Should Christians Avoid Politics?

head in the sandFrom the archives. First appeared on 2/27/09. (Original discussion thread.)

If recent polls may be believed, most Americans now see their country as seriously troubled. For conservatives the times are especially disturbing. We are deeply opposed to the political philosophy now in power but are also alarmed at the resulting economic policies. We believe the solutions now in progress will be more damaging than the problems they are supposed to solve.

Among principled conservatives feelings about the situation range from intense frustration to utter futility. To many, the segment of Bible-believing Christendom that eschews politics is looking more and more like home. They are eying the creed that participation in politics has little or nothing to do with our responsibilities as followers of Jesus Christ and finding it increasingly attractive.

Over the last few months, I have also felt the appeal of tuning out. But certain realities have doggedly called me back to the belief that in a nation such as ours Christians can and must be involved in politics. And we have this responsibility even if—perhaps especially if—it appears we will accomplish nothing.

God cares what nations do

A principle feeding my conviction that believers should be involved in politics is the fact that God has expectations of nations. He is not “judge of all the earth” in a solely individualistic sense, nor is He concerned only with the salvation (and transformation) of individuals. Consider, for example, God’s rebuke of the nations in Amos 1:3-15. Here He finds fault not so much with how individual citizens have behaved but with how they have acted collectively as a nation. And they are judged accordingly.

Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they have threshed Gilead with implements of iron.” (NKJV, Amos 1:3)

What’s more, at least once in Amos the judgment of a nation has nothing to do with its treatment of Israel or Judah.

Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime. But I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the palaces of Kerioth; Moab shall die with tumult, with shouting and trumpet sound. And I will cut off the judge from its midst, and slay all its princes with him,” says the Lord. (Amos 2:1-3)

Here God holds the national entity called Moab to an ethical standard which it had violated by its handling of the remains of the king of Edom (a nation condemned for sins of its own in Amos 1:11). Apparently, God has ethical expectations for what nations do when acting as nations. In other words He cares about national policy.

Given the fact that policy in America is shaped by the involvement of the electorate, we cannot separate policy from politics. If God cares about what nations do as nations, He cares about what the United Sates does as a nation, and He cares about the politics that shape what we do.

We are the government

Amos and other prophets show that God expects nations to treat other nations properly. Similarly, Romans 13 reveals that God expects nations to govern their own citizens properly, and He assigns specific responsibilities to government. Verse 4 indicates that the governing authorities “bear the sword” and serve as diakonoi (servants) and ekdikoi (justice givers or punishers) for God. The words good and evil appear repeatedly in the passage, emphasizing that government’s duties are ethical and moral.

It’s impossible to take these verses seriously and conclude that God does not care what happens in Congress or in my state assembly. But the implications of the passage for a society such as ours extend much further.

By design, the United States is a nation of laws shaped by the influences of representative democracy. The founders did not aim to give every man an equal voice in state or national policy, but they did aim to give every man an equal voice in whom he would send to act on his behalf (not necessarily to vote as he would vote but to build policy that protects the best interests of his family and his nation). Regular elections—coupled with the right of public protest—were built in to ensure that policy-making is never wholly separated from the citizenry.

To say it another way, in America the difference between government and the governed is intentionally blurred by law so that citizens have governing responsibilities (policy-shaping responsibilities), whether they want them or not. To be a citizen is to be an indirect policy maker. In that sense, we are all “the government.”

The fact that we are all legally entangled in the policy-making process means that the question is not “Will I be involved in politics and try to shape policy?” but rather “Will I shape policy well or will I, by passivity and silence, shape it poorly?” What we commonly refer to as “not involved in politics” is just a way of saying “not putting any effort into policy-making responsibilities.”

Because our government is structured the way it is, the moral and ethical responsibilities of government in Romans 13 are our moral and ethical responsibilities as citizens. The only difference is that, for most of us, our involvement is that of indirect influence rather than direct execution.

The place of prayer

I have often heard that the role of the Christian in earthly politics is simply to pray. Isn’t this what we are commanded to do?

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. (1 Tim. 2:1-2)

What the Scriptures require here is clear. Believers must pray for and about those in power and do so with the goal that they will essentially leave us alone.

The passage might seem to imply that we should also leave them alone, but that view extends the passage beyond what it actually says. Rather, prayer is never a substitute for action in Scripture, just as action is never a substitute for prayer. For example, Jesus commanded us to pray that the “Lord of the harvest” would “send out laborers” (Luke 10:2), yet He still commanded us to “go into all the world and preach” (Mark 16:15). The apostle Paul said it was “his prayer to God for Israel that they may be saved” (Rom. 10:1), yet he included outreach to Jews throughout his ministry. Likewise the call to pray for “all who are in authority” does not preclude acting deliberately to influence them.

Taking action when we have neglected prayer is foolish and irreverent, but praying when we ought to be acting is foolish and irresponsible. Imagine that fire fighters have been summoned to the site of a burning apartment complex. They arrive, take positions, unpack the hoses, and connect them to hydrants. But rather than douse the flames, they pull out their cell phones and repeatedly dial 911 as the building burns.

The analogy is imperfect. God possesses the power to intervene directly in the affairs of men and “put out fires” in response to prayer alone. But should we assume that direct intervention by Himself alone is His intention when He has not said so and has given us the means to attack the flames ourselves?

Morality shapes everything

A final reality that keeps me from adopting the “politics is none of our business” stance is the fact that the moral condition of a community impacts everything else in it. I cannot fulfill my responsibilities as husband and father as effectively in Sodom as I can in better surroundings. And if Lot chose poorly in going to “the cities of the plain” (Gen. 13:12), am I not choosing poorly if I allow “the cities” to come to me? What’s certain is that we and our families cannot be unaffected if moral decadence descends all around us (2 Pet. 2:7-8).

Proverbs underscores this principle.

A wicked man accepts a bribe behind the back to pervert the ways of justice. (Prov. 17:23)

The proverb describes a perilous situation. A morally corrupt man influences or makes policy but does not do so according to principle or law. He perverts “the ways of justice” by seeing that someone is punished arbitrarily rather than for wrong-doing. As this blight spreads in a community, people see less and less relationship between their behavior and what government does to them. Lawlessness increases, and eventually no one anywhere is safe.

If I live in such a place, I can only successfully protect my family and my property (God-given responsibilities) as God intervenes to prevent what is otherwise the inevitable course of nature. But will He intervene in that situation if I could have stemmed the tide of lawlessness years earlier but chose not to?

Just as declining morality ruins the relationship between law-abiding behavior and personal well being, it also ruins the relationship between labor and personal prosperity.

Much food is in the fallow ground of the poor, and for lack of justice there is waste. (Prov 13:23)

This proverb can be taken to mean that lack of justice has allowed the poor to be robbed, but the view that answers best to the evidence is that injustice has somehow led the poor to let their land lie idle. This meaning is more clear in the ESV.

The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice. (ESV, Prov 13:23)

The proverb describes a situation in which the land of the poor could have been producing abundance, but bad policy (or poor execution of good policy) made waste more appealing. The poor here probably feel that growing the crops will do them little good because the fruit of their labor will be taken away, either by robbers or by oppressive taxation. Either way, immoral policy has guaranteed that citizens and their families see little relationship between hard work and food on the table. As that relationship deteriorates in a community, production falls off. Soon there isn’t enough of anything.

We’re foolish if we believe that bad policy and moral confusion can spread indefinitely without eventually hindering our own ability to live and serve God. Yes, God can intervene to spare His children from the worst that lawlessness and want bring on a society, but should we assume that He will do so if we have the means to influence policy and morality for good but choose instead to “avoid politics”?

Some may object here that we “cannot legislate morality.” But in reality government exists for no other reason than to punish “evil” (what is morally wrong) and reward “good” (what is morally right). To the degree Christians can influence policy toward effectiveness in that purpose, we are wise to do so. To do less is to welcome a future of violence, chaos, and poverty from which God will have no obligation to deliver us.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

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 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:

I wrestle with this issue quite a bit and go back and forth. I agree with the points Aaron made. And yet I see where Ed is coming from as well. When a Christian has no problem talking politics with unsaved people but is hesitant to share the Gospel, something is wrong. When a Christian will put a sign in his yard supporting a politician but hasn’t shared Christ with his neighbor, something is wrong. Somehow many Christians do seem to be more interested in changing our nation through the political process than through the power of the Gospel. Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, though.

Phil Johnson wrote a series of articles on this on the Pyromaniacs blog a while back that come out pretty strongly against churches getting involved in politics or even emphasizing that their members make it a priority.

Part 1: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/foolishness-of-preaching.html The Foolishness of Preaching

Part 2: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/if-righteousness-could-be-gained.h… If Righteousness Could Be Gained by the Law…

Part 3: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/lets-stay-on-message.html Let’s Stay on Message

Also: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/addendum-on-church-and-politics.ht… An Addendum on the Church and Politics

And: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/familiar-can-of-worms.html A Familiar Can of Worms: Why Not Both/And?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

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
I’m frustrated by your insistance that thinking about politics is a waste of time, and will detract from evangelism when it doesn’t have to. I’ve proved it in my own experience.
Where did I say that thinking about politics is a waste of time? I don’t order my life by the experience of others, nor should the church, and believe it or not, nor should you. I have NOT said that Christians should not engage in politics. I have said it is unbiblical for us to say they should. When you tell me that I SHOULD engage in politics, I am going to demand that you show me where Scripture commands me to do so. If you can provide simple exegtical proof that I am commanded, as a Christian, to engage in politics then I will.

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.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Back to my “symbiotic relationship”. Simply
  • I need the government
  • The government needs me
On the government needs me (besides the taxes and good citizenship already mentioned):
  • The government needs workers for national defense (“rulers are a terror to evil [works] ” (Romans 13). Probably WWII is the closest example I know of of good vs evil (the Nazis / or the Empire of Japan (consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre] the rape of Nanking ). You had some pure evil there! Or al-Qaeda and Islamofascism!
  • Consider the contributions of many fine Christian goverment workers in places of authority (too many to name but I name 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft] John Ashcroft and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley] Chuck Grassley ). I appreciate that these men served the government as Christians!

Let me explain why you’re so confusing.
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.
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.

1. It is egregious to command people to do things Scripture does not command them to do.

2. Scripture does not command people to engage in politics.

Therefore, it is egregious to say that Christians “ought” to be engaged in politics.

Ought means to obligate. When one says that Christians ought to engage in the political process they are saying that Christians have an obligation to be involved. Obligation from whom? If such an obligation exists, then how exactly should we engage in that process? If we are all Christians, following the very same commands, does this mean we all vote indentically? Do I sin if I support ObamaCare? Perhaps I sin if I don’t support it? Neutrality is a fleeting myth. Once we obligate Christians to vote, as leaders we become responsible for teaching them all the ethics on voting. In reality, we have in fact used up a great deal of time doing this very thing in the church all the while forgetting basic doctrine to the point that most Christians can’t even articulate the gospel. In addition, much of the culture hates Christianity, not because of Christ, or even the gospel, but because the church has created the perception that she is really a cleverly disguised political agent seeking to control their lives through political power. Is that really the perception we want? Now, I know the world hates the true gospel. I only want to make sure that the world hate us for the right reason. The same reason Jesus said it would.

Do I think the church is too involved in politics in this culture? I do. It seems to me that the church thinks she is the one who is to change governments and the world through political involvement. She thinks she will bring about God’s kingdom by her political influence. Or so it seems. She spends lots of time jumping from one political issue to another. Pastors don’t have time for discipleship programs and community evangelism, but they sure can get involved in the spotlight that politics afford. I wonder why that is. Is it that we want to take some credit for making a difference? Is it possible that we want our name attached to political victory because in some vain way it feeds our ego? I don’t know. I cannot answer that question, but those who are steeped in political engagements need to answer it. If my comments have provoked additional thoughts on this subject then I consider that a win. Critical thinking is always a good thing. I would never divide over such an issue. I also hope no one has thought me to be insulting or demeaining in any way. If so, I apologize immensely. That is not my goal. My goal is push the nose back to the text for deeper reflection. I am not so dogmatic about this view that I am beyond changing my mind. As you can tell, changing it would take some doing. :-)

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

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-… False Converts

Very alarming, very disturbing, and very true.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

You mean my former pastor Mark Dever that urged support for the Federal Marriage Amendment to his congregation? ;-) Sorry, I think you must have meant to post that somewhere else.

[edingess] 1. It is egregious to command people to do things Scripture does not command them to do.

2. Scripture does not command people to engage in politics.

Therefore, it is egregious to say that Christians “ought” to be engaged in politics.

Ought means to obligate. When one says that Christians ought to engage in the political process they are saying that Christians have an obligation to be involved. Obligation from whom? If such an obligation exists, then how exactly should we engage in that process? If we are all Christians, following the very same commands, does this mean we all vote indentically? Do I sin if I support ObamaCare? Perhaps I sin if I don’t support it? Neutrality is a fleeting myth. Once we obligate Christians to vote, as leaders we become responsible for teaching them all the ethics on voting. In reality, we have in fact used up a great deal of time doing this very thing in the church all the while forgetting basic doctrine to the point that most Christians can’t even articulate the gospel. In addition, much of the culture hates Christianity, not because of Christ, or even the gospel, but because the church has created the perception that she is really a cleverly disguised political agent seeking to control their lives through political power. Is that really the perception we want? Now, I know the world hates the true gospel. I only want to make sure that the world hate us for the right reason. The same reason Jesus said it would.
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-1…
[edingess]

Do I think the church is too involved in politics in this culture? I do. It seems to me that the church thinks she is the one who is to change governments and the world through political involvement. She thinks she will bring about God’s kingdom by her political influence. Or so it seems. She spends lots of time jumping from one political issue to another. Pastors don’t have time for discipleship programs and community evangelism, but they sure can get involved in the spotlight that politics afford. I wonder why that is. Is it that we want to take some credit for making a difference? Is it possible that we want our name attached to political victory because in some vain way it feeds our ego? I don’t know. I cannot answer that question, but those who are steeped in political engagements need to answer it. If my comments have provoked additional thoughts on this subject then I consider that a win. Critical thinking is always a good thing. I would never divide over such an issue. I also hope no one has thought me to be insulting or demeaining in any way. If so, I apologize immensely. That is not my goal. My goal is push the nose back to the text for deeper reflection. I am not so dogmatic about this view that I am beyond changing my mind. As you can tell, changing it would take some doing. :-)
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.

First, I will say it one more time. I am not prescribing a prohibition against political involvement. If Dever says Christians “ought” to be politically involved, I simply disagree. Second, perhaps location, location, location has something to do with the background of Dever’s church. Finally, I posted the article because I thought it was so good others might find it stimulating and I was too lazy to find a more appropriate place for it. :-)

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

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.

[edingess] 1. It is egregious to command people to do things Scripture does not command them to do.

2. Scripture does not command people to engage in politics.

Therefore, it is egregious to say that Christians “ought” to be engaged in politics.
This argument doesn’t hold up.

First, where do the Scriptures command us to stop at stop signs, eschew internet porn, refrain from throwing trash on the ground, or smile at strangers? Yet nobody would think it strange if I attempted to make a case that believers “should” do these things. Application is all about taking what Scripture says and arriving at “shoulds” that it does not say.



Second, “should” is not a command. “Command” is a term of authority. What I aim to do in my writing is persuade people of ideas—people over whom I have no authority to command.

Third, you’ve mostly ignored my biblical arguments, though in this particular article, I’m not really aiming to make a thorough biblical case. I’ve focused more on that elsewhere.

But the case rests on a combination of biblical principles, observations of the sort of nation we live in and reasoning from the two. In short, it’s application.
[edingess] I would love to have a morally high culture. I just think two things are required to get there: 1. Biblical preaching and 2. Divine intervention. I deny that political activism is going to accomplish much of anything in and of itself.
Some points of agreement here! I also believe it will require biblical preaching and divine intervention and do not believe political faithfulness (“activism” is not what I’m talking about) by itself is enough.

But a couple of factors that are important to seeing the situation clearly:

(1) Our culture is already “morally high” compared to much of the world and compared to how low it could yet sink. So we’re not just talking about aiming to improve the society we live in; we’re talking about keeping it from getting worse or at least slowing the decline.

(2) Continued decline is certainly inevitable without lots of genuine conversions, new births. However, even lots of the latter will have minimal results if converted, well-discipled people leave the running of things to those who are unregenerate and/or poorly taught. But it’s also true that a society of virtuous people needs far less governing in the first place.

(3) Even if continued decline is certain, it doesn’t follow that we should refrain from slowing that process if we can.

(4) And this is the biggest: part of teaching a society to behave decently (as in, teaching it to believe in moral principles) is requiring it—to some extent—to behave decently. I don’t have time at the moment to develop this one alot, but it isn’t really all that complex. Sin breeds sin. Depraved behavior increases moral confusion and, as a result, produces more and more depraved behavior. On the other hand, common grace is such that using legitimate authority to prevent bad behavior helps people avoid the negative results—the snowball effect of the alternative.

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.

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
praying when we ought to be taking action is foolish and irresponsible.
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
cannot fulfill your responsibilities as a Father as effecively in Sodom as you can in better surroundings
.

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.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

You say that
we are foolish if we think that bad policy and moral confusion can spread indefinitely without eventually hindering our own ability to live and serve God.
Yes, persecution is on the rise. The more the church distinguishes herself from this godless and hypocrical culture, the more presecution will increase. Did not Paul instruct us that all those who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus WILL suffer persecution. We want to use political agency to avoid what God has promised us: trials and presecutions. I am not sure what you mean by hinder or by the words “live” and “serve.” If you mean it will make serving God more difficult in the sense that we will suffer for that service, then I agree and I think leaders should be preparing the church for this state. I think it is only a matter of time because we see it in full bloom. And I don’t think any amount of political involvement will stop it.

1 Tim 3 reads:

1 But realize this, that ain the last days difficult times will come.

2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,

3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,

4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,

7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.

9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.

10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,

11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!

12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Notice that Paul never provides Timothy with advice around political strategy or advice. Given all the problems, one would think he would have. He did not. In fact, a cursory review of church history would actually lend itself to the conclusion that political involvement contributed to mass apostasy in the church. I am not making a necessary connection here, just making an observation and I do think such a conclusion is quite defensible.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4