The Signs of Our Time: Combatting the Issues

By J.J. Mireles

In my second book, I have chosen to examine many of our modern issues through a biblical lens, and present position statements related to that study. 

• Language: English
• Publisher: J.J. Mireles
• Release date: Nov 5, 2023
• ISBN: 9798223454212

J.J. Mireles

A native Texan turned Midwesterner, a healthcare worker, Soldier, husband, father, and constant sojourner.

Book preview

Section One: Introduction

Over the course of the last decade or so, there has been an ever-present change appearing on the national stage. Grievances that have been quietly nursed for an untold amount of time have begun to see the light of day. People who would have been kept silent by law began to step into the light and demand accommodation for lifestyles and behaviors that we know and understand to be immoral and inherently dangerous, not only because God declared such lifestyles an abomination, but because the data everyone is so carefully ignoring shows them to be a negative for the individual and society.

Much of the reason why these people were able to emerge from the darkness is that the followers of Christ, whose primary charge is sharing the Gospel with the world, have been lulled into complacency by certain elements within academia and the halls of power at all levels of government. One of those changes brought about by this subterfuge is the idea that government’s first job is to take care of the people, rather than take care to ensure the conditions necessary for the success of the people. This is a dangerous situation, and we seem to have missed all the signs.

I will grant, no one wants to think ill of their neighbors, and the people in Congress, the Oval Office, and on the Supreme Court count as our neighbors. We like to believe that they are somehow morally superior to the average human being because they occupy positions of trust. Certainly, the alternative is not an attractive one.

Where I take issue with this thought process is that it assumes facts about their humanity that are not in evidence. The Gospel teaches that all humans are broken, wretched, and sinful to the core. It teaches that we are all equally condemned before the Lord God and that He is our only chance for anything resembling redemption. The fact that this applies equally to our government officials should not come as a surprise to any of us, but I guarantee that it does to some.

Our nation, once the envy of the world, has begun a decline that we could still reverse with the right amount of repentance, reformation, and dedication to the principles that the founding fathers risked life and limb to preserve. All that we need to do is return to the two primary documents that ensure the strength and success of our nation: the Constitution, and the Bible. What needs to happen is that we need to collectively remember that we are a Christian nation, something I know to be a hard truth for many to swallow.

Like it or not, we live in a Christian nation. I know this will cause fear, confusion, and anger amongst some of you reading this, but it is the truth. No matter which way you look at it, this country was founded upon biblical principles. The founding fathers intended for this country to be governed by biblical principles. They also intended for this country to be populated by people operating under the same. What we will look at is an important distinction that I think gets lost in the debate over the role that religion plays in government, one that should help to shed light on this debate.

We will begin by defining a term that is essential to this topic,

Theocracy: A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

Anyone looking at that definition will understand what I mean when I say that these United States are not, and have never been, a theocracy. We have never been governed by priests operating in the Name of God. To my knowledge, few, if any, American Christians desires theocracy in this country. When we make the statement that America is a Christian nation, we are neither declaring theocracy, nor laboring for it. What we are declaring is that this is a nation governed by Christian principles laid out in the Bible.

This is what the founding fathers intended, a nation governed by people who live according to those principles, and this is evident in their writings. Had the men who formed this nation desired theocracy, it would look nothing like the system of government set forth by the founders. Theocracy looks nothing like a Constitutional Republic. It looks like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the newly reformed Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Those are modern examples of what opponents to this idea envision when they hear Christian nation, and this is the idea that needs to be dealt with.

The first point that needs to be made is intent. The intent of the founding fathers must be addressed when determining the roles that they intended for religion and government to play. While it is true that some of the founding fathers were deists[1], it is also true that most of them were Christians. The fact that some of them believed in an impersonal god who created the universe and then left it alone changes nothing with regards to the overall intent of the founding fathers, and this is an important consideration.

George Washington, well known to have been a Christian said the following at his farewell address in 1796,

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports....Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Pay close attention to the first and final sentences in the quote, because these are the words of the first President of these United States, and he states unequivocally that it is religion and morality that are indispensable. This brings up a historical note that many of you reading this may not know. When the word religion was used in those days, it carried a different connotation. Not a different meaning, but a different connotation. When the word was used in the singular and general, it was synonymous with Christianity. There is a phrase that was oft used in the South that has fallen out of use in recent times, and it is one that illustrates this point. Whenever people heard of something that they regarded as shocking, unseemly, abhorrent, or disturbing, they would say that they were losing their religion. The phrase typically meant that the person was about to lose their temper over an issue, which is important. Among other things, Christianity demands self-control from believers and losing control is seen as being unchristian.

George Washington also said, True religion affords to government its surest support. The origin of this sentiment can be found in Scripture, James 1:27,

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

The meaning behind this cannot be clearer. A true adherence to Christianity is what affords government its surest support, and that is a point we cannot ever allow to pass from our minds. It is done so through the free will, Spirit driven actions of the community of believers known collectively as The Church. The efforts of true Christians are what lead to prosperity for the people, good governance, and a true and indelible strength before the world. Adherence to Judeo-Christian values and principles are what are required for good governance, individual liberty, and prosperity for a nation. Sadly, we have turned away from this in recent times, all to our detriment.

Taking it a step farther, Washington also said,

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor."

He calls it the duty of ALL nations to acknowledge Almighty God. This does not sound like someone who disagreed with the idea of the US being a Christian nation, rather the opposite. He firmly believed that the US belongs to Almighty God.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made similar statements. He was quoted as saying,

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Can you imagine a Supreme Court justice making such a statement today? People would be up in arms, and that is the point. John Jay was not tossed out of the Supreme Court for making that statement! That no one ended his career by cancelling him speaks volumes to the intent of the founding fathers, and that is where we will go next. We will begin with the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. He said,

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.

The man who personally set into motion the events that led to the birth of our nation states that our rights and liberties as a nation are a gift from God! This speaks volumes to the thought process behind the Declaration of Independence, and through it our Constitution, and it was not what people have turned it into today! This is what he was thinking, this is what he believed, and this is where his mind was when he wrote the Declaration! We cannot miss this, and we cannot ignore this. It would be foolish to do so.

Looking at statements made by other founding fathers drives the point home. In addition to Thomas Jefferson, there is Benjamin Rush, who said,

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.

Loosely translated, the Constitution is not Scripture, but it is the next best thing, with its underlying principles being derived from the Bible and the teachings contained therein. This man was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the men who helped found our nation.

A signer of the Constitution, John Dickinson, said,

[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness... We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.

Our rights come from God. We do not derive them from any other source but God. As our rights came from Him, it behooves us to live according to the principles He laid out in His Word!

John Adams said,

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

If ever you were looking for a clear statement from one of the men who helped make this country, there it is. Not only was this country intended to be governed by Christian principles, but it was geared towards people who would implement the same in their daily lives. This is beyond essential when deciding where one stands on this issue, and it cannot be ignored.

John Quincy Adams said,

The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.

He also said,

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

The final quote comes from a Supreme Court case, Church of the Holy Trinity vs United States (1892),

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This is a Christian nation.

What does that look like? If a Christian nation is not a theocracy, then what does it look like? It looks like the Bill of Rights, which outlines the rights due to the people, reserved for the people, and held in trust by the government. It looks like a government that operates within the confines and constraints set forth in the articles, sections, subsections, and clauses of the Constitution while wisely preserving those rights held inviolate by the Bill of Rights. It looks like a population of people acting in accordance with their own whim and conscience, informed by the dictates of the Word of God while holding their elected officials accountable for the performance of their jobs and the decisions they make therein. That is what the founding fathers intended, and not what they ultimately got.

What we have now is a bloated, godless, behemoth of a tumor that intrudes on people’s lives and tramples on their rights. We have exactly what many of the founding fathers feared most because they recognized that government, being the necessary evil that it is, is the natural enemy of individual liberty. That is why they designed the Constitution the way they did, to ensure that our nation had the best chance at success as a Christian nation. Sadly, those safeguards can only function if the people of this nation use them and maintain them, and most people are too busy worrying about paying bills and misgendering people to look too closely at what is happening in all levels of government. This is to our collective detriment and is why I felt the need to clarify this point before moving on to this book and its purpose.

Unless our nation turns to God, broken and weeping over the ways we have strayed from His principles and His will, there is not a lot of hope for us. Unless we humble ourselves before the Lord who gave us life and blessed us by allowing us to exist in this great nation, we will find ourselves experiencing suffering that Western Christians have not experienced in centuries, if not millennia. This is the crossroads we find ourselves standing in, repentance or persecution. These are the only two roads that will bring us back to the Lord, and my most fervent prayer is that we repent as no nation has done before! If you were to ask me which road we will ultimately choose to go down, I would tell you that I cannot see into the future. However, if past behavior is in any way an accurate predictor of future behavior, and I do agree that it can be, then I think persecution will be the fire that refines the American Church and purges out all the impurities.

Not too long ago, I was watching a podcast by John Doyle (Heck Off Commie) on YouTube[2], and he made a statement that punched me in the gut. He said, A Christian population worthy to be martyred doesn't exist in America. Ouch. One of the common themes I have pushed in my writing is that we must be willing to lay down our lives for the Lord! The Lord Jesus commands it of us, and that statement shines a harsh light on the fact that we have continued to fall short! How heartbreaking is it to realize that we can be so complacent and lackadaisical about our religion that a strong, Christian young man can make such a statement and be greeted with, Ouch.? No denials, no argument, just, Ouch. My heart hit the floor when he uttered those words and I felt like crying. My heart breaks for my future grandchildren when I think of what may come, but I am also heartened by the thought that some of them may stand before their persecutors and boldly speak the Truth in love no matter what happens next! Iesous ho Kyrios! Jesus is Lord! As for the bulk of the American Church, I suspect that they will fold like lawn chairs at the first sign of real trouble, and their capitulation is what will most likely lead to the worst of the persecution. Embrace the suck, Christian Warriors, and pray and labor hard for repentance, revival, and reformation! That is how we will survive, by relying on the Lord, trusting in the Lord, and placing Him firmly in the forefront of ALL that we do, say, and think. It is the only way to preserve our Church and our nation from those who would destroy both! Not by compromise or capitulation, but by looking unto the Lord for strength!

Some of you may be wondering where the famous separation of Church and State fits into all of this. The short answer is theocracy. As theocracy was never the intent of the founding fathers, the separation of Church and State was meant to ensure that our government would never transition from a Constitutional Republic to a Theocracy by ensuring that the Church cannot supplant the State in its role of guaranteeing[3] the rights of the people and their free exercise therein. No part of that was meant to be used to drive God from the public square, especially considering that the First Amendment stipulates to the free exercise of religion in the public square, and the misuse of this idea is what resides at the heart of our sociopolitical problems as we have turned away from God, forgotten where His place is in our lives and our nation, and now live ungodly and rebellious lives spitting in His face.

I will finish with this. I know that some of you reading this may be asking questions such as, What does this have to do with current events, modern political problems, and the like? The answer is very simple. For us to speak out against the sins of current events, we must first understand how and why we are required to speak out. When you go to stand on a street corner, in a pulpit, on a stage, or in front of a camera, you need to know how and why it is that you are justified in speaking your mind and sharing the truth of God’s Law and commands. The whole intent and purpose to this book is to bring you to the point where you can give a well-reasoned, logical answer to some of our most pressing issues from a solidly grounded biblical perspective. People need to know where God stands on these issues, and the answer to that question can be found in one place: the Bible.

Chapter One: Christian Civil Disobedience

Before we begin, I want to take a moment and note that this topic has always been on my list of things to address. My reasoning is that it has always been an essential topic within Christendom, made especially more so by current events. Not only does this topic strike at the heart of the Christian response to the events of the last few years, but it also strikes directly at some rather heinous lies being told from many of the pulpits in churches throughout the Western World. For prime examples of this, look no further than the responses of Christians to COVID-19 lockdown measures and vaccine mandates in these United States and our neighbor to the North, Canada. If you needed more examples, the protests and demonstrations for and against continued lockdown measures and vaccine mandates taking place in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand would more than suffice. All over the world there are people standing up and resisting continued assaults on their human rights through the auspices of stopping the spread of COVID-19, and this brings the topic of Christian resistance to the forefront.

To say that our collective responses have been fractious would be a massive understatement. We have devolved into two camps, one side insisting that we must abide by the laws of the land because Scripture says that we should (Rom. 13:1-7), and others who insist to varying degrees that we are allowed to defy the laws of the land under certain very specific circumstances. With the arguments flying back and forth, it really is difficult to decide for oneself which side is correct. What we will do is examine the Scripture and see if we cannot arrive at a coherent position. Bear in mind, I have already made up my mind on this topic and I will not be hiding where I stand. I am firmly rooted in the camp that says that Scripture allows us to defy the laws of Men under specific circumstances. This will then be my argument for that position. As I embark on this, we will first examine the argument against my position. I am doing this to be fair to the opposition.

Opposition

According to those opposed to this viewpoint, Romans 13:1-7 strictly forbids any form of civil disobedience to the laws of the land. They apply a very strict interpretation to this passage that does not allow for any form of disagreement with a law once it has become codified. Here is the relevant passage,

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

According to our opposition, this passage stipulates that opposition to anything our government says or does constitutes sin against God, and we are commanded to refrain from anything that even hints at evil (1 Thess. 5:32). This passage does state clearly that all governments are ordained by God, and that resistance against them does count as resistance against God (verses 1-2). From this standpoint things are very clear. Their assertion that we should not resist our governments appears to be fully supported by Scripture, but is that really the case?

Surprisingly, I have interacted with people who have taken this argument to such an extreme that they have even insisted that these United States should not have existed because the founding fathers were in Sin when they resisted their treatment by the British and embarked on the Revolution. This passage is where they went to justify their argument. I wish I was kidding, but I had a conversation with someone who holds tightly to this position. Make no mistake, this is out there. People are making this argument, and we must be prepared to counter it.

Another aspect of this that we must consider is the societal context of the day. In the days of Jesus and His Apostles, their context was not democratic in any sense of the word. The reality of their world was one of Imperial Dictatorship, and this was the way they approached the world they lived in. There is a world of difference between an Imperial Dictatorship and a Democracy/Republic[4], and this is something that we must keep in the back of our minds as we examine the flip side of this coin. The concept of human rights we 21st century Westerners take for granted did not exist in the 1st century, and that is very relevant.

The Argument

My position begins with a phrase that I have occasionally used in my writing, Scripture interprets Scripture. The argument presented above is an example of what happens when one takes an incorrect exegetical approach to Scripture, and here is what I mean. According to their interpretation, Daniel, King David, Jesus, and the Apostles would all stand condemned for resisting their government’s commands. We will address all of this and more as we move along.

What does the phrase Scripture interprets Scripture mean? In the simplest terms, it means that our exegetical approach to interpreting a specific reference should begin with, What does the rest of Scripture say on this topic? The beauty of our modern translations of the Bible is that they oftentimes come with cross-references, dictionaries, and extensive topical reference lists that allow a person to compile a list of references related to specific topics. For example, if you wanted to see all the references related to adultery, you would look up the word in the reference and it would provide you with a list. You can then go to each reference in the list and come up with a very clear picture of what Scripture says about the topic of adultery.

Another valuable resource is concordance. These are highly detailed books that present you with the words in the Bible in their original languages, along with conceptual summaries of their meanings, alternate translations, and even lists of Scriptural references where these words are used. They allow you to come to a complete understanding of specific words which is essential to expositing the overall meaning of verses, passages, and chapters. The one I prefer is Strong’s Concordance, but it is not the only one you can make use of. I encourage you to carefully examine the different concordances you can find and determine for yourself which one is preferable. Bear in mind that you do not have to limit yourself to just one, either. The more the merrier.

There are other resources that are very beneficial to determining what Scripture says on a particular topic. I have found Bible Hub to be a very valuable tool. Their website and app are both able to bring together all of Scripture by presenting it verse-by-verse, in multiple translations, in multiple languages, including the original languages, and with concordances, commentaries, and even with sermons written and preached on the topic. It is such a wealth of information that it is usually my first stop whenever I need to find the meaning behind a reference, and one that I recommend. It is so effective that I usually do not need to go to my preferred search engine. Concluding what Scripture says is not as difficult as some would suppose because there is not a shortage of tools to be used in that endeavor. Your own thoughts, feelings, or opinions have no place in this process, and these tools help to ensure that those do not factor in.

What does Scripture say about the topic of civil disobedience? We will begin with the New Covenant references because they are the most relevant to this discussion. Most prominent in this discussion will be Paul and Jesus. Both were not only persecuted, but they were executed for the Message that they brought. In their refusal to give in to the authorities, they acted in defiance of the decrees of the government over them. Jesus refused to cease His teaching and preaching no matter how many people He offended. Paul and the other Apostles did the same, which shows by example how we are to behave.

We will begin in Mark 12. Jesus is asked about paying taxes to Caesar, and His answer was both enlightening and disappointing to the ones assembled,

"And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." (Mark 12:13-17)

There have been a multitude of interpretations of this passage and what Jesus had to say, some of which beggar the imagination. I once had someone argue that this passage endorses slavery, though I still cannot fathom exactly how. His reasoning was too convoluted to follow, but that is beside the point. There are two relevant points to be made here, and we will examine them both. First, there is a clear dividing line drawn. Give to Caesar that which is his and give to God that which is His. Second, it all belongs to God, and that is the point to be made.

The word used for tribute in verse 14 is κῆνσον (kēnson) and translates as to muzzle, but the usage renders it a poll-tax. This was a tax the Romans placed on their subjects that had to be paid in Roman currency rather than local. It would have been their version of our income tax and was seen as a symbol of Roman control over them. For the Judeans especially, this would have been seen as humiliating,