We are smack dab in the middle of a political season. Frankly, I am glad that the Iowa caucuses are an historical event now and I can answer my phone again without listening to a prerecorded political message. But, on the other hand, I got wrapped up in the race this time. I attended the caucus for only the second time and I even spoke on behalf of a candidate. My candidate, Rick Santorum, won our caucus by a huge margin – I claim credit for his statewide win! (In case you haven’t heard, the recount showed that Santorum won Iowa by about 35 votes instead of losing it by 8.)
I got into the spirit of things and was going to go to the county meeting and perhaps be a delegate to the state meeting before I realized I had a ministry conflict and bowed out. Now, I am glad that I did.
I find myself torn between two opinions on the whole matter of political involvement. I care about politics. I am strongly opposed to the policies and practices of the current occupant of the Oval Office and sincerely hope he will be replaced. On the other hand, I am convinced that the work of the church is not political and is of far more import than anything that can take place in Washington or Des Moines. So, I am confronted with a question (well, technically, two questions).
How politically involved should I be, and how involved should our church be?
David Rogers, my blogging compatriot, has argued forcefully and convincingly that the church should be focused on the work of the Kingdom of God and not on earthly kingdoms. Americans are prone to confusing the interests of America and the interests of the church. Remember Reagan’s statement? “America is the last best hope of the world.” I love me some Ronald Reagan, but that is nonsense. Jesus is the hope of the world. The church can and will survive even if America falls. America may need God but God does not need America.
On the other hand, there are some, such as Bart Barber, who argue the importance of Christian involvement in political things. And I think his argument makes sense as well. There seems to be a movement, even among Christians, to marginalize the voice of the so-called “religious right.”
According to a good friend of mine who has extensive international experience, Americans are unique in our patriotism. Other people love their countries, but Americans have a passion about our country that most other nations do not have, according to my friend. We love our nation. More than that, we tend to see the redemption and restoration of our nation as a high spiritual priority. But is that justified? It is right? Certainly, in the NT era, no one confused the interests of Rome with the interests of the church. In fact, the argument can be made that one of the negative turns the church took came at the confluence of Roman political power with the life of the church.
Since we are biblicists, we look to the Bible for answers to all questions – even ones involving secular politics. I wrote an article during the last election cycle at sbcIMPACT examining what the Bible says about this. I’d like to revisit that here.
My thesis is that the NT attitude toward slavery can serve as a template for the church’s involvement in politics.
If we examination the biblical attitudes toward slavery we may find guidance for our involvement in political and social issues. Slavery was a social issue in the era of the Early Church. The prevailing culture thought it was normal and natural for people who were able to own slaves. How did the church respond? How did the church balance political advocacy and gospel proclamation?
I would make the following observations. I would point out that these are, in fact, observations. I am putting forward what I see in Scripture. I’ve not done the kind of extensive historical or even exegetical study that would authorize me to be dogmatic. But I will share with you my observations for your examination and discussion.
1) Slavery is always a heinous social ill.
Let’s agree that slavery is not a good thing. The Bible never sanctions or promotes slavery. In the OT Law, slavery was regulated and limited, much as polygamy. Polygamy was not part of God’s original intent in Creation, but in the Law, God regulated and limited the practice, putting obligations on the husbands to treat his wives with basic decency. In a similar way, slavery is not eliminated but is limited. Laws are put forward which prevent masters from oppressing or mistreating their slaves. God also instituted the Sabbath years and Jubilees to free slaves.
I think we would all agree that slavery is a moral offense. For one human being to claim ownership over another is not a biblical ideal. Racial slavery, the kind that was practiced in America for centuries was a blot on the moral history of our nation. Good men with great political ideas had an inexcusable blind spot – they thought it was okay, even godly, for white men to own black men. I was happy to stand at the SBC years ago and publicly repent of the history of racism and the defense of slavery that was such a part of the early history of our denomination.
The slavery in the Roman world was perhaps a little difference. When a nation conquered another, it often enslaved the people of that nation. People who could not pay their debts were sold into slavery. Whatever the reasons for the problem, slavery was a real issue in the NT church.
As soon as God extended his sovereign grace to a slave and a slave owner, the church had a problem. If two men were brothers in Christ, could one own the other? How was the church going to handle this terrible social ill?
The question is not whether slavery was wrong. The question was how much energy the church should have focused on ending the practice in the Roman Empire.
2) The church did not focus its energies on the institution of slavery.
Paul did not start a movement to end slavery in the Roman Empire. He did not go from city to city organizing slaves and lobbying for their freedom. He established churches and proclaimed the life-changing gospel. Had it been the desire of God that the church focus its energies on societal and cultural transformation, it would seem that slavery would have been a good place for the church to start.
The church had slaves. The church had slave owners. But never once did Paul or other NT writers command that the church seek to change that societal structure, nor did Paul even command Christian masters to free their Christian slaves. If the church is supposed to be a bastion of cultural engagement, it seems odd that the NT did not command that in this instance.
Paul had a perfect opportunity to make a political point when he wrote to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus. Paul did not command Philemon to free his slave. He suggested it, cajoled perhaps. But there was no moral command.
3) Paul’s commands were directed at the Christian behavior of individual believers, not the social structures involved in the practice of slavery.
Some have chided the American church for its focus on individual piety and behavior instead of on the need to transform culture and seek social justice. Yet, in addressing a social ill like slavery, his focus was almost entirely on individual behavior and not societal transformation.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him. Ephesians 6:5-9
Slaves were not commanded to organize to end slavery, but to be the best slaves they could be – to honor Christ. This is not to justify slavery, but to point out that the focus was on the work of the gospel. Paul reinforces this basic truth in Colossians 3:22-25 , 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 12:9-10. Peter says almost the same thing:
1 Peter 2:18-21 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
Peter focuses on a fact that we do not often want to admit. It is a blessing to suffer here on earth for godly purposes. Blessed are those who are persecuted! Servants were to focus on being good servants and to know that if they suffered wrongs here on earth for the glory of God they would be rewarded in heaven.
This statement has horrendous potential to be misinterpreted, but it bears observation anyway. Paul, Peter, and other Christians leaders showed little concern for the social ill of slavery and demonstrated almost no concern for social transformation. It just did not seem to matter to them.
4) Christians were told to improve things when they could.
Paul makes a powerful point in 1 Corinthians 7 – a passage that primarily addresses marriage.
1 Co 7:17–24 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.
His main point is that Christians should remain in the situation they were in at the time of their redemption. If one was married, stay married. If one was single, stay single. If one was a slave, remain a slave. But in verse 21, Paul tells them that if they had the opportunity to become free, they should take it. In other words, if there was a chance to improve things, take it.
We have the opportunity in America to improve things through fulfilling our duties as citizens – voting and advocating righteous behavior. I believe we should take advantage of these opportunities and I believe Paul would agree. If you have the chance to make a difference, to improve things – do it!
But the focus of the church is the transformation which the gospel brings, not the imposition of Christian principles in government or society. Where we can, we should work to change things. But we must remember that the gospel is both our primary message and our overarching strategy.
5) The church is to focus on meeting the needs of the needy.
I am not saying we should ignore eleemosynary involvement. We are commanded to care for widows and orphans and to share with those in need. A church that does not have an active benevolence ministry is not obeying the scriptures. As we proclaim the gospel, we also meet the needs both of those in the Body and those to whom we preach. Feeding the hungry and clothing the poor is part of a gospel ministry, but the focus is always on the proclamation of God’s truth and the redemption of lost sinners to Christ.
Even in that, our purpose is to help individuals, not to change societal structures.
Our goal is the gospel and discipleship – the true growth of the Church of Jesus Christ. We live in a sinful world, but this world is not our home. We are living “here” for the blessings we will receive “there”.
Processing the Data
There are two possibilities here that need to be considered:
1) I could be seeing Paul and Peter’s treatment of slavery wrongly. Maybe my observer is broken.
2) I could be drawing the wrong conclusions from what I have observed. The problem may not be the observations, but the interpretations of those observations. More specifically, maybe the slavery issue is not the template for social engagement that I believe it is.
But what I am seeing makes me believe that the NT church showed little concern for transforming societal structures or cultural norms. They focused mostly on advancing the gospel and proclaiming God’s truth. They were not totally disengaged either. If someone could get free, could improve their social standing, Paul told them to do it. They did not seek suffering, but neither did they run from it.
Frankly, I am somewhat shocked at the New Testament church’s reaction to slavery. But it is what it is. The question is what the NT church’s reaction to slavery – both culturally and within the church – means for our involvement in politics and in social justice efforts.
My conclusion, at this point, is that the priority of the church must always be on the Great Commission. While we should take those opportunities we have to improve things in this world, the improvement of social structures and cultural standards is not a primary priority for the church.
1) Our priority is on gospel proclamation that transforms people. Seeking cultural and political transformation ultimately fails because it does not change hearts. All real change is a change of heart.
2) When we have the opportunity, we can seek to improve things. We should use our privileges as citizens to vote, engage and involve ourselves in the process.
At the root, here is my belief. As Christians, we should avail ourselves of opportunities to improve our environment and culture. But the church has the task of transforming hearts by God’s power through the message of Christ. We cannot confuse gospel proclamation with American civil religion or social justice efforts.
I am uncomfortable saying that – so show me where I’m getting it wrong.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
I do not think you are wrong at all. I just think you might have a bit of a rigid interpretation as in the letter but not the spirit of what is taught. The fact that a slave might be teaching or discipling a free person within the Body was quite radical in that world. Maybe as radical as a Jew eating with a Gentile? Even as radical as married women traveling with Jesus and supporting Him out of their own resources?
By Roman household codes, Philemon had every right by law to put Oni to death. Think about it in that context. Paul says….yet, “treat him as a brother in Christ. There is no civil law that would do that.
That is why we are supposed to look so peculiar to the world. We are NOT working in the world’s context for societal change but from of the Holy Spirit within the Body.
The REAL question is how do we as Christians treat others in society and do we stand up for others when it comes to basic justice? Or do we make excuses for those who turn a blind eye to child molestation? Rape? Bad treatment of others?
From a purely historical perspective I have enjoyed reading the Epistle to Diognetus describing early Christians (2nd Century?). I paricularly enjoyed chapter 5:
http://www.christian-history.org/letter-to-diognetus.html
The Supreme Court recently refused to hear the case from North Carolina involving the ACLUvForsyth County Commissioners (I am not sure of the exact legal title at the moment) in which it was argued that no minister could pray anymore at the meetings of the County Commissioners in the name of Christ. I remember that the city council of Raleigh, I think it was, had been allowing ministers, rabbis, priests, and imams to lead in prayer, invoking their respective terms for Deity. Now all of that is by the board, and the one group excluded from the Public Arena is the Christian, and all due to the idiocy that the Deists established this nation and would not therefore allow any Christian references. Downright strange, when one considers that the leading Deist of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, attended a Baptist Church that had been organized and was meeting in the capital building. There were other churches and denominations meeting in other federal buildings, all with the complicit acceptance of the same by the so-called Deistic Founding Fathers. And then there was John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who would rendered a decision that would point out that the United States was a Christian nation, and the Supreme Court in the 1890s would rendered a like decision with the same statement to the effect that this was a Christian Nation. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! How could them folks back then get it so wrong or did they? Could our present day court be toadying to the ACLU, that outfit founded by an atheistic communist and dedicated to the eradication of the Christian Faith from the Public Arena? Could it also be that the Unitarian Transcendentalists of the early 1800s finally succeeded in getting Trinitarian Christianity booted out of governmental acceptance by the 20 century? And why did various legal efforts get rid of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law which really exposed how the United States was a Christian Nation, namely, due to its being based in the biblical precepts. As the Professors from Houston pointed out in their research, the Founding documents of this nation and its colonies owe their origin in the double digits (about 34%) to the Bible over the next leading contributor, John Locke, 8-9%, and the third contributor, Montesquieu, 6-7%. Western Civilization has a stronger basis in the Bible than any other document, and the moral renovation which that Book has provided has been the main reason for the rise of Western Civilization. If a Book like the Bible can change a drunkard, cruel, indifferent, unconcerned, into a caring, concerned, involved individual, if it can produce a society where people do not have to lock their doors, if it can bring individuals to become responsibile for their actions and to provide for their families, then it ill-behooves this government under the influence of the supercilious and snide outlooks of the parnassian snobbery of some elites to jettison the only true barrier against society become scurrilious and degenerating once more into savagery and a new age of darkness.
Word for the day:
el·ee·mos·y·nar·y/?el??mäs??ner?/
Adjective:
Of, relating to, or dependent on charity; charitable.
I did a double-take too, Greg, when I read that. I thought David’s fingers had slipped on the keyboard and he had mistyped some garbled word.
Grr…well google this to get the pronunciation: eleemosynary
1) Slavery is always a heinous social ill.
2) I think we would all agree that slavery is a moral offense.
3) God also instituted the Sabbath years and Jubilees to free slaves.
On the latter one, the Sabbath and Jubilee years only gave freedom to the JEWISH slaves. The non-Jewish slaves, the “stranger servants”, could be held in perpetuity. Also, in some cases the jubilee/sabbath emancipation did not apply to even female Jewish slaves. Moreover, the purpose of the Sabbath/Jubilee years was social justice. It was to keep the gap between the rich and poor from growing too wide. Before you scoff, please realize that the Mosaic law also contained the first social welfare safety net (where farmers were required to give the poor access to a certain part of their grain; an example of this was Boaz allowing women – including Ruth – to glean in his field). Despite what a lot of political conservatives would have you believe, the Old Testament economic system WAS NOT laissez faire capitalism or anything like it: banks couldn’t even charge interests on loans. Yes, the Mosaic law did make slavery a more humane institution, but not because of slavery being inherently wrong. The sin was clearly the inhumane treatment, not slavery.
Evidence of this (which addresses points 1 and 2): Exodus 21:5-6. “And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.” The Bible allows even Jewish males to choose perpetual slavery. Basically, the Bible only calls manstealing or sinful, never slavery. And manstealing was a capital crime. 1 Timothy 1:10 lists manstealing as a sin right after homosexuality (arsenokoit?s).
The idea that slavery is inherently wrong does not come from the Bible. It is a product of secular Enlightenment thinking, where it is considered a great crime to deprive a person to act according to his free will; to do whatever his desires lead him (so long as he has the means and ability to do so). It is the humanistic “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” concept of Thomas Jefferson (and we all know what HE thought of the Bible) that exalts itself against Jesus Christ’s teachings in the sermon of the mount (which puts to lie Jefferson’s claim that he respected Jesus Christ as a moral teacher and philosopher … like all who rejects Jesus Christ’s divinity and authority, Jefferson appropriated the teachings of Christ that he personally agreed with, and cast off the others, including for example Jesus Christ’s commandments against adultery when he fathered a child with Sally Hemings, a slave WHO WAS ALSO THE SISTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON’S WIFE).
Keep in mind: a lot of the Christian anti-slavery movements were motivated by amillennial theology. It, along with prohibition and similar, were efforts to change and improve the world before the return of Jesus Christ, including improvements that went beyond scripture. For more orthodox amillennialists, the social and spiritual gospel were one and the same that could not be separated, because winning converts was part of saving the world and vice versa. For liberal amillennialists – i.e. the mainline denominationals, and also the Unitarians – the spiritual part of the gospel was cast off due to unbelief and the social component became their great commission, to the point where these people were willing to plunge our nation in warfare that cost at least 700,000 casualties because they thought that their own Enlightenment philosophy exceeded the righteousness of the Holy Scriptures. Now it is not my intentions to provoke an eschatology conflict to go along with the interminable Particular-General Baptist debates, but just pointing out (my reading of) history.
This is not to say that the Bible endorses slavery. I merely point out that the Bible at no point calls it wrong, and to curse what God is not cursed in His divine revelation is to set ourselves as being wiser and more righteous, more fair, than God, and makes us judgers of God. Now polygamy is somewhat of a different issue. While the Bible does not explicitly call polygamy a sin, its treatment of the issue is consistently negative. Lamech, the first polygamist in the Bible was from the line of Cain, was a murderer like Cain, and took two wives because of his pride (in Genesis 4:23-24, Lamech in a very real sense set himself as being equal with or even superior to God). With Abraham and his lineage and the issue of polygamy, the Bible record always seems to associate terrible outcomes with it: Abraham and Hagar, Israel and Leah/Rachel, and David and the murderous feuds that his children from his various wives, Solomon and his wives, etc. One should note that while polygamy seems to have died out among the Jews by the New Testament, slavery had not. That slaves were still kept among wealthy Jews in the time of Jesus Christ, but polygamy was not practiced even by King Herod is evidence that economic reasons was not why polygamy died out, and neither was the Babylon captivity. So though the Bible never explicitly denounces polygamy, by applying “narrative theology” one can see that the inspired holy scriptures do take a much darker, more negative view of that institution than it does slavery.
Now again, just because something is not “bad” does not make it “good.” Eating meats sacrificed to idols was not prohibited in the Pauline epistles, but it wasn’t glorified and promoted either. So, the problem is not slavery, but our choosing Enlightenment morality (and philosophies that succeeded the Enlightenment and are products of it i.e. modernism and postmodernism) over Bible morality. The sad fact is that so much of western thought is worldliness, what could be described as “imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” of 2 Corinthians 10:5. Paul saw fit to make a specific warning against leavening the faith with philosophy in Colossians 2:8, and a more general one in Romans 12:1-2. And being a Hellenized Jew set apart by the Holy Spirit to be the apostle to the Gentile world – one whose mindset was completely dominated by Greek philosophy at the time – he most certainly knew of what he spoke.
I know that this is a very sensitive topic. But the Bible is by design not politically correct. Or more accurately, political correctness was designed to be in conflict with the Bible.
The point of my diatribe (and its many unfortunate grammatical errors) was this:
“At the root, here is my belief.
1. As Christians, we should avail ourselves of opportunities to improve our environment and culture.
2. But the church has the task of transforming hearts by God’s power through the message of Christ.
3. We cannot confuse gospel proclamation with American civil religion or social justice efforts.”
I endorse #2 and #3. I cannot endorse #1. The reason is that the Bible does not command #1 of Christians, so we cannot and should not add any burden to the church beyond what God has divinely decreed. Jesus Christ said that His burden was light, so making the fallen world a better place was clearly not a part of it. Jesus Christ will change the world for the better in the eschaton. That is His mission and mandate, not that of the church. Now some take the New Testament’s many teachings on charity and compassion as evidence that we should work to improve human suffering. The truth is that the Bible teaches us to give charity and show compassion as part of the great commandment: love God with all thy heart, soul and strength and also love thy neighbor. Helping those in need is part of loving your neighbor, and the man who will not help his neighbor whom he can see cannot say that he loves God whom he cannot see. It really, honestly is simple charity with no higher earthly purpose.
Further, if the mission of the church is to improve it, to make it a better place, then we need the Bible to tell us what it is. What constitutes improving our environment and our culture? The Bible doesn’t say. Or actually, when the Bible DOES say it, it pertains to eliminating freedom of religion and other human freedoms highly valued by western society when pagan worship and homosexuality was repressed in Old Testament Israel. So, with the lack of Biblical guidance on the issue, were we to take it upon ourselves to improve the environment and culture, we would inevitably do it in worldly ways according to our flesh. Moreover, cultural norms do vary. Improving the environment and culture in one place is different from another. You can call that multiculturalism if you choose, but it is what it is, and also missionaries have given many a horror story of the disasters that ensued from their well-intended attempts to “make things better” according to their own cultural standards and human understanding. And also, while I am not necessarily a “slippery slope” guy, pursuing #1 will inevitably lead to #3, confusing the social gospel with the real gospel. If nothing else, the reason for it is precisely the lack of guidance on what we are to go about trying to improve and how we are to do it in the New Testament. This lack of information was why the magisterial reformers went to the Old Testament scriptures seeking guidance on how to govern their church-states. Now I am a so-called “5 point Calvinist”, but I say definitely that Calvin’s Geneva burning Michael Servetus because of heresy did not constitute improving the environment and culture, but that is precisely the sort of thing that happens when the church goes beyond what is given to us in scripture, and other examples include persecuting and murdering Anabaptists, and the Reformed states fighting bloody wars against the Catholic states. And you can go ahead and add how the scriptures were abused to justify practicing ethnic cleansing against the Native Americans also.
So IMHO, #2 is mandatory. #3 is very true. #1 is very dangerous, and such things as the Civil War, where hundreds of thousands died to eliminate something that men called immoral but the Bible never declares to be sinful, is indeed an example of it.
Job, I take it you do not think slavery is one of the results of the Fall?
Dave,
You wrote:
“Even in that, our purpose is to help individuals, not to change societal structures.”
If the structures of society are unjust, is it not our purpose to work for change? To use the Bible to justify a preservation of the status-quo would serve to legitimize a host of social evils. I don’t think your candidate Mr. Santorum would agree with that. His position as a Catholic is that churches and individuals should work advocate for a more just society.
Now, with liberals and conservatives of any denomination or tradition there are different views as to how we define that word “just” and what it means in terms of political strategy. Nonetheless, there are obviously many liberals and conservatives (especially of the old Religion Right variety that you referenced) who are actually in agreement that we are called to be both the “Public Christian” and the “Public Church” in the political sphere and work toward the betterment of society which often necessitates structural change.
BDW, the point is that cultural and societal “sins” are the product of the sins of individuals. Corporations don’t sin. Nations don’t sin. Businessmen sin. National leaders sin.
So the solution is not some kind of cultural reformation, but the solution is heart by heart transformation brought by the gospel.
Of course, if we have the opportunity to make positive changes (like getting the decor changed in the Oval Office or outlawing abortion) these things can and should be done.
But what would happen if the Religious Right’s most extreme dreams were realized in America? Abortion is outlawed. Homosexuality is restricted. Everything that the religious right wants comes to pass. The problem is that the hearts of human beings would still be sinful and sin would still rule our hearts.
You cannot impose justice on the human heart by transforming cultural structures. Only the transformation of the human heart really changes things.
Dr. King was fighting structural injustices as well as individual injustices (racism). Jim Crow wasn’t set up overnight. And it wasn’t dismantled overnight. Dr. King worked to find a structural solution while simultaneously seeking to change the hearts of individuals.
If we could eliminate abortion simply by saving souls, then what’s the pro-life movement all about? It’s largely about changing society through political-structural changes.
I’m on by may to Greensboro airport to make the trek back to Waco by way of Dallas and Austin. So I’ll be without the internets for a while!
^ This ^
As I understand it, that is why we needed a New Covenant. The Old one did not work. It is only through grace and heart regeneration that true change can take place.
Also, in those periods of human history in which “Christendom” has held the upper hand, the long-term results have not been that great. Prohibition in the 1920′s is a good example.
As I understand it, during the “already, but not yet” period in which we presently live, we do well to follow Jesus’ First Advent example, and not preempt His Second Advent reign. He came, the first time, to serve, not to be served. One day, He will reign with an iron hand, and one day we will reign with Him. But it is not our place to do that right now.
“^ This ^” was intended to refer to Dave’s comment.
As a Pastor , you should do the Church’s Work ; as an indivigual you shouldn’t be stupid ; and as an Editor ” moderator” you tell me who you are supposed to be .
The church getting involved in the political coliseum of the world with God’s moral standards has caused a great division among our nation. It has affected the church negatively more than it has affected the morals of the world positively. Certainly, we are one people under the Constitution, however, the mix of believers and non-believers will not stand much more of a conservative approach to things. The decay Paul describes of man in Romans 1:18-32 is proof enough that America and Capitalism cannot easily co-exist. America, as we know it, is on a very slippery slope today.
I believe we Christians have every privilege afforded us through the Constitution and should take full advantage of that golden opportunity by informing ourselves and each other about the right person to cast our single vote toward or against. It would be my choice to keep the discussions among ourselves. In a way, we would be casting our Pearl before swine by announcing our beliefs openly. The lost only need the gospel of Jesus Christ declared openly. The depraved unbeliever cannot be reformed of their thinking or doing when God gives them over to a debased mind. Personally, I would preach and disciple the truth and encourage the people to educate themselves with the candidates and vote their conscience. I don’t think it would hurt to supply the information on each candidate to the church so they would have the best and informative information to make their decision. I would only dedicate one Sunday prior to the election and before early voting.
Side note soapbox:
About the slave thing; we often fail to understand how relevant it is today. We tend to enslave ourselves to banks and clothing stores and we really do not have permission to be a slave to God and man at the same time. We are to be slaves to God alone. It would be great if the leaders of the church practiced that with the finances of the church, too. God is a slave to no one and we do not have permission to enslave the church. “ The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower [is] servant to the lender.” Proverbs 22:7
Bruce H – I forgot to tell you that you might not be answered until you become a ” Made Member ” here and that time is directly proportional to your intelligence and perseverance. No one answers me yet – they just type ??????????? when it’s unavoidable.
Jack,
Most of these men are preachers. They can cater to each other’s intellect or the lowliest person who post a comment here. If they can’t they aren’t much of a preacher are they? They are too educated to work with the little people. That is where the true intellect works best, I think.
Bruce H – It will be some time before you become a ” Made Member ” .
Most of the people who comment here are preachers of some sort. I’ve discovered that there really is a difference between the pulpit and the pew in my humble, but accurate, opinion. It may be a language or an educational barrier rather than a spiritual barrier; but it is the same bible and we all came to the foot of the cross to find the same Jesus. Who knows what happens? (I mean that in a nice way.
)
Bruce H.,
I am of the opinion that I have “worked” with you a great deal.
So much so that you seemed to respond thusly:
“Stop! I don’t want anymore truth about my evil ways! Leave me alone and let me seek the solace of shallow minded emotionalism, nice-ism peddlers and the platitudes of theo-dwarfs. I want to continue in my delusion, so leave me alone!!”
That sound about right to you there, Bruce H.?
So tell me; Why the pity party?
With respect, if I were visiting on that Sunday, it would be my last. It is not the church’s job to educate anyone about politics. Pearls before swine? Bringing politics into the church is casting swine before pearls. These churches that open their doors to politicians ought to lose their tax exempt status. It is shameful.
I agree to the statement about opening the church doors to politicians. Never is that acceptable. Joel Osteen does that. I never said we should try to direct votes but to properly teach biblical truth to the congregation year around so people will be prepared to cast their vote properly. When it comes to voting I still think we have the freedom to provide both Democrate and Republican candidate information without the liberal bias. Just the facts ma’am. Then let the people go out and vote. It should be done in such a way to not offend anyone. Just information available to anyone who desires it. I hope that wasn’t the only thing you picked up from what I said.
Bruce: I just don’t think it is the church’s function to provide information about politicians to anyone. It isn’t our mission. If people cannot educate themselves, in this information rich age, then perhaps they shouldn’t vote.
Bill,
I can agree with your point of view and agree that it would be the best way to go. I cannot stand politics and it should never be a continued discussion in the church anyway. My dad wasn’t going to vote if a woman ran for President. That would have been like a vote cast for the other side, too. Maybe a blog like this can help direct us to some sites that provide just the facts. Even though this is an information rich age some people have difficulty knowing how to search. Thanks for your response.
I agree that providing information about politicians is troublesome, because it will naturally include advocacy. Would you agree that it is appropriate for pastors to preach on how believers are to think (Rom. 12:1-4), including how to think through political involvement and related decisions?
I searched the Bible a few years back for wisdom on the issue of political involvement. What I first discovered was Romans 13, of course, which was a relief, along with many passages of Isaiah and Jeremiah about God and “nations” (peoples, Gentiles).
Then the Old Testament patterns and examples: all over the map! Moses, Joseph, different kings, David, Daniel, the prophets — some people working within existing structures and some against; some driving out other nations and some being commanded to go as captives of vicious foreign conqueror (for He knew the plans He had for them, plans for a future and a hope); some seeking the good of the conqueror, some refusing to slay the pursuing power when they had a chance, some having peace on all sides, some besieged by enemies.
New Testament Paul: led here and there by the Holy Spirit, letting God use Him to bring a message to Rome when that appeal probably cost his life; testifying of Christ’s resurrection everywhere — before kings, governors, jailers, festival crowds and riverside gatherings, in households, synagogues, new churches, and so on.
“Should” leads so many of us astray. List every cause we “should” get behind, keep up with, donate to and support and it’s mind boggling. Conversely, “shouldn’t” is tricky too.
Where works and causes are concerned, each has his/her own giftedness and calling.
I wondered on to a Reformed blog and got my head banged with servants obey your masters as if slavery were the most normal and moral thing in the world. Some people never learn, not even if it cost 630,000 battlefield casualties, not counting others who died due to disease, starvation, neglect, trauma, etc. Things are mentioned in the Bible without necessarily having God’s stamp of approval, and there are depths to the written word of God that defy comprehension due to our limited methods for understanding. Imagine the change that had to come over people to get them to quit wanting to see the bloody gladitorial contests in the Coliseum 2000 years ago, but the change did come. And the same, we trust will be true for slavery, especially that a believer cannot hold his or her spiritual brother or sister in slavery or subserviency. Today, we see the anomaly of the reviving of a theology that could spell hope for the future in the thought of a Third Great Awakening which would win every soul on earth and continue to do it for a 1000 generations, while to the contrary some wish to pick up the evils of the past as if they were a-okay and a part and parcel of the whole of Sovereign Grace which just ain’t the case. The development of freedoms with responsibilities is the icing on the cake.
“God also instituted the Sabbath years and Jubilees to free slaves.”
How did this work out in practice? My expectation is that they (like the Muslims do on mortgages) found a way around the rule and somehow retained possession of the slaves and were still owed the money from the loan.
Anyone know for sure?
I think we need to be cautious about admiring OT life as the antithesis of political correctness. Slavery not bad but polygamy bad? I would remind everyone that Jesus lineage is traced back through polygamous marriages, so the idea that nothing good ever came out of polygamy is simply not true. How about the 12 tribes of Israel? God told David that He “gave him Saul’s wives”.
Your post made me go dig out an old paper I wrote on Philemeon. Here’s two quotes I was tring to remember:
“The Gospel lays down universl principles that undermine evil, rather than attacking special abuses” (Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon)
“What the letter to Philemon does is to bring the institution of slavery into an atmosphere where it could only wilt and die. Where master and slave were united and in affection as brothers in Christ, formal emancipation would be but a matter of expediency, the legal confirmation of their new relationship” (F.F. Bruce, Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians).
As far as engaging in politics today, I’ve come to the conclusion that we are best served by advocating for justice. That flows out of the gospel and an understanding of God’s heart for mercy and justice. I think it’s part of reflecting his image to the world. At the root, the problems in our nation–in any nation–are the result of sin. Only Jesus can bring about true transformation. Yet as we preach the gospel, I think we are also obligated to speak out for justice–for the poor, for the oppressed, for the unborn, for the 27 million victims of slavery and human trafficking worldwide today. As part of that, we will need to engage with our political system. I think we are best served in seeing our role as advocates, not kingmakers.
Leigh – ” — not Kingmakers ” hit a tone for me as I believe we may have been mislead to view ourselves as a group as more important than we really are ; however , the dollars we indivigually send to somewhere besides church in response to ” ranting & raving ” by a radio station hurts us in the end as we have less for our own choosings , or our church’s choosing. It’s easy to think we are an army when we sit & sing together on Sunday.
“As far as engaging in politics today, I’ve come to the conclusion that we are best served by advocating for justice. That flows out of the gospel and an understanding of God’s heart for mercy and justice. I think it’s part of reflecting his image to the world. At the root, the problems in our nation–in any nation–are the result of sin. Only Jesus can bring about true transformation. Yet as we preach the gospel, I think we are also obligated to speak out for justice–for the poor, for the oppressed, for the unborn, for the 27 million victims of slavery and human trafficking worldwide today. As part of that, we will need to engage with our political system. I think we are best served in seeing our role as advocates, not kingmakers.”
Bravo!
LEIGH, you understand solidarity with the oppressed . . . that it is a part of the ‘shalom’ of Our Lord
It has been 50 years, since I began my study of Black History under Dr. Lorenzo J. Greene, a Black Historian at Lincoln University and a Ph.D. graduate (1940) of Columbia Univ. It is ironic in a way that he received his Ph.D. the year I was born, and five years after I was born again, I entered his class in the Fall of ’62. The study of slavery and the answers to it, now long gone from much of my memory, though I could with some efforts recover the sources and reconstruct the arguments. It was what I learned in Dr. Greene’s history classes, plus my experiences on a sharecropper’s farm in Arkansas, along with 6 years of intensive research in Baptist Church History (really all 2000 years of church history), plus two years on the Greek text of I Cors.12:31b-14:1a, that led me to believe that Sovereign Grace theology is the theology that produces a moral renovation in society, a renewal of political commitment, an establishment of equality among people that even the propaganda of slavery cannot erradicate, and an appreciation for human rights as well as a recognition of the wherewithal of the average John Doe to make a lasting contribution to civilization and human life.
Dave,
I’m in agreement about the idea of individual gospel transformation, yet I’m also in support of Christian political activism. Here’s my rationale:
1. On election day, every American citizen with the right to vote is the ruler of this nation. There’s the big difference between the New Testament era and modern America.
2. On that day, suddenly all of the information in the Bible about being a good ruler applies to me…to all of us. Granted, on every other day we’re responsible only for being the SUBJECTS of the American government. But on election day, we bear the responsibility before God that a KING would bear. And there’s a good bit of information (most of it in the Old Testament, but a healthy part of it in the New) about the responsibility of governmental rulers, God’s purpose for giving them authority, and God’s willingness to have expectations of them. So, for example, I believe that every person who voted against the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi has the blood of infants on his or her hand and will give an account to God for it.
3. I may or may not be EFFECTIVE in what I do politically (i.e., I may be alone…a majority may not join me in what I do), but ACCOUNTABILITY, not effectiveness, is my motivation. This doesn’t mean that I have a responsibility to make sure that I am ineffective; I try to be effective if I can, but that is secondary. I vote and opine about politics (outside of my pastoral responsibilities) as one who believes that he will answer to God someday for his stewardship of that little, fleeting slice of authority that he had. I think that this is the difference between healthy Christian political involvement and “social justice” or “American civil religion.”
I’ve never really considered the “ruler” ethic you make mention of here. Interesting perspective.
I guess where I am most concerned is when churches become heavily involved in the process. There was a church in a community I pastored (granted, this info came mostly from people who left the church and came to ours – not always reliable) where the pastor pretty much preached on some variation of “restoring America” every week – social, political issues rather than exposition. The church was, in effect, a local organizing force for the Republican Party (much as some ethnic churches have been for the Democrats).
Obviously, you aren’t promoting that.
But my problem comes when I speak out as a pastor. When I spoke for Santorum at the caucus, there were people there who knew who I was and where I was pastor. Did they see me as an individual or as the pastor of SHBC? What about when I post something on Facebook?
Dave, it’s a good question. I try to make explicit division between the two. For example, I will put a political bumper sticker on my car, but I will not put a political sign in the yard of the parsonage. I own the car; the church owns the parsonage.
That may not be enough for everybody, but I do it to assuage my own conscience and the voice of the Holy Spirit, not to please other people. I’m not going to worry inordinately about what somebody thinks of me. In politics as in all else, I try to conduct myself as I do while worrying what Christ thinks of me. Churches that embraced Jim Crow in the 1890s? Doing so made them more popular (effective?) at the time, but today, their having done so back then is one of the hurdles that makes them less effective. We can’t master the calculus of public opinion. Best just to do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.
Bart, I think each of us has to follow our conscience here. I own my home, but it is across the street from the church, so I am a little reluctant to post yard signs. I don’t do bumper stickers, as a rule (though I have a NYY World Series Champs 2009 window decal!). I am not sure my driving would always be good advertising.
Every one of us needs to 1) Do what is right 2) the pastor down the street may do what is right and still do something very different than what I do.
Bart says: I think that this is the difference between healthy Christian political involvement and “social justice” or “American civil religion.”
Dave says: I still struggle with distinguishing these things at times.
In 1960, there was a lot of stress about Kennedy being Catholic–especially in small southern towns where there were no Catholics. The town I grew up in was one of three very similar towns along Highway 45. Our town was the only one of the three where a majority voted for Kennedy. My Mother still feels that this was because the pastor of FBC in our town repeatedly told his congregation to vote for Nixon because of the Catholic issue.
Do any of you believe that different congregations can be called to different ministries, in which “ministry” may mean dealing with a social issue? For example, God might call one church to minister to single parents and another to minister primarily to college kids. More social ministry:
Addictive substances
Coming alongside those in poverty
Slum lords – housing issues
Immigrants – Hispanic, Vietnamese, Nigerian, whoever is near
Payday loans, financial predation (including to the elderly)
Navigating the justice system (esp. where children are concerned)
Domestic abuse/marriage/coparenting
Single parents, pregnancy, child-rearing
Adoption
Special eds Sunday School, VBS and ministry
One church is not going to do all that, nor should all churches try. In the same way, individual Christians mal passionately pursue a social cause-type ministry but not all of them.
A church member may be called to run for office. (Or do we believe that? Maybe there’s the rub…). We all don’t have to be in their PAC.
Why look down on anyone who is called and active, or works together with similarly called people? And why look down on someone who is called to a different ministry and therefore not really involved in our own? It’s probably not that they don’t care. More and more I’m finding that people are busy ministering in ways no one knows but the Lord: taking care of a 95 year old parent; having full custody of grandchildren; keeping a mentally ill relative off the street; helping a struggling couple stay together; and especially ministering to the ill. Yes we can all do more. But many are doing more than we know already.
Also, if someone is simply called to proclaim God’s word (e.g. Billy Graham) and is NOT called to a social-justice cause or political party, then he/she does that which he is fully convinced in his/her mind constitutes obedience. And God bless.
Freedom in Christ!
I believe each church is different in many ways. But there are some ways in which we much all be alike to be churches. A focus on the Great Commission and on spiritual transformation is fundamental to existence as a church.
It might be noted that Elijah Craig and the Committee which he represented left us with a history of being involved in politics. Especially, when they agreed that in exchange for their freedom to practice their faith, the Baptist ministers whoul encourage the young men in their communities to enlist in the Patriots’ Cause, read, enlist in a civil war against a duly constituted government. One of these days, the impact of that thought will hit the Baptists of today and it will stagger them.