Now those of you who know me know I am politically quirky (I like to think of myself as biblical in this regard though). I don't usually vote and haven't been given a good enough reason to vote, thus far. Presidents come and go, administrations pass laws and laws get changed and go away. I think of the verse in Isaiah 40: The grass whithers and the flowers fade, but the Word of the Lord endures forever. Now this is not to say we don't have any responsibility in the political sphere of life. What rubs me the wrong way is (and yes, this is directed, by and large, at my fellow Christians of the Evangelical and Reformed persuasion) that I have to have a certain view of politics. That there are things I have to do as opposed to things "they FEEL I should do". Now that may not seem like a big deal, bit the distinction is an important one.
Firstly, I love America. I fought in the 1st Gulf War and can prove it. For all of you telling me how I should vote (or not vote), you are welcome for the freedom I and a few hundred thousand of my brothers have bought for you. You are welcome to your opinion as long as you understand it is just that-- an opinion. I love my country, but that doesn't mean I love the Republican anymore than I love the Democrats, or even the egalitarian, post-enlightenment Tea-Party-ers...
Secondly, as presbyterians, or anyone who understands that form of government, there are mainly, three valid ways to deal with a voting proposition. 1. I can vote for something, 2. I can vote against something, of 3. I can abstain from casting a vote. Abstaining does not imply lack of care. In fact it can imply a whole host of things. It could mean that I am equally *for* both parties, it could mean that I am equally against both parties, or it could mean that the issues are far more complex that immature America's choice between Bush, the god-man, or Obama the anti-christ. Of course this begs my presuppositional belief that American evangelicals practically worship their chosen political leaders. Surely we must be in the end times, ready to be whisked away from all this political silliness. Sometimes problems are simply much more complex than we like to give them credit for, and personally, I have yet to see one candidate since Gee-dubbahyah's first term who seems to be exercising common sense.
Thirdly, do we really feel that the right man will usher us back into some kind of golden age that we once had here in America? I can't tell you how many people I have heard say "I wish we were like we were in the 50's." I am guessing this is the 1950's... An age where McCarthyism ran rampant, Asians and Germans were discriminated against as much as black America was, greasers were giving way to hippies and life really wasn't all that "Leave it to Beaver" that some might like to think. Ladies and gents, what are you hoping in? I think of Paul's own words in Romans:
"Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
(Rom 3:13-18)
Does this apply only in regards to the right political party (or the left)? I don't think anyone would argue that it doesn't, but the problem is that it is all relative to who you are talking about... Palin may not be so great, but she's not as bad as Obama. Right? But what about those three verses before? You know them right? There is none righteous, there are none who seek God,There are none who do good... Yeah those. People act according to their natures.... Obama is not surprising to me at all. Not in the least. He is acting in perfect accord with his nature... Ducks duck and bees be. He is what he is. And so is Bush, and Palin, and (insert name here). Now you may argue-- "Bush or Palin (or whoever) claims they are a Christian, what about that?" My response is this: That's great! Are they aware they are fallen creatures that still carry their sin nature with them? Are you? It's a real fact we can't overlook. It means that they are not the be-all, end-all of American politics. They cannot save us. They can't even push us closer to God. They *might* be able to push a *form* of godliness on us, but it is only an outward conformity. It won't change people's hearts. Pass a law about stealing and the thief will only be more careful how he steals. Pass a law on lying and the slanderer will simply choose his words more carefully. They don't change the inward man. And hey, let's face it, American politics isn't about the good of the people, it is about business. You know what the Christian's REAL duty is in politics? It's to pray for their leaders. First that their hearts will be captured by Jesus, second that they will live God-honoring lives. I didn't want Mormon Mitt Romney in the Oval Office any more than Obama. Which brings me to my last point:
The separation of Church and State. Everyone says they are for it, but are they really? We want "in God we trust" to stay on the dollar bill, the pledge of allegiance to say "one nation under God", the Ten Commandments to be posted in courtrooms, but want to be free to be Christians. Only so long as that means the government will keep "Christian" things though. You know what I mean, right? Keep the pledge a "Christian" thing, keep all those little "in God", "under God" phrases and clauses in our schools, courts and paper currency... But I ask: Which God? The god of Islam? The god of Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses?
"No silly, the Christian God... The one of the Bible." Oh, you mean the triune God... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Silly me, you mean the one who was left intentionally vague in our constitution, right? The god in the constitution whose son is never referenced? The one's our Masonic, deist forefathers worshiped. Oh, I understand. Actually, no. I don't. Because if we allow our idiosyncratic tendencies to get the best of us, then we have to say we want a measure of religion in politics. But whose religion is the question. Now, I am for all men giving honor to God. That's not what I am saying. I think all men have the obligation to bow before King Jesus. But the state is not the Church and it has no business legislating as such. Let them interpret secular things, protect the weak, be a terror to evil, and let the Church interpret God's Law. That's their sphere of responsibility. The state has no business dealing in issues such as morality and religion. The Church on the other hand, has no business in politics. Otherwise, let's get a church-state.
Now on that note... Which church? Personally I think the OPC would be a good church-state. The URC too (Sorry my PCA brothers, you are waaay too political for me), but that's my presupposition. It is a real concern though. If the religious right wants their nose in politics, then who interprets Scripture for the government in order to tell them how they should rule? It would seem that having one man do it would be best, but then again, I am not Catholic.
This is why I don't like politics. We as Christians put our hope in earthly things. We view the next regime in power as our "saviors", when our hope should be in a better country. We are after all pilgrims just passing through. Let's take advantage of the privilege in man's city while we are here and tell them about a better place. Health care is not a biblical mandate. I can be for government healthcare and still be a Christian... Even better yet--- I can be for *socialized* healthcare and not be for Obama care... Fancy that. And you know what? I don't even have to vote if I don't want to. It is my right as a citizen to exercise my right as *I* see fit. It is a privilege, NOT a duty. There is no law requiring me to, either in Scripture, or in America. If I lived in Cuba, that might be a different story... So... Thank you Mr. Obama.. you have brought me out of my political closet.
Interesting thoughts. I have had to think about these issues too. One thing though:
ReplyDelete"The state has no business dealing in issues such as morality"
I find this generally problematic when it comes to the political sphere. God's law gives us clear directives on how we should live our lives. Some of those laws translate more easily into political laws than others. However, all criminal law is based in morality. We have laws against stealing because there is a general consensus that stealing is wrong. We have laws against murder for the same reason. These are issues of morality and the government legislates accordingly. Where it gets dicey is when there is no general consensus about the morality of a particular issue. People disagree about the morality of abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, and other issues. There used to be laws outlawing particular sexual acts, and I think they are still on the books in a lot of states. So where should the Christian stand? Should we be protesting in the streets to make adultery a criminal offense? Should we outlaw divorce except in cases where it is deemed biblically justifiable? How much pragmatism is allowed when it comes to a Christian's interaction with secular politics? The truth is that the government does and should, within appropriate limits, legislate morality. However, I struggle with the difference between my own personal convictions and what I feel would be the most expedient way for a country of mostly unregenerate people to be governed. On a related pragmatic note, I do feel that while it might not be wrong per se, it seems a great waste of energy for Christians to work through the political system to advance some kind of Christian agenda. We have been given a Christian agenda by God, and we have been given the means by which to accomplish that mission, but political activism is not one of those means.
Liam, have you read "Original Intent" by David Barton? Add it to your MUST pile. ☺
ReplyDeleteSome very strong and valid points in your blog posting. I whole heartily agree that the government "cannot legislate morality". A society or country is truly changed when the inner man changes and realizes, receives and worships the true Savior.
ReplyDeleteAnother insight that I have is that if we were truly a "Christian Nation", why would we fear or even care about terrorists?
I agree that many of our Founder Fathers (i.e. Thomas Jefferson) were Deist, but one cannot deny the Divine intervention of our God in the creation of this great nation. Too many instances written in US history to deny that.
@Nate: The state may rule according to the light of nature, but Scripture is to be interpreted and applied by the Church. being a natural(istic) sphere (but certainly ordained by God), they rule by that light.
ReplyDelete@ Keith: I have read Barton's other stuff from his website. I take strong issue with a lot of what he proposes (the majority of signers or even people in the U.S. were active church attenders?). it seems that he is arguing for a theocracy, which cannot happen until Christ returns.
I have, of late, been quite discouraged by the turn this country has taken, but I think your point is well made: we can't rely on the earthly political process to make things right. I have been struck recently with Isaiah's words, "...and the government shall be upon His shoulders." This is His world to govern. Has He thrown up His hands in dispair? Does He not see what is going on? Isaiah ends that section with what should be for every Christian the end all be all of encouragement as regards this earth: "...the zeal of the Lord will accomplish it." Why should we worry about our puny, insignificant government? The zeal of the Lord will either retrain, restrain, or remove whatsoever wags its tongue in His direction. We need only stand still and see the salvation of our God.
ReplyDelete