Right is Right
Should Bible-believing Christians be politically conservative?
One of the surprises of my online interactions over the last few years has been the discovery that some who take the Bible very seriously are, nonetheless, leery of political conservatism, especially in its American form.
But I believe this antipathy toward conservatism is due to a combination of factors, none of which have to do with what the Bible teaches. Rather, it stems from confusion about what conservatism is, lack of awareness of relevant biblical principles and more than a little influence from popular liberal stereotyping.
To chip away a little at the definitional and biblical misunderstandings, I offer five reasons why Bible believing Christians ought to be politically conservative.
1. The Bible is an ancient book revealing timeless truths
Many have pointed out that conservatism is about conserving. More specifically, conservatism is about preserving old solutions to problems it sees as old problems. In the conservative way of thinking, human nature has not changed over the millennia nor have the problems that arise from human beings living together with limited resources.
Conservatism holds that we are not only dealing with the same old problems we’ve always had to deal with (though in new forms), but the best solutions are also ones discovered long ago. Since we are not wiser than our predecessors, it follows that the wisdom of the ages will not be improved upon much by us.
Christians who take the Bible seriously ought to have a very similar outlook. In Christianity nearly all of the great events happened long ago, and even those that are yet to come are built on the foundation of what has already happened. Believers are redeemed through a price paid thousands of years ago and are being transformed into the likeness of One who is, Himself, ancient beyond calculation (since He has no beginning).
In Christianity we see the present as part of God’s working of “all things according to the counsel of His will”—a counsel (plan) formed before the foundation of the world. And the glorious future that awaits us is, likewise, the completion of that same old, old, plan.
Plus, Christians who strive to live according to Scripture are in the habit of constantly looking back to an ancient text for timeless principles that we believe are just as relevant today as they were when God inspired them.
2. The Bible upholds the value of personal property
In various ways and to varying degrees, the alternatives to conservatism take a dimmer view of personal (i.e., individual and family) property. But the Bible does not encourage us to think that communities sharing property is a better idea than families and individuals owning property. The fact that the Mosaic law everywhere assumes personal property is significant.
Some might argue that the Mosaic law assumes slavery as well, but the covenant stipulations include some noteworthy efforts to mitigate slavery as well as some noteworthy efforts to strengthen the idea of personal property.
One example is the law of the Year of Jubilee. Every fifty years, dramatic events were supposed to occur under the covenant. Debts were canceled, Israelite indentured servants were freed, and land was returned to the families who originally owned it (Lev. 25:39-41).
Ezekiel 46:16-18 also refers to the Year of Jubilee and further emphasizes the importance of private property. Some see the passage as referring to the Millennium, but regardless of the time of fulfillment of Ezekiel 46, the Lord emphasizes the propriety of land being truly owned by families.
Thus says the Lord GOD: “If the prince gives a gift of some of his inheritance to any of his sons, it shall belong to his sons; it is their possession by inheritance. 17 But if he gives a gift of some of his inheritance to one of his servants, it shall be his until the year of liberty, after which it shall return to the prince. But his inheritance shall belong to his sons; it shall become theirs. 18 Moreover the prince shall not take any of the people’s inheritance by evicting them from their property; he shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property, so that none of My people may be scattered from his property.” (NKJV)
3. The Bible commends a strong relationship between work and prosperity
Though Scripture assumes the wisdom of private property more often than it states it, this is not the case when it comes to the relationship between our work and prosperity. Proverbs 14:23 tells us that “in all labor there is profit.” Proverbs 6:6-11 challenges the “sluggard” to “consider the ant” and imitate her habit of working diligently to lay up for the future. And Proverbs 24:30-34 points out that being a slacker is the path to poverty. All of these passages (and many more) are predicated on the principle that people ought to see their material prosperity as directly related to their own work.
But the New Testament is explicit on this point. The Roman Empire wasn’t exactly a welfare state, but even in that environment, a significant number of people were interested in getting as much as possible from those around them without doing honest labor to earn it.
As Paul was bidding farewell to the Elders of Ephesus (Acts 20:17 and following), he saw the need to warn them about “wolves” who would come in the future to harm the church. As part of his warning, Paul simultaneously emphasized both the need for Christian charity and the importance of working to produce what was needed.
I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. 35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (20:33-35)
Speaking to the Thessalonians the apostle was even more direct.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. (2 Thess. 3:10–12)
Conservatism has long emphasized that a healthy society is one in which people do their work with a strong sense that they will benefit in proportion to their diligence. Accordingly, conservatism rejects policies that result in people seeing less and less relationship between how hard they work and how well off they are. Liberal and progressive policies tend to erode the correlation between hard work and prosperity.
Though the Bible calls us to care for the poor and needy, it discourages us from approaching the problem of poverty in ways that discourage personal labor and resulting personal profit.
4. The Bible refutes popular notions about greed
I doubt there has ever been a time in history when more people were more confused about the nature of greed than today in western civilization. First, many confuse self-interest with greed and accept the stereotype that conservatism is pro-greed. But in reality, conservatism assumes greed (as one of the constants of human nature) and respects its close cousin, self-interest. Conservatism understands that people are interested in their own well being and that they are most productive when their labor will advance that well being.
Similarly, the Bible assumes self-interest. Jesus said “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31) and Paul wrote that “no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it” (Eph. 5:29). The Bible not only assumes this kind of self-interest, but roots it in the principle of stewardship. “To whom much is given, from him much shall be required” (Luke 12:48) and we will all give an account for what we did with our lives (2 Cor. 5:10).
Liberals (and evangelicals influenced by them) also reveal greed-confusion when question the desire of individuals to keep more of the money they earn rather than giving more of it to the government. “We shouldn’t be so greedy,” they opine. “We should think more of the common good.” But if citizens’ desire to keep more of their earnings is greed, what is it when government agencies and officials want more of those same earnings? Why should we believe that it’s greed when we want our money but virtue when the government wants our money? We both want the same thing!
Confusion abounds regarding the relationship between greed and persons’ or businesses’ efforts to increase their wealth. Non-conservatives frequently identify some arbitrary level of wealth as “enough” and label effort to obtain more as “greed.” But how is the “enough” cut-off point determined?
More importantly, how does this way of thinking harmonize with what the Bible teaches about labor and profit? If it’s true that diligence and productivity increased wealth, should extremely productive people stop being productive at some point so that they avoid getting richer? Is it biblical to tell a man he must stop working because he has enough?
Of course, many do pursue wealth with a greed motive. But what about the low-income guy who goes to the corner store and buys a lottery ticket in hopes of gaining a few million dollars he didn’t work for? Greed is not a problem that only plagues the rich. Conservatives understand this. And the Bible reveals it as well.
5. The Bible is clear that human society will not save itself
For now, we’ll forgo an in-depth look at Herbert Spencer (and many others) and the modern concept of progressivism. Suffice it to say that conservatives understand that human beings acting collectively will never usher in a Utopia. Human civilization has progressed about as much as it ever will by human means (and in many places it is now in decline).
By rejecting the idea that collectivism (especially socialism) has the potential to establish a new order that eliminates crime, poverty, war and a host of other ills, political conservatism once again finds a friend in the Bible. Some non-premillennialists may lean toward the view that Christians will slowly bring about a better world until, eventually, Christ returns to receive the Kingdom. But a better reading of Scripture is one that focuses on the narrative of human failure. In the end, Christ Himself cleans up the successive, messy failures of human beings to achieve a perfect society—and He shows us all what a perfect society looks like.
Conservatives are sinners like everyone else. And they often fail to consistently discern the implications of their own principles. Worse, many leaders are classed as “conservative” simply because they hold to a few of the same conclusions (regardless of how profoundly non-conservative their thought processes may be). But conservatism itself, rightly understood, is far more compatible with biblical thinking than any of the alternatives.
Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia and worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.
- 91 views
[JobK] I am curious. What causes you to believe that a recently saved socialist is any less likely to have a Biblical position on the nature of man and the role of government than a recently saved conservative?Well a biblical position is still biblical whether the person holding it knows that or not. For example, to believe that stealing is wrong is to think biblically to that extent, even if the person has convoluted reasons for believing stealing is wrong. In that case, the convoluted reasons are not biblical, but the conclusion is.
But in the case of conservatism, there is ultimately a set of principles behind much of it and those who came up with them were strongly influenced by Christian beliefs and consciously so. Burke again would be an example.
So my answer is really two-fold:
a) You can be partly biblical just by virtue of properly distinguishing between something wise and something foolish, even though the rest of the thought process is off track
b) Those who arrive at “conservative” conclusions without conservative thinking are, to the extent they are thinking poorly, not conservatives at all.
Either way, it’s a safe bet that a just-converted or even unconverted conservative is thinking more along biblical lines than a liberal about the matters in question.
[JobK] Or more to the point, that a recently saved conservative is any more likely?I don’t think I said that. Certainly didn’t mean to. Somebody can “think biblically” about alot of things and be as lost as Judas. (You can also be a Christian and think less biblically than an unbeliever about many things)
I don’t think I even said anything about “recently saved.” Rather, my point was that if I knew I had a socialist in my congregation, I really would see it as part of the discipleship process to teach him or her to think biblically about labor, profit, freedom, personal responsibility, the inherent inability of human society to save itself, etc. Getting these straight would whittle away at the socialistic turn of mind little by little until there was nothing left (assuming he didn’t have some kind of epiphany the first time he read 2 Thessalonians 3 : ) )
Sadly, I agree that many—maybe most—who call themselves conservatives nowadays do no really know what it is and are not participants in conservatism as a way of thinking. But in a great many cases, they are drawn to the same conclusions via common sense, wisdom from their upbringing, etc. That’s commendable as far as it goes. A less desirable sort of “conservative” is the one who latches onto a couple of notions but repudiates everything else conservative thinking requires. Then you have the brand loyalty ones who never gave a single relevant question a moment’s reflection. But the worst cases by far are the ones who claim conservatism only because they believe it is ascendant at the moment in their neck of the woods, so better ride it to power.
Yes, wearers of the label are a very mixed bag. Doesn’t change what it is though, and that reality is what I have in mind in the article.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Still, I continue to advocate for the benefits of being apolitical as it applies to me. I will give an example. (Let me preface this by saying that I oppose ObamaCare.) This “taxpayer funded abortions under ObamaCare” issue that mobilized so many Christians … now allow me to take the position that the primary problem with taxpayer funded abortions is that the taxes of Christians will be used to pay for abortions; that Christians will be forced to subsidize abortions against their will. If the main reason for opposing taxpayer funded abortions through ObamaCare is something other than forcing Christians to subsidize abortion, let me know. Otherwise, presuming that my assumption is correct, then why is it OK for Christians to WILLINGLY do the same - subsidize abortions - through buying private insurance, as many pro-life Christians do?
I considered this when I read about Christians who were motivated to sign up for faith-based insurance health plans, [URL=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36473470/ns/health-health_care/ the health sharing plans[/URL] , after the passage of ObamaCare by of the taxpayer-funded abortion issue. How many of these pro-life Christians were perfectly fine with buying insurance from private companies that paid for abortions, and it was only government involvement, taxpayer support, that made it wrong, a violation of their Christian principles? Look at [URL=http://www.nciom.org/hmoconguide/C-AB.html this list[/URL]. Aetna, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, United Healthcare … how many millions of pro-life Christians have policies with them? So, for a pro-life Christian to subsidize abortion by choice through insurance premiums is fine, but it is wrong when the government taxes that same Christian’s taxes to do it?
Remember: Jesus Christ (and His apostles) in the New Testament told us to render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s … to pay taxes. This was despite knowing that the taxes would go to support a pagan Roman Empire, and be used to subsidize idolatry, persecution of believers, and many other forms of wickedness. Why was it acceptable to subsidize government immorality? Because it was not an act of the believer. The wickedness was the act of the government. The believer was only paying taxes, which he was compelled by law to do. The evil that the government turned around and used the tax money on was on the government’s head. So, it would not be sin charged to the believer. Just as it was with the Roman Empire taking taxes from the early church to build pagan temples - to speak nothing of to pay the armies that were hunting and slaughtering Christians - it would be with Christians being forced to fund abortions with ObamaCare.
But Christians were never forced to subsidize the murder of the unborn by buying policies with Aetna or United Healthcare. Am I saying that these Christians sinned in choosing and paying an HMO? That is not my position. But my goodness … don’t you think that the conservative Christian leaders who mobilized over taxpayer funded abortions with ObamaCare and have made this a huge issue for decades shouldn’t have made getting Christians to do something about what they DO control and can EASILY change - their own insurers - BEFORE trying to influence a secular government? What accounts for this inconsistency other than the fact that conservatives generally view private industry more favorably than the government, and are far more likely to take an adversarial stance towards the latter than the former? Now I am not saying that politically conservative Christians DON’T apply #5, the implications of fallen humanity on corporations (and their consumers) just as they do governments. Instead, I am saying that I don’t seem to HEAR them talking about big business nearly as much as I do big government, and when they do it is generally narrow issues (i.e. pornography or Hollywood) rather than the same comprehensive aversion to big business that they have to big government.
Consider Revelation 18:10-24 and its associating what must be described as big business with Babylon. Now don’t mistake me as a liberation theologist, because such a person would ignore that Revelation associates government with Babylon as well. But as a reaction to the Marxist tendencies of the left, so many conservatives oppose the government side of Babylon while holding the business side to a lower standard. Consider “and in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth” as it applies to the abortion issue. There is no difference between a Christian helping to subsidize an abortion through Cigna or through ObamaCare (other than being able to prevent the former but not the latter). Yet not a few Christians who do the former without a second thought are appalled at being forced to do the latter. And if the reason for that is not politics, then what is it? Granted, not many Christians may KNOW that they are subsidizing abortions with their HMO co-pays and payroll deductions. Yet what do you suppose the reason for that is? Simple: the same conservative preachers and religious leaders that have made preventing taxpayer money from supporting abortion for decades - ObamaCare, government support of Planned Parenthood, etc. - haven’t made it an issue. With them, imposing the pro-life position on the unsaved is a bigger issue than discipling the converted to be consistent with their convictions and actions.
That is just one example. There are more. But I do not use this as an example of why Christians should be apolitical. Instead, it is an example of why I personally am. It works for me where it may not work for someone else. Relativism? A thousand times no. Instead, it is a (possibly relatively minor) different approach to the application of scripture.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
About funding abortion… you raise an interesting question on the insurance angle. My own objections to ObamaCare were not based on tax funded abortion because we’ve had that in one form or another for many years. That was among the negatives.
But all I really needed to know was what political philosophy motivates President Obama, the “right” to healthcare he imagines exists, and the case he and the other Ocare advocates made for the bill (a vague and contradictory case), plus the fact that virtually nobody knew what was in the bill as they were bullying it through the legislature. Enough to be against it, right there.
Then you have the cost of the thing and the fantasy that it will “save money.” There is just nothing about pouring billions of tax dollars into an industry that is going to “save money.”
Several of these objections are, again, matters of applying the general biblical principle of prudence to a complex situation. Not stuff that can be preached.
But I’m more interested in the principles that underly such an effort than the bill itself, the view of human “rights” and where they come from, the view of the role of government. Though it’s hard to pin ObamaCare on a particular unbiblical tenet of socialism, it’s hard to imagine such an approach coming from anywhere but a progressive mindset and that overall philosophy rests on several pillars that are profoundly incompatible with biblical ideas.
Sadly, many “conservatives” seem to be as confused about what to do about health care as most of the liberals. I’m tempted to go on a long digression about that topic specifically, but it’s not really germane. What is germane is what sort of ideas about human nature, rights, human society and private property underly the whole mess.
I should probably clarify that I’m not advocating for political activism in this article. “Being conservative” has to do with how you think about things. The activism question is another one. But I am arguing for being engaged and caring about these matters. People can’t “think conservatively” about political questions if they don’t think about them at all.
Edit: forgot to respond to the Revelation point. I think Babylon there has to be read in context. What’s happening in Revelation is a polarization and exposure of the human race. That is, the disasters that unfold there force everyone to take sides either with God or against Him. One of the most amazing things there is everyone cursing God in Rev 16:9-11, 21 and hiding from Him in Rev 6:16. This seems to be done with the full knowledge of Whom they are fighting. Basically, human civilization in Rev. organizes itself to officially oppose God and wipe out all who are with Him.
So the Babylon that falls in ch.18 is not just government and big business, it is all of civilization completely given over to the dominance of Satan. So in the end (unless you’re a preterist) “civilization” and the cosmos (“the world”) are synonymous and the kingdoms of this world (and their commerce) are completely committed to opposing God.
Then He defeats them spectacularly.
There isn’t really anything in Rev. that argues against big gov. or big business per se.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Just stumbled onto a good essay on the essence of conservatism… by Russel Kirk http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/essence-1957/
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion