Why Christians Must Participate in Politics
Christian Politics – Introduction
When it comes to the idea of Christian politics, the Christian worldview sees
government as an institution established by God (Genesis 9:6;
Romans 13)
for the primary purpose of promoting justice for its citizens—protecting the
innocent from the aggressor and the lawless. Without security, every other
function of government (protecting life, liberty, property, reputation, etc.)
is meaningless.
As Christians we recognize government as a sacred institution whose rulers are
ministers of God for good (Romans 13).
God ordained the state to practice godly justice and commands us to obey its
rules and laws. Peter instructs us to “submit . . . for the Lord’s sake to
every authority instituted among men, whether to the king, as the supreme
authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong
and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13–14).
As long as government is serving the purpose for which God created it, we must
show our allegiance to God by submitting to human government.
Christian Politics – Limited
Government
The extent of Christian politics is simply the following: We expect the state
to accomplish limited, God-ordained tasks. Its two principle roles are to
protect the innocent and punish the guilty (Romans 13:3–4).
Government should adhere to the principle “Let all things be done decently and
in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40;
Exodus 18:19f)
because order reflects God’s character.
We know that power tends to corrupt, so a government that disperses power is
better than one that gathers power into the hands of a few. As Christians, we
should welcome opportunities to participate in government with the goal of
influencing the state to conform to God’s will for it as a social institution (Proverbs 11:11).
The Christian worldview does not single out any one form of government as
acceptable, although a constitutional form is more likely to conform to
biblical principles and respond to its citizens than are less democratic forms.
One significant aspect of the United States’ government that conforms to
biblical ideals is the division of power into three branches—executive,
legislative, and judicial—along with its system of checks and balances. The
three-branch model was patterned after Isaiah 33:22:
“For the Lord is our judge [judicial], the Lord is our lawgiver [legislative],
the Lord is our king [executive].”
Christian Politics – Creation and
Original Sin
Perhaps the Christian concept our founding fathers best understood was the
Christian understanding that although we are created in God’s image, we
nevertheless have a fallen, sinful nature. Because they understood these
opposing aspects of our nature, the founding fathers tailored a government suited
to our rightful place in God’s creative order.
Human government is necessary because of sin. Our evil inclinations toward sin
must be kept in check by laws and a government capable of enforcing such laws.
Thus, government protects us from our own sinful nature. But our founding
fathers also grappled with the problem of protecting ordinary citizens from the
sinful inclinations of those in authority. The result of their efforts is our
system of checks and balances among the branches of government. Each branch
wields unique powers that prevent the focus of governmental power and authority
from falling into the hands of a select few. By broadly distributing power and
responsibility, the American system of government minimizes the possibility of
an abuse of power because of our fallen nature. James Madison says, “If men
were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”1
Christian Politics – The Source of Human
Rights
Christian politics within a Christian worldview understands God as the source
and guarantee of our basic human rights. Because we believe we are created in
the image of God (Genesis 1:26),
we know that we are valuable. (This becomes doubly clear when we remember that
Christ took upon Himself human flesh and died for humanity.) God grants all
individuals the same rights based on an absolute moral standard. The
Declaration of Independence proclaims, “All men are created equal... [and]
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Two assumptions are
inherent in this declaration: 1) we were created by a supernatural Being; and
2) this Being provides the foundation for all human rights.
The knowledge that human rights are based on an unchanging, eternal Source is
crucial in our understanding of politics. If our rights were not tied
inextricably to God’s character, then they would be arbitrarily assigned
according to the whims of each passing generation or political party—rights are
“unalienable” only because they are based on God’s unchanging character.
Therefore, human rights do not originate with human government, but with God
Himself, who ordains governments to secure these rights.
Our founding fathers understood this clearly. John Adams, in a letter to Thomas
Jefferson in 1813, says, “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved
Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of
young Gentlemen could Unite... And what were these general Principles? I
answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were
United... Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those
general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the
Existence and Attributes of God.”2
John Winthrop says that the best friend of liberty is one who is “most sincere and
active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the
greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind.
Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his
country.”3
Noah Webster wrote “The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures
ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These
principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation.”4
Alexis de Tocqueville says, “There is no country in the world where the
Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in
America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its
conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt
over the most enlightened and free nation on the earth.”5
George Washington, in his inaugural address as first president of the United
States, referred to “the propitious smiles of Heaven” that fall only on that
nation that does not “disregard the eternal rules of order and right which
Heaven itself has ordained.”6
Christian Politics – Conclusion
According to biblical Christian politics, God ordains governments to administer
His justice. When government rules within the boundaries of its role in God’s
order, we submit to the state’s authority willingly because we understand that
God has placed it in authority over us. However, when the state abuses its
authority or claims to be sovereign, we must acknowledge God’s transcendent law
rather than that of the state. Our loyalty to God may call us to political
involvement in an effort to create good and just government. The involvement of
righteous people can significantly influence government for the better.
Our ongoing struggle to create and maintain just government may or may not be
effective. We must, however, remain obedient to God in all circumstances.
Colson says, “Christians are to do their duty as best they can. But even when
they feel that they are making no difference, that they are failing to bring Christian
values to the public arena, success is not the criteria. Faithfulness is.”7
Notes:
Rendered with permission from the book, Understanding the Times: The Collision
of Today’s Competing Worldviews (Rev 2nd ed), David Noebel, Summit Press, 2006. Compliments of John
Stonestreet, David Noebel, and the Christian
Worldview Ministry at Summit Ministries. All rights reserved in the original.
1 See no. 51 in Alexander Hamilton, et al., The Federalist Papers
(New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1964), 122.
2 Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters (Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 339–40.
3 Winthrop’s speech at Princeton, May 17, 1776.
4 Noah Webster, History of the United States, “Advice to the
Young” (New Haven: CT, Durrie & Peck, 1832), 338-340.
5 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York, NY:
Vintage Classics, 1990), 303.
6 George Washington, First Inaugural Address, New York City, April
30, 1789. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html.
7 Charles Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1987), 291.
The Christian in Politics: Some Basic Problems
John H. Redekop
The sixteen problems described below
derive, in part, from several basic assumptions. First, while most of the
issues pertain to any society, I am assuming a democratic political setting. Second,
although all Christian political activists would encounter the same sorts of
issues, this analysis focuses on partisan involvement, primarily participation
in elections. Third, my analysis is based on an Anabaptist perspective which
ushers in several additional dilemmas, especially concerning the use of
violence. Fourth, since every Christian is both citizen and disciple, I am
assuming that there is an interest in addressing both individual lostness and
societal problems.
Politics press the Christian toward
compromises. Can a disciple keep his integrity there?
In assessing the basic differences
associated with political activism, one should not ignore the larger questions
of church-state relations. They are dealt with more fully elsewhere. Probably the
best treatment is found in Thomas Sanders’ Protestant Concepts of Church and
State. 1 A dated but still useful essay by Elmer Neufeld provides,
among other things, a succinct summary of the widely discussed categories
delineated by H. Richard Niebuhr and John C. Bennett. 2 A typical “challenge,” in popular style, to “be a Christian
in politics,” particularly in American politics in which church and state
co-operate, is Paul G. Elbrecht’s The Christian Encounters Politics and
Government. Elbrecht asserts:
For God and country, Christian lives
need to be in His service 24 hours a day, every day. This is the Christian
calling, opportunity, and {35} privilege. In the person of the
Christian, church and state meet. 3
In this essay, I wish to challenge
many of the widely held notions espoused by Elbrecht and his kind. However,
many of the problems described below apply to most of the other positions which
Elbrecht outlines in his elementary survey. Further, without denying the
uniqueness of the political arena, it is acknowledged that many of the same
ethical difficulties are also encountered by Christians committed to expressing
authentic Christianity in business, labor, “professional” and other settings.
Finally, I realize that the sixteen problems are not mutually exclusive and
each constitutes a particular facet or fomulation of the larger issue.
THE
BASIC PROBLEM
1. What does it mean to say that
Jesus is Lord of the political realm?
A person’s answer to this question
largely determines whether political activism is seen as obedient servanthood
or as a questionable pursuit. The explanations are diverse and numerous. They
cannot all be right. Paul Marshall, arguing from a Reformed perspective,
asserts that:
Political authority is not an area
apart from the gospel, but can be an area of ministry just as much as any
office in the church. This authority is not a thing separate from the reign of
Jesus Christ but is itself a manifestation of the authority of the “King of
Kings.”
He adds, “The state is what God
through Jesus Christ has set up to maintain justice. Its officers are as much
ministers of God as are prophets and priests.” 4
John Howard Yoder sees things
differently. While acknowledging that “both the lordship of Christ over the
world and His headship in the church are of grace, though they are not
distinct,” he emphasizes “the absolute priority of church over state in the
plan of God. The church is herself a society.” 5
Any Christian political activist has
to decide whether political activity constitutes Christian service, and is
therefore an acceptable calling, or whether it is essentially outside the Great
Commission and should therefore be avoided.
2. Do Christians have any right to
let their consciences over-ride the majority view of their constituents?
While this problem is not unique to
Christian politicians, they presumably will encounter it frequently because
their firmly held ethical values generally reflect minority views. Many elected
representatives have hesitated to “inflict” their views on their constituents.
Almost two centuries ago Edmund Burke spelled out the logical response that
elected officials have a basic right to act according to their own principles
provided that, prior to being elected, they have explained to the electors
their particular value system. On fundamental moral matters the
representative’s judgment and conscience take precedence over local and even
national majority preference. {36} Voting on issues such as capital
punishment, abortion, prohibition, censorship, and many other ethical questions
would be affected. Of course, the resulting political cost might be high.
3. Do Christians have the right to
force someone else to turn the other cheek?
Here we encounter a great dilemma.
Even if politicians delineated their ethical stance in advance, there are two
problems. Christian leaders have no right to sacrifice something that is not
their own. They have no mandate to try to move beyond justice and attempt to
“extort” a love ethic from their constituents. They may request it, but they
must not try to require it! Further, by definition, unless Christian sacrifice
is voluntary it is not Christian. Accordingly, any effort to coerce love and
sacrifice is intrinsically unchristian and constitutes authoritarianism.
4. How can Christian partisans run
for office without compromising or fracturing the church of which they are a
part?
Given the fact that virtually all
full-time electoral offices involve partisan politics and given the widely-held
view that the organized church should remain separate from particular political
causes, it follows that electioneering church members have a problem. There is
no easy solution. Robert Eells suggests the formation of “extra-church
voluntary associations or coalitions of believers who are united for political
purposes.” 6 Paul Marshall observes that “unless a party is committed to
giving political expression to the gospel of Jesus Christ, we can never ultimately
feel comfortable with its view of what will solve human problems.” 7 He is right. Christian politicians can make no final
commitment to anything that is sub-Christian. Since there are no bona fide
Christian political parties of consequence anywhere (and certainly no one party
which all Christians could readily support), it follows that all partisan
commitment by Christians must be cautious and conditional.
Even if partisan activity is
qualified, the possibility of compromising or fracturing the church remains.
Political activists can minimize the problem by being considerate and tactful,
by practising respect for those who disagree, by affirming the propriety of
alternative ideologies, and by stressing their openness to further insight.
They cannot, however, eliminate the problem entirely. They and their Christian
communities must learn to live with it. They must learn to affirm one another
even when they differ.
5. Do Christian political activists
have a responsibility to promote Christian designations and symbols in
politics?
Many politicians obviously believe
that they do. For example, in the early 1980’s the Hon. Jake Epp, a
distinguished member of the Canadian House of Commons, put forth much effort to
get a reference to God inserted into the revised Canadian constitution. For his
untiring efforts he was widely acclaimed among Canadian Christians.
In the United States there is a long
and continuing tradition concerning the fusion of Christian symbolism with
politics. In recent decades the following are especially noteworthy. In June,
1954, Congress inserted “One nation {37} under God” into the pledge of
allegiance. In 1955 “In God We Trust” became mandatory for all U.S. currency
and in 1956 Congress declared it to be the national motto. A National Prayer
Room for politicians was opened on Capitol Hill in 1955.
John B. Anderson, prominent
Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, reflected this general
concern when he said, “What we are talking about, quite frankly, is the need to
rediscover and rearticulate what is often called our “civic religion.” 8
Not all political activists and
academics concur with the desirability of promoting civic religion or religious
symbols. Donald Kaufman, for example, refers to “a romance in our land—an
illicit church-state love affair.” “Civil religion,” he adds, “has deceived us
to believe that in rendering to the nation we are also rendering unto God.”
Indeed, “to tell the nations of the world that God blesses America is to deny
that God so loved the whole world.” 9 Christian politicians need to come to terms with this
troubling phenomenon.
6. Since governments deal mainly in
negative endeavors, can Christian politicians really achieve significant
positive results?
The problem is twofold. Governments
deal with externalities and behaviour, while Christians are concerned mainly
with values, beliefs and motivation. Governments do not assess motivation.
Further, governments are kept busy restraining evil, “putting out fires,”
dealing with a vast assortment of crises, and trying to control social
antagonisms and cleavages. Christians, however, have a prior commitment to “do
good,” to express love in positive ways. Can Christian politicians really do
much that is truly Christian in the political arena? Is it the best vehicle for
expressing their commission?
7. How can political activists give
preference to their country but simultaneously endorse the brotherhood of all?
This problem is not unique to
politicians but it is more consequential for them than for others. After all,
those who operate the helm are expected to put preservation of the ship of
state above any other “good.” Thus hypernationalism is expected of elected
politicians. But for Christians, given their commitment to subjection but not
the unqualified obedience, any country can be a motherland and any motherland a
foreign country. 10 It has well been emphasized by an Anabaptist activist that
“our peace churches’ forefathers didn’t refuse the oath because of the
language, but rather because it implied a commitment they found idolatrous.” 11 Christians must not succumb to the temptation of
hypernationalism.
8. Should Christian politicians seek
to legislate morality?
Paul Marshall makes much of the
“cultural mandate” which Christian politicians, and others, need to carry out.
He acknowledges, however, that any attempt to legislate against all sin would
produce a totalitarian state. Hence, the more general justice concerns should
always take precedence. 12 Attempting to resolve the problem, Paul Henry, a prominent
Republican politician in Michigan who also identifies with the Reformed
perspective, {38} argues that in these matters, “justice becomes the
servant of love.” 13 Addressing the issue of legislating morality, John Howard
Yoder writes that “those who in this way seek to gain power to implement their
religious vision have chosen (probably consciously) a strategy hardly
reconcilable with that of the New Testament church.” 14 Paul Henry, while not sharing Yoder’s hesitancy, cautions
that “while Christians must speak and act forthrightly on social and political
issues, they must at the same time guard against moral arrogance in presuming
to speak the mind of God as it pertains to contemporary problems.” 15 In sum, should Christian politicians strive to legislate
humanitarian values but refrain from advocating the enactment of specifically
Christian values? This is a major dilemma.
9. Should Christian politicians
function primarily as prophets or as priests? Can they be both?
At issue here is the question of
being a critic or a defender of the state in general or of a government in
particular. Is it possible to follow Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than
men,” while simultaneously swearing (or affirming) to uphold a constitution?
Can one discharge official political duties while maintaining sufficient
detachment to express credible criticism? The task is not easy; some observers
imply that it is impossible. 16
10. Can Christians be active in
political decision-making without being responsible for the resulting
decisions?
This question has troubled Christian
activists for many generations. There has been widespread disagreement. Bob
Goudzwaard insists that “whether we like it or not, we bear co-responsibility
for one another’s lot and thus for the structuration of our society.” He argues
that there is an inherent responsibility and that the real question is not if
but how we fulfill our role. 17 Johannes Verkuyl says that God “expects us to be concerned
in a way that involves us in co-responsibility and, sometimes, guilt.” 18 But one can also argue that in politics Christians should
present a witness not a strategy, and that, for example, Christians can
properly denounce the demonic willingness to use the ultimate weapon without
sharing in the guilt of any specific governmental decision. Of course, such a
stance is virtually impossible for a cabinet member or other senior government
supporter. Accordingly, it could be argued that Christians can function better
in an opposition party than in a governing party. The problem is complex.
11. Does political involvement
require inevitable compromises with the evils of the world?
Clearly politics involves compromise
but so does business activity and participation in organized labor and
professional associations. Compromise is essential to a civilized society. The
crucial question is whether compromise involves yielding on essential ethical
tenets. When it does, the Christians must draw the line. If there is no other
acceptable alternative, they must resign from their positions. Of course, that
standard applies to all others, but for Christians this dilemma is highly
visible and may occur relatively frequently. {39}
12. Is there a particular Christian
political agenda which Christians should seek to implement?
Walter Klaassen, representing a
particular segment of scholars, argues that there is no such agenda. 19 In his early writings Yoder concurred, emphasizing that God
has only one acceptable ethic and that Christians have no biblical basis for
suggesting that something less than that ethic is God’s ideal for government. 20 Citing passages such as Luke 4:18, 19 and Matthew 28:18-20,
Marshall disagrees: “the disciples must teach the nations to observe all” that
Jesus has commanded. The Christian Gospel “includes proclamation to the nations
about obedience to God.” 21 In an appendix to his recent book the noted Reformed
political activist, Gerald Vandezande, seems to agree and has set forth
detailed Christian norms for governments. 22 A carefully reasoned, sometimes sympathetic, analysis of a
biblically-based agenda for secular government is provided by Yoder in his
later writings, especially in The Politics of Jesus.
Many difficulties remain. About all
that experts can generally agree on is that governments, by and large, make
virtually no effort to enact a Christian agenda and that whether or not we
think they should do so is determined largely by our theological traditions.
PROBLEMS
“UNIQUE” TO ANABAPTISM
Several problems associated with
political activism are more or less peculiar to, or at least peculiarly
significant for, Anabaptists. I shall mention four.
1. How can Christians committed to
an ethic of non-violence be part of a political apparatus fundamentally
dependent on reliance on violence in both the military and civilian realms?
Does the love ethic ever permit
killing? Can Christian politicians who claim to hold to only the love ethic
find any justification to do as political agents what they could otherwise not
do? Walter Klaassen argues the negative. Quoting Hans Denck, he states that “No
Christian who makes his boast in his Lord is allowed to use and rule by
violence.” 23 He presents a strong case.
2. Can an Anabaptist politician ever
identify with militarism?
In his various writings, Ernie
Regehr has helped us to understand that militarism is more than the merely
logical use of the military. 24 Militarism is the illegitimate use of the military
according even to the standards of sub-Christian government. Its opposite is
“civilianism,” not pacifism. Even supposing that an Anabaptist political
activist could come to terms with reliance on violence, it would be very
difficult to condone the militarism which permeates much of our political
structure. For aspiring Anabaptist politicians, especially if they have
administrative authority, the problem is thorny, all the {40} more so if
militarism rests on nuclear weapons systems.
3. How can Anabaptist Christians get
involved in politics without drawing in the community of believers of which
they are a vital part?
John A. Lapp sharpens the question
for us: “As there is no such thing as an individualistic Chrisitianity, neither
for the Christian can there be such a thing as an individualistic politics.” 25 The problem is large. At the very least it would be
necessary for the separated community of Anabaptists to participate in any
discernment concerning a possible political career for one of its members.
4. Given the claims of government,
as well as its large and expanding role, how can Christians simultaneously be
part of a separated pilgrim people and commit themselves to major political
activism?
Can a person, with integrity, give
allegiance to two distinct societies? Can one be simultaneously a divinely
“called out” person, part of a called out community, and a bona fide party
participant? Can one serve these two masters? At the very least it is
problematic; perhaps it is impossible. And yet we must concede that the
political system in fact benefits much from those whose theology of love,
peace, and service makes them its least likely participants.
The problems are consequential. As
increasing numbers of Christians, including Anabaptists, become involved in
political arenas, even at national levels, we need to deal with them more
seriously. 26 For many Anabaptists, practice is diverting more and more
from profession. Many seem to have difficulty identifying operational
guidelines. To ignore this serious situation will precipitate more confusion,
more contradiction, and more error.
REFERENCES
- Thomas G. Sanders, Protestant Concepts of Church and
State (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964).
- Elmer Neufeld, “Christian Responsibility in the
Political Situation,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 33 (1958):3-24.
- (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965), p. 9.
- Paul Marshall, Thine is the Kingdom. A Biblical
Perspective on the Nature of Government and Politics Today
(Basingstoke, Hants.: Marshall Morgan Scott, 1984), pp. 46,47.
- The Christian Witness to the State (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1964), pp. 12, 17. {41}
- “What is Christian Politics?” The Christian Patriot
(November, 1973), p. 3. See also Paul B. Henry. Politics for
Evangelicals (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1974), chapter 4.
- Marshall, p. 83.
- John B. Anderson, Vision and Betrayal in America
(Waco, TX: Word Books, 1975), p. 55. See also John H. Redekop, The
American Far Right (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), especially
chapter 2.
- Donald B. Kraybill, Our Star-Spangled Faith
(Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1976), pp. 19, 26, 192.
- See Kraybill, chapter 10.
- Urbane Peachey, “Electoral Politics: Myths and
Realities,” MCC Peace Section Newsletter, VII/5 (1976):3.
- Marshall, pp. 83-89. For the “cultural mandate,” see
chapter 2.
- Paul B. Henry, Politics for Evangelicals (Valley
Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1974), p. 123.
- The Christian Witness to the State (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1964), p. 27.
- Henry, p. 94. See also Robert D. Linder and Richard V.
Pierard, Politics: A Case for Social Action (Downers Grove, IL:
Inter Varsity Press, 1973).
- See Kraybill, chapters 3 and 4, as well as Robert
Clouse, Robert Linder, and Richard Pierard, eds., The Cross and the
Flag (Carol Stream, IL: Creation House, 1972).
- Bob Goudzwaard, A Christian Political Option
(Toronto: Wedge, 1972), pp.2-3.
- Johannes Verkuyl and H.G. Schulte Nordholt, Responsible
Revolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 8.
- Walter Klaassen, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor
Protestant (Waterloo: Conrad Press, 1973), ch. 6.
- Yoder, The Christian Witness to the State, esp.
chs. 6 and 7.
- Marshall, p. 36.
- Christians in the Crisis (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1984), pp. 211-222.
- Klaassen, ibid., p. 50.
- See, for example, his What is Militarism?
(Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section, 1976), and his Making
a Killing: Canada’s Arms Industry (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart,
1975).
- John A. Lapp, “The Christian and Politics”, MCC
Peace Section Newsletter VII/5 (October, 1976):5.
- For an analysis of Mennonite political activism see
John H. Redekop, “Mennonites and Politics in Canada and the United
States,” Journal of Mennonite Studies I (1983):79-105.
The Changing Face of Christian Politics
Looking back, 2013 is likely to be
remembered as the final collapse of the old, confrontational Religious Right in
favor of a less partisan, more pragmatic approach.
A new generation of Christian
leaders is trying to emulate Pope Francis's model of appealing to a wider
audience without giving up the basic tenets of the faith. Tony Gentile/Reuters
In the closing days of 2013,
Representative Steve King summed up the year in religion and politics well.
After a year in which Christian leaders and organizations mobilized to pressure
Congress on immigration reform, King was ready
to take off his gloves: "We
might lose [the immigration] debate in this country because of the sympathy
factor, and it's also added to by a lot of Christian groups who misread the
scripture, and I'm happy to take on that debate with any one of those
folks."
As a frequent speaker at
"values voter" conferences, King must have felt odd positioning
himself in direct opposition to Christians. Then again, 2013 was a year defined
by Christian leaders seeking to realign themselves politically to meet the
challenges of a new century and changing culture.
Christian political engagement is
changing in this country as believers seek to untangle their faith from the
worldliness of partisan politics and ideology. The melding of Christianity and
partisan politics has been 40 years in the making, but the costs of that
entanglement have only become clear to Christians over the last decade.
In response to changing cultural
mores in the 1960s and '70s, religious leaders like the Reverend Jerry
Falwell—who had previously spurned partisan political engagement—called
Christians to "stand for what is right" through the acquisition of
political power. "In a nation of primarily Christians," they
reasoned, "why are we struggling to influence our nation's policy
decisions?" Soon, Christians became aligned in practice and perception
with the Republican Party, pursuing almost exclusively a one-party strategy for
political victory.
Conservative Christians learned that
the power to elect a candidate is different than the power to govern. How
could they could elect a nation's president, but lose its politics?
In the 1980s and '90s, the power of
the religious right was a defining feature of American politics. Ronald Reagan,
a Republican, famously told a group of conservative Christians that "you
can't endorse me, but I endorse you," the type of flattery that nearly
gave his audience the vapors. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, ran for president
making rhetorical concessions on the issue of abortion (it should be
"safe, legal, and rare"), and while in office he signed the Defense
of Marriage Act and made school uniforms a cause célèbre. But although Pat
Buchanan and Pat Robertson influenced Republican presidential primaries as
favorite candidates of the religious right, it was George W. Bush who finally
cracked the glass ceiling and was elected as the first president leaders of the
Religious Right could claim as "one
of us."
But conservative Christians learned
that the political power to elect a candidate is different than the political
power to govern. Sure, the White House hosted James Dobson each year for what
amounted to a "kissing of the ring" session to mark the National Day
of Prayer that Dobson's wife Shirley established a non-profit to support. Bush
called for a "culture of life" at major public forums, and made a
push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage during his second
term. Yet the substantive, lasting policy victories conservative Christians
hoped for were not achieved: Abortion remained legal, no federal amendment to
ban gay marriage passed, and school-sanctioned prayer time remained
unconstitutional. Moreover, as the original leaders of the religious right
moved out of leadership, the next generation of pro-GOP voices for conservative
morality were not religious leaders, but political advocates: Rush Limbaugh,
Glenn Beck, Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins (a former Louisiana state senator).
As George W. Bush's approval ratings
plummeted during his second term, many Christians who had been invested in the
Religious Right movement began to reconsider their partisan posture in
politics. In my conversations with Christian leaders and voters, I've found
that there are two common motivating factors for this change. First, the
political issues that draw Christian concern go beyond what the political
system has suggested. Christian organizations have supported issues like
prisoner rehabilitation, international development, immigrant services, and
healthcare for literally centuries in this country. The legacy of Christian
political activism in America spans not just the culture wars, but America's
founding, the abolition of slavery, and the advancement of civil rights. To
Christian leaders, and many Christians themselves, it was incomprehensible that
they came to occupy such a small space of our political discourse. How could it
be that they could elect a nation's president, but lose its politics?
But Christians also faced a similar
and still more pressing question: How could it be that they could elect a
nation's president, but lose its people?
Two books in the late 2000s helped
answer that question. In 2007, Unchristian, a book written by Gabe
Lyons and David Kinnaman based on original research, sent shockwaves through
the church that continue to resonate. They found that young non-Christians have
profoundly
negative views of Christians.
For instance, among 16- to 29-year-old non-Christians, Christians were viewed
as "anti-gay" (91 percent), judgmental (87 percent), hypocritical (85
percent), sheltered (78 percent) and—surprise—"too political" (75
percent). In 2010, respected academics David Campbell and Robert Putnam's
landmark book, American Grace, concluded that partisan politics was
directly to blame for the rise of religiously unaffiliated Americans. "The
growth of the nones," Campbell
argued, "is a direct reaction to the
intermingling of religion and politics in the United States." Jonathan
Merritt was more blunt in his assessment of
the impact of a partisan faith: "As American Evangelicals have become more
partisan, American Christianity has suffered as more shy away from the faith."
Pastors increasingly found that a
partisan politics was pushing people away from faith and causing tension
among those in their churches. Things had to change.
For Christians, this research
confirmed what they were experiencing in their own lives: an open antagonism in
the culture toward Christian ideas and doctrine; a sudden change in
conversations when they mentioned their faith; the assumption of their politics
that came with a knowledge of their faith; the sudden need to make clear that
they were "not that kind of Christian." Pastors increasingly found
that a partisan politics was pushing people away from faith and causing
tension among those in their churches. Things had to change.
The posture of Christians in
politics that has begun to emerge in the wake of this realization is, well,
otherworldly. These Christian leaders tend to be younger—Millennials and
Gen-Xers—but you can find baby boomers in their midst. Most of these leaders
are new to the scene, but their role models are older leaders who have been
able to recalibrate and adjust their approach as the times have changed. They
are pastors in America's cities and suburbs where they serve at the bleeding
edge of our society's most pressing challenges, but they are also
entrepreneurs, artists and politicians. They seek influence, but their ultimate
commitment is faithfulness. They have their political preferences, but they're
willing to work with anyone. And they're willing to disagree with anyone.
I worked with this type of Christian
leader when I worked in the White House faith-based initiative during President
Obama's first term. Regardless of the party that received their vote on
Election Day, Christian leaders took fire from their traditional partisan
allies to work with the Obama Administration on issues like protecting the
social safety net, supporting fatherhood, strengthening adoption, and combating
human trafficking. Congress's bipartisan passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of
2011 would not have been possible without religious support, and any
congressional act on voting rights in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision
is unlikely without the support of these Christians. And Christian leaders have
been among the most outspoken advocates for immigration reform as well, as
I wrote last summer, and as Steve King learned for
himself.
This model is exemplified by the
evangelicals who worked with Sam Adams--the first openly gay mayor of Portland,
Oregon—to create the Summer of Service, which Adams has called the most
successful endeavor of his time in office. As Kevin Palau, one of the leaders
of the Portland partnership, told The
New York Times: "Young evangelicals
absolutely want their faith to be relevant .… The world they grew up in and got
tired of was the media portrait of evangelicals are against you, or
evangelicals even hate you. Young evangelicals are saying, 'Surely we want to
be known by what we're for.'"
This idea that Christians should be
known what they are for is now a common one. You'll hear it in conferences and
church sermons, not just from intellectual leaders, but from pastors at the
grassroots. It is a rallying cry especially for younger Christians—their
corrective response to the more strident, oppositional faith of the previous
generation.
It is also at the heart of Christians'
love affair with Pope Francis: This pope is known by what he is for. Just about
everyone loves Pope Francis so far. He's polling
at 88 percent among all Americans. He was named
Person of the Year not only by Time but also by The
Advocate, a leading publication for the LGBT
community. Obama quoted Francis as part of his case against income inequality, and
Obama's former chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau, recently wrote a glowing
column praising the pope as "the most
hopeful development for world affairs in 2014."
Pope Francis offers something of a
test case: Can Christians still thrive in the American public square while
continuing to hold to the basic tenets of their faith?
But for Christians, particularly
those who feel religion's influence in this country is slipping—as a vast
majority of both believers and non-believers do—Pope Francis offers something
of a test case: Can Christians still thrive in the American public square while
continuing to hold to the basic tenets of their faith?
Yes, Francis is the pope who washes
the feet of Muslim girls; who expresses humility first when presented with the
opportunity of judging a person, gay or straight; who sneaks out at night to
serve the poor—but he is also consistent with traditional Catholic doctrine on
homosexuality, women in Church leadership, reproductive issues, and other
topics that have brought the Church under criticism in recent years. As Nancy
Gibbs suggested in Time, the pope "has not changed the words, but he's changed
the music."
However, changing the music may not
be enough: attempts to box Pope Francis in have already begun. A close ally of
the pope recently spoke out against "manipulation" by the media of statements the pope has made to
suggest a break from Catholic doctrine. In The Washington Post, Max
Fisher suggested the pope has "preferred symbolic gestures" over
"productive diplomacy." A Salon columnist faulted his encyclical on economic justice for not including
support for gay marriage and an endorsement of accepting women in the
priesthood. As Francis's honeymoon potentially comes to a close, what happens
if the pope's policies do not conform to expectations?
These questions aside, it is the
case that in 2013, for the first time in decades, the loudest Christian voices
were the peacemakers. The hopeful. The grace-givers. Sure, the same-old people
who profit from conflict still have their megaphones, but they are starting to
be drowned out by those who prefer partnership to opposition and conversation
to screeds. And though important internal debates are happening among Christian
leaders and in small groups across the country, it is important to note that
many of the voices taking this new posture (like Francis) still believe the
same fundamental things about Christian doctrine.
So what does this new Christian
political posture mean for the culture wars? The last big dust-up of 2013
offers a glimpse. When Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson made
his incendiary remarks in an
interview with GQ, one would have to be forgiven for expecting that we
were about to have another "Christians vs. gays" battle in the
culture wars. And, certainly, there was some of that. But the aftermath also
showed the beginnings of a third way, a 21st-century common ground. Some of the
most representative Christian articles and blogs on the subject were
encouraging introspection on the part of Christians, such as Jen
Hatmaker's call for Christians to be
"peacemakers" (not habitual culture warriors), and Rebekah
Lyons' post on the importance of the words we
use, and Christians' need to be "messengers of peace." Wesley Hill's
post for First
Things, a staple conservative publication,
was probably the most surprising and incisive, as he wrote: "… just
because someone quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and is opposed to same-sex marriage
doesn't mean that they're speaking up for a theologically informed, humane, pastorally
sensitive view of what it means to be gay."
There were also surprising voices
questioning A&E's decision to suspend Robertson. LGBT writer Brandon Ambrosino wrote for Time on the bigotry of the reaction to Phil's remarks.
"Why," he asked, "is our go-to political strategy for beating
our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage
them?" CNN's Don Lemon—who is gay and has spoken out passionately on air
against homophobia and discrimination in the past—also said on air that he opposed
firing Robertson. More than the headlines would
suggest, many people with different views on LGBT rights came to agree that
ending a conversation is vastly different from winning an argument.
A Christianity that seeks to
unilaterally impose itself on the nation is unlikely be fruitful, but it is
similarly unrealistic and unproductive to force a secular morality on
believers.
During the string of retrospectives
that greeted the new year, many named 2013 the year of a progressive
renaissance. From the continued rise of the religiously unaffiliated, to the
progress of marriage equality as a political and cultural force, and the
election of Bill de Blasio, many observers have suggested we're entering a new
and more liberal era: The old ideas have been tried, found wanting, and
Americans are now ready to discard them, we've been told.
Even for those who would welcome a
new, enduring progressive era, declaring one does not make it so. I believe the
story of 2013 was different. Rather than discarding old ideas, Christians
returned to the basics, shedding some of the political baggage and layers of
allegiances gained in the previous century to return to their most fundamental
allegiance: to Jesus and to people. They are reaching for a new equilibrium
between the prophetic and the pastoral, between mercy and justice, the
aspiration of holiness and the free gift of grace.
A clear example of this new kind of
public posture is the Imago
Dei Campaign launched last month by evangelical
organizations like Focus on the Family, the National Hispanic Christian
Leadership Conference, Liberty University's Mat Staver, and Roma Downey and
Mark Burnett, producers of the History Channel's The Bible, among
others. The Imago Dei (latin for "image of God") website declares,
"For the image of God exists in all human beings: black and
white; rich and poor; straight and gay; conservative and liberal;
victim and perpetrator; citizen and undocumented; believer and
unbeliever."
As Elizabeth Dias reported in Time, the campaign is an effort to "erode
the culture war battle lines that have helped define evangelical discourse for
the better part of half a century." It amounts to an admission of sorts on
behalf of evangelicals. That they feel they have to launch a campaign to
reaffirm a doctrine as old as the book of Genesis, suggests evangelicals have
allowed this fundamental principle to become obscured. Like Pope Francis's
statements, Imago Dei does not accede on issues like gay marriage—it even
reaffirms the view that abortion is immoral—but it does express a new humility,
a new acceptance, that would have never occurred under the old partisan
paradigm. It offers a pathway for dialogue and persuasion: If gay people are to
be afforded dignity as those made in the image of God, what does this require
of our rhetoric? What does it require of our laws?
The question for 2014 is whether
political and cultural forces will support or undermine this new equilibrium.
Will Christian humility on controversial issues be welcomed, or will a full
renouncement of their beliefs be demanded? Can our politics build upon the
unlikely alliances of the immigration-reform movement to continue relationships
on areas of common ground, or will we force groups into boxes using ideological
litmus tests? Can we insist on a truly inclusive America, or will parochial
interests and short-term political battles distract us?
I think we will look back at 2013 as
a turning point in the Christian project to live out and project a holistic,
positive, and hopeful faith. It was a year of establishing new norms, in
religious life and in the life of our nation. 2014 will be about how we
negotiate living with this new normal. A Christianity that seeks to
unilaterally impose itself on the nation is unlikely be fruitful, but it is
similarly unrealistic and unproductive to force a secular morality on
believers.
What will be required of our
political and religious leadership in this year is not diversity alone, but an
understanding of diverse groups of people, with the knowledge that neither
women nor men, gay people or straight, black, white, Latino, native, nor any
other ethnicity or race, religious nor atheist—none of these various segments
of the American population are going away. We need leaders, and people to
support them, who recognize that the question for this century is not "how
do I win?" but "how can we live together?" For Christians and
for all Americans, answering this question should be the central political
project for 2014 and beyond.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-changing-face-of-christian-politics/283859/
THE
CHRISTIAN AND POLITICS
“No one engaged in
warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please
him who enlisted him as a soldier” (2 Timothy 2:4).
One would
think that after a verse like that, no further commentary would be necessary.
However, in light of increasing involvement of professing Christians in
politics it has become necessary to expound more specifically such texts.
Every Christian is a soldier of the Lord, and like it or not, is
engaged in warfare. And one reason why so many wage an ineffective
spiritual warfare, not being able to “fight the good fight of faith,”
is entanglements. This world system dangles before every Christian various
spider-webs of entanglement, and politics is one of those. The Lord,
the One who enlisted us as soldiers, is never pleased with any such
entanglement, let us be clear about that at the outset. Why, then, do
Christians become entangled in politics?
Mixed Motives
Putting
the best possible construction on the situation, we must say first of all
that there are those who entangle themselves because in their heart they
really believe that they are doing good and that God does not object, but rather
approves. As our text insists, they are sadly, but honestly mistaken.
There is nothing wrong with wanting things to be better, or being
against injustice and the like. To those who feel that way, we say that
we share their desire. But politics is tricky business, and there are
others with other motives, such as fame, money, power, and
self-aggrandizement. Of course, the only way to have those things that the
political system offers is to be voted in, and to be voted in you must, among
other things, be popular with people. And to be popular with people,
you must tell them that you are interested in helping them and serving them,
or else you'll get no votes from them. So there remains a serious
question about the purity of motives and the depth of true, untarnished,
humanitarian interest in all politicians. Those who deny it are either
naive or not completely honest. The trouble is, a good number of people
seem to not want to face that reality. Politics offers not only what it
tells you, namely, improvements, but also power and fame and money.
Those who sincerely enter for “good” motives soon find themselves in a
large tree where many other birds can and do roost, or to put it another way,
they find themselves in an entanglement. But this involves the voters,
too, and not just those who run for office. Think of the hours spent
campaigning and listening to campaigns. Think also of the money spent
in the most modest campaign, and ask yourself if this time and money would
not do more if invested in the kingdom of God, the progress of the gospel?
They answer that it is ridiculous to suppose that alternative, because
the political parties will not spend money on the gospel. We must
reply, then, with the simple question, “Then what is a Christian doing entangled
with them, devoting time and money to such things?”
Black Holes In Space
Perhaps
you're aware of the discovery of what they call “black holes in space,” those
collapsed stars, extremely dense, whose gravitational pull even draws light
rays from nearby stars into them to disappear forever. Nothing ever
appears again once it enters. That is an illustration of what has
happened to some Christians, and will happen to others, who give their time
and energy to the politics of this planet. It is a hopeless situation.
Think about it, how many years of recorded history are there on this
planet? Something over 3,000. How many of the basic problems of
mankind today are the same as when they began? All of them.
Selah. How many sins has man eliminated in all these thousands of
years? Not one. Just think of all the myriads of kings,
governors, parliaments, congresses, courts, and other officials and governing
bodies that there have been. From all over the world, in every age, in every
conceivable circumstance, they have been trying politics from every possible
human angle of approach, and they still have not been able to solve mankind's
problems. No, dear Christian, they don't merit one cent of the money
nor one second of the time that God has entrusted to us as stewards who will
give account.
On the
other hand, consider the gospel. How many of the basic problems of
mankind does the gospel solve? “Therefore if any man be in Christ,
he is a new creature, old things have passed away, behold, all things are
become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). What can repair marriages? The
gospel. What can reform prisoners? The gospel. What can affect
employer/employee relations? The gospel. What can guarantee the
care of the elderly and sick? The gospel. Every time a person gets
saved he becomes the temple of the Holy Spirit, and not only changes
inwardly, but outwardly as well, and so his change affects those around him,
permanently. Consider, then, which is the best investment of time
regarding the world and it's problems. Politics, or the gospel?
But don't make the mistake of trying to mix them, they're like oil and
water!
There has
never been a political system that has ushered in the millennium, nor will
there be. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself will personally introduce that
era when He comes to reign in glory. What the politicians can do, as
history proves, is rearrange the problems, treat the symptoms of sin, and
even at times impede its advance, but they can't eliminate it. Therefore the
Christian who becomes involved in the politics of this world unfortunately
sees his time and money disappear into this “black hole in space,” instead of
seeing them invested in the gospel and bringing him everlasting results.
Politics cannot produce those kinds of results. Why not? Because
mankind's basic problem is spiritual in nature, and not related in any way to
political science. If someone has pneumonia, they need internal medicine and
not a band-aid. The gospel gives man that internal medicine that he
needs, but politics can only offer a band-aid.
Human Government Established By
God
“But,”
they argue back, “in Romans 13 and other passages the Bible supports human
government going back as far as the time of Noah after the flood. After
all, God ordained human government.” That is correct, God ordained human
government. But He did not ordain all the accompanying political
science that adorns government today. Neither did He ordain government
to be the Savior of mankind. Politics cannot save souls or produce a
truly better world to live in.
“More
laws! Better laws! Enforced laws! More law enforcers!” they
cry to us. Well, if these are the tools of the politicians, then they
only make loud confession that politics is not working, or else why would
such things be needed? Yet they propose to us that through these
administrative, executive, and judicial functions the Christian can serve God
in the world today by making it a better place in which to live. Are
they ignorant or arrogant who hang their hopes on such ideas? Let us
ask a question. Who can make better laws than God? Is not His law
good, perfect, and holy? But when will Christians learn that the law,
not even God's Law, cannot impart to us the needed power to keep it? You
cannot eliminate sin or wickedness by legislation, but you can by salvation.
Moral Obligation
Eliminate
sin - that is a feat that the best of political scientists is absolutely
powerless to achieve. So they tell us that they know they can't
eliminate sin, but that Christians have a moral obligation to get involved
(entangled) in government/politics as a means of restraining lawlessness.
Well then, let them produce verses, in context, to support such claims.
The Bible tells us in plain language that as Christians we have a moral
obligation to obey the law, but it never tells us that we have a so-called
moral obligation to become involved in politics. No, not even once.
Combating Humanism
No true
Christian is in favor of any form of humanism or its creeds. On that we
are agreed. However, it is a favorite approach of Christian political
activists to alarm the Christian community with reports/statistics of how the
humanists are taking over the government and what will happen as a result.
They propose that we should all go to the polls and vote for the
pro-Christian candidates to prevent this. The idea is to organize
Christians as a powerful voting block. To this end they even produce
reports and voting guides for Christians, giving the profiles of the views of
different candidates on the issues. For example, they said we all
should have voted for Reagan because he is for prayer in public schools and
against abortion. So in not four, but eight years of President Reagan which
of those two very specific issues has been solved? What they couldn't
tell you is that the President wouldn't do anything about those items, but
that he would subject himself and the affairs of the nation he represents to
such occult influence as astrology. That is just one example.
However, the main problem is not the surprises that elected officials
produce, but the basic idea of fighting humanism in government by what
amounts to a Christian version of humanism - producing a man/men who have the
answers. Does man have the answers?
Human Responsibility
“What
about our human responsibility?” they insist. “What are we supposed to
do, then, just sit in Sunday School and let the world get worse and worse?”
They insist that we cannot take such an passive and unrealistic approach
to problems, but that it is our responsibility to vote, to campaign for
certain candidates, and even to run for office so as to have Christians in
government. The cry of “human responsibility!” is intended to wake us
up to the fact that we're being overly spiritual and, in their eyes,
irresponsible in the matter, taking an extreme position. In these days
of “balance,” “balance,” and more “balance”, calling someone extreme is like
calling them a heretic. But the early Christians were extreme enough to
not get involved in politics, not even a little.
Another
angle of attack is when we are told, “if you don't vote, then don't complain
later about who is in office or what they do.” That's a nice
political-scientist cliche, intended to shame us into entangling ourselves,
but we reply that we will not complain, because it is a sin to do so, even if
you do vote! And isn't it odd how the very ones who campaign and vote
are the ones who are the most vocal with their complaints? Think about
it.
Yet we
must answer in the affirmative regarding our human responsibility. We
do believe very much in being responsible Christians. But that
responsibility is defined for the Christian by the Bible, not by university
professors or political scientists or campaign advertisements. First of
all, it is the responsibility and obligation of every Christian to PRAY as
the Lord teaches us in 1 Timothy 2:1-2. This tremendous responsibility
is often neglected by professing Christians. Some are disinterested.
Others say they don't have time. Let us ask the Christian
political activists how regular and consistent and fervent their personal
prayer lives are, and if they are consistently devoted to the prayer meeting
of their local assembly? If not, they should be ashamed to talk about
responsibility to others. They talk about “putting feet to your
prayers” - one of those sayings not found in the Bible. How about
putting knees to your prayers? How about putting fasting to your
prayers? God did say to pray, but He did NOT say to vote. Think
about this - we can do more in 5 minutes on our knees in prayerful communion
with God than we can do if 5 minutes in a voting booth. So why do they
offer to provide transportation to vote but not to prayer meetings? A
look at the private prayer lives of many, and the attendance at the prayer
meetings of their churches, will tell you why professing Christians turn to
politics. They do so because they believe that politics gets results,
and that prayer doesn't. What kind of Christianity is that?
Second, we
believe strongly that it is our human responsibility and moral obligation as
Christians to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature
(Mark 16:15). We believe that we should follow the example of the early
Christians, who according to Acts 8:4 “went everywhere preaching the
word.” If we really believe this, then we believe that we can do
more by going door-to-door for Christ, or by distributing gospel literature,
than by canvassing door-to-door for some politician, however pious.
Which campaign should we work for and support? The gospel campaign!
What a shame it is to see some spending time and money in politics,
laboring tirelessly, devotedly, always talking about politics and candidates
and votes. They do it so well that they have little or no time for
testimony or impact for Christ in the way that the early Christians did. They
are entangled, and it is wrong, and Christ is not pleased. How much worse is
the case when their own local church is struggling along and in need of help,
or when we consider the tremendous amount of work that remains to be done in
planting and edifying assemblies of God's people around the world. What
responsibility to these who are involved in politics feel towards seeking
first the kingdom of God and His righteousness as the Bible commands?
Love Not The World
1 John
2:15 instructs us, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world.” This is violated by those who give themselves to politics.
It is never our responsibility to help the world system nor much less
to love it. Yet they will tell us openly that they love politics! They
pursue the mirage of doing good through politics in a way that the unsaved
political scientists admire. But politics is something that the world
has produced, not God. It is one of the things that is in the world.
If you don't believe that, just read Luke 4:5-8 and see who is behind
this world's kingdoms. We must remember that the world is an orderly
system, organized and headed by the devil, leaving God out, designed for the
purpose of making man happy without God. Why should any Christian want
to mix with such a system, much less find it lovable? What communion
has light with darkness? What ever happened to “come out from among
them and be ye separate?”
The
problem is often a case of misplaced love. As someone said, “Some
Christians love the world so much that they anticipate making it their
heaven.” But God expressly prohibits love of and entanglement with the
world system. His Son received no justice from the best-developed political
system that the world of that day knew, the Roman empire. The Holy
Spirit, speaking by Paul, warned the Christians in Corinth against going to
law and seeking justice before the unjust (1 Cor. 6:1-8). To whom does
he refer as “unjust”? The context is clear, he refers to the
lawmakers/enforcers of that day as “the unjust.” Why? Not just because
spiritually speaking they are unjust in God's sight, but also because for the
Christian, that is NOT the way to solve problems. But we are then told
that Paul himself got involved in the political/legal system in order to
continue propagating Christianity. They cite for us his trials first in
Caesarea and then in Rome. Need we remind them that it was his unsaved
enemies, and not Paul, who brought all that about? Also remember that
the same system that freed Paul after his first trial in Rome later condemned
and martyred him. And in all his trials there were never any votes or
petitions or demonstrations concerning getting him released. It doesn't
present a very solid case for the “Christian political scientists.”
Verses, Please
It's time
we thought about asking these folks to defend their position from the
Scriptures. What verses do they find that clearly teach the obligation
of Christian political involvement? Careful! Don't let them quote
you any verses about Moses or Daniel or Nehemiah or the good kings of Israel,
all of whom were Jews, promised by God a land, a king, and a kingdom, all
here on the earth. The Christian, on the other hand, is never promised
any such thing, nor encouraged to get involved in the kingdoms of this world.
His hope is heavenly, not earthbound (see Colossians 3:1-4).
The Lord Jesus’ words to Pilate are full of meaning for us: “My
kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight” (John 18:36).
Since we are questioning them about “Christian” political involvement,
they will have to give us some New Testament verses, teaching of the Lord or
His apostles, that clearly and unmistakably teach Christians to become
involved in any way in politics. Oops - there are none! This is one reason
why saying “verses please” infuriates some religious politicians, because
they know they cannot produce any!
Citizens Of Heaven
“For
our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior,
the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:20). A citizen of one country
cannot participate in the politics of another. That is a forgotten part
of the Christian life. We are citizens of heaven. Some will argue
for dual citizenship, that is, in heaven and in an earthly country at the same
time. But this is merely what men impose by their laws, and is not
something that requires our active participation. Our interests and our
activities should be “heaven-oriented”, and we should decline to become
entangled in another kingdom. Let us be like those of Hebrews 11, who
“all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them
afar off and were assured of them, embraced them, and confessed that they
were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things
declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called
to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had
opportunity to return, But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly
country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He
has prepared a city for them.”
Those
heroes of the faith knew nothing of being entangled with the affairs of this
life. They were “underwhelmed” with what the world system had to offer
them, because they fixed the eye of faith on the promises of God, and desired
a BETTER country. Did God tell them that they were being irresponsible?
Did He tell them that they were so heavenly minded that they were no
earthly good? No! The Scripture says, “God is not ashamed to
be called their God.” This expression by implication introduces the
possibility of living in such a way as to make God ashamed of our use of His
name. Those who live separated from the world system do not make God ashamed.
Are we in their company? Christians, let us remember that our heavenly
citizenship is to be real, practical, not just a theory. Part of the
practical application is to not become in any way involved with the politics
of this present evil world.
The same
is true of those who are ambassadors. They most certainly may not
become active in the politics of the country where they live. Their
relationship is with another country, and there alone may they participate in
such affairs. We, as Christians, are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor.
5:20), and our activity should be with the things of His kingdom. We
should not become involved (entangled) in this world's politics.
The Example of Moses
Some try
to use him as an example of a man using political influence to achieve good.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that God let
Moses be educated 40 years in “the university of Egypt”, but it is also true
that after that God sent him for 40 years to the silence and solitude of the
desert to care for sheep. Only then was he ready. Hebrews 11 speaks of
the example of Moses:
“By
faith, Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of
Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of
God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of
Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt, for he looked to the
reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king;
for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible.”
Friends,
the Biblical record is clear. Moses forsook the politics of Egypt: the name
and the fame; the pleasures and the treasures. Yes, he is an
example of faith for us. He could've tried to make Egypt a better place
to live, but he chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God.
That is a truth that we know precious little of anymore in practice:
the experience of suffering affliction as the people of God. We have
been sidetracked, entangled into fighting for our rights and privileges like
the rest of the world. Not Moses. Perhaps he could've been the next
Pharaoh, or at the least one of the most influential people in Egypt.
But he gave it up to shepherd God's flock. Some assembly leaders
could learn from his example. Instead of giving half of our available
time to the assembly (a generous estimate!) and half to politics, whatever
happened to that song we used to sing?:
All
for Jesus, All for Jesus!
All my being's ransomed
pow'rs:
All my tho'ts and words and
doings,
All my days and all my hours.
Since my eyes were fixed on
Jesus,
I've lost sight of all
beside;
So enchained my spirit's
vision,
Looking at the Crucified.
Did you
notice those words: “Since my eyes were fixed on Jesus, I've lost sight of
all beside”? No wonder Tozer said that Christians tell more lies when they
sing hymns than at all other times put together. The way around that problem
in many churches is simply not to sing the old hymns, whose stanzas contain a
message. They opt for the new light-weight choruses that are repetitive and
shallow, and avoid the heavy, committing, convicting stuff!
“Looking
at the Crucified” is a good expression of how to live. We should live as
seeing by faith (not a vision) Him who is invisible, as Moses did. May the
Lord Jesus Christ, crucified for us and raised for our justification, be all
our vision and fill all our vision. May we go deeper than superficial,
professing Christianity, and learn what it means to say: “for to me to
live is Christ,” as the Apostle Paul did. Then we don't have to worry
about who to vote for any longer.
When you
stop and think about it, it is a pretty pathetic history. “They” told us to
vote for Nixon, who turned out to be a bizarre man who broke the law and
cursed with the foulest language those who pursued him. Then they said vote
for Carter, who not only fumbled in office but also has turned out to be an
ecumenical. Then it was “vote for Reagan,” only we found out later they
must have meant Nancy, and her astrology. In eight years of Reagan’s administration
that was supposedly favorable to the “evangelicals,” they did not gain one
single thing from the federal government. There was no improvement
under Bush. As for Clinton, as a church attending Baptist, he disgraced the
office and the Baptists with his vanity, lies and adultery, not to mention
his support for homosexuals. Some breathe a sigh of relief now that Bush the
son is in the White House, but he has already shown the same truth-damaging
ecumenical leanings. When will some people learn that the answer is not in
Washington? The Lord Jesus is still saying, “come unto me all ye
that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
Yes, it is a gospel verse, but there is a very real application for the
Christian who in faith turns away from this world's politics to find rest in
the Lord Jesus.
What The Future Holds
“...Both
the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore,
since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to
be in holy conduct and godliness” (2 Peter 3:10-11). Who would go
into a condemned building and start painting the walls and replacing broken
windows? Who would stay on a sinking ship washing dirty dishes in the
galley? That's what it is like to become entangled in this world and its
politics. Not only is it prohibited, not only is it not pleasing to the
Lord, but it is wasting precious resources that the Savior could use for His
glory. Wasted hours, wasted funds, wasted lives! The ship is
going down, the building is condemned, reserved for fire. What God is
doing in this age is not improving society, but saving souls and adding them
to the church through the proclamation of the gospel. Don't be a cinder
soul, saved as by fire, with years and works burnt, consumed, dissolved in
the fire of God's judgment. The logic of the Holy Spirit in 2 Peter 3
is that since we know the end of the world and its works, we ought to be
different, holy, godly, not earthbound and worldly.
It is o.k.
to go to the beach and build a sand castle for fun, but not to invest your
life in playing with sand castles. A few waves roll over them and the
beach is smooth again. You can't even tell where the castle was.
That is what the future holds for those who insist on Christian
politics. They are adults playing with sand castles - investing their
lives in them. The world and all its works will be dissolved. The
waves of God's judgment will roll over this planet, and the works of those
Christians who got involved (entangled) in politics will be erased. The
beach will be smooth, and we won't even be able to tell where their “castles”
were. What a sad day that will be, and may we each avoid that
tremendous disappointment. There are no crowns offered in heaven for
being in politics. But there are crown’s waiting for faithful elders, for
saints who suffer for righteousness sake, and for those who win others to the
Lord. How much better to invest our lives, the time and money that we have,
in proclaiming the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and making disciples.
Allow me to exhort you in the Lord’s Name, even as I say these things
to my self: Listen to His voice! Renounce the world system. Heed
His command!
“Therefore, my beloved
brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord,
knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (2 Cor.15:58).
Remember
this refrain that we have heard before:
Only
one life, 'twill soon be past.
Only what's done for Christ
will last.
Let the
world take its human responsibility, and continue to do with it what it has
done for thousands of years. The Scriptures teaches us not to get entangled
with them. As for you, my friend, when are you going to decide to use
your one life, the only one you have, for Christ. If you haven’t already
done so, now is the time! Decide to be always abounding in the work of the
Lord. Decide to take your Christian responsibility to pray, to proclaim
the gospel and make disciples. Then you may rest assured that you will
see the difference in eternity between those who lived confessing that they
were strangers and pilgrims, and those who sought to mix Christianity
and politics. May God give you grace to live a separated and devoted life,
for the One who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. To Him be the glory
forever, amen!
Carl Knott
Appendix
Analysis
of principle pro-politics arguments
of Tom Anderson’s paper “STRAIGHT TALK”
In
1988, after reading the material I have just presented in this booklet, the
outspoken wife of an elder in an assembly in Pennsylvania wrote me to say:
“As for
voting, etc. you two should get registered and vote absentee ballots. Have a
friend get them sent to you. Since God ordained government that we might live
an quiet and peaceable life, in the U.S. Christians can get involved (and our
country is GREAT because Christians did first get involved and set up our
constitution). We need to get doing...”
To further
press her activist arguments, she enclosed a copy of the weekly paper,
“Straight Talk,” by Tom Anderson, volume 53, number 4, January 28, 1988.
Since his arguments are obviously respected by some in the assemblies who are
political activists, it would be fair to take them as representative of
arguments in favor of Christian involvement in politics. In the interest of
fairness, I will quote his entire article as is, followed by the reply and
analysis which I sent to that dear misguided sister. First, the
article:
"Politics
is a dirty business which Christians should not stoop to."
If
politics is dirty - and it is - it's because too many clean people have
abstained. Actually, Christians and all good citizens have a moral responsibility
to influence public policy for the good; to register, vote, be informed, and
to influence others. Abraham Lincoln said, "He who affects public
sentiment does a far greater service to society than he who enacts
statutes." Proverbs 29:2 tells us, "when the righteous are in
authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people
mourn." How can the righteous get in authority if righteous people
default and let Satan rule government?
Benjamin
Franklin recognized the truth when he said: "He who shall introduce in
public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will revolutionize
the world." If America were a Christian nation, there could be no
take-over.
As
frightening as our economic and political predicament is, it is not as
crucial as is our spiritual decline. The Humanists and do-your-own-thing set
now proclaim that morality depends on the situation, on how you look at it.
Like the wife said to her husband; "You say I'm overdrawn. I say you're
under-deposited!"
If
Not Christians, Who?
For about
30 years we have contended in this column that our nation could be turned
around only through the dedicated, unswerving, relentless involvement of true
Christians. After all, if Christians are not willing to work for, and, yes,
pray for the nation's return to Christian principles, who is?
So now we
have a famous TV evangelist, Pat Robinson, running for President. The
"Liberals" are outraged. And even some fundamentalist Christians
are also strenuously opposed. Here are some typical reasons and/or excuses:
1.
"Separation of church and state." But neither the Bible nor the
Constitution of the U.S. admonishes Christians to abstain from involvement in
governmental matters; nor do they prohibit preachers from trying to influence
public policy. Our Founding Fathers decreed that the State not be permitted
to: (a) establish a federal, State religion, or (b) prohibit the free
exercise of religion according to each individual's conscience.
Reversing
the intentions of our Founding Fathers, the secular humanists running our
government and our public schools are confiscating our money to subsidize
humanism which was even defined as a religion in a 1975 Supreme Court
decision. What the "Liberal" secular humanists have actually done
is to distort the First Amendment to mean separation of God from government.
2.
"Jesus and His apostles never tried to change the Roman
Government." Jesus and Paul lived under a totalitarian government. To
oppose the leader was treason. Our obligation today is not to a King, nor
even a Dictator (yet); our allegiance is not to a man, "ordained of
God," but to a (I believe) divinely inspired Constitution, which is the
greatest freedom document ever devised by man.
Jesus'
followers did not attempt to change their government, but Peter openly
proclaimed, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Jesus'
followers never capitulated to their pagan oppressors, never compromised
their message, never backed down in their crusade for Christ, even though it
cost them their lives.
3.
"Why be concerned? The Rapture will rescue us." The Rapture hasn’t
rescued the millions of people around the world who are enslaved by Christ's
foremost enemy, Communism. The Rapture has not eased the agony of countless
Christians now being persecuted, tortured, and murdered by that diabolical
criminal conspiracy, Communism.
How can a
true Christian shut his eyes to the suffering of others, and concern himself
only with being raptured out of it all? To sit by the open window waiting for
the Rapture appears to this writer to be a combination of selfishness,
stupidity, and misinterpretation of God's wishes.
So-called
Christians who say, "We will do nothing but pray: let God do
everything," are failing God, faith, duty and country. Our faith and our
works must match His will.
"Inside
Straight"
American
governments spend $14 billion a year on law enforcement, while private
citizens and institutions spend almost twice as much, $22 billion. The
private security industry employs 1.1 million people - twice the 560,000
police; sheriff's deputies, State troopers and federal agents... House
Speaker Jim Wright is being investigated in FBI probe of Texas S.&L.
fraud... Law enforcement? Our leaders deliberately don't enforce some laws
and never intended to when they voted the laws into existence.
Example:
In 1978 the con men of the Congress passed Public Law 95-435. which requires
the Federal government to balance its budget. None of them, or the President,
ever intended to obey the law. 80% of all the giving in the world is done by
Americans - and we can no longer afford that - at least our grandchildren
can't. We're giving what we haven't got and charging it to them. Gross
dishonesty. "
-American
Way Features
The
following is my response and analysis of Mr. Anderson’s arguments.
1. Politics is dirty because too
many clean people have abstained.
The
key word here is “because”. He lays the blame for the nature of politics at
the feet of clean people. Let me be kind and just say that this is an
ignorant statement at best. Politics is what it is because of human nature -
the flesh, and because of the world and the devil who is the prince of this
world. If a Christian gets into a manure pile, that doesn’t make it clean!
2. Christians have a moral
responsibility to influence public policy for the good, to register, vote, be
informed and to influence others. He quotes Abraham Lincoln to support his
view.
This
is another weak and biblically unsupportable statement. The Bible, not Tom
Anderson, tells Christians what their responsibilities are. According to God,
we have a spiritual responsibility to pray, to live in holiness, to preach
the gospel, to see souls saved and the church built. True churches are built
on the Gospel, not political activism or common interests such as politics,
home-school, patriotism, little-league baseball, tupperware, Amway, etc.
3. He quotes Proverbs 29:2, “when
the righteous are in authority the people rejoice”.
This
is the closest he comes to finding Biblical support for his political
activism. Clearly the texts says nothing about how a righteous person comes
to be in power. But Psalm 75 says that God is the one who sets up and takes
down rulers. This doesn’t sit well with the democratic mind, but it is
nonetheless true. Proverbs 29:2 was written when kings ruled, and there were
no campaigns, no votes, etc., so it has nothing to do with democracy. The
verse talks about rejoicing, not about voting!
4. Then he follows it with this
argument: How can the righteous get into authority if righteous people
default and let Satan rule government? The idea here seems to be that
it is Christian’s fault that Satan rules government. To support his point he
quotes Benjamin Franklin. Bad choice, because he was a theist who never
believed the Gospel. He said:
“He
who shall introduce in public affairs the principles of primitive
Christianity will revolutionize the world.”
Observe
that once again he could not quote any Scripture to establish his point. Are
such people practically blinded, hardened of heart, or just dense? They seem
incapacitated from recognizing their utter lack of Biblical support, or
seeing that they must constantly resort to human wisdom, reasoning and
extra-biblical quotes. Or perhaps they see it, but don’t care. It seems
almost incredible that a professing Christian cannot see how God can get
righteous people into places of authority without political campaigns.
amounts to recognizing that Christianity is by nature foreign to politics,
therefore, it must be introduced because it is not there.
5. He then alleges that the nation
can be turned around only through the dedicated, unswerving, relentless
involvement of all true Christians (and admits he’s been saying that for 30
years!).
No
mention of the preaching the Gospel. His idea is Christian lawyers, not
preachers. There have been great revivals in history, like the one in the
time of Whitefield and Wesley, that is attributed with averting civil war in
England, but they come through tireless Gospel preaching and prayer meetings,
not canvassing, campaigning, “getting out the vote”, etc.
6. The Bible does not admonish
Christians to abstain from involvement in governmental affairs, he says, citing
the intentions of the founding fathers of the U.S.A.
Well,
there he goes again, citing the wrong people! Would someone inform him, that
the intentions of the founding fathers are not Scripture? Nor were all of
those men even Christians, contrary to the opinions of some. The Bible DOES
admonish Christians clearly against the unequal yoke, in 2 Corinthians
6:14-7:1.
7. We are told we shouldn’t model
after Jesus and the disciples and Paul, because their government was
totalitarian and ours is a democracy, a different culture. This is Darwin’s
theory modified and preached by Marx, the idea of social evolution to higher
states. “Our allegiance is to a divinely inspired Constitution,” he
declares.
This
practically amounts to heresy. The Christian’s allegiance is to Christ, the
Word of God and the kingdom of heaven. We are told to contend earnestly for
the faith, but not for democracy or politics in any form. And the Scriptures
clearly teach us to follow and imitate the Lord and the Apostles. The Lord
said, “My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight.”
And the kingdom of God is not a democracy, nor will the Lord set up a great
democracy on earth. God’s plan is a benevolent monarchy. Democracy is
inherently flawed and is not God’s plan.
“A
democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist
until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public
treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising
the most benefits from public treasury with a result that a democracy always
collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The
average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Fraser
Tytler
The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic, c.
1810
8.
We are told that Jesus’ followers never capitulated to their pagan
oppressors.
This
is true, but they were not involved in politics, rather in Gospel preaching!
Besides, he just finished telling us not to use them as role models, so
here he contradicts himself. So are we to follow them or not? It is not
necessary to be in politic to keep from capitulating to pagan oppressors. The
church flourished as it never again has during a period when it had no
political involvement nor influence whatsoever outside of the Gospel and
prayer. This ought to make people open their eyes and confess the error of
trying to play by Satan’s rules instead of God’s.
9. How can a true Christian shut his
eyes to the suffering of others, and concern himself only with being raptured
out of it all.
This
is a misrepresentation, probably deliberate, trying to show that believers
who stay out of politics are selfish, and it sounds like the writer is
belittling the belief in the blessed hope, the rapture of the Church. We
don’t shut our eyes, we have on the contrary opened them and seen that the
Gospel is the only hope, and that time is running out. If we go door to door
it is to preach Christ and distribute Gospel literature, not to influence
people politically which is a waste of time and energy. It is a shame for
anyone who calls himself a Christian to use his time and energy promoting
politics instead of preaching the Gospel.
10. So-called Christians who say,
“we will do nothing but pray: let God do everything,” are failing God, faith,
duty and country.
Yet
another misrepresentation. We pray, and we preach the Gospel, and we seek to
win people OUT of the world and into the Church. There is a great spiritual
rescue or evacuation operation in progress, Christ is calling men and women
to salvation, and time is running out. The ship of this world is sinking like
the Titanic, and our job is to get people in the lifeboat, to safety in
Christ, not to paint the Titanic or elect a new captain or lookout because
the old ones failed!
|
Politics: Should Christians Get Involved?
- Dr. Jeff Myers Author, professor, and conference
speaker
I once heard of a church where
members thought it was against God's will to vote. Concerned that a corrupt
politician would win a local election, church members gathered for an all-night
prayer vigil. In the morning, however, they refused to vote and the good
candidate lost - by fewer than the number of votes represented by those at the
prayer meeting.
It seems tragic, but maybe those
church members did the right thing. After all, isn't politics a dirty business?
Christians are citizens of heaven, not of earth ... right?
Those questions are vitally
important and every Christian in every generation must grapple with them and
come up with defensible answers. Sadly, many people are too apathetic to even
ask the right questions.
If this describes you, I hope this
article shakes you up a bit and motivates you to change. You have the
opportunity to influence the world if you'll only take it.
The High Cost of Indifference
I teach political communication at a
Christian college. Once several years ago students in my class complained
endlessly about the lack of Christian influence in government.
Yet the day after the election, I
discovered that only two of my students had voted. Most of them weren't even
registered to vote! I told them, "For the rest of the semester, if you
didn't vote, you have lost your right to complain in this class." Years
later they still remember the lesson. Some of them still e-mail me every time
they vote!
In 1971, young people were for the
first time guaranteed the constitutional right to vote. Yet according to
statistics generated by the Voter News Service, people between the ages of 18
and 32 vote in lower numbers than any other generation. They account for 1/3 of
eligible voters, but less than 25% of the actual voters.
Maybe you don't trust the
government. Maybe you just aren't interested in civic concerns. But beware!
Your lack of interest could lead to a vicious cycle:
--If you aren't interested, you
won't get involved.
--If you don't get involved, your interests are not represented.
--Because you are not represented, you have no voice.
--Because you have no voice, you lose interest and trust even more.
And on and on it goes, until many
adults consider young people to be politically irrelevant.
It's not just a failure to vote that
is the problem. When was the last time you picked up a newspaper to study a
political issue? Or write a letter to an elected official or to the newspaper
editor?
As Christians, we must constantly
ask ourselves, "Are we doing everything we can to exercise our rights and
privileges as citizens?"
What It Means to Be a Christian
Citizen
There are at least five good reasons
why Christians should seek to be good citizens:
1. God has granted us authority.
All authority belongs to God, but He
has put human beings on the earth as caretakers. What is our task? According to
Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20, we are to go and make disciples of all nations,
teaching them to obey God in every area of life.
It is hard to imagine that Jesus
would have wanted the political realm to be excluded. We must disciple people
to make godly decisions about government.
2. Christians are needed to stand
against evil.
If the Christian worldview is true,
then Christians should be able to contribute more positively than any one else
to the political process. St. Augustine said that those who are citizens of
God's kingdom are best equipped to be citizens of the kingdom of man. I think
he was right.
The alternative to Christian
involvement is unthinkable. In the 20th Century, atheistic and secular
humanistic leaders gained control of nations all across Europe, Asia and
Africa. What was the result?
According to historian R. J. Rummel,
"Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten,
tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried
alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments
have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners."
These facts led historian John
Hallowell to note, "Only through a return to faith in God, as God revealed
Himself to man in Jesus Christ, can modern man and his society find redemption
from the tyranny of evil."
3. Christian values contribute
positively to society.
The Bible's solutions make sense. It is Christian involvement in
government through the ages that gave us hospitals, civil liberties, abolition
of slavery, modern science, the elevation of women, regard for human life,
great works of art and literature, a workable system of justice, education for
common people, the free-enterprise system, and much, much more.
When we see the good that results
from applying God's principles, and the horror that results from rejecting
them, doesn't it seem cruel and irresponsible to keep Jesus' teachings about
truth, love and compassion to ourselves?
4. Obedience to authority demands good citizenship.
The Apostle Paul in Romans chapter
13 clearly states that we must obey governmental leaders because all authority
comes from God. Here's the catch: in America, the people are the leaders! Here,
at least, we express our obedience to God by exercising our rights and
privileges as citizens.
A democratic republic such as we
have in America is perhaps the most difficult form of government to maintain.
As he emerged from a meeting of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked
him, "Mr. Franklin, what sort of government have you given us?"
Franklin replied, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Franklin and the other founding
fathers understood the peril of apathy. If citizens don't get involved, elected
representatives quickly begin to express their own interests or the interests
of those who are willing to pay them money and attention. Apathy and greed soon
give way to corruption and injustice which give way to tyranny and misery.
5. Good citizenship sets an example
for generations to come.
Those who apply God's principles to
government pave the way for generations of blessing. In 1768 a Christian
minister named John Witherspoon became president of the College of New Jersey,
now Princeton. While there he taught biblical principles of government to his
students.
Of the 478 young men who were
graduated during his tenure, writes author John Eidsmoe, "114 became
ministers; 13 were state governors; 3 were U. S. Supreme Court judges; 20 were
U.S. Senators; 33 were U.S. Congressmen; Aaron Burr, Jr., became
Vice-President; and James Madison became President."
As a Christian, Witherspoon exerted
an enormous influence on the direction of American government. You and I may
not have the gifts of John Witherspoon, but we can still make a big difference if
we put our minds to it.
Now It Starts!
I hope you take on the challenge of
becoming a good citizen. In the "Gettysburg Address" Abraham Lincoln
expressed hope that "government of the people, by the people, and for the
people, shall not perish from the earth." Hundreds of thousands have died
to establish freedom and justice. Do not let their deaths be in vain.
The Christian who is involved in the
material history of this world is involved in it as representing another order,
another master (than the prince of this world), another claim (than that of the
natural heart of man). Thus he must plunge into social and political problems
in order to have an influence on the world, not in the hope of making it a
paradise, but simply in order to make it tolerable — not in order to diminish
the opposition between this world and the Kingdom of God, but simply in order
to modify the opposition between the disorder of this world and the order of
preservation that God wills for it — not in order to “bring in” the Kingdom of
God, but in order that the gospel may be proclaimed, that all men may really
hear the good news of salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ.
– Jacques Ellul
Christians, when rightly informed
and motivated, change the character of political debate. They bring the moral
standards of God’s kingdom into the civic realm and thereby become agents of
His common grace — of His provision for those who believe as well as those who
don’t.
“Forgiveness of sins is the central
message of the gospel,” says theologian Wayne Grudem. “That’s the only way
people’s hearts are truly transformed.” But that’s the opening of a fuller
gospel story. The whole gospel, Grudem believes, includes a transformation.
God’s grace changes people, and as a result they change everything around them.
Families are renewed. Schools are rejuvenated. Businesses reorient their
mission and purpose. What’s more, the gospel of Christ, because it changes
hearts, changes the course of civil government.
We don’t want to become modern day
Gnostics, Grudem argues. God cares about our spiritual lives, but He also cares
about food, water, jobs, and housing. When God commands us to love our
neighbors, He means to love them holistically. That means we’ll care about laws
that protect preborn children. We’ll care about policies that defend marriages
and families. If we love our neighbors, we’ll naturally be concerned about the
corrupting moral influences that creep into public schools.
The Church isn’t the kingdom of God,
says writer and Prison Fellowship Ministries founder Charles Colson, but by
expressing concern for these issues Christians reflect the love, justice, and
righteousness of God’s kingdom. In Colson’s view, the Church becomes a
compelling presence when Christians — in their homes, neighborhoods, and
workplaces — exhibit a vision that “holds the world accountable to something
beyond itself.” Christians understand human nature for what it really is,
Colson says, and that perspective affects the civic conversation. According to
Colson, human politics is based on the premise that society must be changed in
order to change people, but Christians understand that it’s the other way
around: People must be changed in order to change society.
As they enter the public square, God’s
people recognize the authority of Christ’s kingdom, they bring its ethical
standards into the stream of history, and — through them — Christ’s kingdom
breaks the “vicious and otherwise irreversible cycles of violence, injustice,
and self-interest.” As God’s people engage in debate — as they create, shape,
and lead public policy — it’s evident that Christ’s kingdom has, in Augustine’s
words, equipped them to be the best citizens in the kingdoms of man.
Author and theologian Richard John
Neuhaus pointed out that atheists obey laws; they vote, pay taxes, and lend a
hand to needy neighbors. But good citizenship, Neuhaus says, requires more.
Good citizens feel compelled to give a moral account of their country. Good
citizens want to recommend their country’s virtues “to citizens of the next
generation,” and they want to “transmit that regime to citizens yet unborn.” It
is, Neuhaus contends, “those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and Jesus that turn out to be the best citizens.” That’s because their loyalty
to the political order is qualified by a loyalty to a higher order. Their
ultimate allegiance is not to the regime or its founding documents, “but to the
City of God and the sacred texts that guide our path toward that end for which
we were created.” Such citizens, in Neuhaus’ view, were specifically designed
for “dual citizenship.”
The late theologian Carl Henry
believed that Christians, as citizens, have a duty “to work through civil
authority for the advancement of justice and human good.” It’s a pervasive
responsibility. After all, politics determines whether we’re at war or peace.
It affects the nation’s job supply, wealth creation and distribution, and
property rights. It determines our freedom to speak, write, and worship. Even
the circumstances of family life, says writer J. Philip Wogaman, often depend
on government policy, including the quality and content of public education.
Christian citizens naturally “do
good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith”
(Galatians 6:10). Such good deeds, says Grudem, include commending and
criticizing policies that affect the poor and powerless. We teach church
members to do “good works” in hospitals, schools, and inner-city neighborhoods,
so why would we exclude government? Our good works there, as in other spheres,
give glory to our Father.
In every culture, Wogaman observes, religion tends to be important to people
who care about politics; likewise, politics often matters most to those who
care about religion. And often, these are the same people.
So what then, uniquely and
specifically, might be the point of Christians’ participation in politics?
Christians Keep Government
Accountable
Romans 13:4 tells us that government
authority exists for our good. But how, Grudem wonders, if no one explains what
God expects, can government officials serve Him well? 1 Peter 2:14 further
explains that government is to punish those who do evil and praise those who do
good. Again, Grudem asks: How, unless they receive counsel from the religious
community, can mayors, senators, or presidents understand God’s view of good
and evil or right and wrong?
Throughout history, Grudem recounts,
God has called His people to counsel secular rulers. Daniel told King
Nebuchadnezzar, the most powerful ruler on earth at the time: “Therefore, O
king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing
righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that
there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:27 ESV).
Joseph, as Egypt’s
second-in-command, often advised Pharaoh. Moses confronted the Egyptian ruler
and demanded freedom for the Israelites. Mordecai counseled King Ahasuerus of
Persia. Queen Esther, too, was influential in Ahasuerus’ court.
In the New Testament, John the
Baptist was quick to confront officials about morals, even scolding Herod the
tetrarch “for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the evil things that Herod
had done” (Luke 3:19). These “evil things,” Grudem supposes, included Herod’s
acts as a government official.
In Acts 24, Paul speaks with the
Roman governor Felix “about righteousness and self-control and the coming
judgment.” It’s a safe bet that Paul held Felix accountable for his conduct as
a public officeholder. And it’s clear that he captured the governor’s
attention: According to verse 25, Felix was alarmed and sent Paul away.
Christians Bring Transcendent Values
In 1966, Time magazine
provoked a national uproar. The magazine’s April 8 cover daringly asked: “Is
God Dead?”
German philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche may have introduced the God-is-dead concept in 1889 but, Colson
observes, Nietzsche’s point wasn’t about God’s existence, it was about His
relevance. God was declared dead, Colson says, “because we live, play, procreate,
govern, and die as though He doesn’t exist.”
The “God is dead” movement of the
1960s quickly faded, even as Christianity continued to thrive. Nevertheless, an
atheistic philosophy slithered into American politics. From the mid-1960s to
today, atheism has become more aggressive and more political. It now insists on
being believed, says Colson. It insists on imposing its views and seeks to
forbid any competing vision.
Colson has seen a steady devaluation
of values, so much so that it’s difficult now for anyone to declare something
right or wrong, to call one thing good and another bad. It’s difficult to
distinguish what’s just and unjust. Without a set of transcendent values,
Colson explains, nothing governs how we are to live together.
Once God is removed from civic life,
Neuhaus argued, we’re left with two principal actors: the individual and the
state. With God out of the picture there’s no mediating structure to create
moral values. Without religion, there’s no counterbalance to the state’s
ambitions.
And yet, says Wogaman, religion is
always the basis for judging a society’s beliefs and values. When politics is
evaluated or criticized on the basis of values, the question — whether
acknowledged or not — becomes a religious one. As a result, when legitimate
religion is banished the vacuum will be filled by bogus religion, a kind of
religon that, to borrow Neuhaus’ phrase, has been “bootlegged into public space
under other names.”
Former Yale scholar Alexander Bickel
made the point that law, if it’s to be viewed as legitimate, must be backed by
moral judgment. In a democratic society, Bickel said, state and society “must
draw from the same moral well.” Government makes moral judgments, and they’re
judgments of an ultimate nature. Without religion’s influence, “secular”
reasoning is given the force of religion.
“Removal of the transcendent sucks
meaning from the law,” Colson adds. Without an ultimate reference point,
there’s no just cause for obedience, and that means the state must seek more
and more coercive power.
Christians, then, must enter the
civic realm because the Church conveys moral values. As the late James Boice
once wrote, “Religious people are … the only citizens who actually advance the
nation in the direction of justice and true righteousness.” Christianity not
only provides for individual concerns, but for the ordering of a society with
liberty and justice for all. Christianity alone, Colson says, as taught in
Scripture and announced in the kingdom context by Jesus, provides both a
transcendent moral influence and a transcendent ordering of society without an
oppressive theocratic system.
Society’s well-being, then, depends
on a robust religious influence. We don’t need more laws, Boice stated, arguing
that without a moral citizenry even existing laws can be used immorally. The
nation needs people willing to live by God’s moral laws. That’s the only way to
retard evil’s advance. It’s also how the moral standards of God’s kingdom gain
ground and community life becomes, as Augustine predicted, “organized in the
image and likeness of the heavenly city.”
Civil government benefits from a
community of people whose lives testify to “this law behind the law.” The whole
of human society requires a community that believes some things are right and
some wrong, and which adheres to the God-given wisdom that pervades all
creation (see Proverbs 8 and Proverbs 22).
Christians Provide a Restraining
Influence
But the church is more than a model.
By its presence in the culture it is a restraint on the kingdom of man.
Contrary to popular illusion, says Neuhaus, it’s not government’s job to
promulgate moral vision. That duty belongs to other social institutions,
especially the Church. When the state steps beyond the bounds of its intended
authority, the Church becomes an “effective source of moral resistance.” But it
doesn’t resist for its own sake; it doesn’t resist to gather power or broaden
its own following; it resists for the common good. The same attitude was
evident in the late 1800s, when Southern Presbyterian pastor Robert L. Dabney
taught that Christians — those in government as well as those outside — should
bring their Christian conscience, “enlightened by God’s Word,” into the civic
realm. Christians needed to be involved, Dabney believed, not to force their
morals onto society as a whole, but to advocate for justice, show respect for
life, and support the powerless.
One hears an echo of Augustine in
Dabney’s words. Augustine believed Christianity was society’s most essential
preservative. When nonbelievers lack the strength to act out of love for
country, he explained, Christians act out of love for God. When morality and
civic virtue break down, “divine Authority intervenes to impose frugal living,
continence, friendship, justice, and concord among citizens.”
The Bible Instructs Us to Get
Involved
Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-14
aren’t mere grist for intellectual curiosity, says Grudem. They’re not in the
Bible for our private edification; they’re there to equip us — to teach us how
to speak to government officials — and to explain how God views government’s
roles and responsibilities.
Effective government is pivotal in
the pursuit of justice. And true justice, Augustine said, springs from a
sovereign God. Without justice there can be no community, no shared values, and
no common ideals. Writer and scholar Christopher Dawson once said,
“Christianity is the soul of Western civilization. And when the soul is gone,
the body putrefies.” God’s people must address moral issues, they must measure
public actions by biblical standards of justice and righteousness, and they
must inform leaders when they — councilmen, mayors, governors, and presidents —
stray from God’s intended path.
When Christians abandon the public
square, what happens to community values? To ethics? To moral standards? When
Christians wash their hands and turn away, who speaks for the poor and
powerless? Throughout history we’ve seen the effect of Christian influence: in
the abolition of slavery; advocating for universal literacy; for improved education;
and for laws that protect children, factory workers, and women. That sort of
impact, Grudem points out, doesn’t come from silence or withdrawal. It comes
from faithfulness.
The United States isn’t the kingdom
of God, and Christians today must understand, as Martin Luther understood in
his time, that, “It is out of the question that there should be a Christian
government even over one land.” The wicked, Luther wrote, always outnumber the
good. Therefore, to try to rule according to the gospel would be like placing
wolves, lions, eagles, and sheep together into the same fold and letting them
freely mingle.
We plunge into social and political
problems, not with the hope of ushering in Christ’s kingdom, but to provide a
glimpse of something better, to exhibit our hope for what’s to come, to — as
Jacques Ellul put it — modify opposition between this world’s disorder and the
order of preservation that God wills for it. That way, the gospel may be
proclaimed, and all men may really hear the good news of salvation.
Richard Doster is the editor of byFaith. He is also the author of two
novels, Safe at Home (March 2008) and Crossing the Lines (June 2009), both
published by David C. Cook Publishers.
How should a Christian view politics?
Question:
"How should a Christian view politics?"
Answer: If there
is anything that will spark a spontaneous debate, if not an outright argument,
it is a discussion involving politics—even among believers. As followers of
Christ, what should be our attitude and our involvement with politics? It has
been said that “religion and politics don’t mix.” But is that really true? Can
we have political views outside the considerations of our Christian faith? The
answer is no, we cannot. The Bible gives us two truths regarding our stance
towards politics and government.
The first truth is that the will of God permeates and supersedes every aspect
of life. It is God’s will that takes precedence over everything and everyone (Matthew 6:33). God’s plans and purposes are fixed, and His will is
inviolable. What He has purposed, He will bring to pass, and no government can
thwart His will (Daniel 4:34-35). In fact, it is God who “sets up
kings and deposes them” (Daniel 2:21) because “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of
men and gives them to anyone he wishes” (Daniel 4:17). A clear understanding of this truth will help us to see
that politics is merely a method God uses to accomplish His will. Even though
evil men abuse their political power, meaning it for evil, God means it for
good, working “all things together for the good of those who love him, who have
been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).
Second, we must grasp the fact that our government cannot save us! Only God
can. We never read in the New Testament of Jesus or any of the apostles
expending any time or energy schooling believers on how to reform the pagan world
of its idolatrous, immoral, and corrupt practices via the government. The
apostles never called for believers to demonstrate civil disobedience to
protest the Roman Empire's unjust laws or brutal schemes. Instead, the apostles
commanded the first-century Christians, as well as us today, to proclaim the
gospel and live lives that give clear evidence to the gospel’s transforming
power.
There is no doubt that our responsibility to government is to obey the laws and
be good citizens (Romans 13:1–2). God has established all authority, and He does so for our
benefit, “to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13–15). Paul tells us in Romans 13:1–8 that it is the government’s responsibility to rule in
authority over us—hopefully for our good—to collect taxes, and to keep the peace.
Where we have a voice and can elect our leaders, we should exercise that right
by voting for those who best demonstrate Christian principles.
One of Satan’s grandest deceptions is that we can rest our hope for cultural
morality and godly living in politicians and governmental officials. A nation’s
hope for change is not to be found in any country’s ruling class. The church
has made a mistake if it thinks that it is the job of politicians to defend, to
advance, and to guard biblical truths and Christian values.
The church’s unique, God-given purpose does not lie in political activism.
Nowhere in Scripture do we have the directive to spend our energy, our time, or
our money in governmental affairs. Our mission lies not in changing the nation
through political reform, but in changing hearts through the Word of God. When
believers think the growth and influence of Christ can somehow be allied with
government policy, they corrupt the mission of the church. Our Christian
mandate is to spread the gospel of Christ and to preach against the sins of our
time. Only as the hearts of individuals in a culture are changed by Christ will
the culture begin to reflect that change.
Believers throughout the ages have lived, and even flourished, under
antagonistic, repressive, pagan governments. This was especially true of the
first-century believers who, under merciless political regimes, sustained their
faith under immense cultural stress. They understood that it was they, not
their governments, who were the light of the world and the salt of the earth.
They adhered to Paul’s teaching to obey their governing authorities, even to
honor, respect, and pray for them (Romans 13:1-8). More importantly, they understood that, as believers,
their hope resided in the protection that only God supplies. The same holds
true for us today. When we follow the teachings of the Scriptures, we become
the light of the world as God has intended for us to be (Matthew 5:16).
Political entities are not the savior of the world. The salvation for all
mankind has been manifested in Jesus Christ. God knew that our world needed
saving long before any national government was ever founded. He demonstrated to
the world that redemption could not be accomplished through the power of man,
his economic strength, his military might, or his politics. Peace of mind,
contentment, hope and joy—and the salvation of mankind—is accomplished only
through His work of faith, love, and grace.
How Christian Are Our Christian Politicians?
The hypocrisy is getting pretty hard
to ignore.
Church
and State
The
hypocrisy is getting pretty hard to ignore.
By Madeleine Ngo, University of Florida
On July 20, 2016, while accepting
the Republican V.P. nomination at the Republican National Convention, Vice
President Mike Pence said, “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican,
in that order.”
In 2015, the former Indiana governor
also signed into law Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allowed
businesses to refuse to serve gay individuals because of their religious
beliefs. The act opened the doors for discrimination against members of the
LGBTQ community. After intense backlash from multiple businesses and his
constituents, Pence later signed a more lenient amendment.
The current state of politics has
made religion, specifically Christianity, a contentious topic. Usually, when
Christianity and politics are mixed, the debate is centered around abortion or
gay marriage rights. President Trump continuously cites his “Christian”
faith to gain approval from Republican voters. He has said numerous times
that he is pro-life. First Lady Melania Trump even opened
up one of his campaign rallies in Melbourne, Florida, with the Lord’s Prayer.
image via TheBlaze
Throughout Trump’s candidacy and
presidency, he consistently advocates for Christian rights and beliefs, yet he
seems to contradict himself. He labels himself as a Christian, but he
appears to lack the basic foundation of the religion, which is compassion.
If I have learned anything about
Christianity, it’s about accepting others despite their background.
Christianity is about creating change and selflessly helping the less
fortunate. Although I believe religion should stay out of the state in order to
protect the rights of those whose religious beliefs don’t align with the
majority’s, if any aspect of Christianity should be mixed with politics, it’s
the fundamental rule of compassion.
If you have a Facebook account, you
have probably heard of Tomi Lahren, conservative commentator and host of “Tomi”
on TheBlaze. In
one of her viral videos, she
said, “Most conservatives choose God.” A Christian herself, she often denounces
liberals for being too “soft.”
Whether or not you agree with
Lahren’s controversial viewpoints, she is right. On average, more
Republicans tend to believe in God and consider
themselves “very religious,” as opposed to Democrats.
For a political party whose majority
advocates for stricter immigration procedures as well as a Republican president
who recently enacted a widespread ban over mostly Muslim countries and wants to
create healthcare cuts for over
fourteen million people in the next year,
the party doesn’t exactly spell out compassion.
No piece of legislation is entirely
perfect or simple, though if the president and the political party he
represents are going to use the image of Christianity to benefit their approval
ratings, they should reconsider what they are advocating.
Many conservative Christians claim
they care about those in need, yet when the time comes to create change, they
back out. Vice President Mike Pence claims he’s a “Christian” first, yet
attempted to revoke basic human rights from the LGBTQ community by signing the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
image via CNN
Of course, there are many
conservative Christians who may not conform to these beliefs, and I’m not
trying to misrepresent them. As a society, people should take into account
intersectionality and diversity of thought rather than misrepresenting an
entire movement or group based on a small subset of radicals (See Syrian
refugees and the Black Lives
Matter movement).
Christianity has become incredibly
political in modern times. Many conservatives tend to justify their political
beliefs because of the Republican party’s majority support for the pro-life
movement and attitude toward the LGBTQ community. Although most Christian
churches are accepting of LGBTQ members, the topic of gay marriage continues to
be debated and often denounced.
Rather than focusing on the issues of
abortion and gay marriage, Christians should broaden their perspectives and
speak out about other topics, like immigration, climate change, women’s rights,
gun control and health care. If Christians are truly compassionate, they should
extend their empathy. It is hypocritical to advocate for charity and love, yet
support government leaders who infringe the fundamental rights of human beings.
Although they may label themselves as accepting, altruistic Christians, their
policies and legislations fail to reflect this.
While religion continues to be a
controversial topic in politics, if any positive light should come out of
intermingling the two, it should be support for equality and basic human
rights, including LGBTQ members, women and immigrants. Christianity is built on
acceptance, something many conservative leaders in the White House seem to
lack.
When President Trump was elected,
many of his voters claimed that they were not racist. Instead, his supporters
claimed to vote out of their intense loyalty to the Republican Party and
evident dislike for Hillary Clinton. Many attempted to justify their vote by
making it clear that they weren’t bad people. Supporting a candidate who
famously made derogatory comments about women and who repeatedly promoted offensive
racist stereotypes, though, doesn’t make it any better.
The same concept holds true for all
Christians. If you promote selflessness and empathy, then you should do so in
all facets of your life, not only the ones that are convenient for you.
https://studybreaks.com/news-politics/christian/
Do Christians and politics go together?
Politics is often seen as a dirty
business. In recent times there have been many scandals that have made the
general public apathetic towards the political system.
During the Inspirational Breakfast
show on Monday 10th August, Dave Rose discussed whether Christians have a moral
obligation to be involved in politics in some capacity. It’s an interesting and
important topic, as politics is a subject that affects all believers, but not
one that all believers feel they should be involved in.
In the past the Church and the state
had been very much been linked, with the Church in charge of issues such as
education and healthcare. In the current day this is no longer the case. The
rise of the welfare state in the last few centuries has meant that state’s
influence has grown and the Church’s impact on these issues has deteriorated.
Many secularists would argue that this is the way it should be and that the
Church has no place in policy, but is this really the case?
Many secularists would argue that
the Church has no place in policy
Andy Flannagan, a director at
Christians in Politics, stated on the show that if we look at the Bible we see
that God has liked to have an input in the governance of a nation. The books of
Deuteronomy and Leviticus are dedicated to a plethora of laws that God passed
onto Moses for the people of Israel to abide by. Going back further, in Genesis
we are given the example of Joseph, who through his gifts became, in effect,
the Prime Minister of Egypt. This is a good example for us, as Egypt was
clearly not a nation that revered God, but God allowed Joseph to rise in
prominence which made Pharaoh acknowledge ‘the spirit of God’. The same can be
applied to today. Whilst we may not be living in a ‘Christian nation’,
Christians being involved in politics can still be used to bring godly
influence.
What I am not saying is that all
Christians need to run to be local councillors or MPs. There are some who are
called to do this, but others who are called to other activities that you may
not even regard as political. As mentioned by Dave Rose, if you give to or help
your local foodbank in any way, you can argue that you are politically active.
Foodbanks are a massive issue for the government at the moment, and by aiding
one, you are showing the government that there is a need to help some members
of the public further. This form of social activism is very much deep-rooted
within politics, and requires Christians to be active to bring about change.
If there is a lot of crime in your
area, you shouldn’t be afraid to speak up and ask your local MP what can be
done about it. Some may quote the passage - ‘Beloved, never avenge yourselves,
but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will
repay, says the Lord”’ (Romans 12:19). But there is very much a difference
between vengeance and justice, and God is very much concerned with the latter.
Theologian Russell D. Moore remarks that ‘God tells us we should be concerned
with justice’ and gives the example of ‘the apostle Paul pleading his case all
the way up to Caesar’. This suggests that being politically active to achieve
justice is not wrong, and is not something we should be afraid to do.
...praying for those in governance
is a form of political activity
There is even the argument that
praying for those in governance is a form of political activity. Paul urges
that – ‘supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for
all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a
peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.’ (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
I would say that this is the absolute minimum. If any form of other political
activity is not possible, praying that political leaders would make correct
decisions is the one thing that we all have the obligation to do.
Whilst the government may not always
do what we believe is best, they have been put in place by God for his
purposes. Paul affirms this stating - ‘Let every person be subject to the
governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those
that exist have been instituted by God.’ If that is the case, it will be our
prayers and involvement in politics that will influence the people that God has
put in place, so it is important that we as Christians are active in politics
in some form or another.
Christians and Politics
Part of that broad view includes
getting involved in government—because government invariably is involved with
all of us.
"Being salt and light in this
age means contending responsibly for godly standards wherever they are under
assault," Tom Minnery writes. "There is no escaping the mixture of
religion and politics, because nearly every law is the result of somebody’s
judgment about what is good and what is bad."Minnery, Tom, Why You
Can’t Stay Silent: A Biblical Mandate to Shape Our Culture (Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., 2001), p. 65.
Some Christians are wary of
involvement in politics and government, either because they don’t like the way
some other Christians have done it or because they find politics to be corrupt.
But the purpose of government, as God created it, is a noble one. As Chuck
Colson writes in God and Government:
The state was instituted by God to
restrain sin and promote a just social order. Western political thought often
mistakenly assumes that the role of government is determined solely by the will
of the people. The biblical reality is different. On the eve of His execution,
Jesus told Pilate that he held his office of political authority only because
it had been granted him by God. The apostle Paul spoke of civil authority as
‘God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ Peter
used similar language, saying that governments were set by God to ‘punish those
who do wrong and commend those who do right.’Colson, Charles, God and
Government (Zondervan, 2007), pp. 101-102.
The state was created for limited
purposes, of course. "While it cannot redeem the world or be used as a
tool to establish the Kingdom of God, civil government does set the boundaries
for human behavior," Colson says. "The state is not a remedy for sin,
but a means to restrain it."1
Sometimes, though, the state doesn’t
do its job. Worse, sometimes it does the opposite — promoting sin instead of
restraining it, and actively undermining our social and moral foundations
instead of supporting them. And at those times, especially, we have to pay
attention to what government does, because we must live with the results of its
actions.
"Political acts have profound
human consequences," Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner write in City of
Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era. "It makes a very great
difference whether people live in freedom or servitude; whether government
promotes a culture of life or a culture of death; whether the state is a
guardian or an enemy of human dignity."Gerson, Michael and Peter Wehner, City
of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era (Moody Publishers, 2010), p. 24.
Gerson and Wehner go on:
Laws express moral beliefs and
judgments. Like throwing a pebble into a pond, the waves ripple outward. They
tell citizens what our society ought to value and condemn. … That is not all
that laws do, but it is among the most important things that they do.
Suppose that, next year, all fifty
states decide to legalize marijuana and cocaine use, prostitution and same-sex
marriage. Regardless of where you stand on the issues, do you doubt that, if
such laws stayed in effect for fifty years, they wouldn’t fundamentally alter
our views, including our moral views, of these issues?Gerson and Wehner, p. 31.
Christians are anything but helpless
in our country, however. We have a right to take action — and also, as Tom
Minnery points out, a responsibility.
Unlike the Roman Empire in the first
century, our country is a participatory republic. We have the obligation
to make our voices heard and to get involved in dialogue. Our government asks
us, as citizens, to participate, not merely to shut up and obey. In the United
States, ‘We, the people’ means Christians as well as non-Christians. Submission
in our political system includes being willing to contribute to the political
process, not withdraw from it.Minnery, p. 100.
Christians
and Politics: Serving Two Masters?
The
Christian and Politics
It’s not easy to be a citizen in
two worlds.
On the one hand, we belong to the
kingdom of heaven with all of the rights and privileges enjoyed by God’s sons
and daughters. On the other hand, we are to be salt and light in this world.
How much time should we give to each kingdom? Or, better, can we serve the
kingdom of God even when actively involved in the kingdom of man?
We face a year in which politics
will dominate the news. Many will line up behind one party or another, based on
self interest or the perceived general welfare of the country. We will be given
the opportunity to support candidates financially, to attend meetings and to
vote. Some among us might run for office.
What does the Bible have to say
about this?
When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar
what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” He was establishing a principle never
uttered before. He taught that we owe loyalty to two spheres. Obviously our
loyalty to God is a higher loyalty, but we dare not shirk our responsibility
to Caesar.
Here are some principles that should
help us as we think about the tension between the two kingdoms:
First, we must keep in mind that no
one party is entirely good or entirely bad. The fact is that we live in a
fallen world, and thus will always be led by sinners at all levels of
government. I am concerned when people say, “Well, I won’t vote because I can’t
support either person.” Of course you should vote, even if your choices
are limited!
Second, we have to be clear about
what government can and cannot do. Of course we should work toward good
government, good laws and good judges. But we cannot be naive in thinking that
government can rescue us from the abyss of moral and spiritual failure. When
will we learn that the best news this nation needs will not come from
Washington, but from the lips and lives of followers of Jesus Christ?
Third, God might be calling each of
us to be involved at a different level. Some might run for office; others might
help a party financially, or help get out the vote. I can’t tell you how much
time and energy you should give to politics, for God leads us differently. Each
of us has to ask: Lord, what will You have me do?
Fourth, as ministers of the Gospel
we dare not endorse any political candidate. We must stay above the battle,
preaching the Gospel to both parties, for God will not ask whether we were
Republicans or Democrats, but rather what we did with His Son, Jesus. On the
personal level, we can have our convictions and involvements, but not as
official representatives of the Gospel.
How
Should Christians View Politics?
Pastor Lutzer is often asked for his
views on the relationship between our faith and our politics. We’ve gathered
some of his answers here as a resource for you.
Q: Some people say that politics is
dirty, and so, no Christian should run for office…
A: I disagree. Of course the name of
the political game is compromise, but it is not wrong to compromise on matters
such as budgets, appointments and programs. In politics, you have to be
satisfied with half a loaf; which might be better than just crumbs. However, a
Christian politician should not compromise those timeless moral principles
taught in the Bible.
Q: To what extent should a single
issue, such as abortion, affect our vote?
A: That is a big one. Whatever a
candidate says about other matters, what he or she believes about the killing
of unborn infants has to be high on our list of priorities. That, and the
acceptance of homosexuality, are the two greatest moral questions that will
come up in a political race. Christians can’t be neutral on these matters.
Q: Do you think it’s possible for
Christians to put too much emphasis on politics?
A: Yes. I think the fate of America
rests more with the people of God than with who gets voted into office.
Government can’t take the place of the church.
Q: Do you think it’s possible to put
too little emphasis on politics?
A: Yes. There are those who say that
we should just live the Christian life, pray, preach the Gospel, and not become
involved in politics. But the fact is that we live in this world and should
take an active interest in its welfare, which is what God asked His people
Israel to do when they lived in Babylon. For us, that at least means voting and
taking others with us to the polling booth.
Q: During Bible times people could
not be involved in the political power bases, say, in Rome. What does the New
Testament teach about the Christian and politics?
A: Paul says we have three
responsibilities, all of which we should carry out today. First, we are to
pray. Second, we are to pay taxes. And third, yes, we are to obey the
government—in so far as it does not infringe on our commitment to God.
I’ve talked to legislators who told
me the pressure they are under to compromise some of their fundamental
convictions. No wonder we ought to be praying for them and for
our country!
Q: A last question: What do you see
on the horizon, politically speaking?
A: Well, of course I’m not a
prophet, so don’t quote me on this a year from now! Though as of now the war in
Iraq is a success, I believe President Bush may be vulnerable if the electorate
perceives it as not going the way it was supposed to. History has shown that in
a matter of weeks public opinion can swing one way or the other.
That said, we don’t know what God
has in mind; for it is He who raises up leaders and brings them down. I’m
struck by the fact that we have had some radical shifts in philosophy and
leadership in the last few decades and somehow America is still here… we don’t
have the freedoms we once had and each day we are losing the culture war, but
we are still here preaching the Gospel.
The bottom line: whoever gets
elected as President is important, but it is possible for the Kingdom of God to
become strong even as the kingdom of man declines. God’s program for His people
is not tied to the next election; Christianity has survived in countries where
there was no freedom of religion. We are to be faithful no matter who
is elected.
Christians and Politics, Part 1
As Christians in the United States,
it's easy to get caught up in all the political fervor. It can even be tempting
tothink that legislation is the key to solving the moral problems that plague
American society. But is that a right perspective? John MacArthur addresses
this important issue and underscores the biblical response.
There was a time (in the days of our
Puritan forefathers), when almost every soul in America acknowledged the Ten
Commandments as the cornerstone of ethics and morality. Today most Americans
can't even name three of the Ten.
There was also a time (not so long
ago) when Americans universally disapproved of homosexuality, adultery, and
divorce; they believed sexual promiscuity is absolutely wrong; they regarded
obscene language as inappropriate; they saw abortion as unthinkable; and they
held public officials to high moral and ethical standards. Nowadays, most of
the behavior society once deemed immoral is defended as an inalienable civil
right.
How times and the culture have
changed! The strong Christian influence and scriptural standards that shaped
Western culture and American society through the end of the nineteenth century
have given way to practical atheism and moral relativism. The few vestiges of
Christianity in our culture are at best weak and compromising, and to an
increasingly pagan society they are cultic and bizarre.
In less than fifty years' time, our
nation's political leaders, legislative bodies, and courts have adopted a
distinctly anti-Christian attitude and agenda. The country has swept away the
Christian worldview and its principles in the name of equal rights, political
correctness, tolerance, and strict separation of church and state. Gross
immorality—including homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and other evils—has
been sanctioned not only by society in general but in effect by the government
as well. A portion of our tax dollars are now used to fund programs and
government agencies that actively engage in blatant advocacy of various immoral
practices.
What are Christians to do about it?
Many think this is a political
problem that will not be solved without a political strategy. During the past
twenty-five years, well-meaning Christians have founded a number of evangelical
activist organizations and sunk millions of dollars into them in an effort to
use the apparatus of politics—lobbying, legislation, demonstration, and
boycott—to counteract the moral decline of American culture. They pour their
energy and other resources into efforts to drum up a "Christian"
political movement that will fight back against the prevailing anti-Christian
culture.
But is that a proper perspective? I
believe not. America's moral decline is a spiritual problem, not a political
one, and its solution is the gospel, not partisan politics.
https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A124/christians-and-politics-part-1
4 reasons Christians should care about politics
During the course of a presidential
campaign, it is common to hear evangelicals, especially younger ones, quip,
“I’m just not that interested in politics,” or, “Politics just aren’t my
thing.” These dismissive remarks are often delivered with a veneer of piousness
implying that political engagement is inherently defiled, occupying an arena
unfit for those serious about the gospel. For those inundated with television
ads, robo-calls, campaign mail and the overall negative tone of politics, this
might be a tempting position to adopt. However, it is not a position
Bible-believing, gospel-loving Christians can or should accept as congruent
with Scripture.
The message of the gospel is that by
grace through faith sinners can be reconciled with God (Ephesians 2:7-8). This
message transforms individuals and enables them to lead godly lives. Mandated
by Scripture (Matthew 28:19-20), Christians are charged to share the good news
and disciple others in faith.
The gospel is a holistic message
with implications for all areas of life, including how Christians engage the
political process. Here are four reasons Christians should care about politics:
Receive
news and culture content in your inbox each week
Sign up for ERLC Highlights
1. The Christian worldview speaks to
all areas of life.
A frequently raised objection
against Christian engagement with politics is that anything besides explicit
preaching and teaching of the Bible is a distraction from the mission of the
church. However, this is a limited understanding of the kingdom of God and
contrary to examples in Scripture.
The Christian worldview provides a
comprehensive understanding of reality. It speaks to all areas of life,
including political engagement. In fact, the Bible speaks about civil
government and provides examples of faithful engagement.
- In the Old Testament, Joseph and Daniel served in civil
government, exerting influence to further the flourishing of their
nations.
- In the New Testament, Jesus engaged in holistic
ministry, caring for the spiritual and physical needs of people. Feeding
the hungry and healing diseases were an outworking and extension of the
reconciliatory message of the gospel.
- Paul also advocates this approach: “As we have
opportunity, let us do good to everyone” (Galatians 6:10). And: “For we
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God
prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).
Engaging in “good works” should
include participating in the political process because of the legitimate and significant
role of government. The decisions made by government have a substantial impact
on people and the way we interact with them. A Christian worldview should
include a political theology that recognizes every area of life must be
included in the “good works” of believers, especially politics, an area with
significant real-life implications for people.
2. Politics are unavoidable.
As “sojourners and exiles” (1 Peter
2:11), it can be tempting for Christians to adopt a mindset that earthly
governing systems are inconsequential to the task of furthering the gospel. But
ask a pastor in an underground church or a missionary attempting to access a
closed country if politics are inconsequential. Religious liberty, passports
and visas are not unnecessary luxuries but are often vital for pastors and
missionaries seeking to preach and teach the gospel.
Augustine’s City of God
offers guidance on this point. Believers are citizens of the “City of God,” but
on this side of eternity, we also belong to the “City of Man” and therefore
must be good citizens of both cities. There are biblical examples of how
membership in the earthly city can be leveraged for furthering the reach of the
heavenly. Paul’s appeal to his Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37, 22:25) is a model
of this.
In an American context, engaging
these dual cities takes on added significance because of the words prefacing
the Constitution: “We the people.” In the United States, ultimate national
sovereignty is entrusted to the people. James Madison explained that the
“consent of the people” is the “pure original fountain of all legitimate
authority.” This reality makes politics unavoidable for American citizens who
control their political future.
Because politics have real-world
implications for Christian evangelism, missions and preaching the gospel,
Christians ought to engage the political process by leveraging their rightful
authority, advocating for laws and policies that contribute to human
flourishing.
3. We need to love our neighbor.
When questioned by religious
authorities on the law, Jesus explained that loving God with heart, soul and
mind was the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:37). He added that second in
priority was: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39).
Followers of Christ are called to
love and serve their neighbors (Matthew 28:19-20). When asked about the
qualifications of “neighbor,” Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan
(Luke 10:25-37), indicating that irrespective of race, background, social status
or occupation, neighborly love is owed.
In a very real sense, politics is
one of the most important areas in which Christians demonstrate love to
neighbor. In fact, how can Christians claim to care about others and not engage
the arena that most profoundly shapes basic rights and freedoms? Caring for the
hungry, thirsty, naked, sick and lonely is important to Jesus and should be to
His followers as well. Jesus said, “As you did it to one of the least of these
you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40).
Fulfilling the biblical mandate to
love neighbor and care for the “least of these” should be a priority for every
believer. Again, a holistic approach is essential. Loving neighbor includes
volunteering at a homeless shelter, as well as influencing laws that encourage
human flourishing. Good government and laws are not negligible factors in the
prosperity and freedom of a society.
For example, the majority of North
Koreans are held in economic bondage by corrupt political forces, whereas in
South Korea, citizens are given liberty and a system that encourages
prosperity. The people of North Korea need more than food pantries and improved
hospitals; they need political leadership and policies that recognize human
rights. Advocating for these changes in totalitarian countries is crucial for
loving our neighbors in oppressed areas.
Obedience to the golden rule
includes seeking laws that protect unborn children, strengthen marriages and
families, advocate for the vulnerable, and provide opportunity for flourishing.
Politics is a means of effecting great change and must be engaged by Christians
who love their neighbor.
4. Government restrains evil and
promotes good.
Government derives its authority
from God to promote good and restrain evil. This mandate is expressly stated in
Romans 13:1-7. Elsewhere, Paul urges that prayers be made “for kings and all
who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life” (1
Timothy 2:1-2). Paul understood the need for Christian participation in
government.
Government plays a role in the work
of God’s kingdom on earth. Good government encourages an environment conducive
for people living peaceably, whereas bad government fosters unrest and
instability. Because of sin, the legitimate institution of government has, at times,
been used illegitimately throughout history. However, numerous examples persist
of Christians reasserting their influence and redeeming government to promote
good and restrain evil.
In How Christianity Changed the
World, Alvin Schmidt documents Christian influence in government. Examples
include outlawing infanticide, child abandonment and gladiatorial games in
ancient Rome, ending the practice of human sacrifice among European cultures,
banning pedophilia and polygamy, and prohibiting the burning of widows in
India. William Wilberforce, a committed Christian, was the force behind the
successful effort to abolish the slave trade in England. In the United States,
two-thirds of abolitionists were Christian pastors. In the 1960’s, Martin
Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, helped lead the civil rights movement
against racial segregation and discrimination.
Carl Henry rightfully stated that
Christians should “work through civil authority for the advancement of justice
and human good” to provide “critical illumination, personal example, and
vocational leadership.” This has been the historic witness of Christians
concerned about government promoting good and restraining evil.
Jeremiah 29:7 says: “But seek the
welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on
its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” Referring to
Babylon, the prophet recognized that secular government served a legitimate
purpose in God’s plan for Israel. This is still true. Today, good governments promote
literacy, advance just laws, provide religious liberty and allow churches to
preach and teach. Good government can serve as a conduit for the furthering of
the gospel and human flourishing.
Christian witness in the public
square contributes transcendent values about moral and ethical issues.
Christian withdrawal opens a moral vacuum susceptible to influences that
pressure government to move outside the purview designated by God. Politics
affects government, shapes society and influences culture. Because of what the
Bible teaches and the inevitability of its effect on our culture, Christians
must care about politics.
7 Things Christians Need to Remember About Politics
How
to be in the world, not of the world, in a culture of political vitriol.
Political discourse is the Las Vegas
of Christianity—the environment in which our sin is excused. Hate is winked at,
fear is perpetuated and strife is applauded. Go wild, Christ-follower. Your
words have no consequences here. Jesus doesn’t live in Vegas.
Not only are believers excused for
their political indiscretions, but they are often applauded for committing
them. Slander is explained away as righteous anger; winning arguments are
esteemed higher than truthful ones (whether or not the “facts” align); and
those who stir up dissension are given the pulpit. So I balk when pastors tell
me the Church should engage in the political process. Why would we do that? The
political process is dirty and broken and far from Jesus. Paranoia and vitriol
are hardly attractive accessories for the bride of Christ.
Rather than engage in the political
process, Christians have a duty to elevate it. Like any other sin, we are
called to stand above the partisan dissension and demonstrate a better way.
Should we have an opinion? Yes. Should we care about our country? Yes. Should
we vote? Yes. But it’s time we talk politics in a way that models the teachings
of Jesus rather than mocks them.
Here are seven things to remember
about politics:
1.
Both political parties go to church
There’s a Christian Left and,
perhaps even less well-known, there’s a secular Right. Larry
T. Decker is a lobbyist and head of the Secular Coalition for America. He’s an “unaffiliated Christian,” but his entire job is
devoted to keeping religion out of the U.S. government. Party lines are drawn
in chalk, and they’re not hard to cross. The Church must be engaged in
politics, but it must not be defined by the arbitrary lines in politics.
2.
Political talk radio and cable “news” only want ratings
When media personalities tell you
they are on a moral crusade, they are lying to you. These personalities get
rich by instilling fear and paranoia in their listeners. If we give our
favorite political ideologues more time than we give Jesus, we are following
the wrong master. There are unbiased, logical and accurate news sources out
there. But it’s up to you to be a good steward of information—to fact-check for
yourself, take ideology with a grain of salt and make decisions based on facts
rather than gossip.
3.
Those who argue over politics don’t love their country more than others
They just love to argue more than
others. Strife and quarreling are symptoms of weak faith (Proverbs 10:12; 2
Timothy 2:23-25; James 4:1) and are among the things the Lord “detests.” We
need to rise above the vitriol and learn to love our neighbors the way God
commanded us. We need to love our atheist neighbor who wants to keep
creationism out of schools; our Democrat neighbor who wants to keep gay
marriage and abortion legal; our Republican neighbor who celebrates death
penalty statistics and gun ownership; and yes, even the presidential candidate
from the other side.
4.
Thinking your party’s platform is unflawed is a mistake
The social policies of your party
were constructed by imperfect politicians fueled by ambition. It’s nearsighted
to canonize them—and it will make you obsolete in a few years. Every four
years, the parties adopt a current, updated platform at their respective
conventions. And while they stay on general tracks, every four years the
platform evolves to meet the needs of a growing, modernized and changing party.
The Republican party of today doesn’t look like it did 10 years ago. We need to
know when to change our views to meet a changing culture—and when to stand by
them.
5.
Scripture tells us to pray for our governing leaders (2 Timothy 2:1-4) and to
respect those in authority (Romans 13:1-7)
Translation: if you’re mocking your
governing leaders on Facebook, the Holy Spirit is grieved. We should spend more
time honoring our leaders and less time vilifying them. This doesn’t mean
praying the President will be impeached; it doesn’t mean praying your candidate
will win. God commands us to pray for our leaders—for their wisdom, for their
hearts and for them to be led by Him.
6.
Don’t be paranoid
The country is not going to be
destroyed if your candidate loses. As 2 Timothy 1:7 says, “God has not given us
a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” Stand up and
demonstrate what God has given you. America has functioned—albeit, at varying
levels of success—for years under the direction of alternating Democrat and
Republican control, and at every flip, the other side thought it was the end of
the world. It’s not. And if we’re a Church that believes God is in control, we
have to believe that He is the one in control of the end times—not whoever’s in
office now, and not whoever succeeds them.
7.
Stop saying, “This is the most important election in the history of our nation”
It’s not. The most important
election in the history of our nation was when Abraham Lincoln was elected
president. Before that, we thought it was OK to own people. Every generation
thinks it’s living in the most important moment in history. We’re not, our
parents were not and our children probably won’t be. And that’s OK.
Christian Politics
Christian Politics – Introduction
When it comes to the idea of Christian politics, the Christian worldview sees
government as an institution established by God (Genesis 9:6;
Romans 13)
for the primary purpose of promoting justice for its citizens—protecting the
innocent from the aggressor and the lawless. Without security, every other
function of government (protecting life, liberty, property, reputation, etc.)
is meaningless.
As Christians we recognize government as a sacred institution whose rulers are
ministers of God for good (Romans 13).
God ordained the state to practice godly justice and commands us to obey its
rules and laws. Peter instructs us to “submit . . . for the Lord’s sake to
every authority instituted among men, whether to the king, as the supreme
authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong
and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13–14).
As long as government is serving the purpose for which God created it, we must
show our allegiance to God by submitting to human government.
Christian Politics – Limited
Government
The extent of Christian politics is simply the following: We expect the state
to accomplish limited, God-ordained tasks. Its two principle roles are to
protect the innocent and punish the guilty (Romans 13:3–4).
Government should adhere to the principle “Let all things be done decently and
in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40;
Exodus 18:19f)
because order reflects God’s character.
We know that power tends to corrupt, so a government that disperses power is
better than one that gathers power into the hands of a few. As Christians, we
should welcome opportunities to participate in government with the goal of
influencing the state to conform to God’s will for it as a social institution (Proverbs 11:11).
The Christian worldview does not single out any one form of government as
acceptable, although a constitutional form is more likely to conform to
biblical principles and respond to its citizens than are less democratic forms.
One significant aspect of the United States’ government that conforms to
biblical ideals is the division of power into three branches—executive,
legislative, and judicial—along with its system of checks and balances. The
three-branch model was patterned after Isaiah 33:22:
“For the Lord is our judge [judicial], the Lord is our lawgiver [legislative],
the Lord is our king [executive].”
Christian Politics – Creation and
Original Sin
Perhaps the Christian concept our founding fathers best understood was the
Christian understanding that although we are created in God’s image, we
nevertheless have a fallen, sinful nature. Because they understood these
opposing aspects of our nature, the founding fathers tailored a government suited
to our rightful place in God’s creative order.
Human government is necessary because of sin. Our evil inclinations toward sin
must be kept in check by laws and a government capable of enforcing such laws.
Thus, government protects us from our own sinful nature. But our founding
fathers also grappled with the problem of protecting ordinary citizens from the
sinful inclinations of those in authority. The result of their efforts is our
system of checks and balances among the branches of government. Each branch
wields unique powers that prevent the focus of governmental power and authority
from falling into the hands of a select few. By broadly distributing power and
responsibility, the American system of government minimizes the possibility of
an abuse of power because of our fallen nature. James Madison says, “If men
were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”1
Christian Politics – The Source of Human
Rights
Christian politics within a Christian worldview understands God as the source
and guarantee of our basic human rights. Because we believe we are created in
the image of God (Genesis 1:26),
we know that we are valuable. (This becomes doubly clear when we remember that
Christ took upon Himself human flesh and died for humanity.) God grants all
individuals the same rights based on an absolute moral standard. The
Declaration of Independence proclaims, “All men are created equal... [and]
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Two assumptions are
inherent in this declaration: 1) we were created by a supernatural Being; and
2) this Being provides the foundation for all human rights.
The knowledge that human rights are based on an unchanging, eternal Source is
crucial in our understanding of politics. If our rights were not tied
inextricably to God’s character, then they would be arbitrarily assigned
according to the whims of each passing generation or political party—rights are
“unalienable” only because they are based on God’s unchanging character.
Therefore, human rights do not originate with human government, but with God
Himself, who ordains governments to secure these rights.
Our founding fathers understood this clearly. John Adams, in a letter to Thomas
Jefferson in 1813, says, “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved
Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of
young Gentlemen could Unite... And what were these general Principles? I
answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were
United... Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those
general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the
Existence and Attributes of God.”2
John Winthrop says that the best friend of liberty is one who is “most sincere and
active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the
greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind.
Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his
country.”3
Noah Webster wrote “The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures
ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These
principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation.”4
Alexis de Tocqueville says, “There is no country in the world where the
Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in
America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its
conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt
over the most enlightened and free nation on the earth.”5
George Washington, in his inaugural address as first president of the United
States, referred to “the propitious smiles of Heaven” that fall only on that
nation that does not “disregard the eternal rules of order and right which
Heaven itself has ordained.”6
Christian Politics – Conclusion
According to biblical Christian politics, God ordains governments to administer
His justice. When government rules within the boundaries of its role in God’s
order, we submit to the state’s authority willingly because we understand that
God has placed it in authority over us. However, when the state abuses its
authority or claims to be sovereign, we must acknowledge God’s transcendent law
rather than that of the state. Our loyalty to God may call us to political
involvement in an effort to create good and just government. The involvement of
righteous people can significantly influence government for the better.
Our ongoing struggle to create and maintain just government may or may not be
effective. We must, however, remain obedient to God in all circumstances.
Colson says, “Christians are to do their duty as best they can. But even when
they feel that they are making no difference, that they are failing to bring Christian
values to the public arena, success is not the criteria. Faithfulness is.”7
Notes:
Rendered with permission from the book, Understanding the Times: The Collision
of Today’s Competing Worldviews (Rev 2nd ed), David Noebel, Summit Press, 2006. Compliments of John
Stonestreet, David Noebel, and the Christian
Worldview Ministry at Summit Ministries. All rights reserved in the original.
1 See no. 51 in Alexander Hamilton, et al., The Federalist Papers
(New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1964), 122.
2 Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters (Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 339–40.
3 Winthrop’s speech at Princeton, May 17, 1776.
4 Noah Webster, History of the United States, “Advice to the
Young” (New Haven: CT, Durrie & Peck, 1832), 338-340.
5 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York, NY:
Vintage Classics, 1990), 303.
6 George Washington, First Inaugural Address, New York City, April
30, 1789. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html.
7 Charles Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1987), 291.
