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
Aaron, I agree with you. Right after Obamacare was passed we had a few people here come out in support of a “right” to healthcare and other social justice mumbo junk. IMHO, these people are simply ignorant, and are like sheep heading for the slaughter.
I have also noticed a tinge of, “I am so too smart for my own good that I can dissect what the Bible teaches and tell you why the Bible is not really a politically conservative book…” This is really just old-fashioned modernism re-packaged, either by people who think they know more than they actually understand or else are closet liberals.
And yes, we all know that the terms liberal and conservative have changed in their connotative meanings through the years. But this is not about being cute with words.
I do agree that the pulpit is no place to preach politics — and by that I mean party politics or endorsing candidates from either the Wicked Party or the Stupid Party. However, I do not consider talking about the Biblical case against confiscatory taxation to be politics. And make no mistake about it, it is a Biblical case, not just a nice little political belief I have because I like it and it makes sense in my own pea-brain.
No offense, but it seems like some folks could really benefit from top-notch courses in history and economics. (It so happens those were the two best courses I had in Bible college, believe it or not. H:) )
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] “
“Aaron, I agree with you. Right after Obamacare was passed we had a few people here come out in support of a “right” to healthcare and other social justice mumbo junk. IMHO, these people are simply ignorant, and are like sheep heading for the slaughter.”
I see your argument is based on debasing those who have expressed a contrary opinion to yours. They might not mind you insulting them with terms like “ignorant” but such abuse does not put you in a pleasant light.
“I have also noticed a tinge of, “I am so too smart for my own good that I can dissect what the Bible teaches and tell you why the Bible is not really a politically conservative book…” This is really just old-fashioned modernism re-packaged, either by people who think they know more than they actually understand or else are closet liberals.”
Are you not guilty of the same arrogance?!
And before you attack me, I point out that I am not a socialist and in fact tend to be generally far more right wing than the current wet conservative party in the UK.
Richard Pajak
Irrespective of what you consider wrong about “socialist” viewpoints just imagine the potential of harnessing those socialist caring instincts in your church member toward the building up of fellow church members. His socialist inclinations are only negatively perceived if those same energies are not used for the Lord’s work.
Richard Pajak
[Richard Pajak] “Teaching my socialist to vote Republican is pretty low on my list of discipleship topics.” (Mike Durning)Socialism is a doctrine of demons which is rooted in atheism (at worst) and covetousness (at best). It is not a “caring instinct.” I cannot show my care for you by robbing other people and giving you their money. The Bible calls that stealing. Socialism has no correlation to the Lord’s work whatsoever. It is rooted in the satanic utopian dream of bringing in the Kingdom without the King.
Irrespective of what you consider wrong about “socialist” viewpoints just imagine the potential of harnessing those socialist caring instincts in your church member toward the building up of fellow church members. His socialist inclinations are only negatively perceived if those same energies are not used for the Lord’s work.
Hopefully, it would not be too far into the discipleship process before a new believer would come to see that on his own without the subject ever being brought up in terms of political parties and candidates.
Have him start by reading William Bradford next Thanksgiving. He called socialism an experiment whereby the Pilgrims thought for a time that they had been “wiser than God.”
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Teaching my socialist to vote Republican is pretty low on my list of discipleship topics.I’d be way more interested in teaching my socialist church member (if I had any of those)to think biblically about the nature of man and role of government. How he votes is for him to figure out. But in my experience, when folks get the underlying principles sorted out, that part’s pretty easy… and they also understand that it’s not about a party brand (“Republican” has probably never been synonymous with “conservative”).
Will have to do some more research on this point, but it seems theoretically possible to be socialist in terms of economics but not be progressive in the sense of believing that increased collective ownership and collective power will eventually be the key that solves the problems of poverty, crime and war. But every form of socialism I’m aware of incorporates a very strong aversion to individual responsibility and a preference for paternalistic (or maybe maternalistic) government that somehow wisely cares for every need (even though it is necessarily far removed from the daily experience of most of its citizens).
But many monarchies have had that quality as well, and the case against that kind of role for govt. ends up being more of a wisdom argument than a biblical one (Though a “wisdom argument” is ultimately a biblical one, it’s several steps down the application ladder.) It just isn’t wise to run a nation in such a way that people are encouraged to remain immature, rather than grow up and learn to be responsible for their actions (which includes the freedom to experience the pains as well as the joys that result from their choices).
The inescapable bottom line, though, is that in Scripture, (1) individuals are responsible (and therefore ought to be free) to work to provide for their own families and achieve prosperity and (2) poverty and crime are the results of sin (directly or indirectly) in the world and societies do not have the power to truly solve these problems. These emphases are much at odds with every flavor of socialism I’ve encountered (not to mention being at odds with foundational idea of private property).
But people do hold to logically inconsistent ideas. So some affirm these biblical ideas and cling to socialistic attitudes toward government at the same time, not realizing the two are incompatible.
Edit: “Caring instinct”… I do think many lean toward socialism precisely because it seems more compassionate, and that does reflect well on individuals who lean that way for that reason (as R Pajak was alluding to). But the greater compassion there is illusory given the true nature of the problems involved
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.
[Aaron Blumer] Many monarchies have had that quality as well, and the case against that kind of role for govt. ends up being more of a wisdom argument than a biblical one.From a dispensational perspective, this issue relates directly to the entire flow of the Bible. All of history is progressing toward the installment of Christ as King over a worldwide theocratic Kingdom centered in Jerusalem.
We would love to have that kind of a kingdom right now — it just so happens that there is no individual on earth who is qualified to take the throne.
Confusion on this point led to another doctrine of demons — “the divine right of kings” — which led to bloodshed for probably millions of common folks through the centuries. And, as you state, monarchy and socialism are related, and both butt heads directly with the teachings of Scripture.
Both are sold to the great unwashed as the nanny state which will kiss all their hurts. But each is ultimately about a lust for godless power.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] However, I do not consider talking about the Biblical case against confiscatory taxation to be politics. And make no mistake about it, it is a Biblical case, not just a nice little political belief I have because I like it and it makes sense in my own pea-brain.Please present this case here. I would very much like to be persuaded.
[Richard Pajak] Irrespective of what you consider wrong about “socialist” viewpoints just imagine the potential of harnessing those socialist caring instincts in your church member toward the building up of fellow church members. His socialist inclinations are only negatively perceived if those same energies are not used for the Lord’s work.Richard, you are absolutely correct. I hope this newer believer will become a very active member in such areas as our church benevolent ministries, or some kind of “Big Brother” program (Mentoring). When he sees how individuals can do so much more than the loving state can do, I hope it will sway him.
[Paul J. Scharf] Socialism is a doctrine of demons which is rooted in atheism (at worst) and covetousness (at best). It is not a “caring instinct.” I cannot show my care for you by robbing other people and giving you their money. The Bible calls that stealing.Wow, Paul! Don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think!
I’m going to disagree with you. Communism in the Marxist/Leninist sense and the Socialism that helps transition to it is clearly godless, since it is rooted in a modernist approach that puts the state in the place of God and illegalizes or strongly discourages Christianity (think USSR).
But Socialism in some of the broader senses is a logical but misguided misapplication of Scripture. Though many rejected Christ as Savior, His teaching has changed the world in terms of policy within the state and in diplomacy between nations. Attempts to enforce the Golden Rule rather than to live it through the Spirit’s power, however, will ultimately fail.
Some commentators feel the early church may have been playing around with the attitude underlying socialism (Acts 4:32-5), and several early church era cults attempted to return to it or even to full-blown communism, but were strongly refuted by the church. Many Western European leaders have couched their Socialism in Christianized terms (the golden rule, etc.). Arguably, the various collectivist systems might work if everybody had no sin nature, but sin nature makes it impossible to maintain it as a productive system. Most humans will never work as hard for their fellow man or for their nation as they would for themselves or their family. Particularly when they know that nobody else will be doing so either. Thus, “Christian Socialism”, as some call it, only works in a theoretical sense, but never practically.
And Paul, you’re just wrong about one thing. The Bible does not call “taxes” stealing. It calls them “taxes”. We pay them because the government tells us to do so, and God tells us to obey the government except where they order us to violate God’s law. What the government does with them afterward is none of our business as submissive Christians, and is only our concern as Americans because we have the voting booth.
I point you toward the example of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis. Joseph was complicit in Pharaoh’s plan to own all of Egypt and make everyone a share-cropper. Why was this? It may have been the final act in a power-play between the Egyptian priestly class and the Pharaoh. But Joseph took a side – and most people here would say it was the wrong one, politically. A guy who is lifted up as a positive example of godly living in a pagan world chose the dictatorial state with only one property right – Pharaohs. Now Pharaoh’s state was in some ways the opposite of Socialism, but it illustrates my point well because he used confiscatory taxation to leverage himself into direct ownership of the entire nation’s means of production (land). And Joseph helped.
[Paul J. Scharf] Socialism has no correlation to the Lord’s work whatsoever. It is rooted in the satanic utopian dream of bringing in the Kingdom without the King.On that, I agree with you 100%, as a premil dispensationalist. There are, however, still a few guys who believe the church is supposed to usher in the Kingdom so that Christ can return to reign over us. They would be shocked to know that their dream is actually satanic.
[Mike Durning] And Paul, you’re just wrong about one thing. The Bible does not call “taxes” stealing. It calls them “taxes”. We pay them because the government tells us to do so, and God tells us to obey the government except where they order us to violate God’s law. What the government does with them afterward is none of our business as submissive Christians, and is only our concern as Americans because we have the voting booth.So governmnet is incapable of stealing??
Yes, we are supposed to pay our taxes even if they are confiscatory. I never said anything to the contrary.
No, it is not none of our business what the government does with the money. I disagree. I wonder if you would take the same approach if you had lived in Stalin and Lenin’s Russia where millions of people were butchered to foster the dream of a communist paradise. The government is accountable as a steward to God, and we will also be accountable for how we respond to government.
The fact that we “Americans…have the voting booth” is not an accident of history, or just the way things happen to work here.
This is not a cop out, but I am simply going to have to bow out of this discussion. I would love to write dissertations on low taxes, Joseph, socialism in the 20th century, etc., but those simply are not options for me today. I think I have spoken my peace. ;)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
An excerpt….
[Thomas Sowell] Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing “compassion” for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.Read the rest: [URL=http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/the-real-public-service.h… The Real Public Service[/URL]
As for government’s ability to steal, certainly there is some point at which collecting a tax is robbery. We’ve obviously passed that point when a King or Revenue Service collects 100% of someone’s earnings! But where exactly is that point? It isn’t possible to say, biblically. But that doesn’t mean the point doesn’t exist. (It’s kind of like asking how many whiskers does it take to make a beard? Can’t possibly say, but the beard still exists… and most of us know one when we see one!)
No, really, the important question is not where that line is but the philosophy behind it. Socialism, in its purest forms, does not accept that there really is a line. Everything belongs to everyone and, “everyone” is represented by the government. So, it’s impossible for the govt. to “steal” what already belongs to it.
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.
[Paul J. Scharf] So governmnet is incapable of stealing??Paul, I hate to respond, since you are bowing out, but I feel I must. I point out that the New Testament orders to pay taxes, submit to government, and pray for leaders were all given in the context of the Roman Empire, who did MANY things with their tax dollars of which Christians would not approve. I’m sure that our government’s abuses are pretty mild in comparison with those of Nero, for instance.
Yes, we are supposed to pay our taxes even if they are confiscatory. I never said anything to the contrary.
No, it is not none of our business what the government does with the money. I disagree. I wonder if you would take the same approach if you had lived in Stalin and Lenin’s Russia where millions of people were butchered to foster the dream of a communist paradise. The government is accountable as a steward to God, and we will also be accountable for how we respond to government.
The fact that we “Americans…have the voting booth” is not an accident of history, or just the way things happen to work here.
This is not a cop out, but I am simply going to have to bow out of this discussion. I would love to write dissertations on low taxes, Joseph, socialism in the 20th century, etc., but those simply are not options for me today. I think I have spoken my peace. ;)
[Aaron Blumer] Socialism, in its purest forms, does not accept that there really is a line. Everything belongs to everyone and, “everyone” is represented by the government. So, it’s impossible for the govt. to “steal” what already belongs to it.I don’t really think that a pure form of socialism exists.Though essentially holding right wing views I do have some views which would be considered left wing or socialist and I think that, (apart from Paul Scharf and maybe some others on here) most people have a mixture of ideas as well which would not fit comfortably into a box.
There is rather too much demonising going on about those with “socialist” views. A few centuries back you would have been burning some of us at the stake for expressing ideas that you consider demonic.
I think there is a greater error in demonising others than holding “socialist ” views.
Richard Pajak
As for the lack of pure socialism anywhere, I think that’s true. It’s been attempted, but is so flawed that it cannot hold its own for long.
Perhaps others do, but I have not demonized anyone for holding socialist views. I’d much rather interact with the ideas and explain the problems.
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.
[Aaron Blumer] Well I’ll agree that poeple’s views in the areas of socialism vs. the alternatives tend to be quite mixed. But this does not legitimize all the mixes. Thinking clearly about the underlying principles leads to parts that fit together into a coherent whole.Sorry Aaron, it was Paul who did that in his comments.
As for the lack of pure socialism anywhere, I think that’s true. It’s been attempted, but is so flawed that it cannot hold its own for long.
Perhaps others do, but I have not demonized anyone for holding socialist views. I’d much rather interact with the ideas and explain the problems.
Richard Pajak
[Richard Pajak]Richard,[Aaron Blumer] Perhaps others do, but I have not demonized anyone for holding socialist views. I’d much rather interact with the ideas and explain the problems.Sorry Aaron, it was Paul who did that in his comments.
To speak about “doctrines of demons” — a Scriptural term (1 Tim. 4:1) — is not to demonize you or anyone else personally. It would seem like appropriate language, however, particularly in this case where we are talking about doctrines which are at least kissing cousins to the communistic system which has taken many millions of lives in the last hundred years.
I would admit that I probably take a little different approach than the one Aaron states above. I really have no interest in interacting with socialist views for the purpose of exploring why an individual holds to them or what I can learn from them. I would feel that way about other issues where I have strong feelings — but not socialism, not on SI.
It is sort of like interacting with an evolutionist. I can get that from any of a myriad of sources, and what is it really going to solve anyway?
Frankly, I would expect something more and different from SI readers and posters. Which, ironically, was at the heart of Aaron’s original article…
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Aaron Blumer] I’d be way more interested in teaching my socialist church member (if I had any of those)to think biblically about the nature of man and role of government.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? Or more to the point, that a recently saved conservative is any more likely? Many conservatives possess their political views for reasons that have nothing to do with the Bible. Further, many more conservatives possess their political views based on popular or common cultural or moral beliefs that seem similar to Christianity, but are actually distortions of it. To make use of a trite example, I used to regularly hear the callers on conservative talk radio and listen to the callers, and read the comments on conservative blogs and discussion boards and encounter lots of statements that cannot be called legitimately Christian in any context.
Now allow me to grant you in this instance that Christians should be politically conservative for Biblical reasons, that “right is right.” Even with that being so, it is thoroughly improper to assume that anon-Christian conservative is “right” for the “right” reasons. Such a person may well be conservative for reasons that have nothing to do with the Bible, including one who is conservative for very wrong, sinful reasons. Thus, there are certainly no small number of conservatives who need to be taught to think biblically about a lot of things.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
Discussion