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.