Fire and Brimstone Preaching: Good Idea or Bad Idea?

We’re defining “fire and brimstone” as, preaching against a sin, or reminding people of Satan or hell.  Let’s look at Peter.  In his very first sermon, in Acts 2:19-21, he began with a quote from Joel 2:

I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. ²⁰ The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. ²¹ And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.’

So he begins his preaching by giving graphic images of the devastation of the Day of the Lord. Such a negative start.This was book-ended with hopeful statements, too; that God would give prophecies, dreams, and images; and He would respond if they call on His name.  Then Peter wasted no time in reproaching everyone (Acts 2:22-24a) for a recent incident that was still raw on their nerves—he accused them (not Pilate) of crucifying their Messiah.  He didn’t shy away from blunt language:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles… ²³ Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;²⁴ whom God raised up…

Note how confrontational Peter is, YOU have crucified, you have put Him to death.  Note particularly his calling them “lawless.”  The Jews thought they knew the law, and had abundant scribes and lawyers to tell them exactly how to be lawful to the finest degree possible; so being accused of lawlessness was a gigantic slap in the face, was it not?

He points more emphatically at their mistake in verse 36:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

This directness about their sin makes this “fire and brimstone” preaching.  What was the reaction? A good one, from Acts 2:37-41:

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” ³⁸ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized…saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” ⁴¹ Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Three thousand people saved!  An astonishing result from one “fire and brimstone” sermon.  These people turned completely around; as later verses show, they were on fire for Christ. 

If something works, you do it again, right?  Peter, after healing a lame man, is equally forceful in his reproach of the Jews, in Acts 3:13-15:

…God…glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. ¹⁴ But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, ¹⁵ and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses

Peter won’t let them escape blame by saying “Pilate did it.”  They knew the truth; Pilate was very willing to opt out of crucifixion, but the Jews wouldn’t let him.  He is again forceful with his language; “you killed the Prince of life,” you delivered Him up, you traded Him for a murderer.  He also accused them of denying Christ.  To do that was a serious charge; if unrepentant, it is a ticket to hell, as Jesus points out in Matthew 10:33:

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven

Then Peter seems to open the door for them to escape blame, in verse 17:

“Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.

But how acceptable is it, to say, “Yes, we killed Him, but we did it out of ignorance.”  But that was only a temporary respite, as his censorious language reaches its peak in verse 23:

And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet (Jesus) shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. 

You just never hear this confrontational preaching anymore, do you?  In any event, except for the priests, the response was amazing, as Acts 4:4 says:

However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. 

Considering that households generally took on a faith together, this suggests at least 10,000 people, including wives and older children, either were saved in this sermon, or have been saved altogether.  When compared to 3000 souls added in his previous sermon, shortly before, this sermon, definitely classed as fire and brimstone, might’ve saved 7000-10,000 people!  This is shocking, is it not?  Because of fire and brimstone preaching in two sermons, their saved souls had grown from 120 to at least 10,000.  

Now of course, you might beg off from the obvious conclusion, saying that the Holy Spirit did something special here just to “kick off” Christianity’s start.  Well, “doing something special” is my point.  Preachers need to understand that the results are not theirs—the results belong to God.  The Holy Spirit can knock a person down with conviction far better than the preacher can.  Suppose that a pastor is never blunt about sin, and fears a negative response to such preaching so much that he never delivers a fire and brimstone message.  Given favorable results that we've seen, and if he wants to save souls more than worry about how some of the people feel about him, he should be willing to give it a try, right?  So if he rejects it:  that fear is of the world, is it not? Is he assuming that the negative style doesn’t get results?  We are proving the opposite. Is it possible that the opposite of his "rational" expectation occurs; perhaps the Holy Spirit will not bless his messages, because of his “fear of man,” and few people are genuinely saved in that church as a result?  It could even be that with bland preaching, he attracts more “worldly Christians” to his membership (that’s an oxymoron—being worldly and a Christian shouldn’t exist).  These people are often trouble.  They actually get angry and fearful if the Holy Spirit gets some people emotionally saved and starts to shake up the place.  If pastors then listen to their complaints, and get worried himself, he might suppress anything considered "radical" today--and kill a revival.

My conclusion is, the Holy Spirit liked Peter’s sermons, and blessed them by convicting people and bringing more souls to heaven.  May God be praised.  When you see these results, why not copy it, pastors? Are you bold enough? 

Peter preaches like that again, this time before the religious rulers, after a miraculous healing.  If Peter had used worldly logic, it would suggest that he “back off” from a fire and brimstone style with them, knowing that they had the power to imprison him, and then no one would hear the gospel from him again. Better to "go softer" than to be forced to go silent, right?   But the Holy Spirit gave him the fire and brimstone words, as we’re told in Acts 4:8, and you can see his forthrightness in the sermon in verses 10-12:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel… ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead… ¹¹ This is the

‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’

¹² Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

I would just like to note, for present day readers, the “bigoted intolerance” of Peter’s—or really God’s —statement in verse 12—there is no salvation in any other faith, including the Jews trying to obey the law.

Now you may argue that, yeah, when accompanied by miraculous healings, as he had, you’ll get more people saved.  My answer is twofold:  First, the Jewish rulers were not worried about the recent miracle; their concern was that Peter was preaching that Jesus was raised from the dead.  We all know that miracles can be conjured up in fakery; but it’s hard to fake someone rising from the dead.  Acts 4:1-2:

…the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, ² being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

Secondly, Jesus knew that salvation by miracles was temporary; that was mostly to pull more people around to hear His great words.  The words were the key; they were calculated to convict of sin, which is essential in being saved.  As you can see in John 2:23-25:

Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.²⁴ But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men,²⁵ and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man

Let’s turn to the deacon, Stephen, a fire and brimstone preacher in the “worst” way.  Now it’s true that when Stephen used that style on the religious rulers, the results were what you might expect--disastrous. He was stoned to death. But God wanted them to hear just those words, as Acts 6:15 will clearly imply, He was behind it:

And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.

And his sermon, in chapter 7?  As we said:  fire and brimstone. He tells them that they were God’s chosen people, and God blessed their ancestors abundantly.  But they rejected God, and God’s prophets, at every turn; they would rather have idols than God.  In their wilderness wandering, they would rather go back to Egypt than have faith in God.  As Acts 7:35, 39, and 42 point out:

“This Moses whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ is the one God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush….³⁹ whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt… ⁴² Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets

As the next several verses point out, they would rather worship Moloch, the stars, images, things of Babylon…but not the God Who loved them.

Now Stephen uses language guaranteed to touch their “hot buttons” more than Peter, in Acts 7:51 and 52:

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. ⁵² Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers

Stiff-necked!  Uncircumcised! (That must’ve hurt—circumcision was a badge of honor to them).  You always resist the Holy Spirit. He told them that they were persecutors, betrayers, and murderers.  This kind of language, calling people names, is guaranteed NOT to save anyone, except a masochist.  So why did God want him to do it?  Well, consider the audience:  the religious leaders, who had a long history of rejecting prophets and Jesus before, and rejecting the disciples now.  So they get the harshest language.  No longer just facts, like Peter did with the Jewish public:  You killed the Son of God.  Now, with the leaders, it’s: You’re stiff-necked! And so on. What do we learn from this? God might ask us to preach in a style that will get us killed, or hated. But you do it, you use your forthright and blunt language.  So, if we want to go to the mouth of the beast, as it were, like a “Reason Rally,” or an Atheist rally, you might need to get prayed up and get stark about their future destination in hell--if that’s what the Lord gives you. It’s what He wants, whether it seems to make sense or not. Maybe you won’t see anyone saved. It didn’t happen to Stephen here, and it didn’t happen to Noah for many years. Well, you say, why even do it? Because when they stand in judgment, God will remind them of the words you said to help convict them.  And because we all should be “watchmen.”  Ezekiel 33:2-6 explains the idea: 

…let the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, ³ when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, ⁴ then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. ⁵ He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. ⁶ But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’   

The definition of “warn” is to “inform someone of an impending danger…give someone forceful advice about their actions.”  If you are the watchman, it is your obligation to use forceful (i.e, fire and brimstone) language to steer them clear of danger.  If you don’t, judgment is on you.

Now, you may argue that you are not appointed to be a watchman, so you have no responsibility for warning, nor punishment if you don’t. But to feel that way suggests that you don’t want to warn him of danger coming his way (hell)--so you don't really love the brethren.  But that’s a dangerously complacent path, as I John 4:7-8 points out:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. ⁸ He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

To use a blunt example:  Say, someone is walking unknowingly toward a fire.  You will run up and warn them, forcefully if necessary.  If they aren’t changing course, and they are your friend or your brother, you will even attack them, as a final measure to keep them from walking into it. You’re not going to stand back and say, “Not my responsibility.”  God, the real writer of Acts, sets in Paul a noble example for all of us to follow. Watch and warn people, he’s saying, is a responsibility for all of us.  Acts 20:30-31:

 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. ³¹ Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

Yes, we do have a responsibility to preach fire and brimstone on occasion.

When Peter preached to Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius in Acts 10, his approach was completely different.  No more fire and brimstone.  Why?  Well, he saw the Gentiles as a foreign mission.  Jews had minimal relations with Gentiles, particularly about religion.  The Gentiles knew little about this Jesus of Nazareth.  The Jews had the Old Testament Scriptures, with prophecies, so they should have worshipped Jesus. But they crucified Him. So the word for them was a word of reprimand.  But the words to the Gentiles were those of instruction and education about Jesus.

So, we see that fire and brimstone preaching was highly successful with the Jews, who needed to be aware of their sin, and who had Scripture that they allegedly knew and believed in.  Well, the same is true of the U.S. today.  We have lots of Bibles, lots of Christian tradition. But, you say, we have no great sins among churchgoers.  Are you sure of that?  Could it be that it’s easily hidden these days?  Let’s not kid ourselves.  We have sin among churchgoers.  We definitely need fire and brimstone to wake us up—we could lose the salvation we think we have.

But…most pastors don’t use fire and brimstone methods anymore, which we’ve seen are successful…why? 

Is it because pastors love to assume that everyone in their church is saved, and not “walking toward a fire,” so aggressively warning them is not necessary?  There might be a few problem areas, pastor would say, or problems caused by only a few people, but “they would straighten out if we just warn them in a kind way, if possible.”  Pastors are diplomats.  They tend to suppress prophetic voices among their leaders that seem to them negative, full of admonishment.  Pastors consider the prophets, the sources for those utterances, speculative, emotionally driven, only believed with a large grain of salt, and pastors don’t like to deal with problems that seem to always result when someone gets their feelings hurt when these guys talk. So…church discipline, commanded in Scripture, is effectively ignored (I have a blog on that subject).  But take a look at Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 10:11-12.  This was after his listing past sins of lusting after evil things, sexual immorality, etc, all of which are pointed out explicitly in Scripture.  Gee, you might ask, do you really want to mention these terrible things that people are capable of doing?  Here is his answer:

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. ¹² Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.:

Some Scriptures are for our admonition, to shake a finger at us, to warn us, “lest (we) fall.”  Fall might mean going to hell, or taking steps in that direction.  Such admonishment is needed to remind ourselves that we are sinful people and need God every day.  So when was the last time you heard a pastor preach on one of the fallen people in Scriptures, preaching deeply about the sin, and concluding the sermon with “so as far as we know, he is in hell even today. You could go there yourself, taking the path he took.”  Not going to happen, right?  Pastors are trained in seminary to begin a sermon lighthearted, and end on a positive note, to send everyone home happy. Keeps everyone coming back, tithing, paying the bills. But God’s goal is sometimes not to make us happy—but to call us up short, to make us sober and vigilant, sometimes to make us introspective.  To make us take a good hard look at ourselves, trying to strip away the self-deception that we fall prey to if we are not bathed in Scripture, which gives us a realistic look at ourselves.

Since pastors are not encouraging us, may we desire to be closer to God, and warn ourselves to put an end to our own sins and self-deception.  And pray for pastors to become leaders, with more spine.  Willing to warn us away from falling.

When Persecution Comes

I’m summarizing a great CD by David Bercot, about the possible upcoming persecution by the U.S. government against its Christian citizens, those who “live out” the Bible. He begins by saying, there are two types of persecution: primary and secondary. Both are serious, in terms of possible death or imprisonment. Primary is defined as where the intent of a law is to outlaw Christianity itself, or to force everyone to worship another religion. The ancient Roman Empire made Christianity illegal around 90 AD, but thankfully, it was only enforced sporadically. Plus, Rome required everyone to believe in the divinity of Caesar. Today, primary persecution is practiced in North Korea, and in various sections of Near East countries under Islamic rule.

In secondary persecution, the intent is not necessarily to persecute Christians; but the law would require us to do something or say something that would violate Christ’s teachings. An example would be a conscription law requiring military service, which some Christians throughout the world would not do, maintaining that Jesus’ commands regarding the enemy are sort of the opposite of killing him.  Another example was where there were state churches established by the Catholic Church in the middle ages, and everyone was required to be a member, participating in its sacraments, thus acceding to all its doctrines. Many Waldensians, a serious Christian protesting group, went through the motions of attending Catholic services, but then had private meetings of their own. But other Waldensians still saw this as bowing to Rome, refused to do so, and came under severe persecution. In the end, all the Waldensians were declared heretical by Rome in 1215, nearly all killed in the 1600s, and survive today in small groups in Italy, Germany, the U.S., Argentina, and Uruguay.

Mr. Bercot doesn’t feel that the U.S. Christians will face primary persecution in the next 20-30 years (barring a possible Tribulation period), but considering how government can quickly and radically change, it’s better to be prepared now as to what to do if it does.

But he does believe that secondary persecution in the U.S. is more likely, as more laws create a conflict between U.S. government requirements and our Christian faith. When to rebel is sometimes uncertain, and Mr. Bercot sides with caution. Every time some anti-moral law is passed (abortion, for instance), it’s easy to feel rebellious. But remember, our first rule is to follow God’s Word in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Remember that Paul is writing during the time of one of the most violent governments in history, one that shortly would begin throwing Christians to the lions. Yet he doesn’t advocate open rebellion. So that means, for us: We obey the laws, period,

UNLESS obedience to the law would cause us to violate a law, or principle, of Jesus Christ.

Let’s not break Caesar’s laws lightly. To obey God’s Word, we should be the ones most conscientiously obeying the laws. But if the law demands that we disobey Christ’s commands, we ignore it. Follow the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of men.

Too many Christians break a law for light reasons. Here is an example of how we break the law simply because it’s “inconvenient” to our Christian work, and how we play games with our minds excusing our action. Say you run a food delivery and selling service to quite a number of people. The law requires that you have a commercial kitchen, subject to government certification and inspection and so forth. But you cut corners to keep profitable and to have more time to spend doing your Christian service for the church. If you seriously obeyed the law, you would have to slash the profits and take on other occupation. Since that would harm your time available for Christian service, you justify breaking the law. But the Scriptural point is, nothing in the food law requires us to violate Christ’s principles. The law is just inconvenient to our time for Christ. So the law is not persecution. And breaking it is illegitimate and not condoned by Christ.

Many Christians are upset with Supreme Court decisions making new laws. Well, consider how our system of jurisprudence works. We learned in school the simplicity that laws are made by legislators, and interpreted by courts. But the truth is, courts have a lot to say about how a law is made. In the process of interpreting laws, courts also help shape how they finally look and are applied. They fill in gaps that are left by the statutes the legislators have left, they decide how various laws interact with one another, they restrict the operation of certain statutes, they may strike down a statute as being unconstitutional, and they may interpret a statute in unexpected ways. Their interpretation IS the law. You can’t have 300 million people with different opinions of what a law means having a say; anarchy would result. You need a final arbiter—and that is the Supreme Court. We may disagree with the result, but we have to follow their decision as law. But as we said before, UNLESS obedience to the law would cause us to violate a principle of Christ.

Many Christians feel the Court does not respect freedom of religion. Keep in mind, that court cannot give us absolute rights for freedom of religion. An example is when your idea of freedom of religion causes you to infringe on someone else’s rights. Case in point: the Ken Miller trial of several years ago. A woman had a baby while she was in a lesbian relationship. Both women grew to love the baby. Later she became a Christian, broke off her relationship, and the Vermont courts had given the other woman visiting rights to the child, as a marriage would do. But she objected to the relationship of the lesbian with her child. She could not get the courts to change, so she decided to flee the country rather than comply with the court’s visitation order. Her relative (Ken Miller, a pastor) helped her in what amounted to a parental kidnapping, and he was later convicted for doing so. Keep in mind, both she and Ken can believe or speak whatever they want about homosexuality. Ken is free to teach that to his congregation (at least for now). He is free to deny membership of a homosexual at his church (since membership is a “privilege,” not a “right.”) He is free to refuse to participate in the marriage of two homosexuals, since they only have the right to get married by a state official, not to force any minister they choose (we have rights of association). The first amendment has given them all those rights. But their problem is, they have infringed on the court-granted rights of another—namely the right of visitation. Now if the other lesbian woman was a known child abuser, this story would be different. But it is assumed that a homosexual is not automatically a child abuser, so the court stood by her visitation right and against the man who helped someone infringe that right. (The authorities never found her). The courts behaved properly, given the laws as they now stand.

On a related issue, the courts may also allow the state to force you to violate your first-amendment Christian beliefs, so long as they perceive that the state has an “overriding governmental interest.” For instance, the courts have already decided that the first amendment doesn’t allow for conscientious objection when a country goes to war, since the “overriding” state interest is for preservation of the state and its freedoms, and every man should be armed to defend themselves to maintain that--even though you believe that Christ’s commands about how to treat enemies do not include killing them (what if some of them are believers, too? You have killed your brothers in the Lord). Fortunately, Congress moved contrarily, and made laws anyhow to legislate conscientious objection—but Congressional laws are not inalienable, and can be revoked by another law or by a court in a flash.

In another situation that went the other way, in Wisconsin vs. Yoder, the court decided that Wisconsin didn’t have an overriding interest in how the Amish children were only taught through eighth grade, when the state required 10th grade. The Amish children, having then learned reading and writing, were then being taught superb vocational skills at home. The Amish and their kids were decent, tax-paying, law-abiding members of society, and not a financial burden on the state. Their breaking of the education law was for sincere religious purposes. So the eighth grade education was not shown to be harming society, and Wisconsin lost its effort to prove its overriding interest. The first amendment won here. (This story could be completely different if the court decided that Amish religion harmed the kids. Such an opinion would not upset too many people, in the current “spiritually asleep” culture).

Now you see that you can’t depend on court protection—but you can’t decide what to do based on it anyhow. The issue is, if they’re asking you to violate Christ’s commands, you have to rebel. Regardless of consequences. If the Congress took away conscientious objection, would that mean you would grab a weapon and start killing? No, I would hope not. All Mr. Bercot is saying, is, don’t be under any illusions about court protection or constitutional protection from persecution. Don’t assume the rapture has to get here before you can be persecuted. Christ told us that persecution would be our lot (Matthew 5). He was persecuted, to say the least—and are servants any better than their master?

What are the legal issues breathing down our necks in America to give Christians trouble today? Mr. Bercot picks two: (1) children; and (2) homosexuals. On (1), the government has become more and more involved in “protecting” our children, and taking them away from parents on sometimes unproven evidence. Maybe there is more child abuse going on, but maybe the problem is how the government defines child abuse differently than before. So far, it’s the cults that see their kids taken away, but don’t be surprised when people who are radical in the cause of Christ can expect to be seen as “cults” too. After all, some of them isolate their kids by doing home schooling, some restrict their kids from what they call “worldly” influences, and they dress funny (as opposed as the sexual apparel rampant today). Here is an interesting case that we can learn a lot from: the polygamous Mormon group in Texas in 2008. They had a thing for marrying young girls to men who wanted them obedient.  We disagree with their polygamous practices, of course, but hear me out for learning’s sake. The “child protection” began from an anonymous call from a girl who claimed to be 14 and a member of the group, who told how she was sexually abused. The child protection services jumped and took away all the children of the group. I’m even talking babies and boys (who were not under any threat—just the older girls). When later it was proven to be a false call—it actually came from a young woman in Colorado, who was never a member of the group, who made the story up—but the state refused to give back the kids. They continued their investigation for several months before returning most of them. Consider what that means, Christian, down the road—here’s a Christian religious group, maybe meeting at home, maybe having some “activist” or “funny” beliefs, and someone who doesn’t like them could make a prank call, and suddenly you could have the trauma of having the kids removed for several months and investigated. Sounds to me like you’re guilty until proven innocent, and government watchdogs are ignoring the trauma of separating children and parents. They do what government likes to do—they’re heavy-handed and slow.

For those of you who don’t care about the state’s abuse here, since weird cults are not OK with you (even though this group had lived quiet peaceable lives), just keep in mind the quote from Christian pastor Martin Niemoller during the early days of the Nazi oppression of the Jews, when most people weren’t interested in helping the Jews: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist; then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist; then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew; then they came for me; and there was no one left to speak for me.” The day will come when serious Christians here will be under attack. Serious Christians are appearing as strange to more and more people, folks. What’s strange now (home schooling children), could become anti-public policy. And then WE will become a “cult.” I suggest we nip government arrogance by defending anyone whose rights are violated.

It’s important to realize that a lot of hand-wringing could be avoided if we just wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court, the President, et al are going to do what comes naturally, as government is not majority-controlled by serious Christians—as is true for most institutions. I have argued in a separate blog that most people in America, in fact, are not Christians, even though they say they are. The statistics back up my claim. My point is, it does no good to become fearful over every wrong cultural movement and try to elect politicians, when they really can’t make a difference. The real key to protecting our kids, and ourselves, is to learn to love God, as “perfect love casts out fear,” I John 4:18. Develop spiritual keys to defeating life’s downtimes. We can’t rely on politicians to bring us peace and protection—we rely on God, and His peace.

The second area of possible persecution for us are laws considering discrimination against homosexuals. An important sidebar is this—13 years ago, Canada made a law against “hate speech,” defined as speech or writing that “incites hatred against any identifiable group.” A devoted, but crude, Christian in Saskatchewan mailed out flyers, speaking against the public schools, how they endorsed homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle. In 2013 he was guilty of violating the hate speech laws. What did he say, you ask? He said “now the homosexuals want to share their filth and propaganda with our children;” a sex education course “degenerated into a filthy session where gay and lesbian teachers used dirty language to describe lesbian sex and sodomy to their teenage audience.” I suspect if he smoothed his language, he wouldn’t have gone to court. But just because he is crude, do we strip him of his free speech? What group did he incite? There were no riots afterward. On the other hand, the media treated him as a Neanderthal, pathetic, hater. THEY incited people to despise him, only they did it with cunning finesse. The point of all this is, I can see hate speech legislation not far off in America. There are already many cries by people for us to be “politically correct.” The second point is, I can see no advantage in doing what he is doing, as a way to rebel. The way America is, it’s a loser situation for him.

There are many more important arguments that we could raise (such as people’s complacency about being saved when they’re not) to get on with people. You probably won’t win those arguments either, but you made them think about hell and heaven a little. Remember, neither Jesus nor His disciples spent a minute arguing against culture. As Paul said, he preached only Christ. The Holy Spirit will make them more moral, when they become saved. If we’re asked point blank about God and gays, I suggest we recite Scripture (people will make fun of it if it’s the Old Testament—hey, they’re discriminating against Jews!) Work on your New Testament quotes, such as Romans 1:26 or Matthew 19—but don’t get any itchy trigger-finger to quote them. Let’s hope that simply quoting Scriptures will never throw you in courts as “hate speech”—but who knows when that may change?

Mr. Bercot sees the following in the future: (1) laws that require church and home schools to include homosexuality in the curriculum as an acceptable alternate lifestyle; and (2) laws that prohibit preaching against homosexuality as a sin, or as “wrong.” If a preacher wants to cover these subjects in his sermon, from God’s Word, it wouldn’t be a good idea for the church to record it—it can then be used against him in court.

Keep in mind that affected trades that are not desirable for serious Christians include: certified counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists, public schoolteachers, certain college professors, government officers—all of which will not certify you if you express the view that homosexuality is “wrong.” Stay away from these—along with operating a motel, an apartment, or running a B&B. You will be sued repeatedly for discriminating against homosexuals by not sheltering them overnight. If you’re a florist, someone will want you to decorate a gay wedding—the same idea goes for cake-making and videography. Christians are already losing regularly in courts in these areas.

So, what do Christians do? (1) Change the profession you’re in, or thinking of joining, if one of the above. Or, if you’re in rental, downgrade the business to only a few units—the laws are often different for small businesses. These actions could involve sacrifices and loss of money, but that’s the cross we should gladly bear for Him. The other major option is (2) Heed Jesus’ advice in Matthew 10:23:

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another …

Why not move? You say it’s a federal law, so it doesn’t matter—but remember, enforcement tends to be sporadic; it depends on local sensitivities. Moving out of San Francisco to Kentucky might leave you untouched til’ you retire. Before you move, study your possible new locations and the leaders of local society, carefully. Remember, don’t get paranoid yet—despite the Canadian hate crime law, nobody has been arrested preaching in a Canadian church (maybe that’s because the pastors are avoiding “hot” subjects). But if things get really bad all over the USA, consider moving to another country. There are many that are kinder to Christians than the U.S., even right now.

If we face laws in the future that criminalize the way we educate our children, it’s smart to move before the state moves in to grab your child. Fleeing after that means you get charged with parental kidnapping, which is a felony—and kidnapping is a federal offense, which means the FBI is after you.  Parental kidnapping is a continuing offense, so the FBI never stops looking for you—the statute of limitations doesn’t even start until you’re apprehended. And don’t forget, if the state grabs your child, it’s smarter to work through the legal system than to grab the child and run when you visit. Then if they catch you, you will most likely permanently lose custody.

If you do grab your child and are ready to run after a court order against you, beware of leaving “tracks” in the form of digital or electronic footprints. Emails may serve as silent witnesses against us. Just “deleting” it doesn’t remove it from your computer, unless you have a software program which buries it by overwriting it with countless lines of gibberish. That make the forensic guys crazy. Forensic guys can determine the date and brand of a flash drive inserted into your computer as well. They can also trace any Google searches you’ve made. You don’t want to give away information on where you’re headed if fleeing from the government. Keep in mind, emails that you have sent have a recipient—and emails that you receive have a sender, whose computer may be searched by the government as well as yours. Also keep in mind that g-mails are also stored on Google servers, which the government may access by forcing Google to turn them over. Any service provider, for that matter, may have a copy of your emails.

The solution? Don’t use emails to communicate sensitive topics. Try letters, using a trusted courier if speed is necessary. If you’re already under investigation, keep in mind, the government may open your letters. It helps to send out through a public postal bin in another town, leaving your name and address off the envelope. Or try face-to-face communication, if at all possible.
Cell phones are another problem. If you talk during your escape, you can be traced by the government by simply seeing what tower it’s pinging from. The phone also has GPS, which the government can trace you as well even if you don’t call anyone. Best to remove the batteries when you’re running. Turn off any other GPS systems (Garmin), unless you absolutely need it for navigation (go back to Mapquest, maybe?)

When talking at home, remember that land lines have more privacy, since it’s harder for the government to tap—they need a court order. But they can obtain records on who you called—and the government might use them to help locate you, or they might use the call-recipient as witness against you.

Solution? Ditch the cell phone when on the move. Use public phones-curse their rarity. Thus, the way to beat the government’s high-tech capabilities is—go low-tech.

Finally, if you’re arrested, you will be advised of your Miranda rights. Take advantage of them. Say nothing except “let me call a lawyer.” Ignore the police’s telling you “it will go a lot easier for you” to confess. It’s a lie. Also, be aware of a document called “search incident to an arrest.” It gives the government freedom to search and attach whatever’s on you or close around you when they arrest you.  It’s best, if you can see the arresting officers outside your door, to drop your cell phone, then go outside, close the door behind you, and then get arrested. If you’re in your car, with GPS, or computer nearby, it’s best to park, lock, and walk to the arresting officers, or get someone else to drive you to the police station. Finally, IF you’ve already been charged with a crime, destroying evidence after that is also a crime. My previous advice on deleting can be done before you’ve been officially charged. Keep in mind—an arrest does not mean you have been charged yet, don’t assume that.

Don’t forget, all communication with your attorney is confidential, so you need to be honest about your past. BUT don’t share your intent to engage in “crimes” in the future—that’s not protected by law, and your attorney can be forced to witness that against you. It is legal to discuss with your attorney “what if” scenarios to try to determine what’s within the boundary of the law. “What if” is not a crime yet (except in the movie Minority Report). Also keep in mind, everyone you involve in helping you could also be prosecuted with you. The less you tell them about what you’re doing, the better—or if you could do it yourself, that might be best. But you would miss out on the bonding experience of doing something “illegal” together for the cause of Christ. The day may come when small groups of Christians will have great causes and sacrifice their lives and reputations together.
Let us be wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves. Our lives mean nothing in the cause of Christ. Endure the hard times, to be with Him eternally—a much better goal, is it not?

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot CD, “When Persecution Comes,” Scroll Publishing.