There are few issues like politics that inspire question marks in the minds of Christians. Questions like, Do I vote for a candidate who is “pro-choice” when the other candidate is not only “pro-choice” but “pro-tax”, “pro-big government,” “pro-liberal social programs”, etc? Living in a society in which we are given the freedom to participate in the political process in turn demands that we learn to think through finding balance in how we cast our vote as a follower of Christ. Let’s face it, to abstain completely from voting because a candidate holds a view that you or me would consider to be “unchristian” will leave us with no candidate at all. A person with this view will either completely disconnect from the political process or move to Montana and learn how to make mail bombs. To put your head in the sand and claim to be a God-centered Christian is a ridiculous and indefensible position to hold. So, I pass along an article (sent to me by Gary Dirrim) by Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You that offers some helpful reminders to Christians in establishing responsible boundaries in the area of politics.
Here’s an appetizer:
… Nothing in the past half century has done more damage to the evangelical cause than the notion that the best way for Christians to influence society is by wielding our collective political clout. If you think the most important answer to the ills of our society is a legislative remedy; if you imagine that political activism is the most effective way for the church to influence culture; or if you suppose the church is going to win the world for Christ by lobbying in the halls of Congress and by rallying Christians to vote for this or that type of legislation—then both your trust and your priorities are misplaced.
I have been thinking about this with respect to the same sex marriage debate. The debate is characterized as a clash between Christians who object on moral grounds, and are thus intolerant, and practicing homosexuals who just want to love each other. How do you approach this issue? On the one hand I think the reordering of society is probably not a good idea. But, on the other, I really don’t care what sins non Christians are committing as long as they are not Christians; and, it seems an appeal to christian morality has turned both, the people involved in the destructive lifestyle and those who are just bystanders, off to hearing the gospel. In the end I think I would rather let them have marriage if it would allow people to see Christians as humble.
O’Ryan, I see your point. However, I believe there are two things in your thinking that bear particular discussion. First, the assumption that this debate is a religion-only debate I think is misplaced. While it is proper to assume that a majority of those who cry out against same-sex marriage do so because they follow the teachings of the Bible; I do not believe it is found exclusively within this group. Second: Would a non-Christians really think we are humble if we allowed/ignored the implications of our belief on this issue? I would assume they would actually disrespect us more since this is a tenant of our understanding of God’s very design of the social order. They may feign a type of respect at first, but as time would go by I believe they would disrespect and dismiss any notion of humility because cowardice, in any form, is hard to admire.
On your first point I agree, the debate is not found exclusively a religious vs non-religious groups. However, every non-official, off the cuff if you will, discussion of the problem it is always seems to be articulated as such. And, we are losing the PR war. Further since those who are religiously aligned are some of the most abusive, see Fred Phelps, it is not hard to see why.
I don’t know if you meant to phrase it like you did but I don’t think humility is cowardice.
Would Christians be respected more or less? It all depends on what the tact is. If you don’t live like the bible is true, you will never convince someone it is. So within christian communities, no hint of sexual immorality should be found. Non christian communities should not be expected to live like Christians. I can think of 2 reasons, first they would see the call of Christians to an arbitrary (as they see it) morality all that Christianity has to offer, and second, they don’t agree with it. It is all speculation at this point, but with the direction we are heading the victory, if there is one, will be Pyrrhic.
Oh yeah, what do you have against Montana? It is a great state to make letter bombs or to organize a militia.
You are correct, I don’t think humility is cowardice. However, in the context of the discussion, if a person believes something to be true and refuses to speak up in the name of acting in humility; I would associate that action more with cowardice than with true humility.
Wouldn’t the loving thing to do be to act in accord with what is true regardless of how a person may or may not perceive the issue?
For example, let’s say I keep my son, Ben (14 yr. old), from driving our car since he does not have a license. Now imagine one of Ben’s lost friends coming to our house and he really, really, really wants to drive our car around the neighborhood. My greater goal in this situation is to see this friend come to know Jesus, yet I cannot let him drive because it is wrong to do so. However, I change my position (in trying to be/look humble and, hopefully, win him to Christ) to focus on the greater issue of his spiritual condition. All the while I am assuring myself that he is only doing what he is supposed to do – break the law (a.k.a sin). Have I done the right thing?
Will he ultimately consider me a humble person or a coward for not standing up for what I believe to be true? Let’s say he does come to know Christ. What basis would I have then to disciple him, as a follower of Christ, to now obey the laws of the land as so far as they don’t call him to disobey God? Let’s say he gets into an accident and kills a child in the neighborhood. The parents of the family discover that he was underage and I let him drive knowing full well that he did not have a license. Would I look humble or cowardly and hypocritical to the family that just lost one of its children? Do you see the myriad of problems this type of action would inspire?
I think the bottom line is that we are to be salt and light regardless of the issue and where we are. While it is true there are some who, in the name of God, do things that make me cringe, I cannot see the better path being to turn over all of the moral judgments to people who have no interest in applying a God-centered moral standard. Even if this would make us look better in the short run; I believe they would despise us in the long run.
BTW. I love Montana! We had a group of guys venture through Montana last summer on our historic Yellowstone hike, just ask “Pommel horse Pat!”
I also like any and all loud explosions just so long as they are legal and don’t require a stamp. 😉
True, but not what I am talking about. There is a time and a place to pick your battles, what I would like to see is more emphasis on the gospel in evangelical circles and less emphasis on moralizing the culture we live in.
Bravery is not winning at all costs and going toe to toe in every fight. Since the light of the gospel is greyed by the actions of some who are identified with me, the message I have is not one people will listen to because of a presupposition that I don’t care for them. Or that I am out of touch with life. To this end, I don’t see same sex marriage as a hill to die on.
“Bravery is not winning at all costs and going toe to toe in every fight. Since the light of the gospel is greyed by the actions of some who are identified with me, the message I have is not one people will listen to because of a presupposition that I don’t care for them. Or that I am out of touch with life. To this end, I don’t see same sex marriage as a hill to die on.”
The arguments are interesting – I’m trying to find the foundation for them. I agree with the concept of picking one’s battles, but on what basis would you pick those battles then? I cannot control “the actions of some who are identified with me.” Even God apparently doesn’t zap those who in the name of Christianity commit atrocities or cause embarrassment to the church. Jesus warns of a judgment day when many will say, “But Lord, in your Name…” and we all know His reply to them.
Avoiding the perception that one is “out of touch with life” doesn’t seem like an argument with a strong foundation either. As Christians, we are vibrantly in touch with life because of the Life-Giver whom we follow. If that statement referred to being “in touch” with a sinful society, we will have to change our standards according to the changing whims and the depravity of the culture around us – abandoning (or keeping humbly quiet) about the principles of God’s Word. A slippery slope…
If same-sex marriage is not “a hill to die on,” what would qualify as a hill to die on? Anything else that is clearly forbidden in Scripture? Anything else that will bring harm to persons (Christian and non-Christian), that would accelerate depravity in the society, that would create an environment in which we would not want to raise our children? It is easy to abscond from this fight, to claim tolerance. It is so politically incorrect to stand up for this specific issue, and it is really uncomfortable to die on any hill. And we certainly hate to jump into a fight which has been turned into a hate-mongering war by well-meaning yet unwise Don Quixotes. But it still gives us no excuse for remaining “humbly” quiet. My accountability before God is greater than my accountability to a godless society that I’m careful not to tick off, so that I don’t perchance lose my opportunity to witness to them about the gospel.
We are not looking at this issue with hindsight because the battle still lies before us. But there are other occasions which I think we can learn from if we dare to look. Just a few years ago in South Africa it was definitely not politically correct to be radically anti-racist. Even from the pulpits the message was one of a God who has instituted segregation and condones it. Some “radicals” opposed the racist view with violence – not something one would want to associate with, but if one didn’t join that battle, didn’t choose that as a hill to die on, how would you give account to God one day when the Scriptures are so clear on an issue? With hindsight, everyone, even in South Africa, is horrified that they could have accepted the institution of apartheid. It seems so clear now that it has hurt society.
I’m not trying to make a point-to-point analogy between racism and same sex marriage; I am trying to illustrate that people who claim to be Christians compromised on a societal evil, and with hindsight those same people now have reversed their position.
I have no illusions about winning the same-sex marriage battle. I am well aware that evil will increase. But I will not rationalize slinking away from hills to die on.
Great discussion! We had a similar one last year. We should be involved in the political process, pray for our leaders, and fight against injustice and immorality while finding a balance of love to demonstrate to the world.
However in the end legislation will not ultimately change people’s hearts. We are the salt and light and we should not be hiding behind our church pews or padded seats. 😉
Phil Johnson is right on the money!!
As we are more involved and active in our “local community” (that is Cumming and North Atlanta by the way) we can make connections with people, get to know them, and God is able to then use us as a tool to lead them to Christ. This is more than Sunday morning and church programs. It is getting out of our comfort zones and partnering with other groups that are making an impact on our local community.
First example is the huge local Hispanic community in Cumming that we have had little involvement with to date.
A second example is that I have been a financial supporter of the Atlanta Union Mission for years. One of their ministries is the Potter’s House in Cumming that helps to fund their substance abuse recovery programs. My brother in law was accepted into their long term recovery program a couple weeks ago and they did not know or care that I had ever given to them. We looked everywhere for help and he ended up there. My brother in law (Mike) now has hope and his physical life has been saved. He will be living there between 7-12 months. We also have hope that he will come to a genuine faith in Christ during this time as this is a huge part of their program. He is currently memorizing scripture and is a continuous part of their recovery process.
These are the kinds of things we can get behind and support and know that hearts and minds are being changed without the need for more laws on the books, and regardless of who we vote for in November.
Praise God for His goodness and provision in the life of my brother in law!
Now, let’s get out there among the masses and not leave it to politicians to legislate morality for us.
I am not advocating that Christians accept any kind of sin as anything less that rebellion against our creator; and, as such all sin should be apposed. But, long term, only the gospel message that we are all under judgement for who we are by nature and by choice, and only through the act of our loving God to accept the punishment for us, and for us to believe God is who he says he is both, terrible and wonderful, is the only hope for any of us. To the extent that we lose our first love, we lose everything.
We have as a group by our own fault and not lost this message in the public discourse. What is seen by those around us as Christianity is we are good folks subject to an arbitrary morality which we want to impose on everyone else. We need to be seen as poor beggars who can show others where to get bread.
I thought Phil Johnson’s take on this was excellent. I didn’t agree with everything he said but I think his main point was not so much IF Christians should be involved in the political process but HOW they should be involved. One of the reasons so many are now put off by the idea of Christian involvement in politics is because for quite a while now Christian involvement in politics has meant being a cheerleader for the Republican party. If a Democrat president had, for example, suspended habeas corpus, authorized warrantless wiretaps on private citizens or acted in some of the other outright lawless ways of the current administration the outrage from the Christian community would have been swift and severe, perhaps even as dramatic as it was for the sexual sins committed by the previous occupant of the Oval Office. For a politician, having an “R” after one’s name seems to cover a multitude of sins.
I read the account this morning of John the Baptist’s beheading from Matthew Chapter 14. John lost his head because he dared point out the immorality of the occupant of the highest office in his land. This is the kind of involvement Christians should have in the political process. I think Phil Johnson touches on this when he talks about preaching in the public square and calling people to repentance versus lobbying in the halls of congress. R.C. Sproul says it this way:
“It is the responsibility of the church to be the conscience of the nation and to call the state to repentance when the state becomes demonized and fails to serve in the cause of righteousness.”
When we begin to play that role regardless of the party currently in power and with regard to ALL issues of unrighteousness, not just homosexuality and abortion, we will perhaps be more affective but at the very least we’ll be more Biblical it seems to me.
OK. It seems like we are moving closer to a common understanding on this subject… I think. So, let me offer an example and then let’s discuss the merits or demerits of the discourse. Dr. James Dobson is going to speak out today (06.24.08) on his national radio program regarding how Barak Obama distorts the Bible when he uses it. Is this right or wrong for Dr. Dobson to do?
See here for the story.
Another example of Christians struggling to find a balanced response in the world of political dialogue.
I don’t think he (Dobson) should have. Not that he does not have the right to do so, but I think he was wrong in his analysis, late in his commentary, and whiny in his presentation. Further, judging from the comments, made it that much harder to reach those who are not Christians.
At the risk of mixing metaphors and getting a lot of people upset with me, I’d say Dobson “jumped the shark” when he said he would never vote for John McCain. Having been a long-lime Dobson fan, I finally asked the questions lots of other people were already asking… “Who cares?” and “Why should I care?”
Dobson seems to have become the Christian Right’s answer to the Christian Left’s Jim Wallis.
I thought John Mark Reynolds’ piece today was a nice summary of one person’s approach to sizing up this election. An excerpt:
Just when you thought it couldn’t get more interesting…
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign has hired Shaun Casey from Wesley Theological Seminary as senior adviser for religious affairs. Casey will focus on evangelical outreach. That effort will continue tomorrow when Obama speaks on faith at a community ministry in Ohio.
HT: Justin Taylor
I don’t know Hugh. I think Hugh Hewitt has a better comparison. From what I have seen, the only thing Obama is good at is giving teleprompted speeches and waffling,. I don’t think such a man would make a very good head of stat at all. John McCain on the other hand has inspired much more than pity. Six months ago, people were telling him to drop out of the primary. He had no money and was about dead last in the polls. He worked hard inspired a whole bunch of voters and got the nomination. John McCain has been out of the limelight for a couple months while the Democratic party nomination fiasco worked out and that is why there is not much enthusiasm for him now. Personally, I don’t see any reason not to support him based on any of his views. Seems to me the choice is easy.
Did you read the whole piece? I excerpted a tasty snippet, but Reynolds goes on to agree with you that the choice is relatively straightforward.
No, I just responded to what was posted. I was hoping to stir some debate as it is the day before a 3 day weekend and builds take 15 minutes.
I know that I am getting into this discussion a little late, yet I have had time to think of an adequate(hopefully) response. The basic premise behind the totality of this discussion thus far is as followers of Christ, we can turn people away from the gospel. Grant it there are many people who say and do things that are contrary to the scriptures, and preface them in the name of God.
Now at the same time preaching truth and the very words of Christ seem to turn off some. Therefore if we as created human beings have the great power to turn people on and off to the gospel message and thus paradise in Heaven, what roll does the Holy Spirit play.
Christ has called us as in Matthew 28 “To go into the whole world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you . . .” He has called us to teach all nations everything that He has commanded us, even at the expense of turning someone off to gospel of Christ.
Now to the individuals that do wrong in the name of Christ, they still do not have the power over salvation. This power resides only in the Triune Godhead. We are merely vessels being used in the hands of our Creator. The greatest thing that any one follower of Christ can do is seek God, through prayer and the scriptures, find the truth and then obey. For Dr. Dobson that may have been to have a radio show, for someone else it may be to vote for a president they would rather not have. It all comes down to the obedience to the Word of God.
Now there, I rambled on and on, and most likely made no sense. Yet I hope that the one thing people understand from this writing is that Christ is Supreme over all, especially Salvation and that our only job is to respond to his call through obedience.
P.S.
I would like all who read to understand that I am attempting to not make presuppositions to any one persons arguments, rather I saw a pattern in the writings above. My goal is only to further the name of God through the understanding of God’s Word, and through our obedience thereof.