Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. This is the second part of our Romans 13 discussion, And if you haven't listened to the first part already, you probably should, so you can kind of get a foundation for what we're going into today. Whereas in the last episode, we we discussed a lot of the interpretation aspect of Romans 13 and the problems with the common reading, as well as, how a a nonviolent individual would read Romans 13. We kind of left you with maybe some some pretty big questions. Because if you thought about the nonviolent interpretation of Romans 13, then you likely recognize that there are some pretty interesting implications for how that would play out in the real world.

So as as just a quick recap, the nonviolent reading of Romans 13 tends to go something like this. In Romans 12, Paul is telling us all of these things that are indicative of a Christian. He's giving us all these commands for how a Christian should live. And those commands center around love, sort of like the the first Corinthians 13 passage, where Paul asked us to be living sacrifices to God, to feed enemies, to not do evil for evil, to leave vengeance to God. And then in Romans 13, Paul is going into the government, and this government is likely view at least at at the time that Paul's writing, it could very well be Nero, and and during the time of his persecution.

But there were plenty of other persecutions and and difficulties for for Christians living in the Roman Empire and Jews in particular, who had experienced the just horrors of a Roman regime for, quite a while now. And Rome was not a pretty country. It was wicked and evil in all of the ways that it did violence, as well as in its idolatry. And so Romans 13 then is not this, is not this pass for the government or this encouragement for Christians to be a part of government, to kinda make things right and assert control, but rather it is God saying, look. I'm telling you how to live, sacrifice, love enemies, all that kind of stuff.

And even in the face of governments that bear the sword and seem unstoppable, you can look back in the Old Testament and see how I dealt with them then, and you can trust me now that I am sovereign even over them. So you just do your thing. You just love, and don't forget that I'm in control. And that's the nonviolent reading of of Romans 13. So violence is always wrong, and God does not condone, but rather sovereignly permits governments to enact violence.

But if if violence is wrong for me as a Christian, then there's some pretty big questions that I have to ask myself. So could I be the commander in chief of my country? Could I be the president? Because the president controls the army. Could any Christian be a a commander in chief and consistently live out a Christian life?

If I couldn't be the commander in chief, and if I don't think a Christian should be a commander in chief, then can I vote for the position of commander in chief? Because by voting for that position and, kinda giving my approval for it through my participation in the system, then am I not endorsing the violence of the commander in chief? And and on that point, maybe we'll dig a little bit deeper into it later. But, I mean, we're not just talking about some, like, going to on these just wars because, you know, we discussed earlier, is there really such a thing as a just war? And I I don't think there usually is.

But there's a there's a great video by Noam Chomsky, a a really, interesting historian who just, you know, from the 19 fifties on, he goes on and he talks about all of the presidents and just the the wicked things that they did that that, you know, and how each president could have been found guilty under the Geneva Convention. And so I'll I'll link that video below. But yeah, it it seems like to be in the position of commander in chief, you are pretty much required to to do terrible things, because we we've had self proclaimed Christians as presidents since 19 fifties, and they've done some pretty terrible things. And that's just kinda part of politics. There's this compromise.

Not only violence, but lying, manipulating people, violence that's not so much physical violence, but, you know, psychological or mental violence that we do to individuals and countries and and, other politicians that we're trying to, to manipulate. And speaking of manipulative politicians, what about what about congress? I mean, there there are lots of compromises that seem inevitable that should would be problematic for Christians, but congress votes to go to war. It seems sort of like a a conflict of interest to be a Christian who says, we will never go to war, and then kind of take an oath to protect the country, which includes, you know, in in your abilities to choose to go to war. Is that possible for a Christian to hold high offices like, like that of congress?

I don't know. And if you can't hold that office, then what about voting for it? Voting for that office and endorsing the things that they do. And all all of this all of these things so far probably just sound absolutely ridiculous because to an American, this idea of your responsibility in voting and the power of politics is just, unassailable. I mean, it it is a given.

This is the way that we control the world, and this is the way that we are responsible, in in bringing the kingdom, because that's how we control things. We control things through politics. And in in Christianity today, especially, or maybe particularly in conservative Christianity, there is just this, this great bemoaning of of losing our power, which which led to what I what I feel is a pretty compromised moral position of of voting for an individual like president Trump. It's because we want somebody who's going to kind of get us our power back. I mean, you've even got statements from from self proclaimed Christians like Jerry Falwell, who who say, he just had a a tweet the other day where he said, conservatives and Christians need to stop electing nice guys.

They might make great Christian leaders, but the US needs street fighters like Donald Trump at every level of government because the liberal fascist Democrats are playing for keeps, and many Republican leaders are a bunch of wimps. So you've got people like like Falwell, which I think represent a pretty large portion of the the conservative community, where they say, look, how do, you know, morals be damned. We need somebody who's gonna give us power, somebody who's gonna give us control because we're losing it. And that's just not what you see come out of Jesus' ethic or Jesus' teachings. It's not what you see with the apostles, and it's not what you see in the early church.

And we talked about, some of the early church quotes where they prohibited high government office. I don't know exactly what that meant high government office. Like, what, you know, at at what extent did they view it compromised back then. But, nevertheless, even when the church was was small and powerless, they said, we're not going to seek to gain any advantage, any power. Even though we're a we're a vast minority who's persecuted, we're not gonna seek power, at the cost of compromise.

It seems that a a consistent non violent position that that would view higher government offices that delve into, positions of violence, like, let's say the armed forces or even even, police dealings, depending on on how you're you're working with police, especially in the United States where the police are militarized. Whereas in other countries, maybe it's it's not quite the same, where they're using nonviolent means for for much of the police force. I don't know. But it may be that on a nonviolent position, individuals, to be consistent in in, not compromising, maybe they are relegated to to political or public positions like public school teachers or postal workers or city council members. And I understand that that can sound very retreatist, as if you're withdrawing from a culture, and I get that.

And and this just feeds that notion that nonviolent positions refuse to do good in the world, and that they are indeed passive. And I I really don't think that's fair, and and we'll get in into why that is in in just a minute here. But but one of the main reasons I think that's a a problem is because, you know, this is an accusation that's that's levied by a view of politics which sees the power of of political force as legislation and coercive force, which comes from places like the presidency, and Congress, and and higher government offices who have the power to demand and to enforce, through force, through through violent force if necessary. And that's what's viewed as true power in in our society. Whereas, you know, if I if I set up above that being a public school teacher, or city council member, and you're like, oh, oh, yeah.

Really? That's not gonna get you anywhere in this world. Well, those positions, involve community. They're centered around community and dialogue. Public school teachers, having been one myself, you're engaged in parent teacher conferences.

You're engaged in in a lot of community work where you you talk with other people, you problem solve, you, but you can't shove things down anybody's throat. It's it's, a rough, frustrating process, but it's communal. And same thing with with, from what I understand of city councils. Again, maybe the city council can't call on the National Guard to enforce policies or anything, but there's there's dialogue and discussion with the community. And, I just I just think there's a, misunderstanding of of the values here, where where we believe that political force comes through the ability to use violence to enforce something.

And I don't think that's that's really truly powerful. That's not what brings restoration. That's not what, that's not what is going to foster a a deep, beautiful community, that's going to perpetuate violence. I understand, at this point, that that a lot of Christians are gonna disagree with me, And just like, from episode 1, I'd I'd really point you back to, my book, which which talks about the problem of of compromise and delves a little bit into some of the politics, the the political aspect of of what it means to compromise. But I just I just don't think that it is the case that we as Christians can have this political idolatry which views power as coming through coercive force as opposed to the laying down of our lives and, not moving beyond dialogue with other people, but but, you know, choosing to to use violence rather than dialogue.

I just think that's problematic. But I understand that a lot of people are gonna need need more than that, more than me just asserting something, Even though I believe I have the weight of church history and the Bible and, philosophy and empirical evidence and and all that stuff behind me, I I know that you need a picture painted for you. So that's what I wanna do right now. I wanna paint you 2 pictures. And the first picture is going to be the picture of Christendom, which is is, the picture of the church when it's married to the state.

And take a look at how that's lived out, and what I think some of the implications are. And then we'll take a look at what I think the the kingdom picture would be. So let's start with christen Christendom right now. Recently, Georgia and Mississippi have signed abortion bills. And, before we talk about exactly what those abortion bills are, I want you to know that that I am extremely pro life.

I think that abortion is objectively wrong. I I think I have very good reasons to believe that, and evidence to to argue that case. And and in fact, I'm more pro life than even most of the Christian, conservative Christians I know and even conservative fundamentalist Christians. Because unlike most of them, I know why I'm pro life. Most of them probably can't explain it other than, like, to say, well, god knit me together in my mother's womb, even though that's a really bad verse to use, I think, for for reasons that maybe I can talk about one day.

But never I know lots of reasons and and evidence empirical, philosophical, for why abortion is is objectively wrong. Most Christians don't. I am more pro life because I think that most birth controls are are very problematic. Because most hormonal hormonal birth controls for women kill, have at least as a backup method, if not one of the primary methods, that it prevents implantation, a k a it aborts. Well, most Christians that I know, even conservative Christians, take hormonal birth controls.

I think that's problematic. So I'm more pro life. I'm more pro life because I think that aborting an ectopic pregnancy is problematic morally. I understand it. I empathize with it.

And and, I would I would weep for people who have to deal with making that choice. But if you're gonna ask me if I think that that is right or wrong, I'm gonna say, no, that takes an innocent human life. So I think I am more pro life than than most people I know. However, that plays out very differently for me when it comes to how I think the government should handle something. So Georgia and Mississippi recently signed abortion bills, which, do take some big steps in criminalizing, the the act of abortion or even seeking out abortions, even going to other states and seeking abortions.

And they have some pretty significant, punitive measures built into these bills, and I can't stand it. I I really have a problem with the bill. For for as for as pro life as I am and how I I would, I'm very happy about the lives that would be saved, potentially, through this bill. At the same time, I just I don't think it's a good thing, because this this bill isn't, an expression of our culture's realization that children are valuable and that, humans are created in the image of God, and, and abortion is wrong. But, really, what it is is it's a Christian influence on the government that seeks to impose a maybe maybe not a minority view, but impose a view that isn't, isn't widespread.

And so what we're basically doing is we're taking this this Christian value that I I think is objectively true, and we are forcing it on people and, on on a lot of people who disagree with that. And we're basically coercing them through force to act a particular way. And, obviously, I think that's a problem for Christians to use coercive force, or to seek out coercive force. Now, if we lived in a culture where Christians lived out these beautiful lives that the secular culture looked at and said, Wow, that's wonderful, and the secular government decided to impose abortion laws, well, that's great. The secular government can do whatever they want.

The government can can use coercive force. That's fine. But as a Christian, I'm not gonna be a part of that, other than influencing through through my life. So as an example of this, we can see this in the Bible. Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel.

Nebuchadnezzar was a a pretty bad guy, and it it seems like he he pretty much remained a bad guy. I mean, he kind of had some, run ins with god through through Daniel and, through his god kind of messing with his mind a little bit and making him like a cow. But, you know, when we see, Nebuchadnezzar and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and and Nebuchadnezzar is having them bow down before the statue, before this idol, and the 3 friends of Daniel refuse, Nebuchadnezzar is ticked. And he throws them in the furnace, and they're not burned, and Nebuchadnezzar realizes, holy cow. These guys really serve a pretty awesome god.

And then he declares, instead of everybody worshiping the statue, everybody needs to worship their god or you're you're gonna get thrown in the furnace or be killed or whatever. So essentially, Daniel's 3 friends lived out impeccable lives, refused to compromise, and the secular king, who maybe he converted, but it doesn't really seem like he did, the secular king recognizes the greatness of God and imposes through force this objectively moral good. Right? You should worship the God of Israel. You should worship Yahweh.

Or you you can see kind of the same thing in Nineveh. Jonah goes into this this wicked nation. He gives people the free will choice. Hey. Look.

Repent or God's gonna judge you. Do that. Like, choose to do that today. You should do that. And that's all well and good.

People start repenting. But then the king repents, and now all of a sudden, he imposes, through threat that, hey. Everybody needs to worship this god. We we see those two examples in the Bible. We we also see, we we see this in a number of other places where, an individual who has influence is converted, or or sees something great from God and chooses to have their family or or, their subjects kind of, do go the same way.

So through through moral influence of followers of God, people who are evil and likely remain evil, at least in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, choose to kind of enforce these glimpses of objective truth and objective morality, onto onto their culture. Now compare that to two other examples, the conquistadors, and the crusades. So take take these these, supposedly Christian, groups or individuals. They go to these other countries, and they put guns to people's heads or swords to their throats, and they say convert or die. Now, is conversion a good thing?

Is worshiping God a good thing? Yeah. It is. But when it's imposed through through violent means by supposed followers of God, that just doesn't fit. That's really problematic.

And I think that's kind of the distinction I see here with with Georgia's abortion law and Mississippi's abortion law. This is largely Christians trying to put swords to the throats of mothers, to to do an objective good, but to impose morality through through force at the hands of Christians. And I I don't really like that. I'd rather have it be like, like, we're Jonah, or the or the, the 3 friends of Daniel, where we influence culture so that culture is so compelled that they they can enforce those laws. They I mean, if they're gonna do violence, that's that's on them.

But our influence is what compels them to to do the right thing and to to make those laws. It's not the Christianity, it's not the Yahweh worshipers who are putting swords to people's throats, because we don't do that. And and you'll see that play out when I when I paint the second picture for you. So I have I have at least 4 major problems with this type of political coercion. Of course I have a problem that, that is violent.

But, more than that, my first issue is that God always seems more concerned with the heart than He does with mere action. And when we look at legislation of something that that really isn't morally clear in society, and and a particular group seeks to legislate this unclear moral, really what it does is it it tends to harden hearts. So just imagine that, say, the Catholic church right now, who, at least on paper, is against birth control, And we get a, you know, you've got Mike Pence in in office, and, there's this come back to Catholicism movement, and there's an influx of of Catholics, and and Catholicism grows. And now, they've got enough power that they start to impose anti birth control measures. Now, if they started doing that, and let's say they're right about birth control, let's say it's bad, and they impose that, there might be it it might be good that this objective moral right, is done in greater measure.

But in in a certain sense, it's not really done in a greater measure because it people's hearts aren't in it, and and you haven't changed people's hearts. And even worse than that, not only have you not changed people's hearts, but if the Catholic church would do something like this, they'd probably just tick people off to anything the Catholic church has to say. Because through coercive force, the coercive force of legislation and the the police and the armies that are behind it, they're they're just imposing their will on other people through the threat of violence. And that would make a lot of people mad, and it would just turn people off to their message. It hardens hearts to use force, through legislation.

And I know that a lot of people will say, oh, so what? We shouldn't have any laws? And I'm not saying that at all. Of course, I'm happy that we live in a country that has laws, and that has a lot of good laws. But that's why why a law like murder is is all well and good to legislate, because there's not any particular group that pushes for it.

Everybody recognizes that, well, most people recognize that that really is a a bad thing. And so, it everybody's good with legislating that, and it's not one group trying to ram morality down another group's throat. And it's it's pretty universally accepted. So does does that mean that I'm a relativist, and I think that, only thing things are only wrong if a majority of people thinks they're wrong. And, no, of course not.

I think abortion is wrong even though it's it's legal right now, and even though there are a lot of people who would disagree with me. But my goal is not to then try to garner just enough political support to get, you know, 51% of the American population to come to a certain point where we can ram this morality down other people's throats. But my goal as a Christian instead is to live an impeccable life like Daniel's 3 friends, so that it so compels my society and the leaders of that society to desire what it is that I have and and the way that I live live life out, so that they'll come to accept that morality. That's a that's a heart change, and that changes society. Legislation hardens society.

And and not only does legislation harden society, but, in a society where people are acting morally only on the surface, only only in their actions and not their hearts, I'm not convinced that God is any less, any more lenient on that society, because God's not so concerned with the, with what happens on the outside as He is with what happens on the heart. I understand that that concept might sound a little bit crazy to people, that, you know, God God is not gonna bless individuals for having right actions even if, even if their hearts are are kinda messed up. I mean, we believe that on the individual level, when Jesus says that hate is as problematic as murder. And we recognize this in the Pharisees when they have right actions, but their hearts are terrible. But for some reason, we think that on a larger societal scale, if we can just get a group to have right actions, that somehow we forego judgment, and that this is an overall much, much better thing.

And we just don't necessarily see that. Take, for example, in Isaiah 1, or you can take a look at Amos and some of the other prophets, where they just rail against Israel. And they they say that, from from God's mouth, they say, I don't want your offerings. I don't want your feasts, your your keeping of all of these these things that I've commanded you to do. Like, that's these these sacrifices and these offerings and and these things that you're going through in in just a, a mindless, heartless fashion, you're not really fulfilling the law by doing these seeming right actions, by following the law to its letter.

Those things might be good in a certain sense, but they're not good when your your heart is is not is not good. And I think we we kind of see the same thing here with legislation. Okay. If we think that we're really making something a a Christian nation or a more moral nation by holding a gun to people's heads and telling them that they have to do something, or else they're gonna go to jail, that's that's not really changing hearts, and that's not really foregoing judgment. At least, that's not that's not the indication we would get from the Bible as far as, God's concerned with people's hearts.

And, again, we might be able to say, well, at least if we stop abortion, at least we're stopping some bad actions. So even if we don't change hearts, it's better than nothing. And I just I don't necessarily agree with that. While I can while I can really like the fact that lives are being saved, I just think as far as as, legislation goes and and the power of coercion goes, I think you end up doing a lot more harm than you do good. You harden people's hearts, and you don't really forego judgment.

You just make it latent and and below the surface. What you end up with in a society like this, I think we actually get a glimpse of that, in in a an issue that happened about 80 years ago. Take a look at prohibition. You've got these well meaning individuals who see this societal evil. Even if you think drinking's great, there were there were lots of problems with, with with drinking and and how that was playing out in society.

And so people see some of the the evils that are playing out that are associated with with, with liquor, and so they say, hey, let's prohibit alcohol. And they do. And what does that do? Well, it creates gangs, and it creates, it creates a lot of problems for for the US, so much so that they have to they have to revoke that because it's it's so problematic. It it hardens hearts.

Legislation hardens hearts, and it masks these latent problems that really fester under the surface, until they they kind of erupt and and, can end up being worse than the problem itself. And so, legislation just really isn't a way to change something, particularly a way to change something that doesn't have near unanimous or or majority, a vast majority of approval. A second major problem with with the types of bills that Georgia and Mississippi are enacting is that the legislation you see coming out of these these Christian, quote, types of of bills is that it focuses on negative justice. And that's one of the things, working in Mercy now for, like, the last, maybe, 10 years or so, and working with with people who are poor and have have all these just stories of systemic injustice or or whatever it is, I realized that that a lot of Christians focus very little on positive justice and focus almost exclusively on negative justice. And that plays out so much in this issue of abortion.

Keller, Tim Keller, in his book, Generous Justice, makes a a very good point of, discerning this difference between positive and negative justice. And, he argues that the Bible focuses far more, far, far more on positive justice, which is this doing right to others, especially the marginalized. And this is even probably more pronounced than the New Testament, where negative justice is really taken off the table for Christians. And they it said, leave vengeance to God. And you do see some church discipline, one of the strongest in in first Corinthians 5.

But even there, Paul says, hey. Just, essentially excommunicate excommunicate the guy, doesn't come to doesn't come to church, doesn't get to participate in our community, we'll pray for him. And if God brings it to to the point where, where this guy's life needs to be taken, Satan will take his life, and God will preserve his soul. So so leave him out there, facing Satan without the the backing of the church, is is what Paul says. But that's about the strongest you see, where we leave vengeance to God and, we kind of withdraw from individuals.

But most of the justice that we see in the New Testament, is positive justice, the the type of justice that James talks about where, where true religion is to help the orphan and widow. It's doing things for the marginalized. It is seeking the good of others. When you take a look at at laws like the the Georgia abortion law, the law is not about positive justice. It's about power, force, and coercion.

It's retributive in nature. The law is about what do we do to somebody if they do something evil, like abort. It's not about how do we help someone envision good and live it out. So so as far as I'm aware, from what I've, been able to find, these laws don't provide more resources for adoption. They don't provide more resources for women's shelters.

They don't really do anything positive. It's just saying, hey, mothers, we're not gonna consider, how difficult it is to be a mother, that, you might be a single mother, that you might be poor, you might not know where your next meal is coming from. We don't know any of these things, but we're gonna throw you in jail if you even seek an abortion, out even outside of the state. Well, it's even if you're a Christian who thinks that abortion should be made illegal, and you have no problem with the state using force, you're gonna have a hard time explaining to me how you can be so much more focused on this aspect of negative justice than you are on on positive justice. It it seems to me like you would want to put 4 times as many resources into legislations that would help people, that would come alongside people, that would provide for mothers, than you would be about the retributive aspect of it.

And and that's one thing I I don't really understand about, especially the the conservative side here, which is we don't wanna give government money. We don't like the way they they use money. But when we're gonna convict more people and provide more jail time, we're okay passing legislation right here that's gonna do that because we're gonna have more mothers convicted, and they're gonna go to prison for a longer time. We're okay footing the bill for that retribution. But we're not okay, or we're not gonna seek out funding for for adoption and and other sorts of positive justices?

I just don't get that. Why wouldn't we why wouldn't we want that money if we could choose where that money's allocated, why wouldn't we throw more of it at the positive justice as opposed to the negative? And that that just doesn't seem like a Christian thing to me. And and that aspect, I think, goes back again to the first episode where I talked about this, this ideal that conservatives like me have, which is this idea of personal responsibility. And it's okay to forego positive justice to people like single mothers who could have chosen otherwise and got themselves into this situation because they kinda deserve what they're getting.

That it's their responsibility. And we'll help the tsunami victim, but we're not gonna help the victim who made morally irresponsible choices. A lot more that that I could keep talking about, but I'm sure it would just be a rant, and a ramble. So I'll move on. The third third problem I have with the Georgia Mississippi Bill is that it seems like it's a misallocation of resources to me.

As a Christian, I want to spread the kingdom, the kingdom of Christ and and, the beauty of his love, and I want to compel people into the kingdom. And if I think about why I love Christ, it's because he first loved me. And I've experienced that love, and I see that love. And and his love is largely positive justice. It's the withholding of the negative justice, which there certainly will be negative justice.

But Christ withholds that and instead imputes to me his righteousness. He he does positive justice towards me, his enemy, who was his enemy at the time that he did this positive justice to me. And Bible the Bible Project has a a beautiful depiction of this. I'll put the link below, of just this what this positive justice is and how it's so compelling. But but that to me is how I want to allocate my resources.

I want, through positive justice, to display the love of Christ, because it's through being loved and experiencing positive justice that people will see the kingdom most clearly and be compelled into it through a transformation of the heart, not just the transformation of actions through legislation that has coercive, violent force behind it. And if you have that view of how to allocate your resources, what that does is that shifts this understanding of, true power coming through government. You say, no, that's not really true power, that's violent, coercive power. True power, the power to change hearts, the power to love enemies and to have enemies begin to love you, that power, that doesn't come through government. That comes through the church.

And Christ reigns over the church. He reigns right now. He established his kingship and his power 2000 years ago, and the church is the seat of power, not government. And so it the the Georgia and Mississippi bill, it seemed like they're misallocating resources. Christians who are, spending so much time and so much money trying to to lobby for these things, They're misallocating their resources.

They might save some babies, and that's wonderful. And I, I love that there will be some babies who are saved by these bills. But I that doesn't mean that I I think that the the means being used are the right means. And, I don't think that they are the means that represent the kingdom the best. Problem number 4.

I it seems to me that the Georgia and Mississippi bills, the the the types of the type of philosophy that makes somebody seek to push those types of bills forward is is extremely inconsistent and and can't be sustained. And that problem largely arises because when you when you couple this willingness to use force and this idea of objective morality, then it it's hard for you to explain to me where that stops in consistent application. And I talked about this a little bit in the last episode, but if God showed us what his law is, and if we believe that that the law is objective, and we can come up with a pretty good list of of objective, morality, of things that we know for sure, that we can find in the bible, that are objectively, good or bad. God showed it to us. And God even showed us his ideal society.

God showed us the types of laws that he wanted to implement in the Old Testament, and God showed us what he thought just punishment was for some of these things, then why don't we seek the same sort of thing? If adultery was punishable in the Old Testament and it was punishable, by stoning, why are we so against adultery being illegal today and having a harsh punishment for it today? If if that was of God in the past, what has changed? You can say that we don't live in a theocracy anymore, and that's great. Maybe it's true.

I mean, it depends if Jesus reigns in power now and we're his kingdom and it's a political affiliation. I mean, depending on how you define theocracy, we do live in a theocracy with with, Jesus as our only king. But even if you're gonna say that we don't live in a theocracy, well, if you're willing to try to, enforce abortion laws on a society that has a significant amount of people who disagree with that law, then what you're doing is you're trying to impose the law of God onto people, who disagree, who aren't Christians. How how does that make sense if you're gonna try to say you're you're gonna try to argue away adultery by saying we're not in a theocracy, but yet you're still willing to impose this other objectively moral wrong abortion. You're you're willing to oppose impose laws on other people there.

Well, they're they're both objectively immoral. Like, what what is it? How do you dismiss one by saying we're not in a theocracy, but keep the other one? It just doesn't make any sense. And I I really have yet to hear somebody explain to me how you can have consistent application when you're willing to to use force on people to impose your morals, because your morals are objective.

But then as we work down the list of morals that are objective, we get to to a point where people are unwilling to say that they're willing to impose that objective moral into legislation. And why? Why is that? And, I'll wait for an answer. Okay.

So that's that's kind of the picture of Christendom. The picture of what it's like to kind of to kind of use violent force to impose your morals on a society that has a significant significant amount of people who disagree. And, some of the problems that I I think exist there. So So let's take a a look at what I think the kingdom picture is. The the kingdom of Christ separated from the kingdom of man, divorced from from the marriage to the state.

What if, instead of having coercive abortion laws that that sought retribution, retributive justice, what if the church instead if you wanted to use politics, like city councils and other sorts of things, what if we lobbied for government funding for, women's shelters or for easier or maybe not easier adoptions, but, cheaper adoptions for people who who are able to get through the system? What if the church, instead of opening for 2 hours once a week on Sunday morning, what if the church was open every day and had somebody at the church where women could come in and, and get help, get counseling, or, have have other mothers to talk to? And what if every night the church was open so that mothers could come in and sleep? Maybe maybe even mothers and their babies, their newborn babies, could come in, and they could have free lodging. And there would be a a person a couple people on staff, or volunteers who would help to watch the babies at night so that mothers could get sleep?

Because as a single mom, it probably has to work. It would be really difficult to be able to provide for your family and get sleep and take care of a newborn. What if the church adopted more people, adopted more more kids? Our church started talking with other other groups that, I think one one initiative was the 686 initiative, where we're trying to get a support group to help foster more kids. I think there was a, like, one one one initiative which said, like, if every church in the United States would adopt would have one family that would adopt one child, there would be no children in the United States, like, foster or adoptive system, something like that.

So, essentially, if if every church had one family who would adopt a kid, we wouldn't have there'd be nobody to adopt in the United States. One family per church. So, obviously, the church is not doing well with adoption. I mean, I guess, yeah, we can adopt from other countries and such, but, there really isn't that much going on, by and large, in the church. Maybe the church does more than other groups, maybe.

I don't know. But nevertheless, the church isn't doing all that much. So what if the church had if each church had several or many families who adopted? What if we provided lots of funding instead of maybe instead of lobbying government officials? What if we put the tens of 1,000,000 or I mean, I don't know how much Christians spend, but probably, I would guess, 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars spent on lobbying.

What if we spent that on adoptions and women's shelters and keeping churches open? Or, there's this this great movie called, I think it's called The Drop Box. It's about this Korean guy, just he and his wife. They have this box, and women can come, and they drop off their babies, very discreetly. Nobody knows who they are, and this guy either takes care of them or finds homes for them.

And a lot of these kids, most of these kids that are dropped off are dropped off because they're they're disabled. There's some some issue that makes it difficult to care for them. And this guy, like, cares for 10 kids, he and his wife. And it it's just exhausting watching what he does, but it's beautiful. And what if we did that?

And what if we or what if we supported if we had 1 or 2 people like that in our church, and we supported them, and we put our full weight behind them as they did that kingdom work. We took that lobbying money, and we did that. We we created these shelters around the country where women could drop off their kids. So what if the church was was doing all of this kind of stuff? We did it consistently.

We did it across our our community, maybe across the the county, the state, the country. And instead of being known for having these these picket signs at, Planned Parenthood facilities, and instead of being vitriolic, and calling people baby killers, and trying to bring the sword of the state down punitively on mothers, what if we were so focused and so busy on doing all of these positive justice sorts of things, leaving vengeance up to god, that in our community, instead of, I think it was the, Barnapol just the other year, that you like, the the things when you think of Christian, what do you think of? And people you know, the the top one was, like, hypocrite or judgmental. Those are the the top two things. What if instead people thought of, loving or family oriented or giving, generous, calm?

I mean, any number of things other than what they think of now. What if our reputation was such that no mother in our community would ever have to doubt that if they gave their kid over to the state, there would be a home for that kid almost immediately for people that were trustworthy and good. And what if what if that was our reputation rather than our reputation being, like Falwell likes to put out there, that we don't really care how we have to win? We don't want a nice guy. We want a guy who's gonna kick some butt.

That is the image, that I think is compelling. And maybe you think that the Georgia and Mississippi law is is great and that, these single mothers or or other mothers who seek to abort not that all mothers seeking to abort are single. But, you think these mothers who, for whatever reason, feel like they're in a situation where they can't carry to term, if you think that that a law that is punitive and it is really the ideal as opposed to what I just laid out, then I don't know. That that doesn't comport with the Bible that I read. That doesn't comport with the Jesus that I see riding in the sand.

That just doesn't that just doesn't fit. And one of these images is compelling, and the other one is distasteful and, standoffish. And one of them's easy, and one of them's hard. And, I'll give you one guess at which route we generally pursue. We pursue the easy one, of course.

Right? The one where I can cast a vote every 4 years, and, I did my part. Or, I can donate to, the Republican National Convention, and I did my part. It's, it's a lot easier to subscribe to Christendom than it is to subscribe to the picture of the kingdom. And I'm speaking to myself here, because I haven't adopted any kids, and, we don't really do much to support anybody who who has.

So, definitely talking to myself, but but I know which which view is more compelling and which view I wanna work towards and which view I want to, repent for not pursuing. So we we have people like Falwell who are essentially calling us to throw off our distinctiveness, who say, we don't want a nice guy. We don't want somebody with the fruit of the spirit, because that doesn't work. Because that's not what we need right now. We need control, and we need power.

But that's the opposite of what what I see. Rather than throwing off our distinctiveness, what we need right now is distinctiveness. Not distinctiveness in ideology, but distinctiveness in action. And, of course, action flows from ideology. But, action is is what makes us not hypocrites, because to have an ideology is easy.

But to have an ideology and follow it ourselves? Not quite so. There's, maybe a big question going through your head right now, and that might be, well, isn't this a false dichotomy? Why can't you do both? Why can't you have, the laws that you see in Georgia and Mississippi that are punitive, but at the same time also pursue the kingdom vision, which is positive justice?

Why can't we do both? I think the the first answer and and the basic answer is that in in one of these paths, you have, antithesis which are which are inherent. So in political power, if I'm nonviolent, political power uses violence to enforce legislation, and that's the antithesis of of what I think Christianity, or Christ calls me to. And so that that's a pretty big problem right off the bat. So to to kind of embrace Christendom would be to embrace something which has at its core an antithesis of what what I think Christianity is supposed to embody.

And maybe maybe you can think of it kind of like, work and money are tools which can be very good things. Work is is a good thing instituted by God, and money, for me to be able to support my family, that's a a wonderful tool. But, those things are able to be corrupted, but they're they themselves are not inherently corrupt. But at the same time, some work is inherently corrupted. So working as a drug dealer for a gang or, you know, maybe prostitution, those those, those are works, jobs which are inherently corrupted, which, isn't they aren't amoral, they're immoral.

Whereas, being a businessman, businesswoman, it could be bad, it could be good. It depends on on how you conduct business and what business you're involved in. Politics, to somebody who espouses non violence, would be more like the prostitution, or at least higher level politics, where you're where you're dealing with violence in particular. It's something that is inherently corrupted, and and something that we we can't marry, at all. So we couldn't do both in that regard.

I think the other issue that I'm gonna have is that there's also this concept of of competing allegiances. And, you can see that, especially right now, probably most clearly in the immigrant situation, and the way that we are forcefully dealing with immigrants, and the way that we are treating immigrants. And, I I really struggle as a Christian how how I can work through this issue. I was having a a discussion with somebody about immigration, and, you know, they were they were saying, you know, we need to protect we need to protect our citizens. And I I understand the concept there, and I I know that the United States has laws, and I know that they have the governmental right to enforce those laws, and that, people are supposed to submit to laws.

I get all of that. But at the same time, that seems to be a very big problem for me as a Christian, because I don't know how in the world I can say that my government should protect our people, over over the well-being of God's people, which is all people. So, there are immigrants escaping terrible situations. I mean, even if even if it's not a situation which the US, is required to to take them in for, even if it's just extreme poverty, I I mean, who knows? All sorts of situations.

For me to say that my concern is more for American citizens and American rights than it is for an image bear a fellow image bearer of God. I don't know how I can say that as a Christian. That's not my allegiance is not American citizens, to American citizens. It's not to my American government. It is to the kingdom and the upholding of the image of God.

And there is no our people that I'm trying to protect. My government can choose to do that, but if, if that's the job of the government, then that's not a job that I can have, because that is not of God to, to make borders to keep people from sharing in the goodness of of what we have. That's just I I can't rationalize that as a as a Christian. So I you know, on the issue of of abortion, perhaps competing allegiances doesn't doesn't come up, nearly as much as it does when, when you're talking about something like immigration. But I I think you still can kind of see the point where if if the way that the world conducts business and accomplishes things is to legislate and to use force to make other people comport, but the way of the kingdom is to live in such a way that you compel people to to change their allegiance to Jesus Christ, then my use of force, or my my seeking of legislation, or my, taking on a vengeance for myself rather than leaving it to God, that's idolatry, and that's a competing allegiance.

That's a competing allegiance, with Christ, and my allegiance is to Christ. And so, it's a it's a little bit different, but I think it's it's a huge problem of competing allegiances when we try to say, well, I wanna build the kingdom and do positive things, but I also want to legislate and and pursue governmental power. I just I don't think you can do both. I guess that would take me to to my last point, and, I I which is, I'd be very skeptical that if you do try to do both, that you're gonna do both well. And, I mean, church in the United States is case in point, which is, right now, conservative Christianity in particular, but probably probably all brands, I'm just not as familiar with other brands, are wrapped up in in political power.

You see it with our compromise with with, president Trump. And then you see the reaction of the the left. When they lost power, it was it was almost like I mean, their hearts were ripped out. And everything is all about having to get president Trump out and getting their person in, And we just worship politics, and, and you can look at what we're lacking in what we do in our positive justice. And you look at other countries where, let's say China, where where, Christianity has been flourishing and growing, and you wonder, how is it flourishing and growing when they're not when they're not really able to to to be, overt overtly in high government offices.

And it just seems to me that that, again, I I have not done any studies on this, but I I would be willing to bet that, the quality of of Christianity or the the image that's, conveyed probably tends to be inversely proportional to, to the amount of influence Christians have in government. Just to guess. But it at least appears that way in in the world today, that nations where where Christianity is persecuted or oppressed or not able to to legislate, it seems like you have you have a quality that's that's quite a bit different than you have here, where we spend so much of our time not doing positive justice, but trying to, maintain church buildings and, rituals and and politics. So what's, what's required to kind of accept what I'm what I'm advocating here? I would have to say, first of all, you'd have to acknowledge that God is sovereign.

And not just acknowledge it, but trust it, that you can be faithful, and that God will, be happy with your faithfulness, and He will accomplish His will through your faithfulness and in spite of what you perceive as ineffectiveness. So God's sovereignty is is vital. And, I was gonna give you some lengthy quotes by by, John Howard Yoder from his his book here, but I'll have to skip those since we're already going long. And you can just take a look at, at my summary of Yoder's work and check out some of his quotes. I think secondly, playing off that, of God's use of my faithfulness is this recognition that God does indeed desire faithfulness over sacrifice.

And we see that very clearly with Saul. You know, when Saul was commanded to, kill all of the animals and and, people, the Amalekites, and Saul decided to save some of the animals. And, Samuel came by and he's like, what is all this bleeding I hear? I thought I told you God said to kill all of the animals. And Saul said, well, but they they had, you know, a lot of good animals here, and I didn't wanna just waste them.

I was gonna slaughter the best for God. I mean, I was doing it for God. And Samuel says, don't you know God desires obedience over sacrifice? And that's that's really what I view a lot of Christendom as doing. I I everybody I know is in Christendom.

They they are on board with the political machine, and they're good people. Most of them, or many of them better than me in a lot of ways. And, I I don't at all doubt that, their hearts are are right, and the people who drafted the Georgia and Mississippi bills for abortion, Great intentions, and I I love that they're trying to save life. But if I think that faithfulness is is non violence, and I and I'm right about that, then it doesn't matter what people think they are doing for God. If it's not obedience and it's not faithfulness to His means, then that sacrifice is is not only meaningless to God, but it's it's repulsive in some ways.

And, you know, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe maybe my actions are repulsive to god, and I'm willing to to to admit that that is a possibility. But if I'm right, then it's the other way around. This sacrifice that that people are making is is, for God, but it's not something that God likes. God desires obedience, not sacrifice. And, 3rd, to be able to forego political use.

Part of the way that we're able to be obedient, and, even when it seems like it's ineffective, is that we need to be willing to give up control. And and this is self sacrifice. So this is this is, Philippians 2 again, where it's we lay down our lives and and submit to God, and say, God, your will be done, and not my will. And finally, I think the hardest thing, for us to be able to forego political use, we really need to do it as a body. And, this is the the corporate nature of Christianity, is that God did not create us to be alone, and He did not create the church to be an individual, an individualistic institution.

For us to be able to forego political use, we need other people to come alongside of us and encourage us and make us better and, help convict us where we're wrong. We need a body of people willing to be the church, willing to lay down our lives, willing to trust in God's sovereignty, willing to be faithful even when we seem ineffective. And, it's it's through that corporate image, especially, that people will be compelled as they see our love for one another. Because it is through our love for one another that people will realize we are Christ's disciples. Before I I conclude and recap, let me give you a a case endpoint for what I think of the overrated political path.

So, modern day abortion is considered by a lot of conservative Christians to be a modern day holocaust. It is the the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent children since Roe versus Wade. But Roe versus Wade, it's been about 50 years since Roe versus Wade, and the holocaust continues, and nothing's really being done about it. Christians have opened up some maybe, some shelters here and there. And, you know, there are are, ultrasound vans that go around, and and there's some really creative things being done to try to help encourage moms to, to keep their children.

And, and I think you do see you have seen more in the last 10 years that that have come up with people really trying to dig more into into mothers' lives. But, by and large, nothing's really been done in terms of the the Christian image. This Christians aren't known as, this group that just adopts kids, so fast that we don't have an adoption problem. We're not known as the group that just fosters kids in in such great numbers. We we haven't, shut down abortions abortion clinics.

We aren't going to jail for preventing people from getting into abortion clinics. We don't promote bombing abortion clinics. We I mean, essentially, what most Christians do, for this modern day holocaust is we watch movies about it, documentaries. We support movies that come out to to help people know how murderous, abortion doctors and mothers are, and we really get riled up every 4 years as we vote for a president who we hope will put a Supreme Court nominee on the bench so that maybe one day we can overturn Roe versus Wade. While the, the concentration camps, the the gas chambers, the crematoriums are ramped up every day, and we pass by them, we largely do nothing.

We just kind of shake our heads and vote every 4 years. That's essentially what we do. Myself included. I am guilty. I'm sure there are are a lot of reasons for why we often don't do anything of substance.

You know, I I just I think of the Quakers who who refrained from political involvement, by and large, in the 17 18 100, yet were were very involved in, the abolition movement and and running slaves through the underground railroad. Where I I think of, you know, the countries like Bulgaria and Denmark, which were Nazi controlled and Nazi occupied, respectively, and how through their their actions that which put their lives on the line, they were able to save thousands of Jews, tens of thousands of Jews, even though they didn't have any political recourse, because they were controlled by, controlled by the Nazis. And upon reflection, I it seems to me sometimes that when we have this this idolatry of politics, that it it promises that we're doing something meaningful, and we think that we have power in the pursuit of politics. But, as as Roe versus Wade shows us, we can sit around for 50 years and allow a holocaust to go on thinking we're doing something. If we didn't get our guy in last year, we'll get him in 4 years from now.

And that's kind of what our what our action is. It's this this sitting and waiting, because since power comes through the political sphere, we have to wait on the on the political sphere and of of gaining power in that sphere in order to really do anything for God. And that's why you get people like Falwell saying, we need to compromise so that we can get political power, so we can do something for God. In reality, we've passed 5 decades of doing nothing while the gas chambers are on. And I I I really wonder if it would be different if we didn't have this political idolatry.

If instead of Christendom, we sought the kingdom. If we recognize that true power didn't really come from politics, but came through the church and through investing our time and our resources in that community. And through that community, changing hearts and creating an image that society couldn't ignore, I just wonder what that would do. I wonder how different we would be and how different our society would be now if we pursued the kingdom rather than Christendom. I think you're really able to see the the opposite of this idea, the opposite of this, just kind of passivity that politics brings about.

I think you see that in the movie Unplanned. And the movie Unplanned is about the story of Abby Johnson, and who was a a, director at one of the Planned Parenthood locations. And, Planned Parenthood, if you don't know, does women's health services, but a large part of what they do is abortion services. And so you get to kinda see see the way that Planned Parenthood runs and and, kind of some of the trickery that goes on on there. But the main focus is is really the story of Abby and her transformation.

And in that movie, we see a couple groups of people. We see, one group who comes out to the fence of Planned Parenthood every day and has protests and signs of mutilated babies and somebody dressed up as the Grim Reaper and, cruel signs, and yelling terrible things at mothers, just just very vitriolic coming out there. You also see, somebody, who ends up killing an abortion doctor, one of Abby's colleagues, and the effects that that has on on Abby and the other abortion doctors. And what you end up seeing is that all of these coercive things, these, attempts to intimidate the aggressiveness really hardens the pro choicers, the the Planned Parenthood workers, because they view it as a fight, and they entrench themselves, and they fight harder. And, yeah, they're scared, especially after the the one guy is killed, But, they are affirmed in their position because they see the hypocrisy, and evil, and violence, and hate from the other side.

On the other hand, you also see this one group of Christians who comes to the fence, and every day they just pray, they talk to mothers kindly, they don't condemn, they, they just love. And, over time, they end up getting to Abby, and Abby, is is able to break away from Planned Parenthood, and she ends up becoming pro life because she she recognized the travesty of of what's going on with abortion, what that does to mothers, what that does to human life, and she escapes. Now, while we don't really see legislation, represented very much at all in in the, in the movie, I really ask, what is legislation more like? Is legislation more like a coercive measure, or more like love? And it's certainly more coercive, and Stanley Hauerwas, says that well in in a video I'll link below.

But, voting is really coercive. It's it's 51% of the people trying to impose their will on the other 49%, essentially. And, what would passing legislation really do to the abortion industry? Well, it it doesn't really do anything. It would entrench people in their views.

It might stop abortions for a time and save some some children's lives, which would would be beautiful, would be wonderful, but it would end up hardening people and their hearts to the issue. They'd fight harder, and probably just in a few years, legislate right back that abortion's fine, and put, bigger hurdles in the way for abortion to be taken away again. So, in the end, you save some lives, which is good, but you perhaps even end up doing more damage in the end, and not changing hearts. And you might say, well, isn't that at least better than doing nothing? And you might think so, but I really like what the movie Unplanned puts in that I wasn't expecting.

And I I don't think most people really latched on to this, but but I did. Abby, at the end of the movie, is talking to, her pro life companions, and she says, you guys don't realize how important you were, because at some facilities, up to 75% of women who were coming in for abortions would turn away if they saw people praying at the fence. Prayer at the fence, in some cases, turned away 75% of women a day who were coming in for abortions. What what more beautiful depiction could you get of of what I'm trying to argue here is that faithfulness to God, we might not understand it. We might not think that there are any results, but faithfulness to God is what He asked for, and He determines results.

And you just see what He's doing when people are praying at at at the fence, just being faithful and coming out and loving and not not screaming vitriolic things. He's he's she's working on women's hearts, and it turns them away from abortion clinics in numbers as great as 75% sometimes. And that's amazing. And these are the people, the people who are living out the kingdom, love. These are the people who changed Abby's heart, not the ones screaming, not the ones lobbying, not the ones who are killing her colleagues.

It's the ones who persistently love, who give up their time, who withhold condemnation, who are coming, and who are able to change Abby's heart. And, I I really just wonder if if a couple people praying at a fence can turn away 75% of women, and if a couple people praying can change an abortion director's heart, What would it be like if even 50% of the church would do this? If we would just go out and pray at abortion clinics, one day a week maybe? Or if, we'd use some of our vacation time, take a day off of work here and there, and go to a fence and pray. Or, if instead of using our lobbying money, we would, we would choose to adopt kids, of of mothers who are in crisis.

I mean, just just all of these positive things, as opposed to coercive, aggressive sorts of things, would change hearts and impact people. And, I'm really thankful that Abby was able to have that insight and and share those statistics about the true impact of of faithfulness, because that's really helpful. But, you know, to be quite honest, most of the time, we're just gonna have to trust in God that faithfulness is the best thing and what He wants, because most of the time we're not gonna see those results here and now. And we're just gonna have to be content in trusting that God will, will bring about His good and perfect will through foolish means, through our faithfulness. So, if you wanna see a good good depiction of the Kingdom, go ahead and watch Unplanned.

And then think about, our our actions of voting, and what that all, what that all means and how that encourages passivity. And, I'll recommend a resource here that I think is really good in terms of showing how voting can be a passive sort of thing, how political idolatry can be problematic. There's an interesting video on this from the Followers of the Way, the the people who kind of helped me to, get on the road to pacifism. It's called, something like Voting, an Abdication of Responsibility. I I don't necessarily agree with everything that's said in there, but I I think it should certainly give you pause to think about how political idolatry shapes the way that that we think we're acting in the world, but are actually, being largely passive and handing over our power to a political system rather than submitting to our our king and living out the kingdom life.

I also do want to mention that, there are are varying degrees of how non the non violent position would handle politics. And there are a lot of people who have no problem with with politics, by and large, as non violent individuals, and they have varying ways of of explaining that. So, again, I'm still out on this, and I I don't really understand all of the ramifications, and I don't exactly know what I believe about where to fall politically yet. And, I I've just tried today to kinda give you the strongest viewpoint on the other end of the spectrum, which is that we should really avoid most forms of government. Probably, if I'm gonna land somewhere, it it might end up being somewhere more towards the left of this, more towards, accepting some more forms of government.

But today, we just kind of we kind of went to the extreme and looked at what the opposite of a full government embrace looks like. You can you can take a look at some other books, you know, I mentioned The Politics of Jesus, which might touch a little bit on this type of thing. There's a good book called Electing Not to Vote, and there are, I believe, 7 essays in that, where 7 individuals talk about their their moral dilemma of of voting, and how that kinda played out, and their rationale. It's not super theological. It's not gonna get you lots of deep answers, but it will at least get you started on on why people might feel convicted in different ways, and how they kind of work that out.

There's certainly, like with most beliefs, there's certainly a spectrum here, and, everybody is pretty familiar with the embracing of government aspect on the spectrum, and I've provided you with the opposite of that. So, figuring out where on the spectrum you land will be helpful for you, and kind of working through that. I'll also put at the bottom a link to a an article that I or a video, I believe, by Gary Habermas. Not Habermas, I'm sorry. Haarwas, Stanley Haarwas.

And, Haarwas has a really good video discussing how legislation is in fact coercive force, or how it has that behind it. And, I think that's really helpful, because we we oftentimes view voting as as this activity where we all get together and we nicely just kind of agree to to something. And that's somewhat true. I mean, it's certainly more true than than, other forms where there's violence inherent in the system. But, nevertheless, there is this idea of force behind legislation.

And Herawas, I think, uncovers that pretty well, and explains why individuals would have an issue even with voting, even if they're not going to be the Commander in Chief themselves, why voting is problematic for them in regards to legislation. So I'll put that at the bottom as well. In conclusion then, trying to wrap this all up, God calls us to faithful obedience, not to sacrifice. He calls us to live how he has, has shown us and how he has taught us, in his full revelation, Jesus Christ. And if that obedience means enemy love, foregoing violence, and giving sole allegiance to the kingdom over governments, then that's what we ought to do.

A kingdom ethic that is lived out in this way compels people through its biblical emphasis on positive justice, while simultaneously not undercutting its legitimacy through violent imposition, which only hardens hearts. The kingdom in the church is true power, and it's where true power lies. Whereas, waiting on political action is not only inconsistent with Christianity, but ineffective. So in closing, I I really hope that you can see, that I've put a lot of thought into the implications of what a nonviolent reading of Romans 13 gets us. And rather than than my conclusion making me feel like I'm missing out by withdrawing from certain spheres of political power, the spheres that our society views as most powerful, because they have the power of the army and the police and, legislation behind them.

Rather than finding that, cumbersome, I find it freeing. And it it, helps me to recognize that I'm not just one out of a couple 100,000,000 votes, but I am a a, integral part of the kingdom of Christ, whose king is is reigning in power now and who is promised victory. And I go out in that power, and I hope you will too. So that's all for now. So peace because I'm a pacifist, and I say it.