One of the things that evangelical Christians are accused of is being "one-issue" people or "two-issue" people. This accusation is leveled against us because we are very caught up in battles over abortion and homosexuality.
When evangelical Christians talk about these issues, we often do so with a sense of prophetic doom. You'll often hear rhetoric about God's impending judgment because our society tolerates such things.
Of course there is a problem with this whole thing in that we are identified more by political persuasions and issues than we are the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether we are doing it to ourselves, or our critics are doing it to us, the fact is that evangelical Christianity (at least in America) has come to be identified more with power politics than with the gospel. In that respect I would like to argue with evangelicals that we need to be more circumspect to make sure we not let other things eclipse the gospel in our life and witness. And I would also like to argue with our opponents that our identity is to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ, not a political platform. But I won't do that here.
The gospel of Jesus Christ impacts all of life and the Bible gives guidance for how we function in every arena. So, while we ought not to let other issues eclipse the gospel it is appropriate to let the gospel and Biblical principles inform all of these issues. In that vein, I suggest that some of the aforementioned criticism of evangelicals, that we are "single issue" people is valid.
Yes, God does judge nations, but there are some factors we often forget about why it is that God judges nations. In this post and a few more I want to look at a few examples of these forgotten factors in the downfall of nations.
Sodom and Gomorrah are the Biblical prototypes for fallen nations. Their story is a well known story and is told in Genesis 18-19. Because of their extreme wickedness, God destroyed them. The Genesis accounts emphasize the sexual immorality of the two cities, and sexually immoral they were. Because of this, evangelicals often use them as an example of how God will judge nations that accept gross immorality.
On more than one occasion I have heard a preacher or speaker say something along the lines of "if God doesn't judge America for its sexual immorality He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." Since that statement is usuallly given with a great deal of rhetorical flare and hyperbole I'll only mention in passing the dangerous ground the speakers are on in suggesting that God may have to apologize for something, as well as their folly in assuming they know enough about the mind of God to know when He should judge a people. But the point is that gross sexual immorality leads to judgment and Sodom and Gomorrah are examples.
But the forgotten factor in all of this comes up in Ezekiel 16 where Jerusalem is said to be the sister of Sodom. Verse 49 discusses the sin of Sodom:
49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Jerusalem and Israel are sometimes called "Sodom" in the prophets to reflect the great evil into which they have fallen. In Isaiah 1:10 God speaks to Jerusalem and calls it Sodom:
10 Hear the word of the Lord,
you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the law of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
And what is the sin that earned Jerusalem the epithet of Sodom? Verses 15-17 say:
Your hands are full of blood;
16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
Both of these passages indicate that there is far more to the sin of Sodom than sexual immorality. True, Ezekiel 16:50 speaks of "detestable things" which probably includes sexual immorality, but the core sins in this passage are arrogance, materialism and unconcern for the poor. In Isaiah, the sins were violence, injustice and a failure to care for the oppressed.
My concern in raising this point is to say that evangelicals are correct in asserting that God judges the nations and will bring about their downfall. But His judgment often falls for more reasons than our pet issues. So, if we load up on one or two issues we may be missing other issues which are just as significant in God's sight.
One of the perennial debates is over whether or not you can legislate a nation into righteousness. In fairness, most evangelicals who are seeking to legislate righteousness acknowledge that legislation is insufficient. And, most of the more legislatively-minded evangelicals will admit that their pet issues are not the only issues, just the most important.
But that is where I wonder. It seems the case can be made that the sexual immorality of Sodom grew out of its arrogance and materialism. Or maybe hedonism is a better word - maybe the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were proto-hedonists. When the bulk of a society is obsessed with materialism it really doesn't want to be bothered with caring for the poor. Hedonism can express itself in a craving for sex or in cravings for food, houses, nicer cars and other things. This is why I wonder if the immorality of Sodom wasn't a symptom of a deeper sin for which they were judged.
If this is the case then maybe those issues we judge as most important aren't really the core issues. But if things like abortion and homosexuality aren't the core issues and materialism and hedonism are, how do you address them from a legislative standpoint? There is a simple answer to that question - you can't. Legislation is designed to address behavior, it can't change the heart. Materialism and hedonism are rooted in the heart. So evangelicals are correct in addressing behavioral issues through politics while addressing the heart through pulpits.
Yet its not so easy to bifurcate things like that. Materialism, hedonism and unconcern for the poor may be heart issues but they manifest themselves in behavior. And abortion and homosexuality may be behavioral issues but they are rooted in the heart.
So, if we are going to pursue righteousness by a legislative agenda why aren't we as charged up about materialism and poverty as we are about abortion and homosexuality.
As I say all of this I am not saying that Christians need to turn more and more issues into legislative issues. As I stated in a prior post I think Jacques Ellul is right when he speaks of the "political illusion." The "political illusion" is the notion that the greatest issues we face have political solutions and this mindset allows politics to permeate more and more of life. This is an illusion that Christians and there opponents live under and that people on the right, left and everything in between seem to live under (except the Libertarians).
I am saying that evangelicals are often fixated on the "fall of nations" and are wondering if and when our nation will fall. I'm not proposing how we ought to address the issues that are wrapped up in these things, I am just saying that Christians need a wider view of the ways of God with nations. The truth is that many Christian organizations are doing a wonderful job of fighting poverty and oppression and addressing the materialism of the day. But I do think we need to examine some of our rhetoric.
If we are really afraid that the judgment of God may fall on us, let us not forget that it may just as easily fall for the sins of materialism and unconcern for the poor as it does for some of our other top drawer issues.
What a fantastic article. I've had these thoughts running through my brain for some time now, but have never been able to articulate them as well as you have. Thanks.
Posted by: Alison | April 13, 2005 at 11:53 AM
Great, great post! I agree with your understanding of Sodom and Gommorah, as well as the idea that we can't presume anything with respect to when or how God will choose to judge a nation. I've said some similar things on how we approach public policy issues here: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/archives/2004/10/electing_wise_l.html.
One quibble: I'm not sure it's quite accurate to say that legislation can't change hearts. There's a substantial body of legal scholarship on what's called "law and norms." The "law and norms" view holds that a community's norms exist in a symbiotic relationship with the law. Law can under some circumstances serve as a guidepost or example to direct a community's norms -- in other words, to change people's hearts about what constitutes acceptable behavior. The civil rights laws are a good example of this. The Supreme Court decisions on integration and the 1964 Civil Rights Act helped influence our culture to perceive racial discrimination as morally wrong. On the other hand, law that is grossly inconsistent with a community's norms is likely to be ignored, even with the threat of significant sanctions.
Posted by: dopderbeck | April 13, 2005 at 12:45 PM
Great post. Thanks
Posted by: Keith | April 13, 2005 at 12:50 PM
An intelligent and though provoking post, I sometimes find it odd that people seem only concerned about abortion and homosexuality and neglect many other (more?) important issues like justice, poverty and money and so on.
I can't remember where I heard it now, but statistically speaking, the Bible cites the issue of a lack of social justice more than any other issue in scripture, and our own prophetic task should reflect that.
Posted by: Sven | April 13, 2005 at 01:08 PM
I agree about the social justice issue. What I disagree with many people about is how to interpret it. By way of a simple example: many people in the 60's-90's saw welfare as a social justice issue and saw it as "caring about the poor" while I saw it an enslavement of the poor. Many would argue that we now know that is true and it has destroyed much of black America's family structure.
When Nehemiah opened his table to those working on the wall, essentially providing food for the project, he wasn't doing welfare, but workfare and had common cause with Paul who argued only those who were willing to work should eat.
It is the willing part that creates the problematic distinction and how to effectively help those who cannot help themselves without creating a permanent and unmotivated underclass is a real problem, not solved or helped by sloganeering.
Depending on how long the Lord tarries, I believe that Johnson will be looked at as one of the most destructive presidents in history and his "Great Society" as the thing that almost (if not really) brought about America's downfall.
That being said, how to move forward is a real issue but any program that drives a wedge between families and makes government the permanent daddy/mommy will be equally destructive and enslaving.
This is a significant issue for Christians to tackle, but only by balancing the demands of scripture with the compassion of scripture and not giving short shrift to either.
Posted by: William Meisheid | April 13, 2005 at 03:09 PM
Very good post - thanks David.
Posted by: Catez | April 13, 2005 at 11:14 PM
Bill - I couldn't agree with you more. In the first draft of this post I started to say something to that effect but decided not to because I wasn't so much arguing how we address poverty, but that we address poverty.
I also wanted to address some of our inconsistencies. Evangelicals tend to want the government to legislate matters like abortion and homosexuality but there is often a feeling that we ought to privatize the way we address poverty. If both are biblical issues then we ought to be consistent in how we deal with them - IMHO
Posted by: David Wayne | April 14, 2005 at 11:47 AM
I'd like to point out that in English, "Judgement" means "a binding decision" or "to make a binding decision".
In Christianese, "Judgement" means "destruction".
Posted by: Ken | April 14, 2005 at 12:23 PM
Great post, particularly your comments about the deeper, root cause of their sexual immorality being hedonism.
Posted by: Miss O'Hara | April 15, 2005 at 12:34 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that most social issues cannot be solved through the political process. There is a deeper spiritual depravity which is the root of most, if not all, societal problems. However, I also believe that, as Christians, we should use the political system to champion the causes of justice, equality, fairness, and other Biblical values. I think you were right on in describing how Christianity has unfortunately been hijacked by a political party which stands for many of the values in opposition to the principles of the Gospel.
Thank you for such a provoking post.
Posted by: Ted | April 15, 2005 at 01:56 PM
According to Ezekiel 16:49, God destroyed Sodom because she ignored the sick and poor. According to Jesus in Matthew 25, God will judge all nations by how they treat the sick and poor.
Helping the sick and poor is very big with God. Pretending that homosexuals are worse (or better) than heterosexuals is anti-Christ; against God, our nation, our state, our city and against our own flesh and blood.
Posted by: Richard Aberdeen | December 04, 2007 at 03:11 AM
Hi,
Posted by: William Allardice | February 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Hi,
I liked your article but thought one additional point could be added. That is, nations that have all those contributing factors you mentioned, have turned their backs on God and refuse to acknowledge Him. I have been reading through the First Testament. Time and again God tells Israel to repent but they don't listen and do not place their faith in Him. After many warnings God destroys them, except for a few. What's interesting is that some of those He saves turn right around and ignore Him and end up being judged for their lack of faith. America as well as other nations seem to be repeating history.
Posted by: William Allardice | February 14, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Great post. I think Romans 1 confirms what you've said about Sodom. Paul was showing that if you don't turn to God, the level you might sink into sin. He uses this as an example to believers that they should not be sexually immoral. He doesn't then say fight the homosexuals.
Posted by: c | March 16, 2009 at 02:04 AM
It is also interesting to me that we don't see any attempt to convert Sodom. Also, that Sodom would have been spared had there been more righteous ones living there.
Posted by: c | March 19, 2009 at 04:22 AM