Christ Followers and Politics

-

I am publishing this long overdue post on the subject of Christians in politics.  This is a timely, divisive topic; and I hope to treat it briefly but well.  This post will justify a certain type of Christian political involvement based on the prevalence of moral issues in politics, the necessity to preach and teach concerning all moral issues, and the example of Christians in the Old and New Testaments.  Along the way, it will comment on the applicability of the Bible to modern moral issues, briefly address The Johnson Amendment, and give some questions to ask that might provide guidance for a teacher or preacher.

Many political issues are moral issues.  Some seem to say that we cannot find an ethical principle in the Bible that addresses those modern moral issues, pull that principle out of its immediate historical context, and apply it to a modern moral situation.  It would seem to me that if the Scripture leaves a "man of God...thoroughly equipped for every good work," then we would have to use moral principles outside their immediate historical context to be able to address the issues of our day.  Abortion and various artificial reproductive issues are not directly addressed by the Bible.  The same goes for any other issue created by technology that was not available in Biblical times or other situations which were not faced.  It would seem to me that if we do not know what to do with a particular moral issue, we are not "thoroughly equipped" to handle it. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Disagreements on which moral principles apply and how to apply those moral principles to a given situation are in fact no different from disagreements on doctrinal beliefs.  We preach controversial doctrines from our pulpits all the time.  Should we then be forced to avoid certain moral issues because they are controversial or difficult to address?  We must be able to determine those issues from what is "either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Paragraph 6).

If we are, like Timothy, called to "preach the word," doesn't that mean we are to preach all of the Word (2 Tim. 4:2)?  Both law and gospel?  We are called to "make disciples of all nations" in part by "teaching them to obey all things whatsoever [Jesus] has commanded [us]," right (Mt. 28:19-20)?

We cannot dodge moral issues because some have classified them as political.  We would then be avoiding the preaching of some of the law.  What the Reformers called the First Use of the Law is an important use for all societies, no matter what pluralistic principles those societies were founded on.

Some cite The Johnson Amendment as a political law that should not be violated.  The Johnson Amendment should be repealed as soon as possible.  It has no basis in biblical morality that I can find, and any society's laws should be based on the Biblical Moral Law (at least Commandments 5-10).  Many of the prophets from the Old Testament through John the Baptist would have had much longer lives if they had not preached the law to the governing authorities.  Peter and Paul might have lived a bit longer too. 

I personally do not think that the American Revolutionary War would have occurred without the fiery Presbyterian pulpits in the States.  I'll skip John Knox with just this passing comment.

Christian preachers, please take care to properly preach all of the Word of God: Law and Gospel.  I find these questions to be helpful for my own Sunday School Teaching and Small Group Facilitation:

  • Am I avoiding a politically-charged topic merely because I want to avoid conflict or personal cost?
  • Am I speaking out on an issue that is not ethical in nature merely because that issue is important to my political philosophy?
  • Am I failing to teach disciples to obey all things whatsoever Jesus has commanded them to do?
  • Am I more worried about what the world or a particular party within the church will call me than I am about teaching the whole counsel of God?  

Of course, the answer to each question should be “no.”  Also, I must be patient with those who would answer these questions differently than I do on a given topic. 

This short post has presented a justification for Christian political involvement of a particular sort.  I hope you have found it helpful.

Lastly, I’ve been working on a blog post on this subject for some months. I probably have not done better than this article by Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason. 

What are your thoughts on this divisive topic?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on...
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than ...
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr...
Read more