What is the Christian way forward in the EU referendum?

For various reasons all that I had seen of the facts convinced me that the Remain vote was the way to go, but a friend published a video from a Catholic debate by the speaker for Brexit and it made me think was I right? Was I, in fact, positing cultural values as Christian? What would be a truly Christian approach to Brexit/Remain, indeed is there a Christian approach to this?

For Evangelicals the Bible and frequently ‘sola scriptura’ is the reference for all decision making. As a starting point that is interesting for multiple reasons. Firstly some of the words translated from the Hebrew and Greek into English have different understanding today than when they were originally written. Secondly while some of Scripture is prescriptive, some is descriptive, some uniquely for a bunch of tribes functioning as a people group, some for all people everywhere.

Forms and levels of government

Looking at the Old Testament we see this bunch of tribes, who were some of the children of Abraham, having a unique position within the recorded history in the Bible. They went through various forms of government, theocracy, single God ordained leader, judges, kings, Sanhedrin and so forth. Some God ordained, some (like the kings) while not God ordained, at least God permitted.  We read of God’s involvement with the leaders of other people groups who lived around them, sometimes good, sometimes evil. It’s a complex story, and difficult to understand exactly what God was doing in different communities in the surrounding areas. Take Akhenaten as an example. As Pharaoh of Egypt he was unique in that he was a monotheist and some have argued that he worshipped the same God as the Israelites. 

Jesus was born in a time when the people group he was part of was under the rule of the Romain Empire. An Empire very different to the democratic Greek/Athenian states where the rule of law was not only absolute but was based upon the assumption of a complex polytheistic approach that was very distant to that we read about from the people of God in the Old Testament. The only political statement that can really be attributed to Jesus would be the one in response to paying taxes to this oppressive empire… and his comment was to give to the empire what was owing to the empire but to give to God was was owing to Him.

So there are three things coming out of this

1. There is no clear form of government prescribed by God in Scripture
2. There is no clear prescription of structure of nation, empire, affiliation of nations etc in Scripture 
3. There is no clear prescription of functioning as a nation in Scripture

Thus I would argue that the structure and functioning of modern nation states or other geopolitical entities cannot be defended or attacked from Scripture, because there is nothing prescriptive or descriptive to match them to.

Church governance as a model?

The early church didn’t have the hierarchy we see today. To start with they had elders, who were more like mentors than we would recognise as pastors today. The word ‘poimen’ or pastor only occurs once in Scripture in Ephesians 4:11. From reading Scripture we see elders as someone radically different to the modern day pastor or priest. That role has evolved over the centuries and through the various church councils. The structure rose above the elders to have overseers (also called Bishops) who, for many churches, were part of the apostolic succession. This was not a clean and easy step, indeed Ignatius of Antioch wrote to offer strategies to pressurise churches in a city to recognise a single bishop of that city. Some cities, however, had a plurality of leadership.

As the church grew so efficiency, mirroring the Roman empire, became something to be desired. However, in general, that arose alongside the secular geopolitical. In other words the rising nation states and empires were separate from the structures and hierarchy of the churches. Though at times there were ‘Christian’ countries, unlike Islam and unlike Judaism, the church functioned by influence rather than direct control.

Culture and the modern nation state, and 'Christian' countries

Something to think about too is the difference between nation and people group (ethnous). It is the word ethous or people group that is mentioned in Scripture rather than nation. Nation comes from a latin derived word which incorporates a sense of place where you are born, whereas people group is a cultural identifier without relationship to geographic place of birth. 

So part of what I now look at is whether the nationstate of the the UK (or any other nationstate for that matter) is ipso facto God ordained and I cannot see any Scriptural evidence for that. I must therefore conclude that though it may be within the permissive will of God we don’t intrinsically have to accept it as a ‘yesterday, today, forever’ structure, merely something to serve the needs of the time. 

For about 30 years I have not voted, though I have a preference for libertarian republicanism I don’t have a feeling of desire for political involvement. Why? Well, that does come from my reading of Scripture. Jesus talked about being ‘salt and light’ within the community. That implied that those who are followers of Jesus were not the entire community but an influencer within the community. A meal of meat lightly flavoured with salt or meat preserved with salt is tasty; a meal of exclusively salt would make you vomit. The idea of creating a exclusively Christian community is non-scriptural. 

Historically Christian values have influenced Europe and the UK and to some degree they became what some people call ‘Christian countries’ and I hear people wanting to return to these values. The trouble is, if it was never in God’s prescriptive will that the UK or Europe became ‘Christianised’ in the way these people look back towards then looking forwards to that again may not be the best way forward. The body of Christ grew under USSR communism, it’s growing under Chinese communism, it’s growing in Islamic countries… and waning in ‘Christian’ countries. Did we get it wrong trying to create these Christian countries? This week I watched Nik Ripken’s new film ‘The Insanity of God’, which I highly recommend. Persecution is horrid, it’s evil, and I don’t want it. And under persecution the church flourishes.

So I’m not sure that we can argue from a Christian nation state point of view that countries should be independent. Indeed when I read Scripture I see more about interdependence than independence as the way of Christ. I’m not sure we should be targeting a Christian state either. Our aim as Christians is not structural but relational. 

So there are three things coming out of this

1. Scripture prescribes interdependence not independence
2. Scripture doesn’t prescribe or describe ‘Christian’ countries
3. Scripture implies that Christians will be in the minority not the majority

Do the church councils give us any indications of the way forward? 

The first council of Nicea was called by Emperor Constantine the Great (unelected), a secular rather than church leader, who assembled the overseers or bishops (also unelected) to discuss a number of procedures.’Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself.’ Obviously not a sign of Christian humility!  Anyway, the council primarily met to discuss the Arian controversy and they took a month over that. The result was that all bar two of these bishops signed the new Nicene Creed. The way forward was not by a simple majority vote but by seeking God and building consensus till almost all agreed.

If we look at the EU and at the UK Parliament we see the EU as in an overwhelming number of cases (I believe it is more than 80% of the time) building consensus till almost all agree and only majority voting on those small number of cases. Whereas UK Parliament as a functional representative government votes on the the majority of issues. There is an exception to that though, because there will be 40 years worth of legislation, which is too many laws to disentangle from the EU within a very short time frame if the UK votes to leave the EU then that will become a government not a parliamentary issue. Secondly the referendum is based on a simple majority vote rather than building consensus or an overwhelming majority vote. I would therefore argue that the very method of deciding IN/OUT is in itself non the Christian way. I would further argue that because the EU requires consensus more often than not, it follows a more Christian path than British Parliament!

When I look at the percentages for the vote, I see very close numbers being predicted… possibly coming down to a few thousand votes on a population of 64 million.  When the UK joined the EU (then the EEC) 44% of those who could vote were in favour of joining and 21% against. There was not even a clear majority of the country in favour of joining. Whichever way the vote goes it’s highly likely to be less than a majority vote again. And on something serious like this I think it should be significantly more than a mere majority of 1. We, as Christians, should thus be arguing not whether to vote in or out but how we should build consensus rather than division.

There are three and sometimes four layers of government with the EU being the top, Sovereign nation states under that, regional or national governments under that (eg Wales and Scotland), and counties or districts under that. There are apparently 33,000 ‘faceless bureaucrats’ in the EU for the whole continent and 400,000 at the sovereign nation state level. Countless more lower down.  However, the figures are unclear. The video I watched that started this off suggested that the Catholic (Christian) way was for decisions to be taken as low in the ladder as possible. Looking at this and understanding the type of directives made by the EU it looks to me as if the problem is not with the EU but with the national governments.

Re-looking at the Christian and Scriptural principles has made me realise that the reality is a relational consensus driven EU is not merely beneficial to the population of the UK, but is in fact the Christian approach to organising things and that maybe what is needed if we are to follow as a Christian principle that decisions should be taken as low as possible is a review of national government with an aim to reduce that layer to something more appropriate!

Government spending

One thing however did surprise me. As an Christian pacifist I was expecting a huge lump of money to be able to be taken from the Armed forces if the UK was to follow Costa Rica and disband it’s army. I thought that might be a way of funding the NHS. What surprised me was that the armed forces only accounts for 6% of spending whereas Health accounts for 18% and Education for 13%. I know some people would disagree, but from my perspective encouraging more people to home educate and this reducing the education budget would be both good for the budget and a Christian way forward.

Immigration

One thing a lot has been made of is immigration. This overlaps with the concept of the modern nation state. The concept of passports is possibly early 15th century. Before that people travelled, I cannot say freely because one of the reasons for introducing passports was to facilitate travel. But in general the borders of nation states was not seen in the way it is today. This overlaps with the concept of nationality (where I was born) and ethous (my culture).

Scripture does give clear guidance on how to treat the sojourner… the foreigner in your country. Though intermarriage was something clearly against Old Testament principles, there was no rule to keep foreigners out or even limit how many came in. Those who did should be treated as guests. Welcomed. Indeed provided for the same as widows and orphans in the host people group.

There are two separate things I see… one is immigrants from outside the EU into the EU and secondly migrants in both directions between EU countries. I can see nothing in Scripture to differentiate between them. They are not of the same nation… but then a Sussex guy in Cumbria is almost in a different nation, ie place where they were born, as centuries back those were different sovereign nations. The ethous is different too. I spent a weekend in Scotland with Protestants and a few months later a weekend in Paris staying with Catholic fathers. I felt more culture shock (different ethous) in Scotland than France. The same is true contrasting living in the USA and living in Cyprus… though they speak English in the USA culturally they are more different than Cypriots.

So I’m not sure how to categorise immigration. I’m very unhappy with the attitude of some people to immigrants, both EU and not EU, but I recognise the entire world population cannot live in the UK. Nor indeed would they want to! Scripture clearly teaches us to care for the sojourner, but doesn’t give guidance on numbers.  

So what is my conclusion?

Mainly that regardless of the outcome the method by which that outcome will be derived is not a Christian approach. If you add to that the vitriolic and in some cases vindictive nature of both campaigns then even more so. In researching this I was shocked and horrified to see and hear Farage behaviour in the EU Parliament. He was downright and unnecessarily rude. That is certainly never the Christian way.

My conclusion is still that the UK being part of the EU is the Christian way forward. But instead of looking at it from being the most beneficial for the UK, I have now come to the conclusion it is Scripturally the Christian way.

Christian music videos... and fast cutting rates

I have just seen what appears to me to be one of the worst of the recent Christian music videos. It's 6'27" long with 501 shots (if I counted correctly using Cinemetrics) which makes an average shot length of 0.8 seconds.

WARNING: Do not watch this video is you are susceptible to epilepsy. If you feel nausea or any other side effects stop watching immediately. I recommend watching no more than 30 seconds to get a feel for the whole video.

A fast cutting rate can be effective - the average shot length for the bathroom scene in Psycho is 0.6 seconds, but that scene is only 48 seconds not nearly six and a half minutes! Movie trailers are renowned for fast cutting rate - the trailer for the 'Bourne Identity', for example, has an average shot length of 2 seconds. There were a lot of complaints about this trailer because of the fast cutting rate. So much so that it became known as 'The Shaky-Queasy-Utimatum'. But it was 2-3 times slower than 'You are Great'!

Walter Murch is one of the best editors in the world, and was editor for the award winning ‘Apocalypse Now’, put it this way, ‘An overactive editor, who changes shots too frequently, is like a tour guide who cannot stop pointing things out: "And up there we have the Sistine Ceiling, and over there we have to Mona Lisa, and, by the way, look at these floor tiles..." If the guide- that is to say, the editor- doesn't have the confidence to let people occasionally choose what they want to look at, or to leave things to their imagination, then he is perusing a goal (complete control) that is in the end self-defeating.’

Of course, at the opposite extreme for cutting rate is one of the golden oldies of music videos (well, 20 years old this year): 'Wannabe' by the Spice Girls. Beautifully shot and choreographed at the place my father used to work in London. It is one shot. Yes, only one shot, 3'57" long!

The Bible commends the Bereans because they examined the Scriptures to check up if even what Saint Paul said was true. It’s not merely important to enjoy our Father but to critically evaluate what is said and how it is said by anyone from the front of a church. As someone who does give talks at the front of church sometimes I am acutely aware of this. It is thus wrong to ever say or imply that we should not critically evaluate what happens within worship at a church service. To do so is unsound!

My contention is that worship should be emotional, physical and cerebral. From the theological point of view there was nothing unsound with the lyrics of the song, albeit they were somewhat simplistic and repetitive. But some people like that.

However, one potential problem when getting caught up in physical and emotional praise and worship is the tendency to ‘check your brain out at the door’. Doing so not only opens you up to missing theological errors that those at the front may be speaking but also, as in this case, to potential medical or other dangers in the presentation.

Does this mean we should check out our emotions out at the door and be primarily concerned with the cerebral? Not at all, we worship the Lord with body, mind and spirit. Separating them was one of the early heresies of the Gnostic sect of the church. The Gnostics taught that the spiritual was more important than the physical or cerebral. Because of this they believed they knew God better than other followers of the Messiah. This is a major danger that can still be seen today in some places.

It is important to remember there is no single activity called ‘worship’. One person’s worship is another person’s uninspired indifference or worse. It is why worship cannot be manufactured by church or music leaders. However, emotionalism can. I have seen it happen. Indeed specific chord sequences can lead a gathering in the direction a music leader wishes, in severe cases this is manipulative.

Some of the deepest reverent worship I have experienced is lying on my back on a yacht in the middle of the Mediterranean in the middle of the night looking up at the heavens. No amount of singing can compare to the glory, the splendour and the majesty of our Father in that situation. For me. Others would simply get sea sick!

Although I, and a few other professional film producers, have significant reservations with the production values of this video, my primary concern is not with the style of worship or production values within this video, some of which is personal, but the very real possible medical dangers of this video and also the potential for manipulation as a result.

Many years back I did some primary research into the neurophysiological effects of audio stimuli on the brain using an electroencephalograph to measure the alpha and beta rhythms of brain waves. What was surprising was not the effect upon the alpha rhythms but the auto-nervous effect on many localised muscles to audio rhythms in the sub 20Hz region.

The range of frequencies for alpha and beta rhythms in the brain is 1 Hz to 20Hz. Significant audio and/or visual stimuli in that range can cause disorientation, vertigo and nausea. It is widely known that video stimuli in that range is highly dangerous and in extreme cases causes epileptic type seizures. For that reason there are guidelines about visual stimuli for presentations within the UK.

Audio stimuli within that range, for example sub-sonic organ pipes or, more recently, synthesised music in that range, sometimes found in some films in cinemas, can cause out of body experiences that are attributed to be spiritual, but are in reality neurophysiological. Thus evaluating the spiritual impact of a video like this is either very difficult or impossible.

The editing style of this video was definitely within the dangerous range. I have had reports of nausea from people watching it. Two other professional film producers also expressed concern.

To be shown on broadcast TV in the UK I believe this video would have to have a warning for people susceptible to this not to watch it. Even then I doubt they would show the whole of it, probably no longer than 30 seconds, which is the maximum recommended dose. It’s that dangerous! It is for that reason that I consider it one of the worst of the current Christian music videos.

So where does that leave people who enjoy this and find it draws them closer to God? That is a difficult one. Some people find taking recreational drugs draws them closer to God. However, no mature followers of the Messiah would condone that. The trouble is some of the neurophysiological effects of video material aligned to a strong musical beat creates a very similar effect. Playing it repeatedly would be like consuming significant quantities of alcohol.

I am not a neuro-specialist doctor, but I would personally consider it very unwise to watch this video repeatedly and particularly unwise in recovery from a traumatic stress situation. As a professional film producer I would personally advise against showing it in any public situation because of health and safety concerns.

From a production point of view the biggest problem is there is no story. Cinematography is about telling a story. Jesus told stories. All the world loves a story. All the best music videos tell a story. This one had none. Compare Carrie Underwood's 'Just a Dream' or Taeyang's 'Wedding Dress' with 'God is Great' and you'll see what I mean. One has a story, one doesn't. Those two examples are both non-Christian non-worship music videos. I use them as examples because even within the secular commercial world with a simplistic message it’s possible to create good film-making with some form of story.

So called ‘worship videos’ are no different. Of course, there are worship videos and secular music videos with no story. It’s like comparing worship songs that come from the genre someone described as ‘God is my buddy’ with the depth of theology contained in the best of modern songwriting.

The Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir - I'm Amazed
from IBN on Vimeo.

Compare the lyrics of You are Great to some of the better written worship songs like The Servant King or Meekness and Majesty. But there is a problem with the latter two songs if you enjoy the endomorphin and adrenelin release of rhythms in the 1Hz to 20Hz region then…  you will get none. It partly depends therefore on what you are seeking in worship. Well crafted songs exist in all cultures. Look at the lyrics to a song with similar theme to ‘You are Great’ by the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir called ‘I’m amazed’. There are very few performances online of this, but this one with Portuguese subtitles shows the crafting of the video. This is interesting from a production point of view because parts of it have a very fast cutting rate and parts are much slower. This gives it a really good rhythm.

St Paul in his writing raises concerns about the level or maturity among the Hebrews. There are issues with some of the simplistic songwriting around, often justified with the phrase ‘God gave me this song’. However, as Adrian Plass so aptly put it, ‘He was probably glad to get rid of it’. The biggest problem with evaluating songs like this is to remain within the area of the Bereans without drifting into the area of the Gnostic, believing we somehow have a corner on God. However, not critiquing at all leads us down a path warned about in 1 Peter 5:8-9.

But to what extent is critical appraisal culturally loaded? For sure it has cultural overtones, but I learned a lot from Nigerian and Egyptian Christians. Because I was approaching production values as being cultural I let them produce in the way they felt appropriate. Some years later one of the top TV producers in the country concerned sat me down and asked why I hadn’t made comment about the poor production in that country, specifically the poor production of some of his films. I explained that I thought it was just cultural for the style they liked. He said that no, it was just bad production and that in fact not critiquing it was being racist. It was like saying ‘this is good enough for you, but not good enough for us’. His contention is there are stylistic issues related to culture, but bad TV is just bad TV!

Marriage, war and politics

A friend recently commented that we appeared to have increasingly divergent political views. That may well be true, but it challenged me to put together a post expressing my worldview in this area.

The scriptures we call the Bible appear to have three different types of expression of how we relate to God and the world: Prescriptive, descriptive and core principles from which attitudes can be derived. Prescriptive commands are obvious, descriptive more difficult to interpret sometimes. And an example of the third is that the nature of God is love, so we interpret all we read in light of that nature. 

We also see Jesus living in a dual culture, both secular (Roman) and religious (Jewish) which gives us a model on how to live in a bi-cultural 21st century. Not everything is secular and not everything is religious and some things overlap. However, when Jesus said 'give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's' he was clearly separating the two cultures. These two cultures had previously been integrated into a theocratic synthesis: The Jewish people had centuries earlier asked for a king, God had warned them that they would not like it but permitted it nevertheless, demonstrating a core principle that He allows political structures that are both less optimal and not His intention. He also demonstrates that He works through these far from than ideal structures. 

Around the world there have been debates and heated arguments over same sex marriage. This is one area where the two cultures clash. In Scripture we see marriage as being God ordained (prescriptive) but also polygamous (descriptive). Early community leaders in the New Testament were constrained to be the 'husband of one wife'. Whether that was referring to sequential or parallel polygamy is ambiguous: Western society tends to practice sequential polygamy whereas near east society tends to practice parallel polygamy.

There is variation between Western and Eastern rite churches over how people are married: Western churches tend to focus on the vows of the people concerned, whereas in Eastern churches there are no vows, but the priest confirms to the congregation that God has brought these two people together. There is one line in the Western service, and here I like the old wording, that is similar to the Eastern rite, and is quoting Matthew 19:6 'Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder'. We don't use words like twain and asunder today, but I like the way it is expressed.

The church historically has seen marriage as man-woman. It's a lot about heterosexual sex. If you go through the marriage service, but don't have sex you cannot be divorced, but the marriage can be annulled. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer describes the primary reasons for marriage in these terms 'First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of contingency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.'

On the other hand secular society doesn't really care much about sex, but sees marriage in terms of taxation, control of children, and a dose of inheritance law mixed in for good measure. It also allows for the partner to make decisions as the 'next of kin' in some medical matters. It's a very different outlook. Sex is something between consenting adults behind closed doors.

Let's step back for a moment and look at how some elderly people want to share their lives, but with no sexual connotations at all. Two women or two men might wish to have the taxation and next of kin legal and societal benefits and obligations without any sexual relationship.

So it seems to me that Jesus comments about giving to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is His comes into play -- a God ordained sexual union is very different from a legal civil partnership. It's time society and the Body of Christ saw them as different and didn't try to muddle them together. Let's have a more Eastern rite style of commending the sexual union God has done in bringing a man and a woman together for having kids and avoiding fornication and western style vows as a secular civil partnership. 

In this post I haven't clearly come down against or for same-sex marriage or unions. (Despite my own feelings in this matter.) That's because the secular and religious have differing needs and differing demands and because one of the reasons the stress is happening is because we have confused the secular and religious in a way that is mutually detrimental.

Where does this lead us with respect the other hot potato -- to war and military action? Again I see a total separation between religion and secular.

As a follower of the Messiah I start with Jesus command to love your enemies and do good to those that persecute you. Now, I'm not pretending it's easy. I remember sitting in Iraq looking at two cases being sent back to the grieving relatives of four colleagues shot dead a few days earlier. What does loving your enemies look like in those days? Does it work? I remember walking through the Auschwitz gas chambers and wondering what loving your enemies was like to them... It really isn't easy!

Since the fall of man our Father has been working to bring about reconciliation between Him and us. He sent prophets proclaiming doom and gloom towards those who turned their back on Him. It worked, with people turning back to God for a while but not long term. To bring about reconciliation eventually sent His son. In order to bring about permanent reconciliation His Son had to stand in the gap... and be killed for it. It didn't work the rather simplistic way Matthew 18 suggests it should! And Scripture records that He could have called legions of Angels to come and defend Him. But He didn't. He died. Winning the war was not brought about killing but about dying! When Jesus said 'Pick up your cross and follow me' this is what he meant.

Now, this is not just a New Testament thing, when God said he would bless Abraham's descendants He said it so that 'they could bless all nations'. From the beginning we have been called to bless. Not merely those who bless us, but all people, every nation without working out if they are nice people or not! 

So back to the secular. A government is supposed to defend it citizens from attack, and uses violence to do so.  For secular society much of the debate is about whether civilians are killed or not... or at least how many. Enemies are enemies. Much of the logic is still an 'eye for an eye', which in its day was actually limiting how much retribution could be applied! People talk about a 'just war'; about defending the defenceless. There is horror at what we now call terrorism. In secular belief violence in the form of terrorism is and should be responded to by 'just' violence. To those on the receiving end of this just violence it feels like terrorism, it's terrorism vs terrorism. My terrorism is bigger and stronger than your terrorism so I win.

However, not everyone agrees with this even from a secular point of view. There is an example of a person held by Daish who argues that we have to respond in love as the only way of defeating them.

Generally, however, this secular view is completely the opposite of the way of Christ and hence why we who follow the Messiah don't really fit in with secular society.

This is partly because I believe the modern nation state is not something God ordained. Like when the Jews wanted a king and God permitted them to discover what it was like, so the modern nation state has arisen out of God's permissive rather than prescriptive will.

In some ways it appears that the modern nation state has become almost a mutual society rather than community. We pay money into United Kingdom PLC expecting benefits. We pay for health care, schools, security... some of these are insurance related and some of them assurance related.  But unlike our insurance companies where we can pick and chose the policies we wish to purchase we have little choice except through elections as to how it works. We might, for instance, believe in an army for defence, but not for offensive operations in another country. We cannot pay for one and not the other. This causes many of the protest movements, which I perceive are likely to increase over the next few years.

For followers of the Messiah our primary loyalty is to God's Kingdom and not to the kingdoms of this world. We are 'sojourners in a strange land'. So we will never truly fit in with a secular society.

The problems become exacerbated when followers of the Messiah end up creating a parallel society and not attempting to fit in with the secular host society. Some places you can find communities where the churches have their own schools, housing estates and even shopping malls. We are called to be salt and light in society, rather than 'fitting in', but though there is Scriptural criticism when salt has lost its saltiness, salt is also useless kept in a jar away from the food and never coming into contact with it!

I recognise too that not all followers of the Messiah read Scripture the way we do. Some read it in a way that appears to be closer to the secular from our point of view. But even with the secular we must understand that God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us free will. It's an important attribute and what actually enables us to love Him. As such I quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall citing the attitude of Voltaire: 'Though I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it'. 

The problem comes when what people are saying is not merely a difference of opinion but something satanic as would be the case for supporters of Daish. I define satanic as being something designed to 'kill, steal or destroy' as cited in John 10:10. Personally I'd like to see Daish completely stopped from using the media to communicate their satanic views. But in doing so we would set a censorship principle that could be dangerous. Already in the UK the government is labelling those who disagree with their views as pro-terrorist even if they are not! Linguistically this gets difficult since we are called to love our enemies, hence to love Daish even when we believe what they are doing is satanic! 

So how do we become salt and light within the society while at the same time being sojourners in a strange land and therefore not totally part of that society? This is a conundrum that followers of the Messiah have faced since the beginning. And since the early church years people have been confused as to how to react to them. My perception is that in the coming years this confusion and dilemma will increase with some followers of the Messiah aligning more with the secular and some being more separatist and some, in picking up their cross, being crucified by both!