I have suggested that Daniel 1:3-20, might be a good template for requesting an exemption to a state mandate. There can be no question that the mandate Nebuchadnezzar (The State) wanted to enforce upon the three Hebrew boys is eerily analogous to many of the state mandates we are facing today. To suggest that the king’s order to Daniel and his friends was simply a “request” is to minimize the fear Nebuchadnezzar’s servants experienced when the boys were refusing the mandate. To say, “No”, to a king is not without lethal repercussions.
In much the same way, we are currently watching a similar trepidation as people are trying to figure out how to say, “No”, to giant corporations and governments as they leap over jurisdictional boundaries of personal autonomy. The threats of loss of employment, pay, retirement, and “blackballing”, is something not to be taken lightly. To say, “No”, to the state in 2021 has its repercussions too.
But Daniel and his friends follow a pattern in Daniel 1, which I believe has much to teach us. Christians have an obligation of obedience to that which God has placed in authority. Not unquestioning obedience, but rather an obedience of one following another who is also practicing obedience. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to follow the disobedience of another. Allegiance is to God and His Word first, and then other allegiances are prioritized from that vantage point. So, if a spiritual (even a civic) authority is asking something of us that comports with Scripture (rightly interpreted), we should yield to that authority as unto God. If we are being asked to disobey Scripture, then in like manner we are to disobey them for “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Earthly authority is indeed delegated by God, by it is jurisdictional and not without its exceptions.
I will be suggesting 3 important keys in forming an appeal for exemption to a state mandate. I have found in my experience navigating this time period and fielding scores of requests for assistance or counsel in this pursuit that those who sincerely implement these steps are finding favor and approval.
The first step is providing a foundation of Scripture.
The Hebrew boys refused to ingest the king’s food and drink. Why? Perhaps for a couple of reasons implied within the text. There was a high likelihood that the foods had been dedicated to the false gods of Babylon and consumption would have been both a violation of Scripture and conscience (Exodus 34:15; Numbers 25:2; Revelation 2:14, 20).
Now, while some meat and wine were certainly appropriate for Jewish consumption, some meat and wines were not. (This is why there appears at times to be inconsistency with the concepts of abstinence and moderation.) The key, however, was that they had determined to live out a consistent, Scriptural worldview no matter the repercussion.
I have talked with scores of people seeking exemptions and answering questionnaires and I can tell you that one of the apparent thresholds of a “sincerely” held religious belief is the attachment of that belief to Scripture. The people who have been granted religious exemptions have almost exclusively been granted it based on their foundational use of Scripture. They have used scriptural references copiously to demonstrate their conviction concerning the authority of the Bible. As strange as it may sound in our rebellious, secular nation, the litmus test of Scripture as authority still rings in the psyche of both the State and corporations.
However, whether it is accepted as authority or not, you cannot fight Babylonian sophistry with your own Babylonian wisdom. While all these mandates will eventually filter through our court system and be determined constitutional or not, for the believer we have a higher authority. Spouting off the wisdom of Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, Ron DeSantis (whom I personally respect) or even the sainted memory of Rush Limbaugh is not the final authority. Believers are going to have to appeal to God’s Word.
I would also highly encourage those who consider themselves Charismatics, Pentecostals, or continuationists, to not lead with the argument, “God told me”, as subjective authority. While I agree that the Holy Spirit does indeed work in the conscience of people and may prompt convictions in the mind or heart, we cannot lead with His subjective voice. (I will come back to this point in a subsequent blog post.)
The foundational challenge in the era we are living in is: Who or What is going to be the final authority? It appears that the Lord is granting favor to those who are appealing to His Word and not the subjective testimonial of, “This is how I feel”.
Daniel and the boys based their appeal upon their conviction of Scripture first. So must we if we seek to be biblical in our response to these mandates.
(Our next blog will deal with a theology of the body.)
No Comments