Lux Lucet

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19).

These familiar words of Jesus commonly are known to Christians as the Great Commission. While not the only call for evangelism in the New Testament, they certainly are an important proof text supporting the call of Christians to evangelize the lost.

The Apostle Paul provides another proof text in his epistle to the Romans. In Chapter 10 he writes, “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?’ (Romans 10:14, 15).

Now someone may ask what these passages have to do with the topic at hand, the tech left’s attack on free speech and why Christians, and especially Christians, should object to it.

It is my hope that a little thought would make the relationship between these two passages and the issue at hand clear. Christianity is a religion of the Word. And how to people hear that Word? From a preacher. If the Word cannot be spoken and written, if it cannot be communicated to unbelievers, they have no chance of coming to faith in Christ.

Further, Christ commands us to go, to make disciples and to teach all his commandments. To fulfill this commandment, Christians must use words. That is to say, they must be able both to speak and to write.

For any civil magistrate to prohibit or to attempt to prohibit Christians from speaking freely means to prohibit them from doing the very thing Christ himself commanded his disciples to do. This represents an enormous abuse of power by the civil authorities and is itself a great evil.

Someone may object to my reasoning here by saying that internet censorship is not being done by the civil authorities, but rather by private companies who have the right to regulate traffic on their websites. This may seem like a plausible argument, but as I hope to show next week, Big Tech as represented by companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter are not acting on their own when they deplatform conservative and libertarian political commentary. Rather, in this author’s opinion, these companies really are acting on behalf of Deep State to censor views it deems dangerous to its cause.

As some have put it, the Deep State has simply outsourced censorship, which in the United States cannot be done directly by government officials due to the First Amendment, to private corporations which are to a significant degree under the control of the Deep State.

As I noted last week, I hope to lay out the case that it’s the globalist Deep State that’s largely behind the push for social media censorship. Lord willing, I plan to make this case next week.

For this week’s installment, I’d like to continue with additional examples of deplatforming found in the Scriptures. Last seek we looked at deplatforming in the Old Testament. This week, our focus will be on deplatforming in the New Testament.

Deplatforming in the New Testament

Although the deplatformings recorded in the New Testament happened many hundreds of years after those we looked at last week in the Old Testament, the spirit, the purpose, behind them is the same. In both cases, it is the vested power interests attempting to quash any challenge to their authority.

The premier examples of deplatforming and attempted deplatforming in the New Testament can be found in the life of Jesus Christ himself. Throughout his earthly ministry, the Jewish religious authorities were Jesus greatest enemies and constantly sought out ways to silence him.

In one case, ordinary Synagogue members attempted to deplatform Christ by throwing him off a hill in Nazareth when they decided they didn’t like his sermon.

And in the end it was the combined efforts of the Jewish leaders, the Jewish people and the Roman civil authorities who joined forces to temporarily succeed in deplatforming Jesus when they brutally executed him on the cross.

Worth noting is the reason why the Jewish religious leaders and some of the Jewish people wanted Christ killed. It was not what Jesus did, but what Jesus said that drew their wrath.

Consider this passage from John’s Gospel. “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, ‘Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?’ The Jews answered Him, saying, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God’ ” (John 10:31-33).

Note well that it was what Jesus said, not what he did, that so angered these people, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You…make Yourself God.”

Consider another example, this one recorded by Luke. Early in his ministry, Luke tells us that Jesus went into the synagogue in Nazareth and there read the Scriptures and preached.

Jesus’ hometown crowd was on his side at first, but quickly became hostile when he recounted how the prophet Elijah was sent outside the covenant to Zaraphath to help a widow suffering from the famine and how Naaman alone was cured of leprosy by Elisha.

Luke tells us these good church goers were “filled with wrath” and led Jesus outside the city where they planned to throw him off a cliff. That’s deplatforming with a vengeance.

Note that here, as with incident recorded by John, the impetus for the attempt of Jesus life was what he said, not what he did.

At Jesus trial before the elders of the people and the chief priests, once again we see Jesus words were what got him in trouble. Luke notes that Jesus interlocutors asked him if he were the Son of God. When Jesus told them, “You rightly say that I am,” they rested their case, saying, “What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

John the Baptist also was deplatformed for what he said. In John’s case, his speech got him imprisoned and beheaded.

As Matthew tells us, Herod had John thrown in prison, “Because John had said to him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her [Herodias, his brother Phillips wife].’ ” Matthew records that Herod would have killed John for his saying but for the fact that he feared the people, who regarded John as a prophet.

Peter and John are another example of deplatforming. They were arrested for their preaching (speech) in the temple and dragged before the Sanhedrin who “commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.”

This is noteworthy, for Peter had just performed a miracle, healing a man who had been lame since birth. The Sanhedrin even admitted that “a notable miracle had been done” through the apostles. But the Sanhedrin did not order Peter and John not to perform miracles, they ordered them not to speak nor teach in the name of Jesus. It was the apostles’ speaking that concerned the Sanhedrin, not their miracle working.

Acts chapter 5 recounts how Peter and John were arrested and deplatformed a second time. On this occasion, there were not brought directly before the Sanhedrin, but were imprisoned. Scripture tells us that an angel of the Lord came and brought them out of prison, telling them, “God, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life.”

Once again, we see the emphasis laid on the apostles preaching, their speaking, not on their miracle working. The angel did not tell them to go to the temple and heal people. He told them to preach.

The Biblical emphasis could not be more clear. Christianity is about words. It’s about understanding. It’s about belief. In order to understand and agree with the Gospel, one first has to hear the words of the Gospel. In order to hear and believe the Gospel, the information must be communicated in words.

The ministry experience of the Apostle Paul mirrors that of the examples above. Time and again Paul found himself in trouble, not for what he did, but for what he said.

Any number of examples could be brought forth to buttress this point. One example comes right after his conversion on the Damascus road. Acts chapter 9 records how Paul “Immediately…preached Christ in the synagogues,” and that he, “confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus was is the Christ.”

So how did the Jews in Damascus react to Paul’s preaching. Acts tells us they, “plotted to kill him.”

Another example of deplatforming can be seen in Paul’s speech to the crowd at the temple. Paul was addressing an already hostile crowd when he told of his commission by Christ to go to the Gentiles.

Acts notes that the crowd listed until Paul said “Gentiles” and then started to riot, crying out, tearing their clothes and throwing dust in the air. This resulted in Paul’s arrest, spending many years in jail, and being taken to Rome to appeal to Caesar. Paul was deplatformed because of what he said.

Why Christians Should Object to Social Media Deplatforming

It is sometimes said that the blood of the saints is the seed of the church. As John Robbins has noted, this is an error. The seed of the church is not the saints’ blood, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Force works. This is why tyrants employ it to silence their perceived enemies.

Because the Gospel of the seed of the church, and because that Gospel is communicated by words in propositional form, Christians, more than any other people, have an interest in protecting free speech and objecting to those who want to quell it.

But how does this relate to the recent deplatforming of conservatives and libertarians by the giants of social media? After all, neither conservatism nor libertarianism is the same thing as Christianity. In fact, some of what is taught by libertarians and conservatives contradicts the teachings of Scripture.

There are, I believe several good reasons for Christians to object to the behavior of Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple with respect to their treatment of Alex Jones and others. In the first place, it is a matter of logical consistency. If Christians want free speech to communicate the Law, the Gospel, indeed the whole council of God, it would be rather hypocritical for them to deny freedom of speech to others. The Law of Moses emphasizes that there shall be one law, both for the Israelite and for the stranger. If that is true, it follows that there ought to be one law for the Christian and the conservative and, for that matter, the socialist liberal.

Second, the civil magistrate is tasked by God with punishing “him who practices evil” as Paul puts it in Romans 13. Note well that Paul says nothing about those who think or speak evil. In Christian political theory, there are no thought crimes. We leave this tyrannical notion to the fascists, the communists and other authoritarians.

Third, if Christians remain silent while voices are silenced by the Tech Left for speaking opinions they and their masters in the establishment find threatening, is there any reason to suppose that we won’t be targeted by the same group of Deep Staters, socialists, globalists and LGBT activists?

In his New York Times editorial “A Better Way to Ban Alex Jones,” establishment conservative David French admits that the charge of “hate speech” – the Tech Left used this accusation as their reason for banning Jones from their platforms – is “extraordinarily vague.”

Indeed, it is. Instead of having any consistent meaning, hate speech often seems to mean “speech that you hate” based upon your political philosophy. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a number of mainstream Christian organizations as “hate groups” simply for their stance against homosexuality. D. James Kennedy’s Alliance for Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council are two such groups.

In February 2018, California Assembly Bill 2943 was drafted which would define sexual orientation change efforts as an “unlawful practice” under California law. The language of the bill is very vague, defining “Sexual orientation change efforts” as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

Some have raised the specter that this language could lead to the banning of the sale of Bibles in the state. Unsurprisingly, Snopes and Fact Check report this concern as false. But look at the definition of “Sexual orientation change efforts” again. It defines them as “any practices that seek to change and individual’s sexual orientation.” Could such practices include calling homosexuals to repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ? It seems to me it could.

And if so, does it not follow that the Bible, which teaches that homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” also will come under scrutiny.

And if the Bible comes under scrutiny as a means by which people seek to effect “Sexual orientation change,” does it not follow that those who sell such materials could themselves be called before the bench to answer for their “crime” of being an accessory to those who engage in “sexual orientation change efforts”?

Now you may say that this is all a bit farfetched, that the First Amendment guarantees not only freedom of speech but also freedom of religion, that such a thing could not happen.

Well, admittedly it does seem a bit farfetched. But as Robert Gagnon noted in his article in the Federalist, “past experience suggest legislative history often means relatively little in relation to court decision on LGBT matters.”

If you don’t believe this, ask yourself if you ever thought the Supreme Court would discover in the words of the Constitution a reason to overturn state-level prohibitions on same-sex marriage.

And if the Supremes can manufacture the right to same-sex marriage, why could not some clever lawyers figure out a way to apply the language of Bill 2943 to banning, at least in part, the sale of Bibles and other Christian material?

It was the Christian Reformation of the 16th century that birthed Western Civilization. Those of us who have lived our lives in the West and benefitted from the freedoms of Christian civilization tend to take for granted basic rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Indeed, many in the West are wholly ignorant of the philosophical foundations of the freedoms they enjoy, attributing them to common sense of the Enlightenment.

But free speech did not result from common sense or from secular Enlightenment philosophy. It was the Gospel of God’s free and sovereign grace that brought about this state of affairs. After all, if faith was a gift of God alone, then it followed that civil government had neither the ability nor the right to compel a man to believe. The function of the state was limited to punishing those who practiced evil and to praising the good. It had no place attempting to control what men thought or said.

That wraps things up for this week. Next week, Lord willing, we shall take a closer look at Big Tech’s close connection with the Deep State and the globalists.