Genovini

Ancient Israel was a nationalistic culture, and that was God’s intent (see Psalm 137:4–6). When He called Abram to leave his home and travel to a land God would show Him, God was laying the foundation for a theocratic nation (Genesis 12:1–4). In order to succeed, the Hebrew people had to develop a nationalistic mindset. They were not to mix with the pagan nations around them and would have their own laws, religion, and culture that would make them distinctive (Deuteronomy 5; 7:1–6). Any outsider wishing to join Israel had to submit to God’s law and become like the Hebrews (Isaiah 14:1; 56:6). Nationalism for the Jews was necessary in order to become a holy people through whom God would send the Savior of the world (Deuteronomy 7:7–8; 14:2; Isaiah 53). For Israel, nationalism was one part of keeping the decrees given by the Lord.

Jewish nationalism had taken a wrong turn, however, by the time Jesus came to earth. The religious leaders had so perverted God’s laws and so looked down on the Gentile nations that they assumed being born Jewish was all one needed to be right with God. John the Baptist rebuked such thinking: “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). The Jews were making the same mistake some of us make today. They assumed that their heritage, nationality, or religion was sufficient to guarantee their righteousness (Galatians 5:4). Nationalism had become like a religion to them and kept them from humbling their hearts to receive God’s Savior (see John 8:33).

The Bible teaches nationalism in the sense that believers in Christ are to obey the laws of the land, regardless of their nation of residence: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1–7). Those words were penned by the apostle Paul, who suffered persecution and was martyred under the reign of Emperor Nero (see 2 Corinthians 11:24–28).

While sojourners on this earth, we should support our governments, our countries, and our communities as much as possible without violating God’s commands (see Acts 5:29). When Israel was exiled to Babylon because of their disobedience, the Lord told them to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7). Whatever nationalistic fervor the exiled Hebrews felt for their homeland, they were to live their lives in Babylon and pray for the peace of the people in whose land they dwelt.

We should defend freedom, the innocent, and our homes from foreign threats. So it is not wrong to feel proud when our nation does right and to sing its anthems with joy and thanksgiving to God. We err, however, when we allow nationalism to displace our first loyalties to Christ and His kingdom. All those born again into the family of God are citizens of another kingdom (Philippians 3:20). We live with the awareness that the things of this earth are temporary, including nations, governments, and material goods (Hebrews 11:15–16). When certain national policies align with biblical principles, it is easy to subconsciously substitute nationalism for Christianity and expend our zeal and passion on the wrong things. Despite how noble our nation may be, it did not die on the cross for our sin. It cannot promise us eternal life. A President, king, or military leader is only a fallible human being and cannot meet our needs as God can (Philippians 4:19).

A certain level of nationalism is not wrong. In fact, it is one way we can be good to the community in which we reside. We can send our sons and daughters to defend our community (Proverbs 24:11), pay our taxes to support it (Mark 12:17), and honor that which is honorable in it (Romans 13:7). But Christians must keep in mind that earthly nationalism is fleeting; heavenly citizenship is forever. Our greatest loyalties and our primary obligations are to that kingdom that will never pass away (Daniel 2:44; 6:26; 7:14; Luke 1:33).

Politically, libertarianism suggests government ought to be limited, acting only in matters of great importance and primarily to protect the autonomy of citizens. Libertarianism emphasizes the freedom of individuals to do as they please, with as little interference from the state as possible. Those who claim this political theory are known as libertarians. Libertarianism is distinguished from the theological concept of libertarian free will, also occasionally referred to using the term libertarianism.

As with any political idea, libertarianism is actually a spectrum of ideas rather than an explicit dogma. In modern Western politics, the most visible version of libertarianism is often called right-libertarianism. Few, if any, right-libertarians advocate for a complete elimination of the state. This makes right-libertarianism a form of minarchy, or minimal government. In its purest form, a right-libertarian government would only perform two functions: defend the nation against foreign attack and prosecute criminals. Such a government would define crime only as acts of violence, fraud, or theft.

There is also such a thing as left-libertarianism, which shares traits with communism and socialism. Under this view, the central libertarian concept of “freedom” is used to mean that all resources—including property—ought to be freely available to everyone. Some left-libertarians are anarchists, believing that no civic government of any kind is legitimate.

All political philosophies have in-house debates on where to draw the line on government interference. Libertarianism typically prefers far less government involvement—and government power—than competing views. The libertarian benchmark for any idea or institution is its effects on individual freedom and the basic rights of people. More so than in most other political theories, the debate within libertarianism can lead two libertarians to diametric conclusions about the same issue. For example,

• Concerning abortion, one libertarian might say any restriction is an illegitimate interference by government. Another might argue that abortion is an act of violence against the unborn.
• Regarding drug use, some libertarians believe all substances should be legal to buy, sell, and consume. Others suggest unchecked drug use creates threats to safety and security.
• Concerning marriage, libertarians may prefer no benefits or restrictions beyond private religious recognition. Libertarians may also argue the contrary: that promoting the best, most natural child-rearing arrangement is necessary for the survival of society.
• Some libertarians support using tax dollars for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and fire departments. Others prefer such things to be entirely privatized, paid for only by those who want to benefit from them.

Biblically, libertarianism finds both support and boundaries. People are ultimately accountable to God, not government (Hebrews 4:13). Regardless of the laws of the land, each person has an obligation to do what is right in God’s eyes (Acts 4:29; 1 Corinthians 10:13). Scripture is full of cautionary tales about human government, including God’s own warning about the intrinsic dangers of being subject to earthly kings (1 Samuel 8:10–17). A Christian may lean libertarian due to libertarianism’s emphasis on personal rights. Many Christian libertarians argue that even a “good” government empowered to enforce Christian ideals can just as easily prosecute those ideals later on. Such believers seek the freedom to live a life honoring God without government coercion or interference (1 Timothy 2:1–2).

At the same time, Scripture says that human government is established by God in order to curb human sin (Romans 13:1–4). In every culture, some behaviors are legal, even though they are recognized as harmful—often to the person who participates in that behavior. Immorality is not merely a question of crime and punishment but of the relationship between a culture and God. When certain sins are left unchecked, the results for a culture can be disastrous. In practice, there is no such thing as “private sin”; all sin eventually affects others. If the laws of a society reflect nothing of God’s truth, that society can’t expect to function properly (Proverbs 14:34; 29:2).

There is nothing in the Bible forbidding a Christian from being a libertarian. Nor does Scripture demand believers adhere to libertarianism. Deciding where to draw boundaries around the government’s role is part of our Christian liberty. It’s an issue each believer needs to prayerfully and carefully consider.

“Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.”

The key word in this definition is the word “egalitarianism.” This word, coupled with the phrases “income redistribution,” “property redistribution,” and “equality of outcome,” says a great deal about social justice. Egalitarianism as a political doctrine essentially promotes the idea that all people should have the same (equal) political, social, economic and civil rights. This idea is based on the foundation of inalienable human rights enshrined in such documents as the Declaration of Independence.

However, as an economic doctrine, egalitarianism is the driving force behind socialism and communism. It is economic egalitarianism that seeks to remove the barriers of economic inequality by means of redistribution of wealth. We see this implemented in social welfare programs where progressive tax policies take proportionately more money from wealthy individuals in order to raise the standard of living for people who lack the same means. In other words, the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

The problem with this doctrine is twofold: first, there is a mistaken premise in economic egalitarianism that the rich have become wealthy by exploiting the poor. Much of the socialist literature of the past 150 years promotes this premise. This may have been primarily the case back when Karl Marx first wrote his Communist Manifesto, and even today it may be the case some of the time, but certainly not all of the time. Second, socialist programs tend to create more problems than they solve; in other words, they don’t work. Welfare, which uses public tax revenue to supplement the income of the underemployed or unemployed, typically has the effect of recipients becoming dependent on the government handout rather than trying to improve their situation. Every place where socialism/communism has been tried on a national scale, it has failed to remove the class distinctions in society. Instead, all it does is replace the nobility/common man distinction with a working class/political class distinction.

What, then, is the Christian view of social justice? The Bible teaches that God is a God of justice. In fact, “all his ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4). Furthermore, the Bible supports the notion of social justice in which concern and care are shown to the plight of the poor and afflicted (Deuteronomy 10:18; 24:17; 27:19). The Bible often refers to the fatherless, the widow and the sojourner – that is, people who were not able to fend for themselves or had no support system. The nation of Israel was commanded by God to care for society’s less fortunate, and their eventual failure to do so was partly the reason for their judgment and expulsion from the land.

In Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, He mentions caring for the “least of these” (Matthew 25:40), and in James’ epistle he expounds on the nature of “true religion” (James 1:27). So, if by “social justice” we mean that society has a moral obligation to care for those less fortunate, then that is correct. God knows that, due to the fall, there will be widows, fatherless and sojourners in society, and He made provisions in the old and new covenants to care for these outcasts of society. The model of such behavior is Jesus Himself, who reflected God’s sense of justice by bringing the gospel message to even the outcasts of society.

However, the Christian notion of social justice is different from the contemporary, secular notion of social justice. The biblical exhortations to care for the poor are more individual than societal. In other words, each Christian is encouraged to do what he can to help the “least of these.” The basis for such biblical commands is found in the second of the greatest commandments—love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39). Today’s politicized notion of social justice replaces the individual with the government, which, through taxation and other means, redistributes wealth. This policy doesn’t encourage giving out of love, but resentment from those who see their hard-earned wealth being taken away.

Another difference is that the Christian worldview of social justice doesn’t assume the wealthy are the beneficiaries of ill-gotten gain. Wealth is not evil in a Christian worldview, but there is a responsibility and an expectation to be a good steward of one’s wealth (because all wealth comes from God). Today’s social justice operates under the assumption that the wealthy exploit the poor. A third difference is that, under the Christian concept of stewardship, the Christian can give to the charities he/she wants to support. For example, if a Christian has a heart for the unborn, he can support pro-life agencies with his time, talent and treasure. Under the contemporary form of social justice, it is those in power within the government who decide who receives the redistributed wealth. We have no control over what the government does with our tax money, and, more often than not, that money goes to charities we might not deem worthy.

Basically, there is a tension between a God-centered approach to social justice and a man-centered approach to social justice. The man-centered approach sees the government in the role of savior, bringing in a utopia through government policies. The God-centered approach sees Christ as Savior, bringing heaven to earth when He returns. At His return, Christ will restore all things and execute perfect justice. Until then, Christians express God’s love and justice by showing kindness and mercy to those less fortunate.

God’s eternal purpose is to bless the world through Israel. Already He has done so in measure, for "salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22), but the fullness of future blessing is indicated in the wondrous promise of Isaiah 27:6: "In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit."

The declaration that "salvation is from the Jews” suggests our immeasurable debt to Israel. All that we have worth having has come to us through the Jews. Our Bible is a Jewish Book, and our Savior is a Jewish Savior. Let us never forget to pray for God’s chosen people. It is true that Israel, today, is in the place of rejection. The nation is a secular, unbelieving (as to the claims of Scripture and their Messiah, Jesus Christ) nation; but "…at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace" (Romans 11:5). Some Jews are being saved and are becoming members of the body of Christ through faith in their Messiah.

Jews are, biblically speaking, the "chosen people of God" and dearly loved by Him. Another reason for Christians to support the nation of Israel is because of the Abrahamic Covenant. We read of God’s promise in Genesis 12:2-3, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (see also Genesis 27:29; Numbers 24:9).

One of the United States’ most worthwhile accomplishments has been its consistent regard for the plight of the Jewish nation. No nation in the history of the world has a better record of treating individual Jews with respect than does America. The same can be said for our befriending Israel as a nation. America has committed many sins for which we may well deserve judgment, but as a nation, we have been a consistent friend of the Jews and the nation of Israel, as well as a benefactor. In 1948, President Harry Truman helped persuade the United Nations to recognize Israel as a nation. Since then, the United States has contributed billions of dollars in aid to Israel.

From the biblical declarations of God’s love and care for His chosen people, the nation of Israel, and from the history of nations being destroyed because of their evil dealings with God’s chosen people, the Jews, Christian believers should give support to the chosen people of God. This is not to say that we necessarily support the methods they use in their relationships with the Arab nations. The Bible warned that conflict would always characterize the relations between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael. Sadly, this conflict will continue until Jesus comes back to judge the nations and sets up His 1,000-year reign of peace on earth. We must look at the "big picture” with a biblical worldview. While we do not have to support everything Israel does as a nation, we most definitely should support Israel’s right to exist. God will fulfill His promises and covenants with Israel. God still has a plan for Israel. Woe to anyone who seeks to defeat that plan; “whoever curses you I will curse” (Genesis 12:3).

Due to the fact that Zionism was begun as a politically motivated movement, there exists among secular Gentiles and non-religious Jews a line of thought stating that the religious background of the Jewish people had nothing to do with Zionism. It is argued that Zionism was instead a reaction of the Jewish people to worldwide persecution during World Wars I and II. No nation would take them in, so they were forced to create their own nation, the land of their ancestry being the most opportune place.

Regardless, the Zionist movement, begun in the late 1890s, found fulfillment in 1948 when Israel was officially recognized as a state and granted sovereignty as a nation by the United Nations. This is when, technically, the political Zionist movement ended and the ideology of Zionism began, and as such, has become a much-debated topic. Some would say that Zionism has become a motivation for racism, or a reaction against anti-Semitism. Others believe that Zionism as it currently exists is merely Jewish patriotism.

Associated with Jewish Zionism is Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism is simply Gentile support of Jewish Zionism as based on the promises to Israel found in the Bible, passages such as Jeremiah 32 and Ezekiel 34. Christian Zionists are primarily evangelical and give support in any way possible to the Jewish state of Israel. The return of the Jews to the Promised Land is the fulfillment of prophecy and is seen, especially by dispensationalists, as a sign that the world has entered the end times.

Thus far, Marxism has never worked in real life—and, without exception, in the places where Marxism has been the governmental model, Christians have been persecuted. That’s because there’s a foundational difference between Marxism and Christianity, a deep divide that cannot be bridged. There are several aspects of Marxism, as a philosophy, that put it at odds with the Christian faith. Here are a few:

Marxism is, at heart, an atheistic philosophy with no room for belief in God. Karl Marx himself was clear on this point: “The first requisite of the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” (“A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right,” 1844). Christianity, of course, is rooted in theism and is all about God. In the Marxist model, the state becomes the provider, sustainer, protector, and lawgiver for every citizen; in short, the state is viewed as God. Christians always appeal to a higher authority—the God of the universe—and Marxist governments don’t like the idea of there being any authority higher than themselves.

One of the basic tenets of Marxism is that the idea of private property must be abolished. Where Marxism has taken root, land owners see their property confiscated by the state, and private ownership of just about anything is outlawed. In abolishing private property, Marxism directly contradicts several biblical principles. The Bible assumes the existence of private property and issues commands to respect it: injunctions such as “You shall not steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19) are meaningless without private property. The Bible honors work and teaches that individuals are responsible to support themselves: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The redistribution of wealth mandated by Marxism destroys accountability and the biblical work ethic. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:14–30 clearly teaches our responsibility to serve God with our (private) resources. There is no way to reconcile Marxism with the parable of the talents.

Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the physical needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.

The utopia that Marxism seeks to develop is earthly and man-made; Christians look to the Lord Jesus to establish a heavenly, perfect kingdom some day. Believers understand that, given man’s sinful nature, there is no perfect system in this world. Greed and abuse of power and selfishness and laziness will taint even the purest motives.

Some people attempt to combine Christianity with Marxist philosophy. Their attempts may be well-meaning, but they are impractical. The Puritans in the New World tried communal living for a while. When the Plymouth Colony was founded, there was no private property, and all food was distributed equally amongst all, regardless of one’s job (or work ethic). But that system, lacking any incentive to hard work, was soon abandoned as a complete failure. See “Of Plymouth Plantation” by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford for the full story.

Attempting to combine Christianity with Marxism also ignores their widely divergent views on sin, God, equality, responsibility, and the value of human life. Of course, some people point to Acts 2:44–45 as proof that Christianity is compatible with communism: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” Two things must be said here: first, this passage, as with much of Acts, is descriptive, not prescriptive; that is, this passage contains no command for the church to function this way; it is simply a description of what the early church in Jerusalem did to meet some unique and urgent needs. There is no indication that such extensive sharing was ever copied by other New Testament churches. Second, the communal arrangements in Acts were completely voluntary and motivated by the love of Christ. Any attempt to apply this to involuntary, secular (godless) communism really makes no sense.

When Frederick Engels heard that some Christians were using Acts 2 to promote socialism, he wrote against melding his philosophy with Christianity: “These good people are not the best Christians, although they style themselves so; because if they were, they would know the bible better, and find that, if some few passages of the bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it” (“Progress of Social Reform on the Continent,” in The New Moral World, 3rd Series, Nos. 19, Nov. 4, 1843, transcribed by Andy Blunden). According to Engles, the Bible and Marxism are “totally opposed.”

In short, the Bible promotes freedom and personal responsibility, and neither of those concepts lasts long under Marxism. There’s a reason why, in Marxist states such as Communist China and Vietnam and the old Soviet Union, Christians are always persecuted—the ideas espoused by Marxism are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The differences are irreconcilable.

The Bible has much to say about the stars. Most basic to our understanding of the stars is that God created them. They show His power and majesty. The heavens are God’s “handiwork” (Psalm 8:3; 19:1). He has all the stars numbered and named (Psalm 147:4).

The Bible also teaches that God arranged the stars into recognizable groups that we call constellations. The Bible mentions three of these: Orion, the Bear (Ursa Major), and “the crooked serpent” (most likely Draco) in Job 9:9; 26:13; 38:31-32; and Amos 5:8. The same passages also reference the star group Pleiades (the Seven Stars). God is the One Who “fastens the bands” of these constellations; He is the One who brings them forth, “each in its season.” In Job 38:32, God also points to the “Mazzaroth,” usually translated “constellations.” This is thought by many to be a reference to the twelve constellations of the zodiac.

The constellations have been tracked and studied for millennia. The Egyptians and Greeks knew of the zodiac and used it to measure the beginning of spring centuries before Christ. Much has been written of the meaning of the zodiacal constellations, including theories that they comprise an ancient display of God’s redemptive plan. For example, the constellation Leo can be seen as a celestial depiction of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5), and Virgo could be a reminder of the virgin who bore Christ. However, the Bible does not indicate any “hidden meaning” for these or other constellations.

The Bible says that stars, along with the sun and moon, were given for “signs” and “seasons” (Genesis 1:14); that is, they were meant to mark time for us. They are also “signs” in the sense of navigational “indicators,” and all through history men have used the stars to chart their courses around the globe.

God used the stars as an illustration of His promise to give Abraham an innumerable seed (Genesis 15:5). Thus, every time Abraham looked up at the night sky, he had a reminder of God’s faithfulness and goodness. The final judgment of the earth will be accompanied by astronomical events relating to the stars (Isaiah 13:9-10; Joel 3:15; Matthew 24:29).

Astrology is the “interpretation” of an assumed influence the stars (and planets) exert on human destiny. According to astrology, the sign you were born under, Aquarius, Pisces, Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, or Capricorn, impacts your destiny. This is a false belief. The royal astrologers of the Babylonian court were put to shame by God’s prophet Daniel (Daniel 1:20) and were powerless to interpret the king’s dream (Daniel 2:27). God specifies astrologers as among those who will be burned as stubble in God’s judgment (Isaiah 47:13-14). Astrology as a form of divination is expressly forbidden in Scripture (Deuteronomy 18:10-14). God forbade the children of Israel to worship or serve the “host of heaven” (Deuteronomy 4:19). Several times in their history, however, Israel fell into that very sin (2 Kings 17:16 is one example). Their worship of the stars brought God’s judgment each time.

The stars should awaken wonder at God’s power, wisdom, and infinitude. We should use the stars to keep track of time and place and to remind us of God’s faithful, covenant-keeping nature. All the while, we acknowledge the Creator of the heavens. Our wisdom comes from God, not the stars (James 1:5). The Word of God, the Bible, is our guide through life (Psalm 119:105).

More often than not, Christians are said to be homophobic simply because they condemn homosexual behavior as sin. But the fact is that the term homophobic is merely a word used by homosexual activists and supporters in their attempts to deflect a genuine criticism of an immoral and unhealthy practice. Without question, there are people and organizations who have developed an irrational hate of homosexuals and who are prepared to use violent actions to inflict suffering upon homosexuals. However, the problem is that the homosexual-rights activists have accused anyone who opposes homosexuality of harboring similar hatred. Therefore, Christians who rightly discern that homosexuality is an unnatural sin are equated with violent lunatics who hate for hatred’s sake.

While the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality, it never instructs that homosexuals are to be hated. As Christians, we are to speak out against the perversion of homosexual activity. The Bible is explicit in its condemnation of it, as well as God’s wrath towards those who practice such behavior. As Christians, we are called to clearly and lovingly call sin for what it is. Using the term homophobia to refer to anyone who opposes homosexuality is a distraction, not a valid argument or accurate representation. A Christian should have only one fear regarding homosexuals, the fear that they will suffer eternally because of their decision to reject the only means of salvation—the Lord Jesus Christ who offers the only hope for escape from a degrading and destructive lifestyle.

Romans 1:26-27 puts this invalid assumption to rest: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (emphasis added). Clearly, this passage puts lesbianism on equal ground with male homosexuality. Lesbianism is described as women exchanging natural relations (with men) for unnatural relations (with women). According to the Bible, being a lesbian is just as sinful as being a homosexual male.

There’s an implication in Romans 1:26 that lesbianism is even worse than male homosexuality. Notice the phrase “even their women.” The text seems to suggest that it is more common for men to engage in sexual depravity, and when women begin to do it, that is a sign things are getting really bad. Men usually have much stronger sex drives than women, and so are more prone to sexual deviancy. When women commit unnatural sexual acts, then the degree of immorality has truly become shameful. Lesbianism is evidence of people being given over to “the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” (Romans 1:24).

In short, the return of Christ brings about what is referred to as the kingdom of God in Scripture—God’s absolute rule over His creation, including humankind. To accomplish that, Jesus ushers in two different judgments, two different resurrections, and two different eternities.

When Jesus returns, He will be ready for war (Revelation 19:11–16). The nations will be gathered to fight against Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:2) in what we call the battle of Armageddon. But that will be the day Jesus returns: “His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south” (verse 4). It will be a unique day in the history of the world: “On that day there will be neither sunlight nor cold, frosty darkness . . . a day known only to the Lord—with no distinction between day and night. When evening comes, there will be light” (verses 6–7). God’s enemies will be defeated, and the Antichrist and the false prophet will be “thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur” (Revelation 19:20). Jesus will set up His kingdom, and “The Lord will be king over the whole earth” (Zechariah 14:9).

In establishing His kingdom on earth, Jesus will first set up a judgment for those who are still alive after the tribulation and who are on the earth at the time of the second coming. This is referred to as the “judgment of the sheep and the goats” or “judgment of the nations” (Matthew 25:31–46). Those who survive this judgment will remain on earth and enjoy a time of peace and prosperity with Christ for 1,000 years (referred to as the millennium; see Revelation 20:4–6). Those who are found guilty in this judgment are cursed and consigned to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). Satan is bound and forbidden to act during the millennium (Revelation 20:1–3).

During this time there will also be a resurrection of all believers in God (Revelation 20:4–6). These resurrected believers will join believers who are alive at the time of Christ’s coming and those Christ brings with Him from heaven, and all will live with Jesus during His 1,000-year earthly reign.

At the end of the millennium, Satan will be released, and one final battle will occur, which will rapidly be won by Christ (Revelation 20:7–9). Satan is then permanently consigned to the lake of fire. At this point the second resurrection will occur, and another judgment. Unbelievers will be resurrected and judged at what is referred to as the great white throne judgment; based on their works, they will be assigned to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11–15).

So, the return of Jesus will usher in two different eternities—one with God and one without Him. This truth is captured in two verses in the book of Malachi: “Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire. . . . Not a root or a branch will be left to them. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves” (Malachi 4:1–2).

What happens when Jesus returns? Evil is defeated, the earth is restored, and God wins. Your response to Jesus’ return depends on your relationship with Him. It will either be, as John MacArthur calls it, “the greatest calamity in all of human history” or the fulfillment of the Blessed Hope (Titus 2:13). Faith in Christ makes the difference. “But when the Son of Man returns, how many will he find on the earth who have faith?” (Luke 18:8, NLT).

In considering a response to persecution against the LGBTQ community, we must consider Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37). In the story, the Samaritan passes by a man, a Jew, who had experienced severe “persecution” in the form of being beaten and robbed. Rather than ignoring him as others had done, the Samaritan generously tends to the man’s wounds and cares for him, expecting nothing in return.

Jesus tells this parable to a lawyer, a devout and well-studied Jew who was likely a Pharisee. To the Jews of Jesus’ day, Samaritans were unclean, despised, despicable people. Samaritans were half-breeds by race and heretics in religion, and they were avoided at all costs (John 4:9). By and large, Samaritans returned those sentiments. As far as the Samaritan in the parable knew, the Jew he rescued might well have cursed and insulted him the day before. The man lying beaten and bloody in the ditch would have expected no help from the Samaritan, separated as they were socially, politically, and religiously.

The point of the parable cannot be overstated. The Samaritan had every reason to think the Jewish man hated him, yet he showed love, and Jesus explicitly said that we are to “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). Mere charity is not the point; it is charity even to those with whom we disagree. Jesus’ message in the parable of the Good Samaritan is that, when someone is hurting, our responsibility as followers of Christ is to pour out love, compassion, healing, relief, and resources to aid him. When members of the LGBTQ community are hurting, our responsibility is to give help and comfort. Agreement or disagreement in religion, morals, or opinions is quite irrelevant in the time of need.

Whether or not sin is involved is likewise immaterial. Jesus rescued an adulterous woman from the persecution of a mob without condoning her sin (John 8:10–11). To show compassion is not the same as endorsing a person’s lifestyle. Compassion does not require agreement or approval. Our response to persecution against the LGBTQ community should involve prayer, a rebuke of the persecutors, and charitable action. We are to love and overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21).

When the LGBTQ community is the victim of persecution, violence, or other harms, Christians have a clear mandate from our Lord. Just as the Good Samaritan bound the wounds of a social and religious antagonist, we are to love our neighbors, whoever they are. For the Christian, there is only one proper response when those in the LGBTQ community are suffering persecution. We should come along beside them, show them mercy, and demonstrate the love of Christ.

“Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:35–36).

The first truth is that the will of God permeates and supersedes every aspect of life. It is God’s will that takes precedence over everything and everyone (Matthew 6:33). God’s plans and purposes are fixed, and His will is inviolable. What He has purposed, He will bring to pass, and no government can thwart His will (Daniel 4:34-35). In fact, it is God who “sets up kings and deposes them” (Daniel 2:21) because “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes” (Daniel 4:17). A clear understanding of this truth will help us to see that politics is merely a method God uses to accomplish His will. Even though evil men abuse their political power, meaning it for evil, God means it for good, working “all things together for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

Second, we must grasp the fact that our government cannot save us! Only God can. We never read in the New Testament of Jesus or any of the apostles expending any time or energy schooling believers on how to reform the pagan world of its idolatrous, immoral, and corrupt practices via the government. The apostles never called for believers to demonstrate civil disobedience to protest the Roman Empire’s unjust laws or brutal schemes. Instead, the apostles commanded the first-century Christians, as well as us today, to proclaim the gospel and live lives that give clear evidence to the gospel’s transforming power.

There is no doubt that our responsibility to government is to obey the laws and be good citizens (Romans 13:1–2). God has established all authority, and He does so for our benefit, “to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13–15). Paul tells us in Romans 13:1–8 that it is the government’s responsibility to rule in authority over us—hopefully for our good—to collect taxes, and to keep the peace. Where we have a voice and can elect our leaders, we should exercise that right by voting for those who best demonstrate Christian principles.

One of Satan’s grandest deceptions is that we can rest our hope for cultural morality and godly living in politicians and governmental officials. A nation’s hope for change is not to be found in any country’s ruling class. The church has made a mistake if it thinks that it is the job of politicians to defend, to advance, and to guard biblical truths and Christian values.

The church’s unique, God-given purpose does not lie in political activism. Nowhere in Scripture do we have the directive to spend our energy, our time, or our money in governmental affairs. Our mission lies not in changing the nation through political reform, but in changing hearts through the Word of God. When believers think the growth and influence of Christ can somehow be allied with government policy, they corrupt the mission of the church. Our Christian mandate is to spread the gospel of Christ and to preach against the sins of our time. Only as the hearts of individuals in a culture are changed by Christ will the culture begin to reflect that change.

Believers throughout the ages have lived, and even flourished, under antagonistic, repressive, pagan governments. This was especially true of the first-century believers who, under merciless political regimes, sustained their faith under immense cultural stress. They understood that it was they, not their governments, who were the light of the world and the salt of the earth. They adhered to Paul’s teaching to obey their governing authorities, even to honor, respect, and pray for them (Romans 13:1-8). More importantly, they understood that, as believers, their hope resided in the protection that only God supplies. The same holds true for us today. When we follow the teachings of the Scriptures, we become the light of the world as God has intended for us to be (Matthew 5:16).

Political entities are not the savior of the world. The salvation for all mankind has been manifested in Jesus Christ. God knew that our world needed saving long before any national government was ever founded. He demonstrated to the world that redemption could not be accomplished through the power of man, economic strength, military might, or politics. Peace of mind, contentment, hope, and joy—and the salvation of mankind—are provided only through Jesus’ death and resurrection.

All the same, even within Christianity, there is significant debate over the best way to apply the Bible’s concepts of manhood and womanhood. How to live out the unique, God-given roles of men and women isn’t quite so easy in practice as it is in theory. So, rather than attempt a detailed explanation of every aspect of biblical manhood, our intent here is only to highlight the topic in broad strokes.

Biblical manhood can be boiled down to five basic principles, which each man is expected to conform to. These are 1) humility before his God, 2) control of his appetites, 3) protecting his family, 4) providing for his family, and 5) leading his family. Men who fail to meet these expectations are not behaving as “men,” biblically speaking, but as something less noble (Psalm 49:20). Some good examples of biblical manhood in Scripture are Daniel, Caleb, Joshua, Paul, and, of course, Jesus.

Men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), something no other creature can claim. This makes every single human being valuable and worthy of respect. And yet males and females are not identical. We are biologically, psychologically, and emotionally distinct. This is not in any sense a bad thing; God called His original creation, which included distinct genders, “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Biblical manhood must include a godly view of women. Mistreatments of women such as forbidding education, sexual abuse, or denying civil rights are violations of the image-of-God principle. So, too, are attitudes that ignore meaningful differences between the sexes or erase gender roles.

Critically, note those things that Scripture does not include as part of biblical manhood. Men are not called to be tyrants, ruling a home with an iron fist and a dictator’s attitude. Nor are they instructed to be cowed and weak-kneed toward their families. Nor are men called on to enforce, in any sense, the biblical ideals of womanhood in their wives. Humility, self-control, protection, provision, and leadership are the man’s responsibilities and his tools. Men are accountable for spiritual leadership within their families, yet each person is ultimately accountable to God for his or her own life.

The proper perspective for this leadership comes from Ephesians 5:25–32. The goal of every believer’s life is to become more and more like Christ (Romans 8:29). For men in their God-given role, this means leading and loving their wives in the same way Christ loved the church: sacrificially (Ephesians 5:2), through service (John 13:14–15), and in selfless love (Ephesians 5:28). Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal yet serve different roles, so, too, can men and women be equal in value and in spiritual worth yet have different roles to play.

The fundamental requirement for biblical manhood is a proper relationship with God (Micah 6:8). This informs and empowers every other responsibility a man has in his life. Humility means an acknowledgement of his imperfection (Romans 3:23), acceptance of Christ for salvation (2 Peter 3:9), and a continual sense of dependence on God (1 Peter 5:7; Hebrews 13:15). A godly man will study, learn, and understand the will of God (Matthew 6:33; Romans 12:2) through the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). This gives him the tools to meet all of his other obligations; it does not automatically make his life biblically sound (1 Corinthians 3:2).

Knowing what God wants is only the first step, as biblical manhood also requires submission to that knowledge. Men are called on to control their urges and appetites (1 Thessalonians 4:3–5), relying on God to overcome temptations (1 Corinthians 10:13). Men, according to the Bible, are not to twist the Scripture in order to get their way (Mark 7:8–9) or to match their own preferences (Proverbs 14:12). Instead, they are to follow God’s commands (Proverbs 1:7) instead of their own urges (Romans 6:12; 1 Peter 1:14). This includes the other requirements of biblical manhood, which can be difficult to apply in a humble, godly way.

Biblical manhood includes the responsibility to protect one’s family. This may mean physically, to the point of laying down his life (Ephesians 5:25). In the Bible, men are called to fight to protect their wives and children (Nehemiah 4:13–14); women are never called to do the same for their husbands. This also involves spiritual protection—consider that Eve sinned first, but Adam was blamed for failing to lead her (Genesis 3:11, 17). Men are instructed to “honor” their wives as a “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7), a phrase that in context invokes something precious, expensive, and valuable. Protecting one’s spouse and family from harm, both spiritual and physical, should be a natural instinct for Christian men.

Men are also called to be the primary providers for their families. Obviously, this can take different forms, and particular circumstances can change who contributes to family finances. Unemployment, illness, injury, and so forth are circumstances, not deliberate arrangements. Adam’s punishment at the fall was increased pain in his primary responsibility within the family, which was to be a provider (Genesis 3:17–19). Passages such as 1 Timothy 5:9 describe support for widows but not for widowers. Rather, it is men who are singled out to provide for their own families, in the clearest of terms (1 Timothy 5:8). Repeatedly, the Bible calls on men to provide and for women to care for the home.

The role of leader, both within the church and within a marriage, is also part of biblical manhood. This requirement originates even before the fall, where Adam and Eve shared equality in differing responsibilities (Romans 12:4–5). It is also seen in Adam’s naming of Eve (Genesis 2:23), an act which symbolizes authority. As already referenced, Christ has to be the model for this type of leadership. A man is called to lead through love, through service, and through sacrifice. This is not a domineering leadership or a repressive arrogance. Male leadership in the home and in the church is meant to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church.

Of course, these principles of biblical manhood are easier to understand than to apply. Our fallen nature leads us to resist God’s will (Hebrews 3:15), even when we don’t reject it outright (Romans 7:23–25). Biblical manhood is particularly important, however, as a fundamental part of living out God’s commands. There is nothing “manly,” worthwhile, or commendable about a male who shirks these responsibilities (Proverbs 19:1; 29:1). Nor is there anything admirable about a society that despises the characteristics of a godly man (Jude 1:10).

The quest for biblical womanhood begins in the same place that biblical manhood begins. Galatians 3:28 states that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In Christ, we have equal value and equal responsibility to obey and serve the Lord. All scriptural commands about surrender (Romans 12:1–2), service (Romans 12:1), and dedication (1 Corinthians 7:33–35) apply equally to men and women.

So the Bible’s instruction for any woman who strives for biblical womanhood begins with her being born again (John 3:3). She must have become a “new creature” in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) and take seriously Jesus’ words about the need to abide in Him (John 15:1–5). The Word of God must be her final authority in life because, if its authority is not clear to her, then she will become a judge of Scripture rather than letting Scripture judge her. This leads to compromise and eventual moral collapse (see Romans 1:22–25).

One common error in discussing biblical womanhood is to mix cultural stereotypes with scriptural truth. This mistake has kept millions of women from pursuing their dreams and developing their gifts. Many pursuits or careers were considered “for men only,” and women were expected to stay home and keep house. However, biblical womanhood does not mean that every woman must conform to a societal standard of femininity. For some women, embracing their femininity will mean they pursue careers in medicine, construction, or law enforcement because God has gifted them to serve in those areas. For others, raising children and making a home is a fulfillment of their God-given desires.

First Peter 3:3–4 sheds some light on God’s goals for His daughters. Although Peter is speaking specifically to wives, this instruction applies to all women who seek biblical womanhood: “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.” The Bible does not give similar instructions to men, which reveals God’s understanding of the women He created. He knows that women generally focus more on their outward appearance than most men do. He also knows that the physical beauty of a woman is often exploited, cheapened, and used for selfish ends. So He lets her know that her real beauty is not found there, on the outside. He wants His daughters to dig more deeply to find the reflection of Himself that He placed inside them.

The passage in 1 Peter is not a condemnation of outward beauty but a redirection of focus. A Cover Girl face with a coarse, mean spirit does not draw people for the right reasons (Proverbs 31:30). An attractive appearance quickly loses its appeal to those closest to a woman of poor character. But a woman who walks with God radiates the glory of God to everyone she meets. A woman who models biblical womanhood has a gentle and quiet spirit, but she can also lead a corporation, head a maintenance crew, or discover medical cures. In fact, as she allows the Holy Spirit to control her, God blesses her natural gifting to accomplish even more than she could if she tried to succeed in her own way. When a woman turns her attention to the beauty of her soul, her attractiveness becomes a cause of her exaltation rather than her exploitation. As she focuses on developing kindness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22), she becomes more like Jesus, whose attractiveness was not outward; yet the world has never produced such beauty (Isaiah 53:2).

Since most women will be wives at some point in their lives, biblical womanhood affects the husband/wife relationship. According to Scripture, the wife’s role is different from the husband’s role, but not inferior. Ephesians 5:22–23 is the passage most often quoted in regard to the wife’s role: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” However, we err when we treat this passage as a stand-alone commandment for women. It is sandwiched between even stronger commands to the church at large. Verse 18 begins this section with, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” The rest of the section instructs husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (verse 25). The command for wives is merely a reflection of the attitude that every believer should adopt (Philippians 2:3). When a godly husband loves His wife the way Christ loves the church, a godly wife has little difficulty in submitting to his leadership.

Biblical womanhood is more than a career path or the ability to reproduce and nurture. Because every human being carries a unique facet of God’s own nature (Genesis 1:27), we glorify Him by reflecting that nature to the world. Women can reveal God’s glory in ways unique to their gender, as can men. In this confusing day when gender identity has become a matter of preference, it is vital that those who know and love God and His Word remain grounded in His truth. God designed men to reflect His glory through biblical manhood. He designed women to reflect other aspects of His glory through biblical womanhood. When we all seek to honor Him in every part of our lives, we will live harmoniously, fulfilling complementary roles as we carry out the mission Jesus gave to all of us (Matthew 28:19).

First, we should define feminism, since the term can have different meanings for different people. Basically, feminism is a philosophy that advocates equal rights for women and men—socially, politically, economically, and in other ways. Early feminists fought for and won suffrage for women. Today’s feminism goes further than demanding equal treatment of men and women, however. Modern feminists fight for abortion on demand, language equality (insisting on saying “chairperson” instead of “chairman,” for example), and the blurring of gender lines. The more radical feminists actively seek to overthrow any vestige of male dominance in society, oppose the biblical roles of husbands and wives, and promote lesbianism. Radical feminists deny there is any difference between men and women, teaching that any perceived differences between the sexes are due solely to social conditioning.

Modern feminism is a counterfeit solution to the real issue of the inequality of women in a sinful society. Feminism arrogates to itself the right to demand respect and equality in every aspect of life. Feminism is based in arrogance, and it is the opposite of the call to the born-again believer to be a servant. The modern, militant feminists call women to rise up and rebel against the order that God has given to humankind. That brand of feminism seeks to impose humanistic values in direct opposition to the Word of God. Feminism was originally a positive movement, focused on giving women the basic rights God intends for every human being to have. Tragically, feminism now focuses on destroying distinctions in the roles of men and women.

What then should be a Christian’s view of feminism? A believing woman who is seeking to obey God and walk in peace and grace should remember that she has equal access to all spiritual blessings in Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). A believing woman should not allow herself to be used as a pawn in the worldly agenda of the feminist movement. A believing man should uphold the nuclear family as the biblical model for society, promote true Christian values, and (if he’s married) honor and cherish his wife and take responsibility for protecting and providing for his family. Both men and women have a God-given privilege to fulfill the plan He has set for us. Rebellion against that plan and the arrogance that seeks to put self above God’s Word brings difficult consequences. We see those consequences in damaged relationships between husbands and wives, the destruction of the family, and the loss of respect for human life.

Many women today have bought into the lie that feminism will empower and free them. However, rallying for abortion, dispensing with God-given roles, and working to dismantle the family unit will bring neither power nor freedom. Protection of the innocent, obedience to God’s Word, and fortification of the family are much more empowering and freeing. “I will walk in freedom,” says the psalmist, “for I have devoted myself to your commandments” (Psalm 119:45).

There has always been inequality in the world. It is sad but true that artificial barriers have always divided humanity—barriers that have no basis in God’s Word. It is sin in the heart that causes inequality, sin that causes some men to treat women in demeaning or objectifying ways. And it is sin that seeks counterfeit solutions to counteract these inequalities. The only cure for discrimination and inequality is obedience to God. If men and women would humbly submit to God’s Word, then striving would cease, the genders would complement each other, and the harmony that God ordained would flourish.

It’s important to distinguish among what the term toxic masculinity originally meant, how it is used today, and what the Bible says about maleness and manhood. Initial use of the phrase toxic masculinity was a well-meaning effort to confront unhealthy attitudes that put undue pressure on men. Over time, attempts to confront negative behavior degenerated into an attack on almost anything associated with maleness. The Bible gives clear warnings about conduct men should avoid, but it doesn’t condemn all expressions of masculinity. On the contrary, healthy examples of manhood are vital for the health of a culture.

Used Against Men Behaving Badly

Initially, toxic masculinity referred to a warped caricature of manhood—a distortion of what it meant to be a “real man.” This unhealthy perspective was associated with “hypermasculinity”: the cartoonish, stereotypical he-man or macho man, perpetually scowling, tough, and immune to pain or emotions. That kind of unfair, unreasonable stereotype of a “real man” was often blamed when men felt pressured to suppress emotion, close themselves off to others, overwork, or refuse to admit failure. Originally, the term toxic masculinity was aimed at the misguided perception that “real men” didn’t express feelings, exhibit gentleness, practice submission, or demonstrate nurture.

As part of that same effort, toxic masculinity was also applied to other behaviors, toward which stereotypical attitudes often pressure someone to “be a real man.” For example, the “playboy” mindset that lauds promiscuity and objectifies women was rightly considered toxic. Such early discussions of toxic masculinity also condemned misogyny, aggression, posturing, and bullying, among other character flaws.

Used Against Men Behaving

Over time, attacks on hypermasculinity seeped into criticism of any behavior stereotypically associated with men. Toxic masculinity has been unfairly applied to men who want to be protectors and providers for their spouse. Or to men who behave in ways that were once considered chivalrous. Or to those who value manual labor or athletics. Or even to men who prefer not to be excessively emotional or vulnerable. Traits such as competitiveness, bravery, or even merely being loud have been labeled as expressions of toxic masculinity by some modern critics.

Related to the idea of toxic masculinity is the modern term mansplaining. This word was coined to denote a man’s speech when talking down to a woman, assuming she doesn’t understand a subject—when, in fact, she understands better than he. Some people now use that expression nearly any time a male expresses a strong opinion or attempts to rationalize a viewpoint. Rather than dealing with the substance of the conversation, they dismiss it as “mansplaining” and reject the speaker for simply being a self-assured male.

Used Against Men

Misuse of the phrase toxic masculinity came about when the focus was placed on maleness rather than on truly inappropriate behaviors. The practical effect of this has been a general form of misandry: a prejudiced, unfair attitude or open hatred of men or all things masculine. Rather than criticizing excessive behaviors or encouraging positive ones, some people leap to the assumption that anything “boyish” or “manly” is, by definition, to be mocked or avoided.

Boys, especially, have suffered from this cultural trend. Competitiveness, risk-taking, daring, noisiness, and so forth are not always bad and were once accepted as “boys being boys.” Today, however, those traits are often labeled as inappropriate or even “toxic.” Group settings frequently exacerbate this problem. Schools, care centers, recreation programs, and even churches now tend to promote equality of results, communal work, sentimentality, and other more typically feminine expressions. Classically feminine behavior is stressed as “good,” while roughhousing, boisterousness, adventurousness, and so forth are punished as misbehavior.

The result is an environment where girls expressing more typically “girlish” behavior feel empowered and connected, and boys expressing more typically “boyish” behavior feel ashamed or rejected.

Consequences of Misandry

Culturally, the problem with deriding all expressions of manhood as toxic masculinity is that it makes legitimately wrong behaviors harder to confront. Use of anti-male terms like toxic masculinity, mansplaining, and manspreading causes even benign expressions of maleness to be labeled as inappropriate. This only serves to blur the distinction between being “male” and being “toxic,” since it’s all condemned, anyway.

Truly toxic behaviors such as promiscuity, bullying, and emotional isolation aren’t made better when behaviors like chivalry, competitiveness, or boldness are scorned. On the contrary, misandry results in fewer positive examples of male expression. It doesn’t incentivize boys to act like girls; it only encourages shame and hiding. Leave a “boyish” boy with no safe, measured way to express himself, and he’s likely to become hardened to criticism and correction, developing a truly toxic character as a result.

Expressions of Goodness

The Bible says that everything God created is good when used for a good purpose (1 Timothy 4:4), and that includes God’s created pattern of male and female (Genesis 1:27). There is absolutely nothing wrong with masculinity, but there is much wrong with behaviors that are toxic. What separates the two is a matter of application. Robbing a bank requires a measure of bravery, daring, and risk-taking, but so does being a firefighter. Like tools, such general ideas can be used with positive or negative intentions.

The goal ought not to be condemning that which is masculine but encouraging it. That is, those attitudes and behaviors that are naturally male—and that are applied in a godly way—should be celebrated. This accomplishes two things. First, it provides positive examples for boys and other men: “this is good; please do this.” Second, it empowers legitimately masculine men to confront and challenge those who exhibit toxic behavior.

Promoting a biblical model of masculinity also leads to a greater respect and appreciation for women. Attempting to make men and boys just like women and girls doesn’t help anyone. It’s been said that God did not create women to do everything men can do, but to do everything men cannot do (see Genesis 2:18–24). Celebrating the unique and precious gift of femininity isn’t possible unless there’s a complementary approach.

Masculinity and the Bible

Scripture debunks all notions of toxic masculinity; it condemns inappropriate behaviors and applauds positive ones. There is no better example of real manhood than Jesus Christ. His example, as given in the Bible, not only confronts hypermasculine attitudes, but it also shows how it’s possible to express supposedly “male” traits in a positive way.

Jesus was unafraid to show His emotions (John 11:35), and yet He was also willing to chase crooks out of a temple with a whip (John 2:13–16). Christ cared for the needs of others (John 6:5–13) and demonstrated compassion (Mark 1:40–41), sensitivity (Luke 10:38–42), forgiveness (Luke 7:44–50), and humility (John 13:1–16). At the same time, He exhibited bravery (Mark 11:15–18; Luke 22:39–46), righteous confrontation (Matthew 23:13–36), proper judgment (John 4:15–18), boisterousness (John 7:37), self-control (Matthew 4:1–11), and even playfulness (John 1:47–48).

More generally, God’s Word speaks against those attitudes that are truly toxic. Scripture denounces domineering (1 Peter 5:3), greed (Hebrews 13:5), refusal to rest (Genesis 2:3; Mark 6:31), promiscuity (Romans 13:13), selfishness (Philippians 2:3), arrogance (Romans 12:3), vengeance (Romans 12:19), and so forth. It extolls the value of love (John 13:34–35), openness (Galatians 6:2), gentleness (Galatians 5:22–23), and peace (Romans 12:18), while promoting strength (Ephesians 6:10), bravery (1 Corinthians 16:13), respectability (Titus 2:7; 1 Timothy 3:7), and boldness (Ephesians 3:12; Titus 2:15). A truly biblical approach to manhood, then, is not toxic, nor should it be labeled as such.

The Bible’s View: All humans are born with a sinful nature and need a Savior from sin (Romans 3:23; 5:12, Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:1). Because of the fall, humanity has within itself no capacity for moral perfection (1 John 1:8–10; Romans 1:18–25).

Freemasonry: Through symbols and emblems, Masons teach that man is not sinful but in a process of self-improvement. As Deputy Grand Master R. W. Donald Gardner Hicks, Jr., said, “The lesson we teach is that the Rough Ashler [a rough-cut stone] represents ourselves rude and imperfect by nature, but that the Perfect Ashler [a stone with smooth sides and square edges] is that state of perfection at which we hope to obtain, by a virtuous education, our own endeavors and the blessing of God” (“Masonry: Faith, Hope and Charity,” Proceedings, pp. 2004–94). Human beings possess the ability of moving from imperfection toward total perfection.

When a Christian takes the oath of Freemasonry, he is swearing to the following doctrines that God has pronounced false:

1. Salvation can be gained by man’s good works.

2. Jesus is just one of many equally wise prophets.

3. He approaches the lodge in spiritual darkness and ignorance (the Bible says Christians are children of the light).

4. The Great (or Grand) Architect of the Universe (GAOTU) is representative of all gods in all religions.

By swearing the Masonic oath and participating in the rituals of the lodge, Christians are perpetuating a false gospel. Even if the Christian Mason knows the truth and believes in Christ, other lodge members are trusting in Freemasonry’s plan of salvation to get to heaven. By his membership in a syncretistic organization, the Christian has severely compromised his witness.

Masonry contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture on numerous issues. As a result, a Christian should not be a member of any organization that has any connection with Freemasonry.

The Bible was written long before the invention of any type of gun, so the phrase “gun control” will not be found in Scripture. However, the Bible records many accounts of wars, battles, and the use of weapons. Warfare is presented as an inevitable part of living in a fallen world (Mark 13:7; James 4:1), and weaponry is a necessary part of warfare. Weapons in the Bible were also used for personal protection. In some parts of Israel, robbers were common (see Luke 10:30), and many people carried weapons when they traveled. Carrying a weapon for self-defense is never condemned in the Bible. In fact, it was mentioned in a positive light by Jesus Himself on one occasion (Luke 22:35-38).

Christians are called to submit to governing authorities, and they are to obey the laws of the land (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). This would have to apply to gun laws, too. If American gun laws change, American Christians should submit to these changes and work through democratic means toward any desired alternatives. The Bible does not forbid the possession of weapons, and neither does it command such possession. Laws may come and go, but the goal of the believer in Jesus Christ remains the same: to glorify the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Another biblical principle to consider is that “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus said this to Peter when Peter tried to mount an imprudent “defense” of Jesus against the mob that had come to arrest Him. Peter’s actions were not only futile against such a “large crowd armed with swords and clubs” (verse 47), but his rash behavior also belied Jesus’ submissive attitude (verse 50) and worked against the fulfillment of Scripture (verse 54). There is “a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8), and Peter confused the two.

Christianity supports personal freedom. Romans 14:1-4 indicates that, when Scripture does not clearly address a particular issue, there is freedom for individual choice. America has historically embraced the concept of personal freedom that resonates with this principle, and the founding documents guarantee wide freedoms regarding firearms. Some point to Matthew 5:9, in which Jesus pronounces a blessing on the peacemakers, and apply it to the issue of gun control. The idea is that guns are antithetical to peace. This may be more of a philosophical or political idea than a theological one, however. There is nothing theologically, or even logically, that links guns to a lack of peace; sometimes, guns help maintain civil peace.

Debates over whether to control guns or how much to control them depend largely on political and philosophical arguments, not moral ones. This is not to say that there is no moral component to the issue. Obviously, the gun itself is amoral, an object that can be used for good or for evil. More important is the morality of the person wielding the gun, and that is too often the missing consideration in the gun control argument. The fact that some sinners use guns to commit sin does not mean guns are the problem. Sin is the problem, and that’s a moral and spiritual issue. Since the very beginning of humanity, people have been killing other people, with and without weapons (see Genesis 4). Taking a certain weapon out of circulation might make murder more difficult but by no means impossible.

As far as the Bible is concerned, the use of guns is a matter of personal conviction. There is nothing unspiritual about owning a gun or knowing how to use one. There is nothing wrong with protecting oneself or loved ones, even if it involves the use of weapons. We need not pretend there is never a need for guns, but pointing a gun at a person should always be a last resort. We should seek to neutralize threats without violence whenever possible.

So, how should a Christian view gun control? With the authority God has entrusted to it, the government has the right to allow or disallow gun ownership to whatever degree it deems right. We, as citizens, are called to submit to whatever gun control laws the government institutes. This is not, however, a statement on the wisdom of gun control. There are good reasons to allow law-abiding citizens to own guns. Ultimately, guns are not the problem. Sinful people are the problem.

The Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean we cannot show discernment. Immediately after Jesus says, “Do not judge,” He says, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs” (Matthew 7:6). A little later in the same sermon, He says, “Watch out for false prophets. . . . By their fruit you will recognize them” (verses 15–16). How are we to discern who are the “dogs” and “pigs” and “false prophets” unless we have the ability to make a judgment call on doctrines and deeds? Jesus is giving us permission to tell right from wrong.

Also, the Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean all actions are equally moral or that truth is relative. The Bible clearly teaches that truth is objective, eternal, and inseparable from God’s character. Anything that contradicts the truth is a lie—but, of course, to call something a “lie” is to pass judgment. To call adultery or murder a sin is likewise to pass judgment—but it’s also to agree with God. When Jesus said not to judge others, He did not mean that no one can identify sin for what it is, based on God’s definition of sin.

And the Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean there should be no mechanism for dealing with sin. The Bible has a whole book entitled Judges. The judges in the Old Testament were raised up by God Himself (Judges 2:18). The modern judicial system, including its judges, is a necessary part of society. In saying, “Do not judge,” Jesus was not saying, “Anything goes.”

Elsewhere, Jesus gives a direct command to judge: “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly” (John 7:24). Here we have a clue as to the right type of judgment versus the wrong type. Taking this verse and some others, we can put together a description of the sinful type of judgment:

Superficial judgment is wrong. Passing judgment on someone based solely on appearances is sinful (John 7:24). It is foolish to jump to conclusions before investigating the facts (Proverbs 18:13). Simon the Pharisee passed judgment on a woman based on her appearance and reputation, but he could not see that the woman had been forgiven; Simon thus drew Jesus’ rebuke for his unrighteous judgment (Luke 7:36–50).

Hypocritical judgment is wrong. Jesus’ command not to judge others in Matthew 7:1 is preceded by comparisons to hypocrites (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16) and followed by a warning against hypocrisy (Matthew 7:3–5). When we point out the sin of others while we ourselves commit the same sin, we condemn ourselves (Romans 2:1).

Harsh, unforgiving judgment is wrong. We are “always to be gentle toward everyone” (Titus 3:2). It is the merciful who will be shown mercy (Matthew 5:7), and, as Jesus warned, “In the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:2).

Self-righteous judgment is wrong. We are called to humility, and “God opposes the proud” (James 4:6). In Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the Pharisee was confident in his own righteousness and from that proud position judged the publican; however, God sees the heart and refused to forgive the Pharisee’s sin (Luke 18:9–14).

Untrue judgment is wrong. The Bible clearly forbids bearing false witness (Proverbs 19:5). “Slander no one” (Titus 3:2).

Christians are often accused of “judging” or intolerance when they speak out against sin. But opposing sin is not wrong. Holding aloft the standard of righteousness naturally defines unrighteousness and draws the slings and arrows of those who choose sin over godliness. John the Baptist incurred the ire of Herodias when he spoke out against her adultery with Herod (Mark 6:18–19). She eventually silenced John, but she could not silence the truth (Isaiah 40:8).

Believers are warned against judging others unfairly or unrighteously, but Jesus commends “right judgment” (John 7:24, ESV). We are to be discerning (Colossians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). We are to preach the whole counsel of God, including the Bible’s teaching on sin (Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 4:2). We are to gently confront erring brothers or sisters in Christ (Galatians 6:1). We are to practice church discipline (Matthew 18:15–17). We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).