“No shortage of scripture establishes cowardice as a horrid sin, most specifically Revelation 21:8: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

— Andrew Allis on Truthscripts “What are You Willing to Sacrifice?”

Mankind for ages has sought to simplify the requirements for Godly life. We choose the easy sins to avoid such as sexual immorality, sorcery, and idolatry (okay, these sins are not so easy). We then pride ourselves in ostensibly avoiding these “bad” sins. Meanwhile, we ignore the import of God’s inclusion of cowardice in this list of sins taking someone into the lake of fire and sulfur.

f we get past this point and take the Bible at its word, we then try to explain away what such a sin like cowardice really is. We may think this is refusing to run into a burning house to save someone or standing up to a bully on the playground of life. Resisting cowardice is more than that and more than refusing to denounce one’s faith at the threat of martyrdom.

More often than the extraordinary moments of existential threat, we are faced with choices to abandon the implications of our faith. We are asked to go along with the crowd in accepting a whole list of gender perversions. We are asked to go along with the indoctrination of our children in public schools. We are asked to attend the fake weddings of those with flagrantly unbiblical lifestyles.

Simultaneously, we must act courageously with wisdom whether we run into a burning building or refuse to condone sinful lifestyles. Prayerfully asking God to provide insight and wisdom into any such situation is critical. We should stand for truth wisely rather than foolishly, but all with courage.

We need more bravery and less cowardice to avoid judgement for ourselves and degradations for our society.

“… liberal society necessarily makes possible, permits, and even fosters what is called by many people ‘discrimination’.”

— Caldwell, C. (2021). In The age of entitlement: America since the sixties (p. 15). essay, SIMON SCHUSTER. quoted from Strauss, Leo. Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures on Modern Jewish Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Initially, this seems like an illogical statement until one reads the preceding text and understands the terms “liberal” and “discrimination”. Leo Strauss had begun his point with “A liberal society stands or falls by the distinction between the political (or the state) and society, or by the distinction between the public and the private. In the liberal Society there is necessarily a private sphere with which the state’s legislation must not interfere.” He then stated the remainder of the quote above introduced.

Strauss was dividing life into a political and a private sphere, the former regarding how government placed limits on how members of its society could interact one with another while the latter private sphere regarded what men and women did or believed in their interpersonal interactions. His liberal society referred not to the current polarized sides of liberal and conservative, but to the classical sense of liberalism in which mankind had freedom to act according to their wishes within bounds.

Strauss’ point can then be understood that while mankind can rightfully be limited in the wider sphere of public life by their government, there existed an area of life, that of the private life, in which the government should not interfere. By allowing men and women freedom in this area, the people could be free to discriminate. Rather than the pejorative connotation of discrimination we think of today, it simply means that we should be free to choose based on our beliefs and preferences. Government should not dictate every decision of our life as there is a limit to its jurisdiction.

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden” Matthew 5:14

— Gamble, R. M. (2012). In In search of the city on a hill: The making and unmaking of an American myth (pp. 1–7). essay, Continuum.

Christians look to this verse as a reminder that the church as God’s people should live in such a way that the world sees their works in God’s Name. It also reminds us that we unavoidably stand out for the world around us to see. These spiritual truths are important to remember, but American civil religion has attached a separate meaning to this phrase “a city set on a hill”. Richard Gamble begins his book with this verse and spends the remaining page elaborating on how this Biblical phrase came to enamor America.

Gamble went on to say a few pages later. “The city on a hill’s journey from biblical metaphor to nationalist myth, and the rise of the Model of Christian Charity to canonical status with the American Scripture, raises fundamental questions about the American civil religion” (p7). This civil religion refers to the beliefs and values of a nation’s people in regards to their nation’s image. There are certain things expected of those citizens in belonging to that nation.

Ultimately, this phrase carries more weight in influencing our nation’s civil religion and our nation’s behavior than it seems to do for churches. God did not give a promise to America that it would be an inspired nation. Like all nation’s, we have a role to play in bringing about God’s providence, but it is the church that is the true city on a hill. Let us turn back to Biblical application. If we as a nation would do that, we would have our best chance at being a city set on a hill.

“Race is the part of the human experience in which American schoolchildren are most painstakingly instructed. Their studies of literature, of war, of civics, are all subordinated to it”

— Caldwell, C. (2021). In The age of entitlement: America since the sixties (p. 10). essay, Simon Schuster.

Here, Caldwell was building on work by Derrick Bell in which he “described the quarter-century after the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision Brown v Board of Education of Topeka (1954) as ‘the greatest racial consciousness-raising the country has ever known.'”

Civil rights legislation had ostensibly sought to eradicate racism as it existed in modern society, at least in practice. Racists might carry the feelings in their minds and emotions, but they would not be permitted to express it in their daily life in relation with others in society. This appeared noble and righteous as it addressed actual offenses of one human against another based solely on race. No one can deny the existence of racism in the history of human nor in the present day in which we live. Still, this legislation was mean to level the playing field so that all would be treated equally.

This quote uncovers a dirty little secret however. Rather than eradicating racism and leading all to be color-blind, race has become one of the defining factors of life in society. Children are bathed in the fact of race in all their subjects. Rather than hearing that a person did such and such, they usually get a racial descriptor added. That descriptor may be used to describe why that person chose to do such and such. That descriptor may be used to describe the effects of such and such on another race. Regardless, race becomes a seemingly necessary part of any lesson.

Rather than becoming color-blind to race, children are taught to see everything in full color in order to understand the world. They are now possibly more aware of their differences than their similarities. This seems counterproductive to becoming one people under God. Christians can do better than this.