What that means is that we must always submit to those over us in light of our ultimate submission to God.”⁸ This teaching is evidenced both in the actions of the other apostles, Paul himself and those that followed after.⁹

 

      Having the context of both the writings of Paul and the actions of the apostles, believers might legitimately infer that it is lawful in God's sight to disobey ruling powers when they fail to carry out the divine mandate toward good and evil. If a government is seeking to force actions upon a populace that directly or overtly opposes the clear teaching of God's Word, Christians would be right before the Lord in resisting such regulations. That being said, how does that appear in reality? Extreme examples are obvious in the modern age. For example, Christians should not be expected, on the basis of Romans 13, to submit to Islamic laws that might require them to proclaim Allah as the one true God and Mohamed as his prophet. Another example may be found in the case of a communist regimes forced abortion policy, or the actions of those like Anne Frank or Corrie Ten Boom in hiding Jews marked for extermination.

Conclusion

 

      In America, we do not have quite the black or white circumstances as are seen in other parts of the globe. Because of this, the application of biblical example becomes, shall we say, “muddy”. In the past, biblical convictions led to the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr. and Andrew Young. It was biblical conviction that motivated William Wilberforce to seek the end of slavery in England and Dietrich Bonhoeffer to seek Hitler's destruction. Currently, the West has experienced such disobedience in light of laws governing religious freedoms and homosexuality. Tension is mounting regarding similar transgender laws, and even farther back Christians of various denominations have felt it their Christian conviction to oppose legal matters such as the death penalty, immigration laws, and the legalization of various forms of narcotics. In these matters there are very few clear answers as to which form of disobedience is God-honoring and which is self-righteous.

 

      The culture will always stand in opposition to the ways and teachings of Christ. At no time should a believer expect to be accepted on the basis of their beliefs. What must remain in the forefront of Christians in light of civil engagement and possible disobedience is the manner in which engagement is made and the reason for which it is applied. While it may not be received as such, above all else a Christian is called to love their enemy and honor God. If this has been achieved, they may be able to stand, in the words of Paul, in good conscience before God.

 

1Romans 13:1 (ESV)

2Ephesians 6:12 - “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (ESV)

3Karl Barth argued in his Epistle to the Romans that these rulers were spiritual beings controlling earthly governments. This argument was later picked up by Oscar Cullmann in his The State in the New Testament (Harper & Row, 1956) in which he argued that, according to Paul in Romans, believers should only obey human governments insofar as they are obeying their spiritual counterparts in following Christ. Such an interpretation has been all but wholly rejected in modern scholarship, however.

4i.e. wives to husbands (Eph. 5:24; Col. 3:18); slaves to masters (Ti. 2:9, Eph. 6:%); prophets to other prophets (1 Cor. 14:32); Christians to spiritual leaders (1 Cor. 6:16); and Christians to one another (Eph. 5:21)/

5Thomas R. Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament: Romans, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 687.

6For a summary of the historical interpretation see, Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, teilband 3: Rom 12-16, (1982).

7Dn. 4:17, 25, 32; 2 Sm. 12:8; Jer. 27:5-6; Prv. 8:15-16; Is. 41:2-4; 45:1-7.

8Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 186.

9In the case of Peter and the others, Acts 5:20-29; in the case of Paul, Acts 16:35-37; in the case of those who came after, most notably is The Martyrdom of Polycarp 10.1-2.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit often gets misunderstood in Christian circles and becomes a catch-all sin for the woefully lost.  In this short video I examine what the Scripture actually says about this sin and how it applies to believers today.

Can a Christian Become Demon Possessed?

We often hear of believers who have been possessed by demons.  Such discussion makes for excellent coffee table discourse, but is such a belief biblical?  In this video I seek to respond to this question in light of what the Bible tells us of salvation.

Nature of God: God is Truth

What does it mean to say that God is the source of truth?  This is the Latest lecture in our Nature of God series.

Did the Bible Get it Wrong on Slavery?

 

 

 

Did the Bible Get it Wrong on Slavery?

Posted by Clark Bates

April 7, 2016

 

 

Introduction

 

      Commentator Dan Savage uses this quick statement to attempt to discredit the Bible's position on homosexuality. He is well known in the arena of homosexual activism and is often vitriolic against those of faith. Evidences of his frequently offensive positions can be found here and here. The approach he is attempting to make in this sound byte is a type of redirection. His particular interest is to prove the Bible to be antiquated on its perspective of homosexuals, but rather than address that issue directly, he points out an apparent moral failing on the part of the New Testament regarding a universally despised practice, slavery. 

      It should be stated immediately that this kind of reasoning engages in faulty logic. Given that there is no connection between the practice of slavery and the practice of homosexuality, a person being wrong about the former issue does not necessarily make them wrong about the latter. If Dan Savage were to address the issues objectively, it would require studying each position individually, rather than collectively. That being said, this is still a very effective communication tactic, for it plays on the emotions of the populace and draws a comparison, regardless of how faulty. Just as Dan reasons, if the Bible approved of slavery, which we all know to be abhorrent, how could we possibly listen to what it says on other social issues?

      So, rather than address the real point Savage is attempting to make (I will likely do that in a few weeks), let's examine the question, “Did the Bible get it wrong about slavery?” After all, if, by Savage's reasoning, the Bible was in fact correct on its position regarding slavery, it would follow that we must reconsider its position on homosexuality. Savage singles out the New Testament book of Philemon, written ostensibly by the apostle Paul, as his proof text, so it is there that I will place my defense, but before opening that particular letter, context is needed regarding the type of slavery which Paul, and other New Testament authors, were familiar with.

Greco-Roman Slavery in the First Century

     

As I said above, given that the direct quote upon which this article is based, addresses the New Testament book of Philemon, it would be best to examine Greco-Roman slavery rather than the entirety of biblical slavery. Much has been said against the Old Testament's depiction of slavery as well, which author Paul Copan has ably discussed here and here and therefore is not pertinent to this discussion. It's not surprising that modern readers bristle at the word “slave”, especially in light of the biblical context which neither seems to condemn the practice nor overtly promote it. Given this country's (and Europe's) experiences with chattel slavery of the past, it would seem nothing less than a complete moral failure to not stand up as William Wilberforce did and proclaim that God Almighty has set before us the suppression of the slave trade!¹ While this sort of visceral response is understandable, it errs in one major point: it assumes that the twentieth century concept of slavery is equivalent to that of the Greco-Roman era.

 

      To begin with, Greco-Roman slavery was never based on race or nationality as it was in the recent West. In the ancient world there were many types of slavery. There is good evidence that much of it was brutal and harsh, but equally there is evidence that many slaves were treated well, with normal lives, even paid a going wage. Prisoners of war often became slaves, as did those in debt. It was not uncommon for criminals to be sentenced to a period of slavery as well, and to much surprise, slaves could own slaves. Many slaves were doctors, professors, administrators and civil servants. According to Andrew Lincoln, “No one in ancient times could conceive of an economic or labor structure without it. While there were brutal forms of slavery, the concept—indentured labor in which the laborer was not free to market his skills to other employers—was considered a given. . . this was so accepted one cannot correctly speak of the slave ‘problem’ in antiquity.² In other words, no one, not even slaves, thought slavery should be abolished.

 

      This mindset pervaded the Greco-Roman culture long before the time of the apostle Paul. In the days of Aristotle (384-323 B.C.E.) the question of slavery was often posed and unequivocally seen as just. According to the great philosopher, slaves were those who, “are incapable of fully governing their own lives, and requiring other people to tell them what to do. Such people should be set to labor by the people who have the ability to reason fully and order their own lives. Labor is their proper use.”³ Aristotle referred to slaves often as “living tools” stating that, “those human beings who are naturally suited to be ruled but [are] unwilling…[is] by nature just.”⁴ Virtually every ancient Mediterranean culture had some form of the institution of slavery. Slaves were usually of two kinds: either they had at one point been defeated in war, and the fact that they had been defeated meant that they were inferior and meant to serve, or else they were the children of slaves, in which case their inferiority was clear from their inferior parentage. What is more, the economies of the Greek city-states rested on slavery, and without slaves to do the productive labor, there could be no leisure for men to engage in more intellectual lifestyles. The greatness of Athenian plays, architecture, sculpture, and philosophy could not have been achieved without the institution of slavery. Therefore, as a practical matter, regardless of the arguments for or against it, slavery was not going to be abolished in the Greek world.

 

      This is not meant to defend the institution of slavery, but only to reveal the obvious differences in practice with the modern conception of slavery and demonstrate the deeply ingrained, economic nature of the practice. Therefore, for a reader to dismiss what they perceive to be a moral failing on the part of the biblical authors, is to not account for the world in which the text was written. As will be developed further, it would not have been possible for Paul to simply denounce slavery and see any progress, nor, in the case of Philemon, would a freed slave have been seen as anything differently, given the Greco-Roman culture and its perception of those in servitude.

Pauline Thought on Slavery

 

      Given that brief background, we are better equipped to address Dan Savage's point, “Did The Bible (i.e. Paul in this case) get it wrong on slavery?” The New Testament presupposes the fundamental equality of man. In spite of the cultural norms in which it was written, regarding social status or even gender roles, being “in Christ” was to be equal in all respects. As Paul most famously stated in Gal. 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female – for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In place of the dualities and conflicts that mark human society in general, Paul asserts that Christians, not merely the Galatians, are one in Christ Jesus. This is the recognition of an equality that transcends beyond, but co-habitates with, social structures. According to Moo, “For all [Paul's] insistence that Jews and Gentiles are on equal footing before God in the new era of salvation, he also allows them to work out their relationship to Christ in terms distinctive to their particular backgrounds. And while setting in place principles that undercut the institution of slavery, the continuing social reality of slaves is also recognized.”⁵

 

      When writing to the Ephesian church on the subject of Christian living, again we read of Paul's encouragement both for slaves to submit to their masters, but also (and more strikingly) that masters submit to their slaves (Eph. 6:5-9). Here again, we often find the opposition cry that Paul does not denounce slavery, yet it does not take into account the effect such lifestyle change, were it practiced, would have on the institution as a whole. “There is no explicit criticism of slavery here, but the level of mutuality and reciprocity that is assumed to exist between master and slave creates an atmosphere in which it would have been difficult for slavery to survive if the advice of the passage had been rigorously followed.”⁶ It is evidenced in other writings of Paul and even Peter that when this attitude of service, instituted by Jesus (John 13:1-17), is practiced, socially divisive mores begin to fail. As Paul Copan notes,

"Given the spiritual equality of slave and free, slaves even took on leadership positions in churches. . . . Some of these people had commonly used slave and freedman names. For example, in Romans 16:7,9, he refers to slaves such as Andronicus and Urbanus (common slave names) as 'kinsman,' 'fellow prisoner,' and 'fellow worker' (NASB). The New Testament’s approach to slavery is contrary to aristocrats and philosophers such as Aristotle, who held that certain humans were slaves by nature."⁷

      For Paul to seek to overturn the institution of Greco-Roman slavery with bold proclamations in his letters, would do a disservice to the gospel, damage the young church and ultimately prove ineffective. As N.T. Wright also says, “It would have done more harm than good, making life harder for Christian slaves, and drawing upon the young church exactly the wrong sort of attention from authorities.”⁸

Paul in Philemon

      While the letter to Philemon is in no ways a theological treatise, the nature of equality found in Christ that permeates the apostle's other writings is obviously the foundation upon which he makes his appeals. Todd Still notes, “In the course of twenty-five verses, Paul makes reference to Christ (or titles akin thereunto) no less than eleven times (“Christ” [w. 6, 8, 20], “Lord” [w. 16, 20], “Christ Jesus” [w. I, 9, ملو 2 “Jesus Christ” [v. 3], “Lord Jesus” [٧٠ 6], “Lord Jesus Christ” [v. 25]).”⁹ Paul is obviously appealing to the teaching of Jesus found in John and expounded upon within his other writings. Petronius, a Roman contemporary of Paul, once wrote “plane qualis dominus, talis et servus” which could be translated colloquially as 'like master, like slave' (Sat 58). In the letter to Philemon, the apostle, a self professed slave of Christ, is acting as his Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and encouraging both Onessimus and Philemon to do the same.

       Prevalent throughout this writing is Paul's filial tone. Both Philemon and Onessimus are his brothers (7, 15). Onessimus is his “child” (10), and he is like a father (11). Paul is within his rights as an apostle to direct or command Philemon to act in a certain matter, but given the nature of christological equality he has expressed prior, the apostle seeks to persuade through their shared love of Christ. It has been argued that Paul should still have encouraged Philemon to free Onessimus. To merely give him back as a slave was ethically lacking and morally offensive. The difficulties and ultimate futility of such an action in first century Rome has already been discussed, but a bit more needs to be said regarding Philemon and Onessimus specifically. The term often applied to slave owners freeing their slaves was “manumission”, which directly means to release from the hand. This practice was often done ceremoniously and, while the slave was now free, his owner became his patron and all submission and service to the owner still remained.

      The closest parallel in secular writing to the letter to Philemon is Pliny the Younger's Letter to Sabinianus, in which a freed slave has fled from his master, having offended him and seeks the intercession of the Younger. Commenting on this parallel account, Craig DeVos writes, “Manumission in and of itself did not fundamentally change the position of Sabinianus's freed slave. Offending his former master still filled him with dread, as it would have done when he was a slave. And, by implication, he was still subject to punishment and retribution, such that he sought out a mediator to intercede for him. He was still subject to punishment and behaved like a slave would have.”¹⁰ Given the parallel nature of this document to that of Philemon, it stands that Onessimus' circumstances, were he in fact a runaway slave, would not have diminished on the basis of a mere call for manumission from Paul.

      Paul's call to Philemon is to treat Onessimus as a fellow believer, a brother in Christ. This is a call for heart change on Philemon's part. Again, DeVos writes.

      "Rather than expecting Philemon to manumit Onesimus, he expected there to be a fundamental change in the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus, such that the master would treat his slave no longer as a slave, but as a brother or even an honoured guest. Therefore, in expecting a fundamental change in perception and relationship, Paul was actually asking for something far more radical than manumission. What he expected effectively undermined the collectivist, authoritarian and patriarchal values of Graeco-Roman society."¹¹

 

      When modern critics decry Paul for his unwillingness to denounce slavery they overlook, or are ignorant of, the more deeply profound call the apostle is making. Paul does not call for the disillusion of an entrenched institution but the realization of a kingdom-focused lifestyle that would disrupt the societal landscape to such an extreme that the institution of slavery could do nothing but wilt and die.

Conclusion

 

      At no point in this article have I sought to defend the institution of slavery. As Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles taught, in Christ there is no hierarchy of individual, and outside of Christ all are made in the image of God. The owning of another human being is an attack on human dignity and consequently an attack on God. It is no mystery nor secret that Christians like William Wilberforce and the Quaker-led Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade were paramount in bringing an end to western, chattel-style slavery in Europe. Similarly, Theodore Wright and the Presbyterian-led American Anti-Slavery Society brought the end of slavery in the United States. One must ask the question, “If the Bible got it wrong in regards to slavery, yet it was devout men and women of the Christian faith that brought the practice to an end; how did they come to believe it was wrong?” The answer is that they found the very foundation of human dignity within the pages of that sacred text and could no longer stand idly by as it continued. 

 

      The Bible did not get it wrong on slavery. Rather, the Word of God saw beyond the mere need for political change and sought to change society in a more permanent way, through the hearts and minds of men. Lasting change comes from a change of worldview, not a change in policy. Given this, perhaps it would behoove Mr. Savage to re-examine why the bible states what it does, regarding slavery or homosexuality, but even if he does not, Christians may retain confidence in the power of Scripture to change the world.

 

1This is a loose paraphrase of Wilberforce's original quote, “God Almighty has set before me two Great Objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners.” which can be found in his book Real Christianity.

2Andrew T. Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, (Word: 1990), 415-420.

3Aristotle, Politics, http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/#SH7d, (viewed April 6, 2016).

4Ibid.

5Douglas Moo, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament: Galatians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 255. Other Pauline verses addressing this issue are 1 Cor. 7:17-24; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; and Titus 2:9-10.

6Frank Thielman, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament: Ephesians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 404.

7Paul Copan, “Why is the New Testament Silent on Slavery, - or is it?,” Enrichment Journal, http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201104/201104_108_NT_slavery.cfm, (viewed April 6, 2016).

8N.T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 169.

9Todd D. Still, “Pauline Theology and Ancient Slavery: Does the Former Support or Subvert the Latter?,” Horizons in Biblical Theology, 27 no.2, (Dec 2005), 25.

10Craig Steven DeVos, “Once a Slave, Always a Slave?:Slavery, Manumission and Relational Patterns in Paul's Letter to Philemon,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 82, (Jun 2001), 105.

11DeVos, JSNT, 104.

Book Review: "When You, Then God" by Rusty George

George, Rusty. When You, Then God:7 Things God is Waiting to do in Your Life. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Momentum, 2016.

      Rusty George has served as lead pastor of Real Life Church in Valencia, California for approximately thirteen years. Being a friend and understudy of Kyle Idleman, he takes a youthful approach to ministry and seeks to develop new ways in which to communicate God's Word to the coming generations. His first book, When You, Then God, is evidence of his desire to deliver lessons from the Bible in an energetic, fresh and easy to retain manner. Drawing upon the multiple “If, Then” passages of Scripture, George appropriates them into his “When, Then” philosophy.¹ The key purpose of the authors approach is to demonstrate a valuable and more beneficial means by which a believer may walk in faith, see God's hand in their life and not feel overwhelmed by regulations or self effort.

      Pastor and Author, Rusty George seeks to relay 7 lessons that he has learned through careful study of Scripture and more than a decade of pastoral ministry. Having served as senior pastor of a church that has grown from several hundred members to several thousand in that time, his recommendations have a type of inherent weight. In outlining his work, the author first identifies two categories of Christian believer that he feels most encapsulate the modern church; the “Thou Shalts” and the “Never Minds”.² Those who fall into the former category feel that the Christian life is nothing more than a series of rules and regulations. Often they feel overburdened by the weight of keeping the laws. “The problem with seeing God's words as a series of Thou Shalt commands is that we find it nearly impossible to believe that God's love could be anything other than conditional.”³ Those that meet the description of the latter category find the Bible to be mostly outdated and obsolete with laws that no longer apply. According to the author, “When all of God's Word becomes 'Never Minds,' obedience becomes optional and blessings are viewed as unconditional.”⁴ As a remedy, George offers a third option, his “When, Then” system of faith. By acknowledging that they are in partnership with a loving God, the author believes Christians will be able to identify there portion of this partnership and need only live accordingly to see divine work in their lives.

 

      What follows from this thesis are seven chapters, covering seven “When, Then” truths of Scripture. Covering aspects of trust, walk, investing, hope, kindness and others, George sees each principle as revealed truth for the believer's maturation in the faith and effectiveness for the kingdom. The author's noticeable awareness of much that plagues the 21^st century Christian echoes throughout each chapter. When discussing resting in God in accord with releasing anxiety, the author acknowledges the struggle many feel from trying to “be Christian.” As he writes, “God is not interested in having us follow rules for their own sake. He wants us to know him, love him, and live accordingly.”⁵ It is only when a believer relaxes and trusts in God that they will be able to accomplish what He has placed them on earth to do. 

 

      When writing of the hope that God gives to Christians, George aptly states, “We live life moving forward, but often we see God's hand by looking back.”⁶ The life of a Christian is often one in which reflection causes them to see God's handiwork more clearly. What the author seeks to encourage in his readers is that such reflection should not only demonstrate God's action but lead toward future hope in what God will do. Rather than live in fear each day and worry what God's will may be, the very fact that God's movement in a believer's life can be reflected upon serves as evidence that He can be trusted in the present and future. Communicating these and other truths, George effectively works in various life experiences that cement them into the reader's mind. Borrowing from the actions of Jesus, the author understands that a story relays a message much more effectively than a mere lecture. Closing the book with a brief discourse on a life in partnership with God, George re-iterates his desire that more believers will live in close and constant contact with God so that they may be more effective in His kingdom.⁷

      Upon reflection of this work several points must be noted. It has become a common theme among the new, young American pastors like Kyle Idleman and Rusty George to seek a new approach to the biblical message. It is not that they seek to change the message, but that they seem to feel that it must be presented in modern concepts to be palatable. While there is a sense in which the gospel is applicable to all generations and should be relayed within a context that is accessible to its audience, the question has to be asked if the categories of believer presented by George are really that simple? 

      The author categorizes believers into “Thou Shalts” and “Never Minds”, both with negative connotations for the purpose of proposing his alternative “When, Then” philosophy as the better alternative. However, it cannot be denied that there are clear “Thou Shalt” commands in Scripture. God has decreed in the past to the Jews and to present believers a certain lifestyle that is in accord to His holy nature. The fact that believers may misunderstand these passages or misappropriate them in their lives does not invalidate the commands. In the same way, the “Never Minds” are also an exaggeration. There is legitimate areas of Scripture that address a specific place and time context in which the point is not applicable to the modern, western Christian.⁸ What does remain, in these instances, is the principle of the command. Without acknowledging these nuances the author oversimplifies the circumstances.

      Secondly, the author illustrates his “When, Then” approach through seven chapters in which he seeks to oppose a “Thou Shalt” legalism, but does not seem to recognize that his “When, Then” list is still a form of “Thou Shalt.” By saying that When you abide in God's Word, Then you will be available to be used, the author is also saying Thou shalt abide if you want to be used by God. While the author's “When, Then” approach finds its strongest footing in Old Testament comparisons, George's attempt to apply it to the teachings of Jesus, particularly the Sermon on the mount, is far too strained. George does seek to defend his partnership approach to the Christian life as opposed to prosperity gospel, and there is no indication that they are similar, but it also must be acknowledged that while God has chosen to use believers as His means on earth, the partnership is no way equal. The author's approach to partnership with God tends to blur this line in many areas, leaving the reader to feel that if they act in these ways, God is obligated to respond in tandem. Such understanding is dangerous in that it forces God into a box and can set a believer up for failure.

 

      That being said, it is clear from the author's stories and life experiences that his heart is genuine. Rusty George seeks to save the lost and draw those who believe into a closer relationship with their Lord. These are commendable traits. His chapter on worry and hope are worth the entirety of the book and it is abundantly clear that his writing springs forth from personal experience. While it may be easy to criticize certain aspects of the approach, such criticism does not invalidate the entire work. This text serves invaluably as a resource for reflection and contemplation of the reader's on perceptions of God and the Christian life. It's vibrant call for partnership is encouraging and uplifting, and while it would benefit from careful discernment, it is not a concept that should be ignored.

 

      It is clear that the author sought to use this book as a small group study guide and this, in and of itself, is beneficial. Nothing will inspire the careful reflection encouraged by this review than utilizing the discussion questions at the end of this work. In doing this, the author opens his writing up to criticism as well as appropriation and this is commendable. Rusty George has offered a window into his soul and this is a brave thing to do. Much can be gleaned from his actions, his philosophy and his theology.

 

      There is nothing in this book that would cause it to stand out from those written by Francis Chan, Kyle Idleman or David Platt, but it does create an opportunity for readers to ask questions of their own faith. Too often, the modern, western believer is found floundering when faced with “why” they believe or “what” it means to be a Christian. Rusty George's writing takes direct aim at defining the Christian life and encouraging others to act on it. This work would be an excellent resource for small group study and pastoral candidates as well as devotional material for the lay person. It is an honest impression from a faithful pastor and should be received as such.

Clark Bates is a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and manages an apologetics and theology blog at http://www.exejesushermeneutics.blogspot.com.

I received this book free from W Publishing Group and Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookLookBloggers.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

1Gen. 4:7; Ex. 19:5; Deut. 4:25, 6:25, 7:12, 8:19; Is. 48:18 etc.

2Rusty George, When You, Then God, (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Momentum, 2016), 25-34.

3George, When You, 29.

4Ibid., 34.

5Ibid., 91.

6Ibid., 181.

7Ibid., 206-207.

81 Cor. 11; Ex. 23:19, etc.