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

[Shaynus]
[Shaynus] So bias equals above average knowledge or interests? You’ve redefined the term.
The old quote the person and utterly ignore the question… I’ll try again. This isn’t about a rabbit hole, it’s about your integrity and ability to argue correctly. To call someone “extremely” biased without being able to back it up is slander (which is also a sin). You’re so concerned about the judgmentalism of other people, but can’t see your own.
I will not engage in a discussion with anyone who begins engage in this kind of language. I provided you my justification for concluding that your interest in politics are far more than the average person. I suggested that your own “higher-then-normal” interests may be fueling your position more than a simple exegesis of Scripture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A man who endorses the murder of innocent babies or the man who dismisses the one God by claiming that we all serve and pray to the same God? Why is it better to vote for a pro-abortion candidate than it is to vote for a universalist?

Are Christians really called to shape the morality of the culture?

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

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

From http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/30/not-your-religion-in-polit…] Not Your Religion in Politics, but Mine by Michael Horton
The rhetoric of a reinvigorated Christian right has turned off a lot of Americans who see evangelicalism more as a voting bloc engaged in identity politics than as a witness to the liberating King who has founded his own empire in his own death and resurrection.
from http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/31/in-gods-name] In God’s Name again by Horton

This question is asked and Horton responds in the article:
How much involvement should a Christian have in political discussion and engagement?

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[JohnBrian] From http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/30/not-your-religion-in-polit…] Not Your Religion in Politics, but Mine by Michael Horton
The rhetoric of a reinvigorated Christian right has turned off a lot of Americans who see evangelicalism more as a voting bloc engaged in identity politics than as a witness to the liberating King who has founded his own empire in his own death and resurrection.
from http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/31/in-gods-name] In God’s Name again by Horton

This question is asked and Horton responds in the article:
How much involvement should a Christian have in political discussion and engagement?
Thanks John. I will certainly give this one a read. I closer to the beginning of these questions than I am to the end. At a minimum we should be askng them.

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

From Horton:


Distinguish between the church as institution from the church as its members. Abraham Kuyper expressed this distinction in terms of church-as-organization and church-as-organism. In the former sense, the church is Christ’s embassy of saving grace through the ministry of Word and sacrament. In the latter sense, it is believers-saved by grace-who are scattered into their worldly callings as salt and light. The institutional church is entrusted with the Great Commission, with no calling or authority to reform the world. Being shaped decisively by this Word, believers are called to serve their myriad neighbors in the world. Sometimes this provides opportunities for newsworthy impact, but that is not our concern. Our calling is to be faithful at our posts. Where the state has accrued a dangerous monopoly on cultural activity, politics is seen as the most significant sphere of activity. However, Christians can testify by their quiet faithfulness at their posts how essential are the daily and often mundane gifts. Ambition to make a noticeable difference in the world may be a God-given purpose and calling, but it can also be an expression of our pride and self-righteousness. It is easier to abandon the callings where God has placed us to love and serve our neighbors in order to “be somebody” and to be remembered for our “legacy.”

[Shaynus] From Horton:


Distinguish between the church as institution from the church as its members. Abraham Kuyper expressed this distinction in terms of church-as-organization and church-as-organism. In the former sense, the church is Christ’s embassy of saving grace through the ministry of Word and sacrament. In the latter sense, it is believers-saved by grace-who are scattered into their worldly callings as salt and light. The institutional church is entrusted with the Great Commission, with no calling or authority to reform the world. Being shaped decisively by this Word, believers are called to serve their myriad neighbors in the world. Sometimes this provides opportunities for newsworthy impact, but that is not our concern. Our calling is to be faithful at our posts. Where the state has accrued a dangerous monopoly on cultural activity, politics is seen as the most significant sphere of activity. However, Christians can testify by their quiet faithfulness at their posts how essential are the daily and often mundane gifts. Ambition to make a noticeable difference in the world may be a God-given purpose and calling, but it can also be an expression of our pride and self-righteousness. It is easier to abandon the callings where God has placed us to love and serve our neighbors in order to “be somebody” and to be remembered for our “legacy.”
Perhaps you might want to read http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=A…] Horton in context and pay a little closer attention to what you read.

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

So having merely quoted a section of Horton’s article, your omniscience led you to understand that I should pay closer attention? Who do you think you are, Ed?

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

So this observation might not be worth a whole lot at this point but I’ll chip it in anyway…
[edingess] To answer your question, Scripture quite clearly commands us to obey the laws of the land. The law states that one must come to a full stop at all stop signs. That is easy enough. It is clearly against the law to litter. Internet Porn is looking upon a woman with lust, and hence, is adultery. Since you want specific interaction with your post, here you go:

You stated that in a nation such as ours (whatever that means), CHRISTIANS CAN AND MUST BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.
On the first couple of sentences… my point exactly. You had argued that it’s “egregious” to say Christians should be involved in politics because the Bible doesn’t say that anywhere. My response was that it is an application of principles. Stopping at stop signs is also application of principle (obey the law). Conclusion: the Bible does not have to say it.

As for “a nation such as ours (whatever that means)…”

Your not knowing what means explains much of your response. It’s a huge part of my argument—and I’m pretty sure I explained it in the essay to some extent. In any case, what it means is this: we live in a nation where all of the citizens are participants in governance by design, that is by law. The law doesn’t say “you must vote” but it does say that we are all participants in governance (legislature and executive are selected by us). It also strongly implies that our public discourse is part of the government as well (it’s protected by law in the Bill of Rights).

So my argument here is that we are all “involved in politics” whether we want to be or not. We are citizen governors, so to speak. If we ignore it all, we are being politically unfaithful.

(But the degree of involvement varies according to vocation).

Just a couple of randomly selected points.

Also, for what it’s worth, a short laundry list of what I am not saying here (though others may be)…

(1) that we should try to transform society from the outside in by legislation (it’s really not about transformation, which is always fundamentally an inside->out process);

(2) that the work of the church is to transform “social institutions,” lobby for legislation, endorse candidates, hold demonstrations or any of that;

(3) that every Christian has a duty to be a delegate at a primary or pass out lawn signs or make phone calls for a political party or make campaign contributions;

(4) that people should advocate political philosophy instead of the gospel

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

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.

Scanned several posts. Things got pretty off track… and a bit ugly.

The whole debate about how to vote in a particular race is another question entirely.

I guess I’ll join the fray with a few general points on that question…

(1) A vote for a candidate is not an endorsement of everything he says or does. If that were the case, no Christian could ever vote for anyone (because all candidates are sinners).

(2) Neither belief in sound Christian political philosophy nor skill in governing correlate to whether a person is a Christian or not. (That is, whether the candidate is a Christian—whether he is justified—does not mean he knows anything beyond the gospel. The degree to which he is sanctified is far more relevant. But even the degree sanctification doesn’t correlate all that strongly to having a Christian understanding of the ideas that make up a political philosophy. It correlates even less to the unique gifts of competent governing. It correlates strongly to good character, but though governing well requires good character, good character is not enough to enable a person to govern well.)

(3) Every vote has a positive consequence and a negative consequence. The positive consequence is an increase in a particular candidate’s tally. The negative consequence is the lack of increase in any other candidate’s tally. If one of these others is already ahead, a third consequence is that we have strengthened his lead.

(4) Consequences of votes matter. They are not all that matters (that would be pragmatism), but they matter.

(5) Since consequences matter, “voting your conscience” requires factoring them in (it is not more conscionable to ignore actual results but rather less conscionable).

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.

[Horton] We propose a two-fold strategy. First, we will have to clear up this confusion about the gospel and cultural values. Being pro-choice I believe is morally wrong, but it is not heretical. God will never be anyone’s mascot and will never allow himself to be worshipped in either the carved image of the donkey or the elephant. We cannot impose our will on the American electorate anymore and we will have to stop it. We’ll have to stop shaking our fists at our neighbors. We must call the church to a cease-fire with the world over gays in the military and engage in spiritual warfare for their hearts and minds for the first time perhaps in forty years. Second, we’ll not only have to recover gospel proclamation, but we’ll have to learn how to interact positively again with our culture.
Above = from Ed’s link.

I love to read Horton and like him a lot but he’s talking nonsense here… in places. “We cannot impose our will on the American electorate…” Actually he means “we may not” as in “we should not.” But he wrote the literal truth: “we cannot.” In America, you don’t get anything done unless you persuade (not coerce) significant majorities to agree with your ideas. The only way to “impose” a will is to find some way to subvert the system/behave illegally. I doubt it’s possible even by illegal means because the division of government into a system of checks and balances makes that sort of stunt very complicated.

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] (1) A vote for a candidate is not an endorsement of everything he says or does. If that were the case, no Christian could ever vote for anyone (because all candidates are sinners).
I’m thinking about writing in Jesus for this year’s election. Although moving from “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” to President of the United States seems like kind of a backwards step… :p

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Thankfully, the King of Kings will not need a vote.

It is an interesting thing to note that peace on earth does not come until it is imposed by a war… so society apparently can be bettered from the outside in even though individuals are only truly changed from the inside out.

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.

As an FYI I noticed one post that was out of bound in my opinion and do not feel it merits a response. I will look at some of the additional thoughts Aaron has contributed and provide a response over the weekend. In the interest of transparency, you should know I am wrestling with this issue only recently, say six months or so. Please endulge me as I wrestle out loud on SI. :-)

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

[Aaron Blumer] Just realized I’m 40 posts behind in this thread. Somehow didn’t notice it was racing on without me. :D

So this observation might not be worth a whole lot at this point but I’ll chip it in anyway…
[edingess] To answer your question, Scripture quite clearly commands us to obey the laws of the land. The law states that one must come to a full stop at all stop signs. That is easy enough. It is clearly against the law to litter. Internet Porn is looking upon a woman with lust, and hence, is adultery. Since you want specific interaction with your post, here you go:

You stated that in a nation such as ours (whatever that means), CHRISTIANS CAN AND MUST BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.
On the first couple of sentences… my point exactly. You had argued that it’s “egregious” to say Christians should be involved in politics because the Bible doesn’t say that anywhere. My response was that it is an application of principles. Stopping at stop signs is also application of principle (obey the law). Conclusion: the Bible does not have to say it.

As for “a nation such as ours (whatever that means)…”

Your not knowing what means explains much of your response. It’s a huge part of my argument—and I’m pretty sure I explained it in the essay to some extent. In any case, what it means is this: we live in a nation where all of the citizens are participants in governance by design, that is by law. The law doesn’t say “you must vote” but it does say that we are all participants in governance (legislature and executive are selected by us). It also strongly implies that our public discourse is part of the government as well (it’s protected by law in the Bill of Rights).

So my argument here is that we are all “involved in politics” whether we want to be or not. We are citizen governors, so to speak. If we ignore it all, we are being politically unfaithful.

(But the degree of involvement varies according to vocation).

Just a couple of randomly selected points.

Also, for what it’s worth, a short laundry list of what I am not saying here (though others may be)…

(1) that we should try to transform society from the outside in by legislation (it’s really not about transformation, which is always fundamentally an inside->out process);

(2) that the work of the church is to transform “social institutions,” lobby for legislation, endorse candidates, hold demonstrations or any of that;

(3) that every Christian has a duty to be a delegate at a primary or pass out lawn signs or make phone calls for a political party or make campaign contributions;

(4) that people should advocate political philosophy instead of the gospel

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

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