Hobby Lobby Defies the Modern Church’s Theology

What’s the connection between the President of Uganda and the CEO of Hobby Lobby?

First, the two men made a public stand for their Christian faith in relation to civil government: one as a government official who works to formulate public policy, the other as a victim of government policies specifically directed against his Christian conscience.

Second, the two men were ignored by the major Christian organizations, ministries, preachers, seminary professors, authors, and other Christian celebrities – with the notable exception of WND.com, in both cases. The Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day was a non-event, as far as the celebrities’ club in the American churches is concerned.

Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it? Okay, the President of a country on the edge of planet can be safely ignored. But Hobby Lobby, the popular Christian retailer who over the years has contributed millions of dollars to Christian causes, benefiting many of these same celebrities who have now turned a blind eye to its struggle against an ungodly government? To add insult to the injury, the same Christian celebrities who advised us to vote for a Mormon to “get rid of Obama” can’t bother to at least mention a Christian owner who is actively opposing Obamacare? Really?

I did expect it, just as I expected the silence about Uganda. And I expected it because I knew that Hobby Lobby’s CEO’s public stand defied not just the Federal government. It also defied the theology of the modern church, with its pietism, escapism, and dualism.

To start with, it runs against the popular modern interpretation of Matthew 22:21: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” According to this interpretation, we are obligated to obey any monetary demands made by the civil government without questioning their righteousness and justice. After all, doesn’t it look like that Jesus was saying that money is a thing that is Caesar’s, and therefore we should give it to Caesar without questioning?

But Hobby Lobby refuses to give money without questioning, and refuses to let the civil government decide what happens with their money. In itself, it is a defiance not so much of the civil government as of that interpretation of Matthew 22:21. The Hobby Lobby’s CEO declares that Caesar has no ultimate power over money and money is a thing of God, not of Caesar. There is no way modern theologians, pastors, and seminary professor could endorse such act, unless they openly defy their own teachings on the issue, and completely change their theology concerning money, taxes, and government intervention.

It also runs against the popular pietistic rhetoric in some neo-Reformed academic circles better known as the “Two Kingdoms theology.” According to that rhetoric (it is not a theology yet, for it doesn’t have any developed consistent body of principles for interpretation of reality) God has two kingdoms on earth; one is the “redemptive kingdom” of the church, the other is the “common kingdom” of the state. Both operate under completely different principles: the church operates on Biblical principles (which are defined very narrow, excluding about 90% of the Bible), the state operates on the “natural law” (which has never been defined except as something separate from the Biblical Law and somehow agreed upon by all people, Christians or not).

What is Hobby Lobby’s CEO doing, from the perspective of the Two Kingdoms theology? He is acting in an area which is outside the church, obviously. Moreover, it is an area within the jurisdiction of the civil government, since we are talking about specific Federal legislation; therefore, the CEO’s decision can not be legitimately assigned to the realm of individual conscience. And what principles is he invoking as valid and operational in that area? His Christian beliefs, as informed by the Bible. But according to the Two Kingdoms theology, this would be bringing a different law into the “common kingdom,” a law that properly belongs to the “redemptive kingdom.” He is “confusing the kingdoms,” or “trampling on the realm of the state,” if we want to use the language of one of the Two Kingdoms proponents, David VanDrunnen. Therefore, there is no way that the proponents Two Kingdoms theology could approve the actions of Hobby Lobby without negating completely their own theology.

Then there are, also, those who say that disobedience against the civil government is not allowed at all, according to the Bible. But Hobby Lobby does exactly that: disobeys a law, and disobeys a court order. How can such an act be excused on the basis of our modern church’s theology?

No wonder the Christian celebrities are silent.

The church celebrities in the time of Jesus, when asked about the authority behind John the Baptist’s ministry (Matt. 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8), were in a quandary. If they said it was from God, that would undermine their own actions. If they said it wasn’t, that would set them against an angry population that believed John was a true prophet. They preferred to remain silent.

Hobby Lobby threw the church celebrities in our time in the same quandary. They can’t support it publicly for it will undermine the very theology of escapism, pietism, and dualism they have been teaching for decades now. They can’t oppose it publicly either for that won’t be a good PR before all those individual Christians who write the donation checks for their ministries (let alone the checks written by the owners of Hobby Lobby themselves).

So they prefer to remain silent.

But their silence speaks louder than any words.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *