In the early nineteen-seventies, as Brazil was under a military controlled political regime, an acclaimed Brazilian filmmaker popularized the expression “ideological patrolling” to describe what he understood to be the following:

The organization of people or groups that, sharing the same ideological orientation, act in such a way as to preserve this theoretical line against other forms of criticism or revision of the ideology defended.[i]

Diegues used the expression in reference to what he saw as speech and thought control on the part of the dominating political and cultural forces in Brazil at the time. 

As times have changed, so have the dominating ideological orientations in most places of the world. I believe, however, that the expression, once raised against conservative forces by progressives, still carries some currency, albeit, perhaps, in an inverted way.

In many places of the world, the struggle for freedom of expression and belief, which ultimately dovetails with the freedom of religion, does seem to be subject to ideological patrolling by those who believe the state should be the arbiter of speech, of truth and of all aspects of the public square, especially as it pertains to modern means of communication.

Maybe for a few people around the globe this issue still lingers in the background, but in many countries, the push for government control of public speech, particularly online, has become obvious. This ongoing discussion includes what is happening in the USA and Canada, in Europe, In Brazil and many other countries.[ii]

Freedom of speech, religious freedom and religious persecution

I happen to think that the concept of ideological patrolling is used, at times, to hide a different kind of intellectual control exerted by more or less cohesive groups. Allow me to call it “theological patrolling.”

Wait! Should groups formed by religious and theological shared beliefs not have the right to control, in a way, what adherents to the group believe and profess? Yes, definitely, but participation in such religious groups with a shared theology is, in modern political terms, voluntary, it is based on acquiescence and faith commitments.  The problem is when human collectives formed by factors that are not theologically determined, such as geography, history, ethnicity, etc., and where participation is not the fruit of acquiescence, such as nations or states, become dominated by false theologies or anti-theologies disguised as ideologies.

Of course, this could get complicated because the idea of a secular state is neither ubiquitous nor universal. Many times, a state will identify itself with a particular religion or set of religiously based beliefs. Even in such cases, however, the manner in which such states treats those who do not share the official religion, will tend to be an accurate reflection of the adequacy of the dominating religion.

A nation founded on Christian principles or even declaredly Christian, should reflect the Christian ethos of adequate tolerance and freedoms, of love of neighbor and charity. A nation that places itself under the yoke of a false or idolatrous religion, whether overtly or covertly, will give expression, eventually, to its commitment to that which is not the truth. It will necessarily persecute dissent at varying degrees, but ultimately, it will find itself persecuting ever more vehemently those who seek to adhere to the true Truth that exposes the falsity of the dominant religion. The truth stands on its own and can afford charity and freedom, but a lie must be propped up and artificially maintained, even by force.

The argument above can be expanded, for brevity’s sake, in the following way:

• A supposedly secular state that has exchanged a commitment to truth, as generally revealed by God, for a commitment to The Lie of its ultimacy, has become a “secular idolatrous entity.” Thus, statism, whether nationalist or internationalist, is a form or false religion and actually guides itself by a sort of “theology,” or anti-theology.

• A state or organized society that openly places itself under the guidance of a religion or theology, will manifest the approximation or distancing of its faith commitments to the truths that God has revealed (whether by Special or general revelation). It will do so by the very manner in which it respects or disregards the dignity and the freedoms given to their constituents as an endowment by their Creator.

• All different variations and visions of idolatrous states, national or international, are, by their very nature totalitarian and oppressive.

• In the end, the idea of a “secularistic state” is a chimera—God ultimately judges all nations. Sometimes the state acknowledges its “religious” moorings indirectly, even if it claims to be a secular state (especially through the separation of church and state). Sometimes it openly declares its religious identity and sometimes it seeks to hide the fact that its anti-religious commitment is itself an inverted religion. No state, however, operates free of transcendental commitments.

As we look at several realignments in the global order of things and at the growing conflicts and tensions at the regional, national or global levels, it would be wise to recognize something else. The many ways in which idolatrous centers of power vie for dominance, seek to control narratives and to use identity politics and inverse justice and self-righteousness, may appear to be mere political power struggles. They are, however, conflicts of visions, that is, conflicts of worldviews, and in that sense, they are theological struggles.

From a biblical perspective, human society is to be governed and ruled (regionally, nationally or globally) by transcendent principles derived from God’s revelation, whether general or Special. There are truths that are self-evident, from the created order and from the conscience of man, which must serve as the basis upon which human societies are organized and governed. The alternative is that some human authority, individual or collective, such as the state or enlightened elite, will seek to become the arbiter of truth and right.

It goes even deeper: The struggle for dominating narratives is not an “equal opportunity” combat. It may seem that way, in the beginning. It may appear that the idolatrous struggle for the dominance of a statist idolatry (nationalist or globalist) will oppose all dissent equally. No, it will not. The Roman Empire accepted a plurality of pagan religions as long as you also worshiped the Empire in the person of the Emperor, yet it could not tolerate those who refused to worship anyone or anything but God.

The modern aspiring hegemonies will not grant the same tolerance to the exclusive claims of Christianity that they will afford other idolatrous worldviews—their so-called pluralism is fake. All sort of deceiving and self-deceiving finds quarter therein, but not the truth. This is the natural order of things, but I suspect it is also eschatological:

⁷ For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. ⁸ And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. ⁹ The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, ¹⁰ and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. ¹¹ Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, ¹² in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2: 7-12)    

Are we witnessing, however, a tightening of the dialectic between truth and the lies of idolatry vying for control over human affairs? I believe this is so. The modern “rise of totalitarianism” does not seem to be simply about political institutions seeking power.[iii] It appears to manifest a new form of inverted-religion-based totalitarianism—inverted because its anti-religion stance is itself a religious motivation.

Some of the claims of “saving democracy” materialize by opposing religious speech, especially of the Christian stripe, while reasserting a preference for globalist and nationalist statist narratives or for the exercise of control by enlightened elitist classes—something or someone human who must become the final arbiters of truth. If that is done by demonizing dissenting views as disinformation, misinformation, anti-science, anti-human and so forth, it should be no surprise that the final turn is against the Gospel of Jesus and the Church that proclaims that Gospel—the claims of biblical truth are heretical to the new secular religion.

How should Christians react to what seems to be the new state of affairs? I believe we can find great help by looking at the history of the church, particularly the part of her first century history as found in the Scriptures.  

Israel at the time of the Acts of the Apostles

The first part of the fourth chapter of the Book of Acts describes a rising opposition to the preaching of the Gospel. This was not new, as Jesus had been resisted by the religious and political authorities of his time and was clearly a threat to their hegemony. Perhaps it might help to think about the “authorities” that were threatened by the message and person of Jesus.

Israel was God’s people, a special people and nation whose identity was specifically determined by God himself and their allegiance to his revealed law was determinative. Repeatedly, however, Israel departed from God’s law and flirted in varying degrees with its own idolatries. Let us say, for simplicity’s sake, that when Israel embraced idolatrous ways, their national identity switched from being the people of God, so their Jewish Nationalism was about God’s plan for them and for the nations, to a statist Jewish Nationalism that propped up the national identity as its own ultimate value—with God’s law at its service.

The Roman Empire represented the dominant global power, which had subjugated Israel as well as much of the known world at the time. An idolatrous leviathan that had betrayed even the shards of general-revelation-derived values that had once informed parts of their society.

Jesus, as the “stone [who] was cut from a mountain by no human hand” of Daniel, chapter 2, was a threat to the idolatrous globalist statism of the pagan Roman Empire, with its supposed tolerance of all the pagan religions and concomitant worship of the state in the person of the emperor.

Jesus was also a threat to the Jewish state, which albeit subjugated by Rome, had moved so far from God’s ordained purposes of blessing the nations (something that should have made them eager and able to recognize the Messiah) that they had themselves become once again an idolatrous nation, guided by their own version of identity politics.

After the events of Acts 2, another element came into play: The Apostle’s preaching confronted them with their guilty and murderous rejection of Messiah Jesus and with their departure from the very revelation of God from whence their national identity flowed. The Apostles declared their guilt: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified” (Acts 4: 10). They angered the Sadducees’ secularism by preaching the resurrection of the dead. They infuriated the Pharisees by proclaiming the Gospel of grace to all peoples. They enraged the Herodians and other political figures by proclaiming a kingdom that would be universal and supranational.    

All such disparate groups warred against each other in their geopolitical power games, in their identity politics, economic interests and, ultimately, in their theological commitments, but they had now a common enemy: the proclamation of the good news of the dead and resurrected Jewish Messiah. As the King of Israel and the King of all nations, the Savior of all who stood condemned by the Law but were willing to come to Him, and as the only one worthy of worship honor and glory, Jesus was the enemy of all idols, of all demonic powers, of every false religion. The Apostles were promoting and preaching the words and the good news of this enemy, of their enemy. 

How the Church reacted to the first skirmishes of persecution

If the first part of the fourth chapter of Acts describes the rising opposition to the preaching of the Gospel, in the latter part we get some insight into how the young Church reacted to the first scuffles with some of those who were intent on suppressing the proclamation of God’s Word. I am convinced that we can learn a precious message of encouragement and strategy by looking at what God’s people did in the face of growing persecution and what resulted from their actions and attitude. I believe, furthermore, that this message of strategic encouragement is increasingly important as the global church prepares for growing resistance and pressure in unexpected places, usually precursory signs of more generalized coming persecution.[iv]   

As I read Acts 4: 23-37, the Church’s response comes into focus: The church reacted to increasing opposition by bringing the events into God’s perspective and by turning up the heat of their fellowship, which resulted in Godly power, bolder proclamation and increased grace!

The apostles Peter and John had truly annoyed the Sadducees by preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead. They arrested the apostles and made them appear before a gathered council of religious and political authorities, a true hotchpotch of leaders with differing views, but who saw them as a common threat. The apostles stood their ground boldly. Peter, filled with the Spirit, spoke with power and reasserted the message of the Gospel of Jesus, even stating, “Whom you crucified” (verse 10). This is how the gathered leadership responded:

What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name. (Acts 4: 16-17)

When warned not to speak in the name of Jesus, Peter and John answered: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (verses 19-20). Therefore, the rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, fearing the people and finding no way to punish the pair, decided to release them, not without first making threats. So Peter and John returned to the community of believers and reported the events and what they were told—the intimidations! Here comes the interesting part.

What did the Church do? They brought the events into God’s perspective    

I do believe that the apostles and the brethren were not oblivious to the implications of what had happened. They certainly realized something ominous was afoot and that things were going to get rough. Their first reaction upon hearing the account, however, was as follows:

²⁴ And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, ²⁵ who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? ²⁶ The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed,’ ²⁷ for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸ to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4: 24-28)

The fact that their first reaction was to pray should be no surprise. What I find magnificent, however, is that this prayer begins by bringing the issues into God’s perspective by recognizing God’s control and his plan!

They knew that there was no surprise in the opposition. It had been prophesied. Therefore, they prayed recognizing God’s Lordship as Creator and as the one who had planned and predestined that the rejection of Jesus, under Jewish and Roman authorities and by the gentiles as well as the people of Israel, should take place. Can you notice the implication? Of course, if God’s plan was that the Messiah should suffer opposition, they felt it important to begin their prayer by recognizing before God that they also trusted that their persecution was part of God’s plan.    

Once they made that recognition before God, however, they continued with an unusual petition:

²⁹ And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, ³⁰ while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” (Acts 4: 29-30)

Wow! On the face of the growing threat of pressure and persecution they doubled down and asked God for boldness, for strengthening so that they would continue to preach powerfully, and that God would accompany their preaching with signs and wonders. They were praying for power to double-down. Instead of simply asking for protection or asking that God would allow them to fly under the radar or find a compromise that would keep them safe, they wished for a more powerful, more obvious witness. They were bringing the threat into God’s perspective by praying for strength and steadfastness rather than the easing of the opposition!

God did hear their prayer and responded accordingly:

And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4: 31)

God granted their request for boldness! He empowered them with the Holy Spirit so they could continue to do exactly that which would further aggravate their situation as targets of threats looming from sundry directions.

The enablement that God miraculously supplied had immediate consequences beyond the shaking of the place and their initial speech. It flowed into broader consequences:

³² Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. (Acts 4: 32)

The very experience of framing the coming persecution in God’s perspective and being empowered caused the believers to unite and to care for one another—unity, love and mutuality. Coming together in fellowship and mutual care was both a component and a natural result of bringing the situation into God’s perspective.

The lesson, so far, seems clear to me. As the church faces growing opposition from different actors and in different quarters around the globe, she must begin bringing all of this into perspective by recognizing God’s sovereignty over the state of affairs and trusting his plan for the world and for his Church. She must also understand that seeking God’s enabling for a faithful witness takes precedence over asking for relief. This also requires unity and causes fellowship and mutual care. How do we as Church react to opposition, confrontation and rejection? Do we avoid it at all cost or do we acknowledge God’s sovereign plan, pray for the right things and learn to rely on our brethren?

What was the result of the Church’s Godly framing? They grew…

There were immediate consequences for this resilient burgeoning community of believers. They experienced tremendous growth. Of course, from Acts 2: 41 and 47 we have already learned of significant numerical growth: 3000 in one single day and then the Lord adding to their number day by day. This numeric progression continued. What I have in mind here, however, are the other aspects of growth that are highlighted in the text, and that I believe are at the root of numeric expansion. Here is the text:

³³ And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴ There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold ³⁵ and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. ³⁶ Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, ³⁷ sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

The first product of the framing reported as the reaction of the Church was that they grew in power from God. Their apostolic preaching was accompanied with power, ordinary and extraordinary power. Power to proclaim in a way that was accompanied by great grace and power to care for one another in their needs. This powerful witness in word and deed would progressively turn “the world upside down,” as their very opposers would eventually acknowledge (Acts 17: 6). I do pray that as the Church today faces increasing pressure, her response to the challenges will be such that we experience growth in true spiritual power, instead of shrinking inward and circling the wagons.

A second consequence of their Godly response, connected with the power, but differently nuanced, is that they also grew in the boldness of their proclamation of the gospel, just as they had prayed. The rest of the book of Acts reports this growing boldness, as does much of the history of the Church over the last two millennia.

There is no room for appeasement in the proclamation of the gospel and whenever the church blunts or attenuates the message, whether by fear or desire for comfort, she errs in at least two ways. On one hand, she becomes unfaithful by dulling the sharp edge that is capable of “piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow” and is “a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4: 12)—this is the path of apostasy.  On the other hand, she displays her blindness by ignoring the reality that the ‘world’ will never be at peace with the message of the gospel until it is conquered by the message or condemned in Christ’s final vindication—appeasement is futile.

A third result, already implicit in my first observation above, is that the church grew in the expression of God’s grace.  That great grace that accompanied the power demonstrated by the church was grace upon grace, expressed in the outward proclamation, but also in the inward life of the community of believers. The great grace that was displayed in the peaching of the gospel, a message that includes condemnation under the law and salvation in Christ, was such that unbelievers were, at times, befuddled, but always left ultimately without excuse in rejecting Christ and persecuting his Church. Likewise, the great grace that permeated their lives as Church was manifested as a gracious sense of mutuality, a gracious generosity.        

How the Church today should long to grow in power, in boldness of proclamation, in grace! As the heat is turned up on the Church, she must long to shine brighter and even bigger, as God continues to gather his elect from all corners of the globe. What do we really want from our lives as individuals and as the Church? Sterility for the sake of being left in peace or fruitfulness?  A life without challenges but also without growth or a life where God refines us and leads us to flourish even if through the fire? Allow me to suggest as an illustration how a rewriting of Psalm 23 in self-condescending and self-preserving language, so characteristic of our times, would not only make it pathetic, but would also point to all that would be lost:

Although The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want of the things I desire or believe that I need. He must make me lie down in green pastures at all times, he does not have to lead me beside quiet waters for that’s where I believe I am entitled to be at all times anyway, he does not need to restore my soul as long as he always keeps it in good spirits. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake as long as that does not move me out of my comfort zone. I must never walk through the valley of the shadow of death, even if I never come to understand the courage that defeats the fear of evil, or to fully grasp that you are with me; that your rod and your staff could comfort me. Keep me from having to confront or make true peace with my enemies. You anoint my head with oil even though I am not willing to bear the responsibility of your anointing, make my cup Overflow even if I am not willing to share in your cup.  Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life without my having to go through the valley of the shadow of death, or any valley actually, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever, even if I have avoided those things which would make me closer to Him...

What should we want today?

Are you alarmed by the rise of pressures against the Church from all corners, from pagan and anti-Christian religions, but also from supposedly “neutral” and reasonable quarters?

When we face troubles, challenges, strife, trials, when we are opposed for the sake of the gospel, our natural tendency is to ask God to make it go away, to alleviate our burden.  This is natural, for the desire to suffer for suffering’s sake is not part of the Gospel at all.  Yet, in our eagerness to avoid tribulation, we may miss the opportunities God wishes to give us to grow in our relationship to Him and in His grace.

I hope it is obvious that what I have sought to reflect in terms of the early Church as she prepared for persecution and today’s global Church, also applies to us as individuals—the Church is made up by individuals that Christ is making into living stones for His sanctuary. So please allow me to close with a more personal question: What do you do when “the heat is turned up”?  Do you avoid at all cost the pressure and the heat? Do you simply seek out cooler situations?  The answer should depend on what we would like to see as the fruits in your lives:  God’s fruits or just the illusion of peace and quiet achieved through compromise and accommodation?

________________________

Notes:

[i] The filmmaker’s name was Cacá Diegues, and a discussion of his nuanced use of the expression can be found at https://www.infoescola.com/sociologia/patrulha-ideologica/ (access 09/20/2024, 1:25pm)

[ii] For a good introduction to this discussion, you may refer to journalist Michael Shellenberger’s work at https://www.arc-research.org/research-papers/freedom-of-speech-and-big-tech (access 09/20/2024, 1:45pm)

[iii] An interesting article on the rise of totalitarianism may be found here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/five-stages-totalitarianism (access 09/21/2024, 11:28am)

[iv] For a good initial read on persecution of Christians today, you may find the following article helpful: https://lausanne.org/global-analysis/persecution-of-christians-in-the-world-today-current-trends-and-their-implications-for-the-global-church (access 09/21/2024, 11:45am)

 

---

---

Dr. Davi Charles Gomes is the International Director of the World Reformed Fellowship, a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary; he is a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil and the former Chancellor of Mackenzie Presbyterian University, in São Paulo, Brazil. Click here for a brief bio.