Aesop tells the story of a young goat who was safely perched on a roof away from a hungry wolf. From his place of security the goat jeers at the wolf and makes faces at him and abuses him to his heart’s content. The wolf responded in wisdom, “I hear you and I haven’t the least grudge against you for what you say or do. When you are up there it is the roof that’s talking, not you.” Aesop then shared the moral:
“Do not say anything at any time that you would not say at all times.”
I thought of this little fable when I read this tweet by Jerry Falwell, Jr.:
Jesus said love our neighbors as ourselves but never told Caesar how to run Rome-he never said Roman soldiers should turn the other cheek in battle or that Caesar should allow all the barbarians to be Roman citizens or that Caesar should tax the rich to help poor. That’s our job.
— Jerry Falwell (@JerryFalwellJr) January 26, 2018
I have one point here. So judge me based upon that one point. My point is not about immigration. My point is not about President Trump. My point is not about Hilary Clinton. So we can save that all of that talk for another day. My point is that we must be consistent in our logic and our argumentation no matter who is in office. Or if you want a bit flashier point…what is worse than Hilary Clinton being in office? Evangelicals embracing moral relativism and situational ethics.
There is a particular Proverb which appears in various forms four times. “Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are abominable to the LORD.” It was, in many ways, the heart of the Old Testament system of justice. There is a set standard of right and wrong that does not move based upon situations. An ephah needs to weigh the same regardless of whose item is put on the scale. Or to use Aesop, truth is truth no matter if the goat is on the shed or on the ground.
So let’s go back to what Falwell Jr. tweeted. He is essentially saying that Jesus never attempted to impact the policies of Rome. He goes a step further and says that turning the other cheek is not something that applies to the soldiers of Rome. What Falwell is saying is that the church should not attempt to apply our ethics to the policies of Caesar. We should focus on loving our neighbor as ourselves and not expecting the government to follow suit.
It’s a fair point. But it’s not a consistent one. Try applying Falwell’s logic and these principles to things evangelicals have stood against in the political realm. Do his words fit when we are talking about abortion or same-sex marriage? Or do they sound eerily similar to the argumentation of those who hold a position of “personally against abortion” but feel that the government should not interfere with a woman’s right to choose.
Truth doesn’t play games like this. What is true in the light is true in the darkness and vice versa. Either we should speak against injustice or we shouldn’t. If Falwell wants to argue that immigration is not a justice issue, that’s fine. But he’s shooting himself in the foot when he uses argumentation like this. And we would be wise not to follow suit. When we make arguments we need to say, “Would I be saying this if the tables were turned? Would I be saying this if the issue were something where I’m on the other side?” If I wouldn’t, then I probably shouldn’t be making that argument.
We must use consistent scales. Otherwise we aren’t rescuing anything. We aren’t preserving the gospel. We aren’t taking back America from liberals…we are becoming liberals.
—
I know the title says “evangelicals”. I’m not even sure if I know what that means anymore. I’m using the term loosely and in a way in which I do not like. I’d prefer to speak of evangelicals as those centered on the gospel…the evangel. But I fear it’s become something different so I’ll use it for the sake of argumentation.
—
Photo source: here
