We are not enemies

Nearly all Americans would admit this has been a difficult and divisive election season, and that might just be an understatement. Friends and in some cases family members have severed or “downgraded” relationships with their loved ones. Some media “talking heads” on the left are outright telling their viewers and/or followers that if they have family members or friends that voted for the wrong (in their eyes) candidates, they should NOT celebrate Thanksgiving with them!

This very angry attitude is not completely unheard of in American history. About 164 yrs ago, a similarly divided America (about the issues of slavery and States Rights) endured very serious civil discord in the 1800s. A 52-year-old Republican Senator from Illinois, of the newly founded Republican Party (founded March 20, 1854), was about to be elected President of the United States. To suggest there was tension in the land in that era would be a profound understatement. During the 1840s the public was advised:

“Never discuss religion or politics with those who hold opinions opposite to yours” has been cited in print since at least 1840.¹“‘Never talk about religion or politics’ (etiquette rule),”Barry Popik, July 17, 2012

By 1879 that advice became:

“Do not discuss politics or religion in general company.²“‘Never talk about religion or politics’ (etiquette rule),”Barry Popik, July 17, 2012

The Civil War began as a war of words and progressed to being the bloodiest conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of more than 620,000 people. The question of the day for the Southern Democrats was, does one human being have the right to own another human being as property? Although neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party were pro-slavery, (Lincoln viewed it as a moral wrong), he attempted to be conciliatory toward the Southern Democrats and abide by the Law after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott Decision. Commenting on his June 26, 1857 speech in Springfield:

That year, Lincoln left the Whigs for the new Republican Party and quickly rose in influence, receiving consideration for a vice presidential nomination that year. In the following year, the Dred Scott decision dealt a blow to Republican hopes to contain slavery. In a speech in Springfield on June 26, 1857, Lincoln expressed Republican at the position taken by Douglas that lawabiding citizens should respect this decision of the Supreme Court³“Abraham Lincoln: First Republican President and Civil War Leader”

Lincoln was raised in the home of very religious Hard Shell Baptists. He had a very good grasp of the Scriptures and quoted from them often. His ethics and morality stemmed from those influences, and he walked a very difficult line between upholding the law and following his moral and ethical dictates and commitments. Once elected as the sixteenth President of the United States, he had to enter Washington stealthily, under tight security. Seven states had already seceded from the Union when he arrived on February 23, 1861. Talk of Civil War was already on the lips of many, and on the minds of countless others. The right to own human beings as property was very important financially to the side that had just lost the Presidential election of 1860, and Lincoln’s negative view of slavery was known to all by then, of course. In his inaugural address on Monday, March 4, 1861, Lincoln ended with this thought:

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.⁴“Inauguration of 1861: Abraham Lincoln Sworn into Office,” Evan Phifer, The White House Historical Association

Lincoln ended these thoughts with a biblical sentiment and an invitation to those on the other side. Many centuries before that, in writing to the church in Rome, a place where believers were under persecution, the Apostle Paul wrote:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Romans 12:14-18)

In this short quotation, Paul points back to the words of the Messiah in Matthew 5:44:

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

In Romans 12:17 Paul looks back to these words of Jesus in Matthew 5:39:

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

We are to be good, even godly citizens, according to Romans 13. We may not like particular laws, but as it happens, we live in a nation where citizens are the government and elect proxy representatives to represent our varied viewpoints. We may disagree with one another, but with full recognition that each of us has a right in America to hold the view he or she holds. We also have a possible opportunity to change unjust laws, if the numbers are there to do so. At the same time, Christians are enjoined by Paul to pray for those who would harm or persecute them.

Peter points out that our persecutors will be put to shame by the contrast in our behaviors:

But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:14-16)

Can we agree that many if not all of us have failed in some degree or other to uphold this standard?

Does this mean we should stand silent while contemporary culture in our own day again fights for the right to own humans as property with the ability to dispose of helpless human beings under the euphemism of “choice,” on their whim? Of course we’re speaking of abortion.

Slavery was an abomination, and we would suggest abortion is as well. The comparison of abortion and slavery seems to us as follows:

In America, abortion is deemed to be acceptable, consciously or unconsciously, based on four criteria:

1. Their size. (They are small) We can hardly even see them in the early stages of pregnancy. Why should anyone that tiny have rights like the rest of us?
2. Level of development (Less developed than say, a 1 year, 5 year, or 50 year old) They have nothing that can even be considered an opinion, let alone an acceptable
3. Their environment (Where they live – inside someone’s womb) No one invited them in.
4. Degree of dependency. (People living in wombs are generally far more dependent than your ordinary 30-year-olds) This fact certainly makes them quite inconvenient at times.

Australian moral philosopher, Peter Singer, holds that a child should not be accorded human rights until 30 days out of the womb, during which time a parent may elect to infanticide them. After all, a 30-day old infant is still small, not developed enough, and too dependent to be considered fully human.

How long can we suppose that a 30-day limit will be acceptable? At least one philosopher suggests the limit should be five years. And, next, what should we do with inconvenient and dependent elderly people? At one time the motto was, “Every child should be a wanted child.” How long will it be before we hear, “Every grandma should be a wanted grandma?”

The early church lived under Roman rule. The Romans had quite a few practices that we would today consider absolute abominations. Just to name a few, they practiced slavery, tossed people to lions, persecuted religious minorities, and used young children as sexual objects. Yet, the apostle Paul does not demand that the early Christians hate the Romans. Not at all. The Christians were to love their persecutors and over time, the Christians did significantly transform the Roman empire, but not by force. They appealed to the Roman’s need for God, and for salvation.

Unlike us, the early Christians did not live in a Democratic-Republic where they had civil rights to vote their conscience which the government was bound to respect. Yet many of the Romans were won over to Christianity, which did change their culture significantly over time.

Our political ideals in America are ultimately shaped by our collective spiritual beliefs, and as a nation, we are engaged in a huge spiritual battle that is waged in political campaigns and elections. It is the battle over the Imago Dei, image of God. Are we image bearers of God or are we attempting to recreate God in an image and likeness we prefer, one that is easier to control, and we can reshape at our will? (See Romans 1:18-32) This was the issue that eventually brought on the Civil War. Those Africans who were taken captive by other tribes on the African continent and sold into slavery were not considered created in the image of God by those who captured them or those who ultimately owned them as “property.”

Sadly, our culture today, along with most of the world, does not generally see those around them as created in the image of God, and therefore the weak and helpless do not necessarily deserve respect or protection. Why should people without God even consider that their behavior, practices and desires are, as Lincoln put it, “a moral wrong.” Yet we know that as Christians, we are to love and care for the people who do not have God.

Can we say, as Abraham Lincoln did on Monday, March 4, 1861:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.

Make no mistake, there is a real enemy that we are fighting, and many people are held captive by him. The Apostle Paul talks about the enemy as he describes how those in the church should behave in 2 Timothy 2:24-26. It has application to our lives as ambassadors to those outside the church as well:

the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Obviously, this is not easy. It’s very easy just to “hate back” those who hate us. And yet, hating them is exactly what we must not do.

Back to the Thanksgiving conundrum – the question of boycotting Thanksgiving with the family is not at all about the Holiday and has nothing to do with the meal that has been prepared. It is meant to let friends, relatives, and  perhaps even one’s parents, know that their love for you is possibly headed for the chopping block. But the beauty of it is this – whether they love YOU or not, there is nothing on this Earth they can do to make YOU stop loving them! Love them anyway and pray for them every day.Ω

© 2024, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.