During the protests in Egypt I did not express an opinion on whether Christians should participate. And now that the protesters have succeeded, I still don't know. Mubarak was a dictator who imprisoned, tortured, or killed thousands of his political opponents, stole billions of dollars while many of his people suffered in poverty, and ruled a government that was full of corruption. But does that mean Christians are obligated to attempt to overthrow such dictators? And by what means? Does it matter that the alternative to Mubarak may be even worse? I don't know. So I couldn't say that Christians "should" work to overthrow him. But as I have prayed and reflected on the present, past, and future in Egypt, there have been a few things that I do feel I can state with confidence.
First, I believe that as Christians we cannot support what Mubarak did or trust him to "protect us". Some Christians told me that while Mubarak was bad, "at least he kept the Islamists in check", and "the alternative will be even worse".
I do not know whether the alternative will be worse. But no alternative can justify throwing our support behind a dictator who steals from the poor, imprisons tens of thousands of his political opponents, and uses torture and murder as weapons to control his people. What good would it do us to save our lives in such a manner, if we lose our souls in the process? What message would that give the world about who Christ is and what He would be in favor of? Better to lose our life to persecution and thereby save our souls than to preserve our lives through the support of such evil.
For those who wish to turn to Egypt's dictator for safety, I think the words of Isaiah 30 and 31 resonate today. The context is similar - the Jewish king was so afraid of the Assyrians and what they would do to Israel that he was willing to turn to the ruler of Egypt for protection. God's response through Isaiah is summarized in the first three verses of chapter 31:
We are to trust in God for protection, not Earthly rulers who are using unjust means.
My second thought deals with persecution. Persecution is painful, difficult. We need to support and pray for those who are persecuted, and publicly speak up to their persecutors in defense of their lives. But sometimes we may get so caught up in trying to avoid persecution that we forget - blessed are the persecuted!
There is much more - 1 Peter 3 and 4, 2 Corinthians 12:10, 2 Thessalonians 1:3-5, Acts 5:41, James 5:10-11. Far from being something that hurts believers, persecution strengthens faith and grows the church. The first few centuries of Christianity showed this abundantly. I do not believe that this means we need to seek out persecution. But when the choice is between facing persecution or supporting sin and injustice, then like the early martyrs we can embrace persecution with open arms.
Finally, I believe there is one clear proactive response to such situations. That response is embodied in the greatest commandments - Love the Lord your God, and Love your neighbor as yourself.
Imagine that there were two alternatives during Mubarak's thirty years in power. On the left, the church could have openly supported Mubarak's policies, been glad when he imprisoned and tortured those the church considered to be its enemies, done what it could to ensure that he stayed in power for as long as possible, and campaigned for someone just like him (such as his son) to take over when he died. Until that happened, we could have fervently prayed that Mubarak and his followers were able to stay in power and keep control over our enemies as long as possible.
And on the right, the church could instead have openly loved those that it considered to be its enemies. Millions of Christians could have actively worked day after day for those thirty years to show concrete acts of love to their neighbors. When people were unjustly imprisoned, the church could have spoken out on their behalf, even if they were part of the "enemy" faction. When torture, rape, or murder were sanctioned by the government, the church could have spoken out against it and stood with those who suffered, even if those suffering had hurt Christians in the past. And for thirty years, we could have fervently prayed for the souls of those who considered us their enemies, that through our love and the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts they may come to have an eternal relationship with the true God.
Both choices would have had to face the truth that no human reign lasts forever, and that Mubarak or his successors were bound to one day fall. Until that happened, which strategy would have glorified God more? Which would have a greater chance of bringing an Egypt where Christians could live without "fear of man", but fear God alone? Which one was more likely to bring home the lost sheep that our Lord so deeply loves and wants to come into His fold? Which one shows more of God's love?
And, when Mubarak's reign finally did fall (as it did last week), which strategy would be more likely to have planted the seeds for a future Egypt where Christians are safe and respected as a part of the Egyptian community?
Mubarak's time is over. But Egypt's is not. These are not choices to be made in certain eras or by certain church leaders, but choices that every Christian has to make for herself every day and will still have to make no matter what government controls the nation. Do we trust in man to protect us from those we fear? Or do we make the choice to fear God alone, trust in God alone, and turn to our enemies with open arms and the love that Christ poured out to us when we were opposed to Him as well?
First, I believe that as Christians we cannot support what Mubarak did or trust him to "protect us". Some Christians told me that while Mubarak was bad, "at least he kept the Islamists in check", and "the alternative will be even worse".
I do not know whether the alternative will be worse. But no alternative can justify throwing our support behind a dictator who steals from the poor, imprisons tens of thousands of his political opponents, and uses torture and murder as weapons to control his people. What good would it do us to save our lives in such a manner, if we lose our souls in the process? What message would that give the world about who Christ is and what He would be in favor of? Better to lose our life to persecution and thereby save our souls than to preserve our lives through the support of such evil.
For those who wish to turn to Egypt's dictator for safety, I think the words of Isaiah 30 and 31 resonate today. The context is similar - the Jewish king was so afraid of the Assyrians and what they would do to Israel that he was willing to turn to the ruler of Egypt for protection. God's response through Isaiah is summarized in the first three verses of chapter 31:
Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help,
who rely on horses,
who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen,
but do not look to the Holy One of Israel,
or seek help from the LORD.
Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster;
he does not take back his words.
He will rise up against that wicked nation,
against those who help evildoers.
But the Egyptians are mere mortals and not God;
their horses are flesh and not spirit.
When the LORD stretches out his hand,
those who help will stumble,
those who are helped will fall;
all will perish together. Isaiah 31:1-3
We are to trust in God for protection, not Earthly rulers who are using unjust means.
My second thought deals with persecution. Persecution is painful, difficult. We need to support and pray for those who are persecuted, and publicly speak up to their persecutors in defense of their lives. But sometimes we may get so caught up in trying to avoid persecution that we forget - blessed are the persecuted!
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. - Matthew 5:10-12
Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything...
Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. - James 1:2-4, 12
But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. And so you will bear testimony to me. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. Everyone will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. Stand firm, and you will win life. - Luke 21:12-19
Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear. - Philippians 1:12-14
There is much more - 1 Peter 3 and 4, 2 Corinthians 12:10, 2 Thessalonians 1:3-5, Acts 5:41, James 5:10-11. Far from being something that hurts believers, persecution strengthens faith and grows the church. The first few centuries of Christianity showed this abundantly. I do not believe that this means we need to seek out persecution. But when the choice is between facing persecution or supporting sin and injustice, then like the early martyrs we can embrace persecution with open arms.
Finally, I believe there is one clear proactive response to such situations. That response is embodied in the greatest commandments - Love the Lord your God, and Love your neighbor as yourself.
Imagine that there were two alternatives during Mubarak's thirty years in power. On the left, the church could have openly supported Mubarak's policies, been glad when he imprisoned and tortured those the church considered to be its enemies, done what it could to ensure that he stayed in power for as long as possible, and campaigned for someone just like him (such as his son) to take over when he died. Until that happened, we could have fervently prayed that Mubarak and his followers were able to stay in power and keep control over our enemies as long as possible.
And on the right, the church could instead have openly loved those that it considered to be its enemies. Millions of Christians could have actively worked day after day for those thirty years to show concrete acts of love to their neighbors. When people were unjustly imprisoned, the church could have spoken out on their behalf, even if they were part of the "enemy" faction. When torture, rape, or murder were sanctioned by the government, the church could have spoken out against it and stood with those who suffered, even if those suffering had hurt Christians in the past. And for thirty years, we could have fervently prayed for the souls of those who considered us their enemies, that through our love and the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts they may come to have an eternal relationship with the true God.
Both choices would have had to face the truth that no human reign lasts forever, and that Mubarak or his successors were bound to one day fall. Until that happened, which strategy would have glorified God more? Which would have a greater chance of bringing an Egypt where Christians could live without "fear of man", but fear God alone? Which one was more likely to bring home the lost sheep that our Lord so deeply loves and wants to come into His fold? Which one shows more of God's love?
And, when Mubarak's reign finally did fall (as it did last week), which strategy would be more likely to have planted the seeds for a future Egypt where Christians are safe and respected as a part of the Egyptian community?
Mubarak's time is over. But Egypt's is not. These are not choices to be made in certain eras or by certain church leaders, but choices that every Christian has to make for herself every day and will still have to make no matter what government controls the nation. Do we trust in man to protect us from those we fear? Or do we make the choice to fear God alone, trust in God alone, and turn to our enemies with open arms and the love that Christ poured out to us when we were opposed to Him as well?
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. - Luke 6:27-28
When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it. - 1 Corinthians 4:12
So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. - Matthew 10:26-31
5 comments:
Will the new leader be any different? You have some interesting comments and I enjoyed reading them. I added myself as a follower. God bless you.
Thank you much JT! It is so difficult to know whether the new leader will be any different. I do pray that he will act with justice and compassion, whoever he turns out to be.
Argh, I wrote a long comment and there was an error then it was lost!
Why is it a question whether or not Christians should protest an evil or corrupt government?
My guess is that a primary reason is that Jesus did not stage protests and try to get new rulers installed. True enough. He set up an alternative community, one based on light, transparency, honesty, service, and spiritual and practical wisdom. This certainly did threaten both sets of major institutional powers: the Roman government and the religious leaders, the Pharisees. In addition, Jesus very intentionally set out to challenge these groups, especially the Pharisees. He directly confronted them on their hypocrisies, their evils, and so forth. His gatherings and teachings, while not protests or political activities, certainly had political ramifications and effects as they worried both groups and were an affront to their control.
So the church today is not good at creating this type of alternative community, one whose very existence and activities happen to challenge rulers and authorities governing through darkness, secrecy, lies, and coercive powers. That being the case, would not a first step for the church be to start speaking out against a corrupt and violent government? Jon certainly pointed out plenty of verses where the theme was not to support or rely on a corrupt and oppressive government.
The tricky part is the "what next" question. If the church was active in putting pressure on a bad government and that government fell, would the church or any other group with this goal or desire be done? Of course not! As the other commenter stated, who's not to say that the next ruler will be just as bad?!? At this point, maybe a church would step back. It wouldn't have a candidate to support, but it could start digging into the larger causes and forces behind such phenomenon, which happen all over the world in many countries when one dictator is ousted. Could it shed light on that process, make people more aware of the forces that are trying to preserve the status quo and put that next bad leader in? It would also need to encourage (also by example) people to live the way they would want to live under a good government, even without that government. Leaders like MLK, Jr., Gandhi, and Abdul Ghaffar Khan are needed. People who can mobilize and inspire, leading with integrity and a resolute focus on justice, mercy, and freedom. People who know that all change takes sacrifice, but that real change doesn't come from sacrifice in the battlefields of armed conflict, but from sacrifice in nonviolent conflict (which still provokes and brings out violence in the other side, and necessarily so. It reveals the darkness for what it is)
The church has already lost enough credibility. For it not to partake in struggles against a bad government like Mubarak's is inexcusable. The ideal is to do this indirectly but that takes maturity and discipline from a transformed community or communities. So the next best option, which could eventually lead to the first option, is to take part with the wisdom of the serpent and the gentleness of a dove.
There are many reasons why it is debatable. The question is not whether or not we should call out unjust actions by the government or support those who are oppressed by the government - I make it clear in the post that we should. The question is whether or not we can judge the person themselves (not the individual actions) and decide that the person/people in charge of the government is unredeemable as a leader and must be thrown out. Since every single human institution has evil and corruption, how do you judge when one deserves to go? Is it based on the total evil/corruption since the government started or only that which has occurred in the last year? Does the context of the relative practices of the society apply? How much do you weigh in external threats the nation may have been facing? If there have been signs of positive change recently, how much do those matter? And does "value over replacement" (knowing how much better or worse the next guy will be) have any influence at all?
Different people would come up with very different answers for these questions. There are enormous numbers of people who would say that the Bush or Obama governments have been responsible for more evil and destruction in the world than the Mubarak government. Does that mean it is "not even a question" that Christians have to fight for the overthrow of the American president too? The more you learn about government, the more you realize that once you make the argument that Christians should work towards the overthrow of evil/corrupt governments, you don't have to go much further to make the argument that Christians should overthrow all governments, since all human governments that have had any time at all to work have been pretty evil/corrupt.
So that brings another very debatable question - is this where are time and energy should be spent as Christians? Yes, love and support the oppressed. Yes, call out those in power for their evil actions against the oppressed. But should we as Christians focus considerable time and resources on deciding who should or shouldn't deserve to be in political power? Thailand has had 30+ governments since 1932, all but one of them has been overthrown before its term was up, and many would argue that every single one has been corrupt. Are the "overthrows" doing any good? I would argue that every single American president has committed serious evil in their presidency. Should we really be in a constant state of trying to overthrow every single one, just to have another one that may not be any better replace it?
There are many other arguments - there's nothing about it mentioned in Scripture, Jesus didn't advocate for or work towards the overthrow of secular leaders, the early church wasn't actively involved in trying to overthrow corrupt secular government (and once the church did get involved in directly influencing the choice of government leaders, it was usually bad for both the government and the church), and many Christians (including Nouwen and Vanier, I believe) would probably argue that Christians shouldn't be seeking worldly power at all, which calls into question how much we should or shouldn't focus on trying to have a say on who does take worldly power.
I don't think I have an answer yet, which is why I didn't take a position. But I think there is definitely a question here, and I think it is inappropriate to say that Christians who don't advocate for the active removal of governments through public protest don't have a valid place to argue from.
Post a Comment