Should Christians Avoid Politics?

I'd add one point that I think is important on this topic and often neglected. Because good government has a positive impact on our neighbours, acting to improve the way our nation is governed is part of loving our neighbours. Where we have the opportunity to influence government for good, it is the charitable thing to do.

Should we join the Black Robe regiment as our forefathers did?

http://blackroberegiment.ning.com/ [16] BRR

David,

I think you and Aaron should really drill down into what the differences are in "involved" in politics and how one puts too much hope in politics. I live in the Washington DC area. I see a lot of Christian activists acting as if the kingdom of God depended on the GOP. In one sense, you could say they're too involved in politics, yet I don't think their level of involvement is the problem. The problem is where they place their hope. In my experience of knowing lots of Christians at high levels of government (my roommate is the personal assistant of a US Congressman, several of my friends work in Sr. levels Congressional offices) the best Christians know the place of government as really important, yet less important than the Kingdom of God.

David, I'm with you when you decry people who are all uptight about keeping America a Christian nation. I used to live two floors below Wallbuilders founder David Barton. I went to his seminars and found he put too much hope in good government for eternal purposes.

All that said, plenty of Christians work in politics and see the dire circumstances our country is in. They are working feverishly to halt a liberal agenda that would push the country away from freedom. I think it's really important work. I don't think they generally mistake their work in their churches with this kind of secular work in terms of importance. There is a way to work feverishly for a more biblical government that doesn't make biblical government an idol that displaces God Himself. Sure there are excesses you could point to, and I don't like them, but there is a lot of balance as well.

Shayne

First, the idea that Christians SHOULD be involved in politics is silly. Such a viewpoint implies a biblical mandate that is wholly absent from the text. Can a Christian be involved in politics without sinning? Well, political involvement in and of itself is not a sin. Voting is fine. I vote in every election. Should Christians vote? If one means that it is wrong for a Christian NOT to vote, I would argue that such a view is guilty of Americanizing Christianity. I would go so far to say that laying such a mandate on people is playing God. If a person objects to voting, who am I or you or anyone else to correct them? From what Scripture would we speak? Dare we twist the text in order to propogate the Americanizing of Christianity? Someone says that a Christian should be a good citizen and a good citizen votes. Really? Who exactly gets to define what a good citizen is? Who says a good citizen votes? The world or Scripture? A good citizen, a really good Christian citizen contradicts the wordly culture with his/her life and message. A good citizen evanglizes the community. A Christian citizen realizes that all the outward conformity in the world is not really going to make a difference in the end. So what you have a high moral culture. If men are God-haters, they are still vile and wicked in God's eyes. A morally high culture is just as wicked as the most decadent culture if it is without Christ. And surely American culture is without Christ.

The Church can't even manage itself, let alone influence political direction in this country. If you think she can, forgive me, but you are living a delusion. The Church needs to go back to the simple preaching of a simple gospel and trust an absolutely free and sovereign God to transform lives the way Scripture says He does. She needs to get back to the basics of discipleship, indoctrination, and evangelism if she is to have any hope of inlfuencing the culture toward God.

We are not called to elevate the morals in our culture. We are called to proclaim the gospel and if this does not move morality, all the politics and movements on the planet surely won't. The problem with the American Church is that she has become so involved in moral issues and political issues that the world thinks she is merely one more politically oriented agent pushing her own ideologies onto the government and the rest of the culture that does not want them. In other words, she is not viewed as the Church any longer. She looks like all the other political entities vying for influence, power, and control. In that environment, the real danger is the loss of the gospel.

Politics are a far bigger distraction and a hinderance to the gospel than they are a help. They have served as a major distraction for the Church over the past 50 years or so and the results within the body are nothing short of dire. Let us return to a sharpened focus on our very narrow mission given to us by our Founder, Lord, and Master, Jesus Christ. Let us preach the gospel, baptize converts, and make disciples throughout the whole world. The business of kings, times, and epochs is really the business of God. Pray for them so that we can live a tranquil life. But let us not allow the delusion that somehow this is our mission and it is our duty and mission to influence legislation and goverment. The best way to influence is to preach!

I have nothing negative to say about how you are addressing the problem in Grand Rapids. Personally, I would not say this is loving your neighbor. The problem with that approach is that other believers who do not follow your course cannot be accused of NOT loving their neighbor because they are NOT involve in the way you are. They may have done as Paul instructed Timothy and committed it to prayer. Personally, I think one of the biggest distractions to disciple-making is American or Western politics. When the scope of a thing becomes too broad, effectiveness suffers greatly. When we make a disciple, we are making a radical follower of Jesus who is not afraid nor concerned about what a God-hating culture thinks about him/her. Politics, by its very nature is acutely concerned about what others think.

I am more convinced than not that you cannot be reasonably successful in Western politics, on the larger platforms that is, without a substantial lack of integrity and genuiness in your background. And I am convinced that what Christ requires from a disciple, Western politics detests and demands it not be practiced. Hence, it follows that for a genuine Christian to actually make it to the high-profile, highly visible, more powerful offices in Washington, state capitals, and large cities is almost inconceivable.

Ed,

Again I am very sympathetic to your view. At the same time, do you think you go too far? I find it interesting that we have the New Testament example of Erastus of Corinth. Paul gives greetings to him in Romans 16:23. "Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings." Many New Testament Scholars believe this Erastus to be the Erastus inscription from Corinth in the middle of the 1st century. ""Erastus in return for his aedileship laid [the pavement ] at his own expense." In fact, he payed a large sum of money to be a politician in Corinth. If you think America's politics was tainted and corrupted, to be a politician in Corinth as Erastus was would have been extremely difficult because of all the depravity, corruption, and idol worship in that city. Yet Paul goes out of his way to mention the political status of Erastus in his greeting. Was Erastus' job somehow a distraction to him being a disciple of Christ or disciple-making? Paul doesn't seem to be as hostile towards Erastus' chosen vocation as you seem to be. Now of course, we have to be careful not to read into the text something that isn't there and argue from silence. Was Erastus trying to develop a 1st century "take back the Roman Empire for Christ" such as the "Take Back America for Christ" slogans that I see and hear from 21st Christian political activists? Not at all. However, maybe he realized as the Reformers such as Luther and Calvin that a call to serve others (including public service and politics) is a matter of great and personal importance because you are loving your neighbor.

Again, Loving the neighbor is not evangelism or the gospel, nor does it have the power of transforming the hearts of people that the gospel has. However Loving your neighbor as yourself is the context for evangelism and for the preaching of the gospel to flourish.

There is considerable disagreement over who Erastus was and if there were only one, two, or even three men by that name. The title given to him, "director of public works" intreoduces unnecessary confusion about his role. He could have held a high office in the city, or he could have been a city slave. We cannot be sure what his role was, how or when he got it, and if there was 1, 2, or 3 men with the same name. The temptation is to begin with American, Western, and modern thinking and read back into the text more than is there. WE know that the Greek term "HO OIKONOMOS" is used and this is a steward. Either way, this does not show that Paul would have been okay with modern American politics and the behavior that seems necessary in order to climb that ladder. I am not arguing that it is impossible for Christians to climb the ladder or even that they should not. That is not my position. I simply wonder if they can. I am not making an ipso facto judgment. My entire concern is that the church has lost view of her true mission and she needs to narrow her focus and stop being the American church and start being the Chruch of Christ (in America). I admit that such a goal is not easy. But I do think it is essential to the spiritual health and welfare of the body.

I think your phrase "Christians as individuals" is revealing. While we are individuals, we are not individuals in a vacuum. In Mediterranean cultures, the hyper individualism that exists in America is non-existent compartively speaking. This does not mean of course that individual conscience is lost. What it means is that individuals are indelibly attached to "something" as individuals and even that attachment is not viewed separately from the individual. We must change how we see ourselves in the Christian group. This is part of the problem as I see it.

It is irrelevant to point to Joseph as an examplar for political involvement. God's purpose and plan for Israel was entirely specific to that group. The proper way to answer this question is to review the Greek text of the NT that actually deals with this specific issue. We travel back to that culture, removed from our own, and examine what Paul and other NT writers, to include our Lord had to say regarding government relations and politics. We have Acts as narrative, as well as the gospels to provide some examples. That is safest way to treat this subject.

I have said several times now that I am not making any prohibitions against Christians being politically engaged. Scripture would not support that approach. I am arguing two very basic things here: 1. People who argue that Christians "should" be politically engaged are wrong. There is no commmandment to that end in Scripture. In addition, I do not see any principles from which one might deduce such a point from Scripture. 2. The method by which the church impacts the culture, politically and otherwise, is through the preaching of the gospel, baptizing converts, and making disciples. In short, the best way to for any church to influence its immediate culture and the culture at large is by staying true to its very narrow missions. To sum it up: only a spiritually healthy church can truly impact the culture. That being said, the only real impact a church has on a culture is eternal impact and that only comes through preaching.

How long would a presidential candidate last who opened stated that he subscribed to any one of the great confessions of faith? How far would a compaign go that openly confessed that it took Scripture literally, believing it to be the word of God. How long would a politician be viable after saying that all those who reject the Christian worldview are under the judgment of God and eternally damned? Not a nano second, that is how long.

I am not opposed to Christians engaging in politics. I am not even opposed to Christians running for office. They would get my vote. I am opposed to imposing an "ought" in the matter. I am opposed to the delusion that outward influence somehow accomplishes something. Barak Obama and Mitt Romney: a liberal God-hating socialist(?) versus a neo-conservative God-hating Mormon. Which one "ought" we to vote for? You see, when you say Christians "ought" to be involved in the political games, you must also create ethics around "how" they "ought" to be engaged. Should they be for or against abortion? Should they be for or against gay marriage? Should they for or against Israel? Should they be for or against big government? The slippery slope is far more complex and time-consuming than one might initially imagine. Do we have time for this? Given all the other pressing issues we face and our supposedly eternal focus, do we really have time to devote tons of hours to something as temporal as vain as Western politics? Want to do social good? Feed the poor. Get involved in the local mission. Go hand out tracks on the street and talk to people about Jesus Christ. You see a couple in the church getting too close outside of marriage, have coffee with the one of your sex and talk about accountability. See someone divorcing, don't look the other way and despise Christ's words. Get directly involved and do all you can to recover the wayward.

I hope this clears the matter up. I really hope I don't have to say again that I am opposed to Christians being engaged in politics. I am not. At a minimum, what I would like to do is to get people to pause, and go back to Scripture and really think about this and ask all those critical questions again. That would be a win. Frank Turek recently said, here in Charlotte at FBC that unless Christians get politically involved we are no longer going to be able to preach the gospel! Wow! How little is that god? Perhaps persecution is better for the church than the broad freedoms we have become accustomed to? Perhaps!

Jeremiah 29:7 (ESV):

Other versions:

• NIV: "Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper"
• NKJV: "for in its peace you will have peace"

This is by application and not intepretation (I'm not a Jewish exile in Babylon!)

• I'm here! I was born here (A US citizen by birth). God placed me here.
• I have a dual citizenship (Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ")
• Paul was not reticent to leverage his own Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28, "Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”)
• God calls it "good and acceptable" to lead a "quiet and peaceable life" (Broader context here: 1 Timothy 2:1-3)
• Prospering is a good thing: 3 John 2, "Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers. " (Note three levels of properity: "all things" ..."health" ... spiritually "as your soul prospers.")

Conclusion: I have a vested interest to be involved in society. In the political realm there are at least three layers of political entities that impact me and I can influence: My city: (City of Plymouth MN); My state: (Minnesota) and of course the Federal level. I have a symbiotic relationship with these. They depend upon my tax dollars. I depend upon them for my own peace and prosperity.

How I find myself involved (and it is probably not as deep as it should be):

• Prayer: (I don't always pray for our President but I did so today). I doubt that there is much to dispute about re praying for authorities
• Respect and obedience. I pay the taxes ... I try obey the laws (although I made a mistake last year re failure to pay license tabs on my 2nd vehical. http://coldfusion-guy.blogspot.com/search/label/Arrested [43] ] I was arrested for this and face a soon court appearance)
• Voicing my conservative opinion
• Occasionally communicating with elected leaders (recently I had coffee with my state senator)
• Supporting electoral involvement financially (as I am currently doing for the election of Romney)

I think of political action, such as attending school board and city council meetings, and voting for candidates that I believe will "establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, etc" as part of the doing good for my neighbor equation, as per verses like Proverbs 3:27-28. Let's face it, it isn't as if it's difficult to educate oneself about the issues at hand in our communities, show people we care about their lives, and vote our conscience. Ain't no skin off my nose, and it helps the folks.

I agree that radical or intensive engagement, unless one intends politics to be their vocation, is more than the average Joe or Suzy Homemaker can do and still keep their spiritual, domestic, and employment ducks in a row. But IMO everyone should try to do the basics, especially if you have plans to complain about it over the watercooler.

I follow (generally) the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship [54] ]Regulative principle of worship . What God has ordained the church to do it should. And what God has not ordained the church to do, it shouldn't.

The church (as an assembled group of believers) is not ordained to be political. It is to be gospel-driven. One such positive example of this would be 1 Thessalonians 1:8, "For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything"

The citizen interacts with government directly (the "symbiotic relationship" I spoke of in my previous post) (my chart below). On the top illustrates the horizontal flows (or mutual dependencies) that the citizen / individual has with the government and the church.

The lower vertical chart, I disavow. The citizen does not interact with the government through the church!

[55]

Caveats ... the church as a citizen

• The church has a teaching role to instruct its citizens / members about how to be submissive to government (one of many examples would of course be Romans 13)
• The church has a role to instruct its citizens / members to lead quiet, godly lives. The best citizen is one who pays taxes and does not aggravate society. The outworking of this could be as simple as being a good neighbor or to not steal (Ephesians 4:28, " Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need"). (In a very simple way ... this defines good citizenship: he works ... he provides for himself (not a "suck" on society) ... he follows the law .... AND he contributes!). A relevant http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74987.html [59] contemporary quote would be: "
  New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Tuesday that the U.S. is turning into a “paternalistic entitlement society” that will bankrupt the country financially and morally because “we’ll have a bunch of people sittin’ on a couch waiting for their next government check.”

And so the church influences society through her own citizens.

Now there is a sense that the church is a citizen (I sense that this was to a much lessor degree in the 1st century that it is today):

• The church-corporate owns property and
• Consumes resources
• It literally has a large "footprint" in the world

AND So

• The church-corporate has to obey the laws (it could be something as simple as a camp rule in Wisconsin. You cannot put a milk pitcher on the table at camp!)
• The church-corporate is a beneficiary of multiple government benefits. To list a few:
  • The housing allowance for Pastors
  • Does not pay property tax. A small Montessori school near my home pays (last time I looked) over $22,000 a year in property taxes. I think they have about an acre and half of that is swamp. My church has over 20 acres and pays no property taxes
  • Tax deducatability of donations. That's a huge benefit to me ... and to the church!

Relevant Church-corporate obedience examples:

• Building codes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind [60] ]remember Dr Dino got himself in trouble for that
  )
• Withholding SS taxes from employees' paychecks. http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/religion/churches/baptist_tem... [61] A church in Indiana was famously in trouble for this !
• Fire codes
• Certain government reporting (I was the church treasurer and I can attest that the payroll tax reporting is less than fun!)

RESPONSE TO JEREMIAH 29:7 Why does seeking the peace of the city have to involve political engagement? Christians are to be at peace with all men where it depends on them and is possible. By fostering an atmosphere of peace yourself, you will benefit from it. However, foster an environment of hostility and trouble is sure to find you. I find your reading of Jer. 29:7 anachronistic, not to mention far, far out of context. This letter was written specifically to the exiles for a very specific purpose. Is it a promise? Obviously not! Millions of peace-seeking obedient Christians have been brutally murdered for the faith.

RESPONSE TO

Back to your "seeking the welfare" point: please understand that I can seek the welfare of Charlotte NC by obeying its laws and by giving it the gospel. In so doing, I benefit from the peace that I create. However, this is by no means a universal promise. I would recommend you not use specific letters from the OT that are very specifically addressed to a very specific group of exiles in Babylon. It is not that these are useless. May it never be! They are very useful, but only insofar as we take them in context. Just like Jer. 29:11 is not a specific promise for you, neither is this verse specific direction for modern American Christians to engage in political activism. You can't even argue that that was the meaning then, let alone now.

The anabaptists are an excellent example of what Paul was doing in Romans 13. Christians get the idea that since we are not of this world, we don't have to obey civil law. We do! With all due respect, if I had your argument I would be frustrated too. No offense, but so far, the arguments for an "ought" around Christians being politically engaged are without merit at this point. If a Christian wishes to be engaged, I have nothig to say. If they wish NOT to be engaged, I have nothing to say. I contend that anyone saying Christians "ought" to be engaged are wrong. I also contend that anyone saying that Christians "ought not" to be engaged are equally wrong. There is no "ought" in the text either way! Well, sort of. The biblical relationship that IS revealed to the believer is that we must obey civil law, respect government leaders as God's ministers, and pray for them in the hopes that we may live a tranquil life. This is the advice of Scripture and as far as I know, it is the only advice I can find. Therefore, it is the only advice I feel safe and comfortable giving.

Let me explain why you're so confusing.

MP1: You claimed that church involvement in politics distracts from evangelism and wastes time.
(My implied premise from scripture) MP2: Clearly we shouldn't waste time according to scripture.
MP3: We should obey scripture
Therefore: Church involvement in politics wastes time, and we shouldn't be involved.

Even though you SAY you're not saying this, you're not using good logic to make yourself clear. I don't think "ought" is as strong a word as you claim, and maybe that's the problem. Really this is an issue of conscience that is up to the individual believers that you clearly want to leave up to the individual. But even in issues of conscience, we can debate the wisdom, goodness, and "oughtness" of the issue of conscience.

Dever listed five truths that are frequently distorted and attacked: God's judgment is coming, we should be judged by God, our only hope is in Christ, we don't see the fullness of our salvation in this life, and we can deceive ourselves and others about our relationship with God.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/false-conversions-are-the-suicide-of-t... [77] False Converts

Very alarming, very disturbing, and very true.

A couple of things, since you mentioned Mark Dever. As a former member of his church, he might be a great example to look at. Do you think he or his parishioners have lost his focus on the gospel? No. His church as members have been intensely politically involved. When I attended you could find a sitting Republican congressmen on the same pew as a Democrat committee staffer. I won't forget Mark Dever baptizing a staffer for Sen. Hilary Clinton! You see his church members as Christians were very politically active. But the church itself is about as a political as you could get. That's what I was saying earlier about Christians acting rightly in politics as individuals, but differently as a gathered church. The members of Capitol Hill Baptist have no problem articulating the gospel, and also are well versed on the ethics of voting. You seem to think it's either/or. It doesn't have to be that we have to choose. You're setting up false conflicts where there are none.

You might enjoy this sermon that deals with politics. http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/audio/2010/09/jesus-paid-taxes-mark-12... [80]

I agree the church as an institution is prone to be too beholden to power politics. Again, allowing the Christians as individuals to work out on their own how they'll be involved allows for both intense political involvement, while not compromising the true role of the church.

A Christian ought to be a good citizen. That is clear in the Bible. How that is determined with each conscience with the Word of God is a matter of liberty. From there Mark Dever can make the case for his conscience and those of others who share his view using Scripture why he believes he ought and make clear that while he must fall short of "thus sayeth the Lord" he does not have to relax his own view which he believes is based on the maximum amount of Scrptural analysis and application and invite others who may disagree to debate. And Dever may rightly believe the others err in falling short of the maximum consideration of Scripture but as Ed points out and is a basic truth specific acts of being a good citizen, if not specifically prescribed in the Bible, may not have added to them the signature of a Divine command.

To answer your question, Scripture quite clearly commands us to obey the laws of the land. The law states that one must come to a full stop at all stop signs. That is easy enough. It is clearly against the law to litter. Internet Porn is looking upon a woman with lust, and hence, is adultery. Since you want specific interaction with your post, here you go:

You stated that in a nation such as ours (whatever that means), CHRISTIANS CAN AND MUST BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS. So, lets be crystal clear on this. Your statement is unambigious and there can be little doubt that grammatically speaking, you are in fact placing an obligation on the believer. There is no other way to take this sentence. And I could not disagree more. Have you made your case biblically as you continue to claim you have by stating that I have not sufficiently interacted with your argument?

You begin you argument by stating that God cares about what nations do. This statement is so obvious that no one could ever argue with it. God also cares about what demons do. So what. This is a non-sequitur. How does one link the fact that God cares about what nations do with the moral imperative that Christians in America can and MUST be involved in politics? God commands all nations to repent of their sin and to follow Him. Politics are absolutely unnecessary for God to care about what nations do. The proclamation of the gospel is a much more viable answer to how God addresses the sin of the nations than political involvement. Why default to politics when the church is called to address the sin of the nations and cultures through preaching?

You seem to have a misplaced understanding about who "we" are. You entire premise depends on the undying loyalty of Americanism. We are Americans! I have a different view that has not been easy to adopt because I am one of those good old country boys who bleeds the red, white, and blue. I am a staunch conservative, and more recently a very troubled and disturbed republican. But we are Christians! Our loyalties our elsewhere. America is a godless nation. In fact, you would have to search long and hard to find a more hypocritical nation than ours in terms of Christianity. My concern with you starting point is that you begin with America, not Christ. Your idea of a good citizen is the old American idea of a good American. They are involved, they vote, etc, etc. Yes, God cares about what nations do. The church should care about what its culture does and stand firm on the proclamation of the gospel as a means to counter the rebellion. Your first point adds no weight to your proposition that Christians MUST be involved in politics.

Yes, the USA is a representative democracy. The people get to have some say in who represents them. Again, yes, God has somethingt to say to these men about obeying His law. How does the church communicate God's message to these civil authorities? By manipulation, threat, and a variety of other political tactics? I think not. She communicates by preaching the gospel, and by showing the civil authorities how to deal with affairs from her own example. She repects the authorities, obeys them, lives peacefully with them and instructs her group to submit. She prays for them. She preaches the gospel to them from love but with passion, conviction, and fear.

We are not all the government. That is a major leap on your part. We have a voice. We have a say. You throw the word responsibility around as if Christians, by nature of being Americans are being irresponsible, and therefore sinning if they are not engaged in political process. This, I contend, is the result of Americanism being placed upon Christianity. I call it the Americanization of Christianity. We are not of this world. Our citizenship is in heaven. You state that Christians are ethically and morally responsible for governmental decision by nature of the type of government we have. Hence, it seems to me that you have gone beyond what Scripture teaches and are preaching an American, democratic, Christian message rather than a simple Christian message. Suppose a Christian living in American finds the "type" of government objectionable from an ethical perspective. Suppose a person concludes that the American system is designed to support the ideas of radical autonomy, greed, and hedonism at its foundation. Are they free to reject any participation in politics outside the biblical instructions of obedience, submission and prayer? The American way of thinking is part of the problem with Christianity in America. The church has adopted a hyper-inidivual philosophy. This is contrary to Scripture. The most important idol is our independence and freedom. This thinking carries over into the church and we have millions of imposters parading around as Christians. They do their own thing. If they don't like what is taught, they hop to the next church. This is America, we are free to do so! They run their churches by proxy. Whatever the biblically inept tithers want, they get. We are NOT the government even if we do have some say in its leadership. To say we have liberty to voice does not mean that Christians must use their liberty to engage in politics. That isn't liberty after all. It is bondage. I find your view would quite easily lend itself to a legalistic approach to voting.

I find it interesting that you explanation of 1 Tim. 2:1-2 warns about extending the passage while it seems painfully clear that you do that very thing with Romans 13. You are right that the passage does not contain any prohibitions to political engagement. However, it seems that Paul had several opportunities to make clear what you seem to have no problem making clear and rather than CLEARLY command the church to get off their duff and do something other than pray, he did not. Everytime a NT author mentions civil authorities they have two primary concerns: 1. Submit and obey; 2. Pray for them. They leave it there every time. That is where I choose to leave it as well. I feel pretty safe doing so.

You say that

Again, you seem to think there is only one sort of action the church should take: political activism. Praying IS TAKING ACTION, Aaron. Obeying and submitting IS TAKING ACTION. Preaching, evangelizing, making disciples, caring for widows and orphans IS TAKING ACTION. Just because it isn't the kind of action you want does not mean it is NOT taking action.

You say that you

Am I left to conclude that persecuted Christians or Christians living in more decadent cultures are less than I? If they cannot be as biblical a father as I can, then I have no choice but to conclude this. That is way out of bounds and completely unsupportable. And clearly, you offer little to prop it up other than a fireman's analogy.

In America, citizens influence policy by voting and advocacy. In a sense, we are the government. If God holds nations and governments accountable, then he would also hold those who influence government (or choose not to). There are sins of omission and sins of commission. This is the crux of the difference between you and the most of the rest of us in this thread. You think we aren't responsible in any way for what the government does. You're wrong. In 2002, only about half of Christians in the US bothered to vote. If they had voted, there would be about 20 million extra votes in congressional races, local elections ect. Let's say 70% of these Christians would have voted for pro-life candidates. That's a net of 14 million extra pro-life votes. Who knows the kind of impact that could have had in government policies such as abortion funding, appointing judges. We could have more children alive right now, if more Christians simply decided to get off their rear ends, take a little time to get to know candidates, and cast a vote for life. Why would you decry abortion from the pulpit, and not urge people to actually do something about it with a moral imperative. God holds us accountable for our actions, and the foreseeable effects of our actions.

I think the burden of proof is on you to show how Americans, specifically Christians, should not be held accountable for our actions in the political sphere. Our citizenship is in heaven. We are not of this world. Great verses quoted out of context. We are not of this world, but we are in the world.

Nowhere have I hinted that Christians should not be held accountable for their political behavior, whatever it might be. We should and we will. My point is that what holds us accountable is Scripture, rightly interpreted. That is the WHOLE point. Moreover, those who attempt to manipulate Christians to behave in a specific manner politically, will also be held accountable. Those who judge Christians as irresponsible and sinful for not voting will be held accountable. Those who say that Christians should NOT vote or be involved politically will be held accountable. I say neither if you have been paying attention. Basically I say it is up the believer to determine the nature and scope of the political behavior, not me. I say this because Scripture neither commands engagement nor passivity. And yes, I will be held accountable for my advice. What is my advice? At the risk of turning blue in the face, my advice is as follows:

1. Obey civil authorities as servants appointed by God.
2. Submit to civil authorities.
3. Keep the peace where possible.
4. Pray for civil leaders to the end that we may lead a tranquil life.

Since this all that Paul and Peter said about the issue, it is all I am going to say about it. If you wish to indict me for not going as far as you like, please include the apostles in that indictment for consistency sake. And I really like that kind of company.

I am not the one telling people that they should be involved in politics nor am I the one saying that people should not be involved in politics. I am saying that the only guidance Scripture gives on the matter is what I have already stated. If you want to assert that Scripture says that believers must be involved or that they must not be involved, it is up to you to provide Scripture, rightly interpreted, to that end. My burden was to establish that "ought" ought not be part of the discussion. And I think Sripture's lack of "ought" supports my position that "ought" ought to be dropped from the discussion.

If you think there is a positive case for "ought" and that a moral imperative exists in the text, I would love to see you make it.

You are absolutely correct. I was beginning to wonder if I was as poor a communicator as the replies seemed to indicate.

The fallacy in your argument is that it begs the question of how Christian Americans can best influence governing authorities. I am pretty sure Paul had this in mind as did Peter when they penned Scripture. According to them, the best way to influence governing authorities was to obey, submit, seek peace, and to pray. Of course this goes hand in hand with preaching the gospel, evangelizing those governing authorities, baptizing converts, and making disciples.

I would argue that Americans are not really "part" of the governing authority structure in America. I would argue that we have a voice in who is part of the governing authority in America. However, I firmly believe that true Christians have no real voice in what takes place. We are far too small to matter. There simply isn't enough of us. But if you throw in the hypocrites and imposters, I suppose you might have a little bit more of a voice, but still too small to effect much. The best approach is lifting our voice and preaching the gospel, obeying the laws of the land, setting moral examples in how we hold one another accountable and in how we love one another and praying for those who are in authority. Look at who we elected. And he seems poised to win again.

I wonder what would happen if churches spent the same amount of time on basic doctrine, evangelism, good works, and discipleship as they do on politics. We have politicians who are supposed to be Christians and who engage in wicked leadership every day. And those churches know it and do nothing. The Catholic church is a perfect example. Why does she not excommunicate politicians who she knows for a fact are for abortion?

Should I vote for Obama? Should I vote for Romney? Can a true Christian ever give their approval for leadership to man they know hates God? By voting, I am approving that man's principles, am I not? The church is worried about gay marriage and yet over 50% of marriages in the church end in divorce, just as high as the world and some say slightly higher. Let me give a real life example from a PCA church that I am intimately familiar with.

A woman and man got married. They courted for about a year, neither of them spring chickens, middle-aged. For some reason, the woman got cold feet, AFTER the marriage. She thought maybe she sinned because her previous divorce may not have been proper. Her pervious husband was an unbeliever who refused to reconcile after a separation. Anyhow, the next thing I know is this woman and man are living separately. She thought she made a mistake marrying him and that God understands that people make mistakes and He is very merciful. The elders did very little. No charges, no nothing. People knda just wondered what was being done about it because no one knew. Then the man left the church. And then, without warning, the woman left also. Come to find out the man filed charges against the woman for illicit divorce and the elders refused to discipline her. They told the man she could repent without having to reconcile. The man filed a greviance with the Presbytery only to be told that his former spouse resigned the church and it was a moot point. No one did anything. If this kind of nonsense goes on in conservative churches like the PCA, can you imagine what happens in less conservative groups? The church needs to get busy doing the things Christ has called her to do. When the church recovers the gospel, starts discipling people again, and begins to exhibit the true marks of a church, maybe we can talk about politics. Until then, I intend to spend my time talking about the things that I think really matter: the gospel, conversion, evangelism, good works, discipleship, discipline, doctrine, holy living. In case you haven't noticed, we are missing most of these elements in most of our churches while everyone is busy playing with Washington Politicians.

Let's suppose that those who assert that (1) Christians "ought" to be politically involved, that (2) Christians "must" be politically involved and that (3) Christians who are not politically involved are irresponsible, bad citizens, and sinning against God and country, are actually right for arguments sake. That is where we land after all. Either it is a sin not to be politically involved or it is not. Either Christians are going to stand before Christ and given an account for voting or they are not. There is no middle ground. After all, if Christ will not have anything to say to non-voters for not voting, then this whole discussion is useless. So, that being said, there are a few more issues that emerge; hundreds is more like it.

1. Can I vote for a president who is for abortion because I like his tax policy? Would that be a sin?
2. Can I vote for a president who is for higher taxes because I like his abortion policy?
3. Can I vote for a president who is eliminating certain benefits from seniors and unwed mothers and their children because I like his abortion and tax policies?
4. I have some extra time on Thursdays and Saturdays and the local democrats or republicans need help signing people up to vote, am I sinning by not doing my part?
5. I have never made a political contribution, is that a sin?
6. Can I refuse to vote for a conservative president because I don't like his illegal immigration policies.
7. Which party is "more" Christian, democrats or republicans?
8. How do I vote for a president who is liberal on abortion but conservative on the other issues?
9. Is it a sin to vote for a politician who is for gay marriage?
10. Is it a sin to vote for a conservative politician if he is an atheist?

If this argument is true:

It is a sin not to be a good citizen
All good citizen are politically involved
Therefore, it is a sin to be politically passive

Then so is this one:

It is a sin not to be a good citizen
Good citizens know the best path for the country's policies & laws
Good citizens engage in the polical behavior that will move the country down that specific path
Therefore, it is a sin for Christians not to be politically engaged in those specific activities that move the country down the path that is best for its well-being and future health

This would mean that it is a sin to vote for any politician who holds a view that may move the country down a path that is bad for the country.

Okay, now we have to figure out what is bad for the country.

So now we have this thorny little issue facing us. If it is true that being a "good citizen" means "x," and the Bible commands us to be good citizens, then it naturally follows that if we neglect "x" we actually sin against God. When we allow "others" to define what a good citizen is, as opposed to exegeting that information from Scripture, we are now in a position to create rules and standards that are firmly extra-biblical. Of course we have not even approach the question regarding who gets to define what a good citizen really is. That must be answered since the avoidance of sin depends on it.

This is why we should search the Scriptures to see if they give us any help understanding what a good citizen is, what God expects in terms of our relationship to governing authorities.

1. A Christian citizen is to be in subjection to civil authorities.
2. A Christian citizen is to recognize civil authories are ministers of God.
3. A Christian citizen recognizes that resisting civil authority is resisting God.
4. A Christian citizen pays their taxes.
5. A Christian citizen prays for the civil authorities.
6. A Christian citizen submits to civil authorities, kings, and governors for the Lord's sake.

Paul says we do this, recognizing the authority as a minister of God as well as for conscience sake. Peter clearly tells us we should be good citizens for the sake of the gospel. The Christian interest in society is the gospel. We seek to do all we can to be the most capable witnesses to that gospel that we can be. When civil authorities look at the Christian community, it should be as a very narrow religious entitity with a religious interest. They should not see us as one more group to pander to.

Christianity became the official state religion under Theodosius (378-395). I strongly recommend that anyone who is truly interested in the question concerning church-government relationship begin with Scripture that actually addresses that issue specifically and then jump over to this period in church history and take a look at what resulted once Christianity began to become politically aware and involved. I will submit to you that since the late fourth and early fifth century, it has been utterly devestating. There may be an occassional bright spot, but only occassional. On the grand timeline, it looks quite dismal.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm actually not standing with anyone or against anyone. I'm just observing that I'm not the only one frustrated with your lack of argument. Maybe it's time to reflect on how you come across on the internet. That's all.

True, but you're the one in the relative minority here on this subject. Your entire argument hinges on this one point, and you can't even set forth an argument about it. Still waiting. I want to see what you can positively put forth positively to prove your statement, because I don't think you've really thought it through.

Above, I talked numbers. I've attended meetings in the US Capitol of pollsters and researchers who look at how many Christians vote and how. We basically track the rest of the population in voter turnout, which is about 40-50% of eligible voters. Just given the sheer numbers, if Christians actually used their voice, there could be huge ground-shifts in who is elected. Assuming all Christians voted in the 2008 Presidential election, and 70% of them voted for the pro-life candidate John McCain, who would have appointed conservative justices to the US Supreme Court. There would be about an extra 16 million votes for a pro-life candidate. John McCain lost by about 10 million votes in the popular vote. The electoral vote is even more telling. Your own state of North Carolina barely went to Obama by a mere 14,177 votes, or .3%. I think you Christians in NC could have worked a little bit found a few more Christians to get out and vote. President Obama went on to appoint two justices to the US Supreme Court who will ensure more years of the evil of abortion. Christian voices and votes really really matter, but we just don't use them. God judges us not only for our actions, but for our inactions, and the foreseeable effects of our actions.

When the church is seen to endorse a specific candidate, she must live with everything that candidate does after taking office. If that unbelieving candidate entangles himself in wickedness, guess who else is culpable by the worlds account? Thats right, the church. We put our own reputation on the line when we so visibly endorse certain candidates. And if the media is good a protraying those candidates in a certain light, they drag the church with them, good, bad, or indifferent.

There is more at stake here than most people realize. I care about the gospel. I love the church. If we are to be hated, and we are, then let us be hated for Jesus sake, not for the sake of some politician the world perceives represents the beliefs and views of the church.

I pray for God's grace and mercy.

I am going to spare myself the agony of carefully reading and responding to everything and jump straight to an easy part.

Very few will turn down radiation and chemotherapy for cancer because there is only a 25% chance of it working. We recognize 25% is better than nothing, so we take that chance. Perhaps we should exercise the same kind of desperate wisdom in other areas as well.

How visible we should be in politics is one thing. I think the church should be completely invisible in politics. No church, and no pastor, should be known for their political opinions. Christians can do what they want, I suppose.

Should Christians avoid politics? (The article title.) No, not necessarily though in some contexts it is probably wise. I routinely avoid politics, though I was sorely tempted to jump in this week when I heard a guy making $3000 a month (according to him) claiming he pays more in taxes than millionaires. That is simply wrong on all counts. But I stayed out of it.

Asking whether Jesus or Paul would have voted isn't really the issue. It is an unanswerable question. What we can give some answers to is which is the best direction, given available options, for our country. It would be nice to have a perfect man to run for office. However, politicians and religious leaders killed the last one though he will certainly get his revenge soon enough. Until then we are instructed to live wisely in this present world, and that includes the way that we vote.

There is a kind of voting called "plunking." It is when you are facing a vote for some office (such as school board) which will take the top two vote getters. Plunking means you only vote for one, thereby helping your candidate by denying a vote for someone else. It is the same principle used when voting for someone that we might not fully support, but we vote for them to cancel out a vote for a worse candidate. And that is a wise way to vote at times.

Ed, are you saying that because you don't know anything about Obama, Romney, Paul or others that you aren't going to vote? And then following it up with a statement that God will not hold you responsible since you didn't vote because you can't know what's going on in their heads? You don't know what they value even though they're giving speeches and outlining political positions every day until Nov. 2? Obama's been in office for four years - that doesn't give us enough knowledge to vote for or against him?

Yikes.

I never said I was not going to vote. I will vote. I always vote. I refuse to judge people on whether or not they engage in politics, voting or otherwise. I don't judge them for voting, not voting, or even who they vote for. I do not think it is safe.

Let me make this a little easier:

Read this book with an open mind and ask yourself some critical questions about Christianity and America:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801013186/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=5785412697&h... [110] ]Christless Christianity

What we see in American evangelicalism is really therapeutic utilitarian deism. The gospel of Christ has been displaced with the gospel of capitalism in the name of Christ.

Horton nails it when he says, "As this new gospel becomes more obviously American than Christian, we all have to take a step back and ask ourselves whether evangelicalism is increasingly a cultural and political movement with a sentimental attachment to the image of Jesus more than a witness to "Jesus Christ and him crucified."

I never said I could not vote for someone because I don't know them. I only said that fact is problematic when you think about it. I said that such an argument would not be easily answered. It could be far more correct than we think. It deserves attention. In my mind it is time for the true church to distance herself from her previous American identity. We need to see ourselves as Christians, disciples of Christ, not American Christians or even Christian Americans.

I oppose any view that says Christians must be involved or must not be involved in the political process on any level. Scripture does not support such view outside of what I have already mentioned. At the same time, I do think those who give more time to politics than they do Christ have misplaced priorities. It is a sin to be distracted by temporal causes when those causes lead to the neglect of more important eternal matters.

I am not juding your biases. Rather, I am noting that they come through in your posts, and it is no surprise to see that you are as heavily involved in politics as you are. I think it is fair to consider that your built in bias is more responsible for your position than biblical exegesis. I, on the other hand, use to think as you do. But a more critical exegesis of the text, coupled with a willingness to admit that perhaps I was too American has caused me to rethink my identity in Christ.

Another example of rank hypocrisy that is no doubt more common than not:
One church member boasts about getting several people to register to vote for the marriage amendment in NC. This same man knows of an illicit divorce that took place in his church against Scripture where disicipline should have taken place. Because he was able to get all these people to register to vote, he thinks he really did Christ a service. At the very same time, he displayed his dispising of Christ by refusing to heed Matt. 18:15-18 all in the name of individual privacy, a very American idea that is antithetical to Christianity on several levels. The sad thing is that this poor brother thinks God is particularly pleased with his actions. The truth is that God has something against him.

You do realize there is a differnce between someone being able to recognize bias and the actual judging of that bias, right? I have judged your comments to be biased. I have not judged the bias of your comments outside of the "ought" that exists in your view around politics. I don't think it is ipso facto wrong to be involved or not to be involved. I do think it is wrong to judge people who do not take your particular view on the matter of poitical involvement. Is that too difficult to discern? I don't think I can say it much clearer than that.

Read "Christless Christianity" and think about the issue some more. That's all. No reason to beat each other over this.

Um....this. The average person would not know this nor would they attend such meetings. Obviously your interests here are not typical.

One of the phenomena I see happen in forums constantly is the proverbial rabbit hole. I am not a rabbit, so I will not nibble on this one. My case as it stands is clear and should you want to demonstrate, with Scripture that I am wrong, I am willing to continue the discussion. Here is the general conviction I bring once more:

It is not a sin for Christrians to be politically engaged -or- unengaged so long as they are obeying civil authorities where possible, viewing civil authorities properly, and praying for these civil authorities. Since these are the explicit instructions of Scripture, this is what I believe to be unambiguously true.

A principle of interpretation is perspecuity. On matters of profound importance, and sin would be one of these, the Scripture is clear. For anyone who wishes to place an "ought" on the backs of American Christians in the area of political involvement, the burden to show that Scripture clearly teaches this is on YOU! Once more, if Christ demands I answer for what I am saying, I shall point to Peter and Paul's words and pray for mercy.

This being said, do I think Christians in modern times are too political? Yes I do. I think we spend too much time on political issues and nowhere near enough time on spiritual issues. Most people who ramble on and on about politics in the church and how the church MUST be involved have never even seen on instance of Church discipline and some of them have been around 40+ years in the church. Is that a problem? It is a monumental problem. We spin our wheels about politics all the while, EC nonsense, comtempative prayer, meditation, experiencing God, purpose-driven garbage is hitting like tidal waves. We abandon the basics of Christian teachings, to include the gospel, and spend out time on politics, thinking we are saving our country. Donald Grey Barnhouse preached a sermon about what would happen if Satan were in charge today. He did this over half a century ago. "Barnhouse speculated that if Satan took over Philadelphia, all of the bars would be closed, pornography banished, and pristine streets would be filled with tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The children would say, "Yes, sir" and No, ma'am," and churches would be full every Sunday...where Christ is not preached."

The church is called to preach the gospel. In case you have forgotten, that is a very big job and we haven't a lot of time left. Let us be about the business of the kingdom of Christ and of God, not of America.

Since men are arguing that Christians MUST be involved in politics and that God expects it, then it is our duty and responsibility, then it must be a sin not to be involved. Since that is the case, I wonder how many cases of rebuke and discipline these same men have engaged in when they witness people refusing to do what they say Christians MUST do. If you see your brother sinning, you must go to him and show him his sin. If he does not listen, you now have to proceed along the course of Matt. 18:!5-18.

Some will say, well, it isn't that serious. Sin is always serious. If it is a sin not to engage politically, then confrontation is necessary. If it is not a sin, then what in the world are we doing wasting all this time on the matter. If it is not a sin, my point is made because that IS MY POINT.

I know, we want out cake and eat it too. I think not. You are either all in on this one or your not.

I will not engage in a discussion with anyone who begins engage in this kind of language. I provided you my justification for concluding that your interest in politics are far more than the average person. I suggested that your own "higher-then-normal" interests may be fueling your position more than a simple exegesis of Scripture.

If I am wrong, then just say so. If my judgment has missed the target in that very minor point, then it misses the mark. If that is the case, then it must be something other than your above average interest in politics causing you to take the postion you do. If you want to claim it is based on a straightforward exegesis of Scripture, then present your exegetical evidence for examination. Either way, the reason for your position is no where near as relevant as its truthfulness. How one gets to error is not as important as the fact that they are in error. I am not saying it is never important or even that it is completely unimportant. There are times it can help to know the "how" because this may help us fix it. Anyways, I ramble.

Lets either get back to the topic or just drop it altogether. I have made some pretty strong statements and you have not interacted with them. I would like to see how you view some of these positions.

Here is a question for you: A brother asked me this morning if a Christian could EVER vote for a condidate who is pro-abortion. What do you think? Have you ever voted for a universalist? What about someone who believes there is nothing wrong with homosexuality? What about someone who thinks it is alright to divorce for reasons other than adultery? How many principles of Scripture does one have to disagree with before you decide you can't vore for them? And why does it take that many? Why does it take 5 versus 3 violations? Or whatever the number might be.

I think people who argue that Christians "ought" to vote, "must" vote, etc. are completely unprepared for a discussion of this type. No one seems to want to dive into the deep end of the pool. I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to have to answer these questions either.

What was my answer? I said we must first ask the questions "how" or "if" Christians should be involved in the first place. But I will be thinking more about his question because it deserves attention.

If higher than average interests in a subject is bias, then your higher than average interest in this subject is also the product of bias. Thus, you can't hope to be objective if your definition of bias is high interest in a subject. It seems your bias is really against anyone who has real interest in politics.

Thanks John. I will certainly give this one a read. I closer to the beginning of these questions than I am to the end. At a minimum we should be askng them.

Perhaps you might want to read http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=Ar... [132] ]Horton in context and pay a little closer attention to what you read.

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Just realized I'm 40 posts behind in this thread. Somehow didn't notice it was racing on without me.

So this observation might not be worth a whole lot at this point but I'll chip it in anyway...

edingess wrote:

To answer your question, Scripture quite clearly commands us to obey the laws of the land. The law states that one must come to a full stop at all stop signs. That is easy enough. It is clearly against the law to litter. Internet Porn is looking upon a woman with lust, and hence, is adultery. Since you want specific interaction with your post, here you go:

You stated that in a nation such as ours (whatever that means), CHRISTIANS CAN AND MUST BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.

On the first couple of sentences... my point exactly. You had argued that it's "egregious" to say Christians should be involved in politics because the Bible doesn't say that anywhere. My response was that it is an application of principles. Stopping at stop signs is also application of principle (obey the law). Conclusion: the Bible does not have to say it.

As for "a nation such as ours (whatever that means)..."
Your not knowing what means explains much of your response. It's a huge part of my argument--and I'm pretty sure I explained it in the essay to some extent. In any case, what it means is this: we live in a nation where all of the citizens are participants in governance by design, that is by law. The law doesn't say "you must vote" but it does say that we are all participants in governance (legislature and executive are selected by us). It also strongly implies that our public discourse is part of the government as well (it's protected by law in the Bill of Rights).
So my argument here is that we are all "involved in politics" whether we want to be or not. We are citizen governors, so to speak. If we ignore it all, we are being politically unfaithful.
(But the degree of involvement varies according to vocation).

Just a couple of randomly selected points.

Also, for what it's worth, a short laundry list of what I am not saying here (though others may be)...
(1) that we should try to transform society from the outside in by legislation (it's really not about transformation, which is always fundamentally an inside->out process);
(2) that the work of the church is to transform "social institutions," lobby for legislation, endorse candidates, hold demonstrations or any of that;
(3) that every Christian has a duty to be a delegate at a primary or pass out lawn signs or make phone calls for a political party or make campaign contributions;
(4) that people should advocate political philosophy instead of the gospel

I'll probably add a few more after I skim the last thirty some posts.

On this point I could not disagree more. Obey the law and stopping at stop signs is not really an application of principles any more than obeying those who are over you in the Lord or wives submitting to their husbands in all things. The command could not be more direct. I will read over the rest and respond later.