The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is Clandestine Christianity OK?

Gabe, it might seem that any form of lying to authorities indicates a lack of faith.
But that great man of faith, Richard Wurmbrand did it. He proclaimed that it was RIGHT to lie to the Communists.
He made up his mind that he would never reveal the names of other Christians to the authorities in Romania so that they would be brought to the place of torment also. When he was tortured to the point that he could no longer endure, he provided names. But they were names of Christians who had either died or left the country.

Menno Simons, the man from which Mennonites get their name lied to the authorities to save his life. When driving a coach, they stopped him and asked, "Is Menno Simons in this coach. Menno hollered down to the covered coach where the passengers rode, “Is Menno Simons down there?” There was no reply. “Menno Simons is not down there!” Menno replied. That which Menno replied was literally true. But the meaning of “lie” is not to state something which is factually false. The meaning of “lie” is to deceive. Menno deceived these men into thinking he was not on the coach. But in my opinion, he did right.

Moral imperatives can be arranged in a hierarchy where some imperatives take precedence over others. The imperative to save a life takes precedence over the imperative not to lie, even if the life you save is your own.

Apples and oranges… “lying” to PRESERVE a human life is an act of goodness, which at least has some biblical precedence (Josh 2:4-6). Lying to spread a doctrinal belief… TOTALLY in a different ballpark. And HOW the two can be conflated as saying the same thing… I don’t think so! (IMO).

The other thing to look at is there is no certain outcome in Guy’s request. Perhaps he could NOT save anyone. He could make things worse. Perhaps his actions get some honest people killed. He might get caught and put in prison. Authorities could then make it difficult for other honest ministers, priests and visitors, In some Asian countries, there is an “official” government sanctioned version of Christianity - like Russia (i.e. Russian Orthodox Church )and China (whatever their version is). The country could be filled with spies and informers (i.e. more likely than not). Take North Korea - for example. Perhaps 1 in 3 people are government informers, along with their official spies. Foreigners are regularly watched and followed. Most likely, this person would never get anything off the ground. It’s a gamble with many possibilities - both good and bad.

Fully agree with you - but that is far different than the scenario talked about in the OP. Hence, Davo said it best - “Apples and Oranges”. As a Christian, I don’t support the OP’s methods. But, say, Cory Tenboom (I know I spelled it wrong) from WWII, IMO she could have lied and remained true to God. She didn’t and God blessed her, but I think she could have lied morally and that God still would have blessed her. But, I guess that is just my opinion. Again, Davo said it best.

Foreigners are regularly watched and followed. Most likely, this person would never get anything off the ground. It’s a gamble with many possibilities - both good and bad.

At this point many folks in some repressive countries have satellite TV using hidden dishes on their roofs disguised as a part of the roof and have the chance to watch Christian TV via satellite or sometimes they have a vision or dream about Jesus. Also the gospel is starting to be delivered over cell phones via new apps using just about any language.

Christ commanded us to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). He didn’t add to that “unless you are a foreigner trying to enter a nation that forbids Christianity, in which case just stay at home and pray”.

The Church during the days of the pagan Roman Empire lived a life of subterfuge. They didn’t walk-up to Roman officials and loudly state, “I’m a member of the illegal Christian Church!” No. They infiltrated, they were inconspicuous, they were subtle. They smuggled Christian texts to people. They secretly baptized. Etc. When the Romans sniffed them out, they ran away. Only when caught and ordered to burn incense to the emperor did they boldly refuse and go to their deaths as martyrs.

If the early Christians had been “law-abiding citizens”, Christianity would have been stillborn.

At first I would’ve said, divert the train to the track that’s not in service, saving the small group of kids while sacrificing one. But the question they asked really made me think. I would let the train stay it’s course. Those kids on the main track will die and hopefully remind kids not to play on train tracks. I don’t want to see or hear about any children getting run over by trains, so I would have to look away and hold my hands over my ears.

Yet… Paul says to be subject to government… Peter and Paul both said to be law-abiding citizens. There is a big difference from being persecuted because you are being inflammatory vs speaking the truth. Many Christians will say when people call them out for shoddy obnoxious behavior that “I am in good company, as I am persecuted for Jesus sake” No, no and no. You are being persecuted because you are being obnoxious, rude and and inflammatory!

Actually, Cory did lie. She deceived those who would have killed the Jews she was hiding. Deceiving is lying.

They asked, “Where are you hiding the Jews?”

Cory responded, “Under the table.”

Cory’s response was literally true since the Jews were in the basement directly under the table.
Nevertheless, this response was given in order to deceive the Jew killers into thinking she was being sarcastic, as clearly there were no Jews under the table within the room. Thus through this deception, Cory saved the lives of the Jews she was hiding.

That can never be an excuse for disobeying the commandments of the God and Creator of the universe. Christ is the King of kings. Thus when another king orders something contrary to the commandment of the King, that king’s command is immediately nullified by the superior commandment of the King.

To put it in military terms, if a Corporal orders you (a lowly Private) to do something, and his order conflicts with that given you by the General, the Corporal’s “order” is null even before being given. The General out-ranks the Corporal. Similarly, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ out-ranks pagan king Shmuck.

We can lawfully obey King Shmuck’s commands only when they do not contradict the commands of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

So this raises a question. How far should we go to preach the gospel? in the original question, it was folks entering the country, disguised as carpenters, etc. - to preach the gospel. Suppose I was a billionaire, right wing, evangelical political Christian. And My mission was to preach my “understanding” of the gospel to North Korea. And I hatch a plan - with my bought army of paid mercenaries - to kill the current leader and overthrow the government. Then I establish a puppet government and preach my “understanding” or “version” of the gospel. Is this right?

So I pose this question: How far should we go to preach the gospel?

The early Christians in pagan Rome were sneaky but not violent. I think they had the right of it.

Unfortunately, I am not so sure that “Christians” got it right in the first place. Certainly Christ is divine, but what he left might not be. The people who decided to call themselves Christian’s - well, maybe they got Jesus all wrong.

Due to the fact that east and the west church split and have at least 4 main different forms of Christianity (Prot, Cath, EO, Anglican) should cause all of us to pause and considere that they all can’t be right. There is a truth that transcends these traditions and that truth is following Jesus Christ for yourself and making bold moves to act on what you believe.

Thanks folks. A few little surprises in the answers.

Steve framed his position well, which gave me an ‘aha’ moment but then I tought that this command may be 1st century specific. Time was of the essence during this particular evengelistic trip. Jesus also said that they would not have time to complete their tour of the cities of Israel.

Geoffrey’s points to a command that is not Israeli specific; but planet wide and timeless.

Davo; I’m sorry but a traditionalist could say the same thing to a Universalist. That misinformation begets misinformation. That sitting on one’s universalists hands lead to horrific results for the unsaved.

Randy makes good points too. Unintended harm could be the result. We just don’t know. I guess we have to trust that if it’s of God, it will proceed and succeed.

I’ve thought about this a LOT. Law abiding citizens of which government? Corrie and her sister (who was actually the one who said the Jews were under the table, not Corrie) were citizens of their own country (Holland, wasn’t it?) But who were the Nazis? What right had they to murder Dutch citizens or guests? WHICH government were the Ten Booms obligated to obey? Which had precedence? Or take the United States during the revolution. The Tories were loyal citizens of King George, but the Revolutionaries were loyal citizens of the new republic (soon to be the USA). Is the USA a legitimate government, seeing it took over forcibly from the Brits? Or for that matter, was the British govt legit either, seeing they ousted the Native Americans? As for Peter and Paul, their government (of Israel/Judea) was overcome first by the Greeks, who were then overcome by the Romans. What’s more, the Hebrews overcame the Canaanites (albeit in God’s behest according to the text). Which government has the right to rule, and what about that time in the cusp–while one is overthrowing the other?

I don’t think Paul said what he said about obeying the authorities for the same reasons we typically think he said it. I think this was purely logistical. Obey the authorities; they don’t carry the sword in vain. IOW, don’t make unnecessary waves; that will NOT end well for either you or the Kingdom. Submit, because that way you have a better chance of living a long and peaceable life.

I’m with you there. I think it may have been to a certain group of people at a certain place and a certain time, and that we want to make it time / substance relative (did I say that right?) to today. I also think there are biblical topics that are predominantly time/culture/person specific, but have a transcending message that can be useful to later peoples/generations. I’m not sure this is one of them though!

Render to ceasar that which is ceasar. Technically, there was no justification for America’s independence. We simply didn’t want to pay high taxes. Can you justify that Cindy?

Your post just agrees with my previous one. You raise so many dilemmas that you defaulted to my position… That each one must do what they feel is the right decision.

For mine, if… “a young missionary couple moves to one of those Asian countries that is known for its opposition to Christianity” and is prepared to pay the potential penalty of punishment for knowingly flouting and thus not respecting local laws then that’s fine. I might however question any attempt at describing such retributions in terms of “persecution” or “attacks of the devil” etc and simply reframe it in terms of “stupidity” i.e., THEIRS.

Gabe,

You’re right. Each person must do what the Holy Spirit leads them to do.

As for the USA, is it a legitimate government? It is as legitimate as any government run by human beings, because they ALL fall into the same category. For ALL of them, there was a time in which they began in revolution or in conquest of some kind. No exceptions. Perhaps in ancient history at the very beginning there are exceptions (though I doubt it), but there certainly are none today.

I think the “Render unto Caesar” statement may have had more than the obvious meaning. The money had Caesar’s picture on it. It came from Caesar and it was illegal (against Temple law) to have in the Temple complex–yet the religious leaders had no difficulty in producing a denarius at Jesus’s request. The Jewish leaders required all Roman money to be exchanged (at a high rate) for Temple currency, thus robbing the people who came there and had need to buy animals to sacrifice.

1.) He called them out on their hypocrisy in disregarding their own regulations.
2.) He pointed out that the things that belong to the world are NOT the things God wants to be given. God doesn’t accept unwilling gifts–debts paid grudgingly and out of obligation. It is the heart that matters to Him. Though a gift of money hallowed by a loving heart is accepted, a payment of funds as a transaction and an obligation is not.
3.) He foiled the Jews’ plot to implicate Him on the one hand, before the Roman overlords who kept a very high profile and large presence of arms in the Temple, and on the other hand, before the people, who hated them and hated the taxes. He also, imo, made a profound statement concerning the kind of offerings that God finds acceptable.

Note: He did not feel it necessary to “out” Himself before the Romans by saying the taxes were wrong no matter the consequences. He was wise and wiley and circumspect. He also did not come out in favor of the taxes before His Hebrew listeners. He addressed the question from a completely different direction and made a trap into a teaching opportunity.

Perhaps, when there was no conflict with their ministries. In the case of Peter and John there was such a conflict, and they chose to disobey the authorities and to obey God: