ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The greatest challenge the American experiment deals with in this dark hour is not our need for safety however our loss of liberty.
While governors across the country fall over themselves to break their oath of workplace, the church remains quiet. While one mayor after another presumes unilateral power, pastors across the spectrum of denominations embarassment instead of applaud those who withstand such demagogic conceit.
One retort, in specific, appears ubiquitous in putting flexibility’s protectors in their place.
Well, the response is, honestly, rather easy. This application of the Bible is truncated and out of context. This exegesis is terrible. This is proof-texting at its worst, for it fails to consider the arc and intent of the biblical story.
For example, if Moses had actually done what this argument suggests, we wouldn’t have the story of Exodus. If Paul had actually followed this line of thinking, he wouldn’t have spent a lot time in jail, nor would he have actually lost his head. And what of Gideon, Ehud, Jepthah, Samson and Deborah, who were all charged explicitly by God to resist rulers who had begun to aggregate unto themselves political power at the expenditure of individual freedom?
Additionally, what about those not mentioned in the Bible, however who built their lives upon it? Abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, B.T. Roberts and Harriet Tubman? Were they incorrect for defying their government and fighting versus the retailing of guys?
How about Martin Luther King Jr.? Was he incorrect in his march for civil rights?
Was Patrick Henry incorrect when he asked, “Is life so dear, or peace [and safety] so sweet, as to be acquired at the rate of slavery?” And what of the rest of our Founding Daddies? Were they incorrect to put their lives on the line in defiance of King George, who had explicitly promised the colonies his security and “safety” in exchange for their subservience?
You see, you can’t cherry-pick your Bibles (or any other literature for that matter) and make your case with integrity.
If anything is clear in the history of civilization, as well as that of the church, it is this: When you sacrifice human freedom for the sake of human security, you almost always reduce the human being. Michael Ramsden (from the Oxford Center for Christian Apologetics) just recently argued that the biggest hazard to human beings in the 21 st century could, in truth, be a misguided principle of human safety.
He utilizes this example.
Expect, in our proficiency of expert system, that in the near future, we produce robotics and program them to oversee the most safe possible world for humans, a world that, by meaning, is devoid of all possible damage.
Then suppose these robotics conclude that, in order to do their task, all humans should be rounded up and confined 24/ 7 in dark cells, completely gotten rid of from any and all risk, disease and disaster.
Now, expect these robots quickly discover that the “finest method” to keep us alive and well, for years on end, is to feed and medicate us intravenously in our sterilized and disease-free cells.
What type of world would this be? Is this a nation in which we wish to live? Is this our ideal? Such an existence would be “safe,” however would it be great?
At the end of the day, we need to choose if liberty is an assumed predicate to the definition of what it means to be human. If, to the contrary, we identify that “safety” is our only non-negotiable, then we need to amend our Declaration, along with our Bibles, rapidly.
And while we’re at it, let’s strike “Offer me liberty, or give me death” from our nation’s lexicon and replace it with, “I fear death, so take my liberty!”
– Everett Piper, previous president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, is a columnist for The Washington Times and author of “Not A Daycare: The Devastating Consequences of Deserting Fact” (Regnery 2017).
