Think about this. Where did Jesus level almost all of his criticism? Almost 100% of the time it was directed towards those within the Jewish faith, those that claimed to be followers Yahweh. And Paul's warnings throughout the NT to his churches can best be summarized by his wisdom to the elders of the church in Ephesus at his departure. "Be shepherds," he tells them because "savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock." Continuing on, he emphasizes, "even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth..."

Many people miss the danger of heresy. It is not an absolute foreign and competitive philosophy to Christianity as are false religions like Scientology or Kabala. Instead, heresy is exactly as Paul described it above; it is a "distortion" of the truth. The Greek word, αἵρεσις (ī∙rā∙sēs), from which we get the word, "heresy" simply means "choice." It gains its meaning as "false teaching" when it is placed up against what the church labels as "orthodoxy," or "straight belief." In other words, heresy is that which presents "choices" or "variations" within orthodox belief.

This is what makes heresy so lethal. Its ability to slide in undetected is due to the fact that it retains just enough elements of true Christianity to appear sound on the surface. Only after it has been ingested does it start to work its poison. The Christian chooses to believe the "variation" rather than the truth and thus starts to make decisions in life based on the perverted philosophies lying hidden under the surface. Only over time do you begin to notice the diminished effectiveness in the individual as their beliefs have worked to rob them of power by guiding their discipleship down a path far from the one Christ is on.

I raised this issue last week due to some of the responses I was seeing by Christians in the wake of the presidential elections. Remorse, shock and anger were a few of the reactions I witnessed. The online social community, Facebook, became a massive posting board of visceral reactions with statements such as "There goes our nation," to "Well, at least God is still in control!"
It was this last statement that I saw the most, and the one that troubled me the greatest. To put the words "at least" and "God is in control" together is, in my opinion, a horrible statement about our confidence and strength in our Creator and reveals an incredible shallowness of theological understanding and scriptural depth. The fact that our God is sovereign over all creation is never to be the thing we rejoice in "the least."

The genesis of a statement like this comes from what I believe to be a variation of true Christian faith that I call "Americanized" Christianity. And, though others would find me too radical in saying it, the definition we built of "heresy" above means that this variation fits the bill to be described as such.

Essentially, we have become spoiled in America by our democratic form of government. This does not mean that democracy is evil. Far from it! Instead, we have simply taken it for granted and done with it something God never intended. Since "choice" and "popular opinion" are the primary vehicles through which leaders get elected and laws get passed, we have come to assume that this is the primary means through which God wants to change our world. Thus, every 4 years in November, church and state become blended again so that you cannot tell where one starts and the other ends.

The result of these assumptions is that we force God to choose sides in our bipartisan system. When two presidential candidates face off we use their platforms and ethical stances to measure out how they line up with our understanding of Scripture. Additionally, we take into consideration the historical stances of each party and then, based on that, decide which candidate God most wants in the White House. Republicans always assume God is with them due, almost exclusively, to their pro-life position. Democrats assume God is with them due to their strong position on helping the poor. Both are wrong.

What we fail to realize in our passion to see ethics enforced through legislative means is that our position as an American citizen has blended in with and confused our place as a disciple of Christ. On the one hand, we profess that we are looking for another city since this is not our current home (Hebrews 13:14), yet, on the other hand, we want to see God preserve, protect and build up this current nation through blessing our choice of a national leader. And when we do not get the leader of our preference, we act as if, somehow, the "Christian side" has lost when the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth!

The thing we need to be desperately careful about is in allowing even the slightest distortion or variation in our walk with our Lord. In fact, when one considers a more literal translation of Ephesians 5:15, they find that Paul opens this paragraph with the statement "Watch that you walk accurately!" (None of the modern translations do this phrase justice!) Hence my concern. I fear that our opinions, passions and motivations in our atmosphere of democracy has been detrimental to the faith in by diminishing our concept of God's sovereignty

One of my favorite stories from the Scriptures occurs in the text of Joshua. God is moving his people into the Promised Land and this requires that cities and governments who stand opposed to what God is doing be dealt with. Jericho is just such a place. Standing as a fortified military outpost whose walls enclose an entire city, it stands as a barrier between God's people and their destination. As such, God directs Joshua to lead the people in a rather awkward and memorable campaign against the city that required little more than marching around the walls until they fell.

The interesting part of the story, though, occurs just before the series of marches. As they neared the city, Joshua, apparently on a walk by himself to survey the scene encounters a soldier with his sword drawn. (Joshua 5:13-15) Startled, Joshua asks the relevant question, "Friend, or Foe?" Although, in more simplistic language, he says "Are you on our side, or theirs?" His question betrays the limited categories he is working with.

The answer from the soldier drops Joshua to his knees, literally. He responds, "Neither, but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." I want you to hear that initial answer again; "Neither." Despite the fact that Jericho has shown itself as a pagan people-group opposed to what God is doing, the angel still does not declare himself as "on Joshua's side." And the reason is simple. God does not choose sides. We do. The angel of the Lord was there to remind Joshua who was in charge, and who was ultimately leading the people of Israel.

We need to hear this loud and clear. Our task is not to confuse our own agendas here on earth, no matter with how much we might think they line up with Scripture, and then assume that God is backing us or supporting us because we have the "more ethical" or "more scriptural" position. The confusion sets in when we do this because we start to limit God's actions to what we can humanly understand. In that arrangement, God has to move the way we think He should move and, if He does not, we grapple with the results and struggle with His sovereignty. The evidence of this is that the overflow of our heart is betrayed in our speech (Matthew 12:34) with poor phrases such as "Well, at least He is in control," which often times comes out more as a question than a statement.

The truth of the matter is that the New Testament actually pays little to no attention to Christians and their involvement in government. In part, this was because they lived exclusively under dictatorships, empires and monarchies where the general public was completely removed from having any influence on who the next leader was short of plotting an assassination. And yet, despite this, Paul was able to write that "there is no authority except that which is established by God." (Romans 13:1) Additionally, Paul also saw the leader of a nation, regardless of how he arrived at that position, as "God's servant." (Romans 13:4-6) This does not mean Paul saw them as committed followers of Christ, but rather that their decisions and mandates would ultimately have to serve God's purposes.

The best example of this in a real-life exchange happened in the discourse between Pilate and Jesus at his trial before the people. Frustrated that Jesus seemed completely indifferent to what was taking place around him and allowing events to unfold without entering a defense plea, Pilate yells "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not realize that I have the power to free you or crucify you?" Jesus calmly replies back "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above." (John 19:10-11) In other words, despite Pilate's assumption that his decisions were the product of his own power, Jesus reveals that Pilate is actually a player on a much grander stage; a stage which he is not the director of. This serves as the backdrop and precedent for Paul's statements in Romans 13.

And so we come back to our own presidential elections. Regardless of who you voted for, the bottom line is that the man who took the office was the one God decided to put there. Despite our democratic process, we have to regain the perspective that God's directives in human history are more powerful and influential than a popular or electoral vote. This means that the victor of the presidential race did not win in spite of God's sovereignty, but as a direct result of it. You may find that hard to swallow, but keep in mind the story of Joshua at Jericho. We cannot limit our grasp of God's sovereignty by forcing it to comply with our understanding of what we believe is the right course of action.

I know the question that naturally follows. One might question that if God is ultimately in control, why bother to vote at all? That's a great question. After all, the mission of the Church is not, in any way shape or form, dependent on the politics of our nation. It might be "assisted" by a more benevolent leader sympathetic to Christianity, but it is not hindered, as history has shown, by even the strongest opponent.

The answer is that we should vote because (A) we have the privilege to do so and (B) because it is a means by which we can make our voice known. Whether or not the leader that wins is pro-life in their stance on abortion, I can use the democratic process as a means to voice my opposition to what is, essentially, the murder of innocent victims. However, if the leader I vote for loses, I should not assume that I, the Church, or Christianity lost. God's sovereignty covers the election process and His Church will move forward regardless. We should not act defeated and say "at least He is in control," but rather, in every election, celebrate the victory as a result of His being on the throne.

The question then, again, is not whether or not God is backing my choices and my votes, but, rather, whether I am following God in what He is doing. Should I vote and enter into the democratic process? Yes. But I must be careful not to let it enter into my Christianity and my mission on earth. This is how we can prevent a heretical form of our faith.