A few simple propositions…
- Our task, as Christians, is working together with God to change people’s hearts, not change their votes.
- We don’t change people’s votes in order to change their hearts.
- But neither do we change people’s hearts IN ORDER to change their votes.
- We change people’s hearts in order to change their hearts, and to bring God glory.
- Once someone’s heart is changed, it may well affect the way they vote.
- But that is between them and God.
- A disproportionate emphasis on changing people’s votes may become a stumbling block that gets in the way of changing people’s hearts.
- In eternity, a changed heart is of infinitely more value than a changed vote.
- In the meantime, if my words and actions can somehow contribute to saving innocent lives, that is a worthwhile endeavor as well.
Dave said he likes to have some sort of discussion post up for the weekends. This looked like a good discussion starter sort of post. Have fun discussing and keep up the good civility as you go.
Agree completely. There is not much to show for our three decades of political activism in this country.
There is only one thing I would change about this: the statement that a changed heart may well affect the way an individual votes.
I would argue that a changed heart must change the way an individual votes. Even if the visible outcome remains the same, the why behind the vote, the process to get to that vote should change. It should come from the changed heart that is focused on God.
Of course, that falls under helping people grow but still acknowledging that it is between them and God.
Doug,
Yes, I agree that a changed heart will necessarily affect the WAY we vote. Valid point. In some cases, though, the actually vote registered may be the same before and after conversion and ongoing discipleship. I would also argue that the WAY we vote is more important than who and what we actually vote for, though a changed heart will likely affect that as well.
Also, one of the key propositions in my post is:
“But neither do we change people’s hearts IN ORDER to change their votes.”
It has often been claimed that the best way to change society is by changing hearts one at a time. That may (or may not) be true. See “To Change the World” by James Davison Hunter for a good discussion on this.
My point, however, is that changing society, or changing the world, or saving America, or Christianizing nations, is not our ultimate aim. Our ultimate aim is simply changing hearts, changing lives, and giving glory to God. If, as a by-product, society is changed for the better, fine and well, but that is not our ultimate aim. And once we make it our ultimate aim, I believe we have undermined our true ultimate aim: changing hearts, changing lives, and giving glory to God.
“My point, however, is that changing society, or changing the world, or saving America, or Christianizing nations, is not our ultimate aim. Our ultimate aim is simply changing hearts, changing lives, and giving glory to God.”
While recognizing that the two are not mutually exclusive. Which brings more glory: a corrupt society full of Christians, or a just society full of Christians?
All things being equal, I suppose a just society full of Christians. But from my understanding of history, the Constantinian model has not been successful at either producing a just society or filling the world with authentic Christians.
” Thou shalt send forth Thy Spirit
. . . and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.”
from Psalm 104
All true. However, I believe that those who vote for pro-abortion candidates will have to explain their action to God at the judgment.
Walt,
Yes, my last “proposition” speaks to this concern. I suppose it is an open question as to whether legislation (and exactly what legislation) is the best way to save the greatest amount of innocent lives. Personally, I believe that voting for pro-life candidates is consistent with this objective, and for that reason it is one of the most important (probably the most important) consideration for me when it comes time to decide who to vote for. However, I can also conceive of a situation in which our vote makes little difference one way or another as to actual lives being saved. In such a case, other factors may gain more relevance when casting a vote.
Also, in the long run, I believe it is likely that more innocent lives will be saved and abortions avoided as a result of biblical evangelism and discipleship than by political activism.
A practical question. Would you vote for a pro-life presidential candidate who names a pro-choice vp candidate?
My general tendency would be to seek out the candidate that most closely aligned with my own on all the issues up at stake, evaluating these according to various levels of priority importance I concede to each. Among these, abortion is surely right at the top. In most cases, my tendency would be to seek out this candidate independently of his/her chance of actually winning an election. IOW, in the US elections, I may seriously consider 3rd-party or independent candidates if their overall views more closely match my own than those of either of the two leading parties.
An important “X-factor” in all this is to what degree I believe the election of a certain candidate will actually affect the total amount of lives of unborn babies saved or sacrificed (not just in theory).
It’s complicated. And to answer your question more directly, I’m still not sure how I’m going to vote, though a Rice VP candidacy will not dispose me to vote for Romney any more than I might already be disposed, and may well be a factor (among others) that leads me to vote for someone else.
In any case, I don’t lie awake at night worrying about it though. My future is in God’s hands, not the White House’s.
My concern is that a national office candidate may well change her party’s strong pro-life stance. I think far less of Romney for even considering it and have told him so.
If that is true, then abortion is merely one of the issues that voters will be held accountable for by God.
Name another one.
@Joe:
The book of Revelation outlines the judgment on the nations for their sins. The sin list includes much more than abortion. So that is a start.
That list is judgment on the nations, not on how individual people voted.
David,
With all due respect, you have every right to be disengaged completely from participating in the political aspects of the country. This is certainly a historical Christian stance, but not the only Christian stance.
We do not live under a totalitarian or even an autocratic nation without any ability to vote our consciences, we live in a representative democracy and have every right to vote in a God-honoring way. This nation is unique in that scenario.
In my opinion, if Christians forget that and forgo getting involved and speaking out for biblical principles in the laws and from our leaders, we will soon be living under an autocratic monarchy, or even a totalitarian system of government. Now perhaps the penalties and persecutions under that kind of government will actually allow the gospel to proper, however many of our generation may have to answer for why we kept our mouths (and our pulpits) shut when opportunity was available to speak.
Nate,
I am not advocating total disengagement from political activity. My view on engagement coincides largely with what has been called the “two kingdom” approach.
As I see it, there are two sets of issues, one which encompasses those matters treated specifically in Scripture, and which are essential elements of Christian discipleship, and another which encompasses those matters decided by way of the political and legislative process. Looking at these two sets from the perspective of a Venn diagram, I believe there is some overlap, but not exact correspondence between the two sets.
When I talk in my post about disproportionate emphasis, I am referring to the church and specifically Christian ministries dedicating time and effort in the name of Christ to those areas of the political/legislative set that do not overlap with Scriptural/discipleship set, as well as dedicating more time and effort proportionately to the areas of the Scriptural/discipleship set that do overlap with the political/legislative set than to those that do not overlap with it.
None of this precludes, however, the possibility of Christian politicians and legislators, who, in the course of their daily lives dedicate a proportionately large amount of time and effort to specifically political and legislative concerns in the same way a Christian plumber dedicates a large amount of his/her time to plumbing. Nor does it preclude individual Christians having opinions on specifically political issues, or participating in political campaigns. But it does imply that other Christians may legitimately, at the same time, have different opinions on these same issues, and participate (or choose not to participate) in opposing political campaigns.
Thanks for the clarification…
David–
You said to Nate:
“When I talk in my post about disproportionate emphasis, I am referring to the church and specifically Christian ministries dedicating time and effort in the name of Christ to those areas of the political/legislative set that do not overlap with Scriptural/discipleship set, as well as dedicating more time and effort proportionately to the areas of the Scriptural/discipleship set that do overlap with the political/legislative set than to those that do not overlap with it.”
Just wondering if you would give some examples of what you mean. Most likely, those who devote their time to any political/legislative issue see their Christian witness as essential to that issue.
Interesting discussion points!
Thanks,
Dale
Dale,
Though I believe there are many issues that fall within these categories, I believe the granddaddy of them all is “the economy, stupid” (not you, no offense). While the Bible deals with such matters as honesty, integrity, generosity, and justice, I believe those who claim the Bible necessarily supports one of the economic models up for debate in our contemporary society are guilty of anachronistic eisegesis. I wrote a whole post about this here:
http://sbcimpact.org/2011/10/12/macroeconomics-and-the-bible/
In general, I believe when we present any political position as “the Christian position” without clear biblical support for that position, we are guilty of dividing the Body of Christ. As Christians, we may take personal stances on these issues, but we must be careful to do so humbly, in a way that makes clear they are personal stances, not stances we are claiming ought to be representative of the entire Christian community.
Interesting! (And thanks for clarifying that you weren’t calling me stupid. Insert big grin.) I see what you’re saying, and found your link interesting as well.
One of the issues that came to my mind was environmentalism. While I see the protection and proper use of natural resources as critical, I wonder the same thing about those who espouse a particular view as “the” Christian response.
Again, interesting! Any other ideas out there people?
Dale,
Yes, environmentalism is another good example. Though I believe the Bible clearly teaches we are to be good stewards of the earth, it is much less clear with respect to how the best way to go about this might be.
The Christian position on abortion is anti-abortion. That ought to be representative of the entire Christian community and Christians are obligated to vote against pro-abortion candidates. One of the ten commandments is “You shall not murder”.
Now, some people have other items they care about: illegal immigration reform (yes, they should be reformed so that they follow the law and don’t enter the country illegally), free health care, higher taxes on businesses and wealthy people. Now, people with sense recognize that none of those positions are important, but to a certain segment, they are very emotional issues and close to their heart. Not one of those issues EVER trumps abortion. Voting people into office who will make it more difficult for women to get abortions or overturn Roe v. Wade is priority numero uno of Christians when voting.
David,
I took a brief look at the article that you gave me at my blog site. Without a great amount of deep thinking, or involved study, I didn’t see enough on the surface to give a thoughtful reply. Except to say the “two kingdom” approach was a new term to me.
Based on what I did read, I don’t think it was on the same track as the point of my article there, or my point of pulpits and politics to begin with.
When a preacher preaches the Bible, he is going to come across messages to kings, rulers, and leaders, AS messages to kings, rulers, and leaders. Some of those messages are peculiar to particular covenants, and some are not.
When a preacher comes across a “pro-life” issue in the text, he should preach that “abortion laws” are wrong.
When a preacher comes across any issue that is a “legislative” issue, he should say what the Bible says, and call wrong laws, wrong; whether it be abortion, marriage, gambling, homosexuality, or economic.
As I said in my other article, if a preacher should preach, “Pay your taxes” and “Pray for your Leaders” of Romans chapter 13, he should also preach, “don’t elect bramble” of Judges 9.
Politics is a spiritual issue complete with Biblical guidance, and should be taught in the same vein that we teach, stewardship, discipleship, how to have a healthy marriage, parenting principles, etc. It is not a “gospel” message of how to get saved, but it is a Biblical message giving Biblical guidance, to earthly issues.
I will go back and give some thinking to the “two kingdom approach” that you have introduced to me, and see what I can learn about it.
Jeff,
Thanks for taking the time to read it. I am still developing my thinking on all this myself. Though I had heard the term “two kingdoms theology” before, I didn’t have a real good grasp on it before reading the article, and I am sure I have a whole lot more to learn on this. But when I read it, I thought, “That’s exactly what I believe about this. I just didn’t know what to call it until now.”
*For anyone else that reads this and wonders what article we are talking about, here it is:
http://www.credomag.com/2012/03/20/interview-with-david-vandrunen-on-two-kingdoms-theology/
Who is “innocent” and not deserving the wrath of God.
I don’t see abortion as merely a religious issue, but primarily a political one. The killing of the unborn deprives that person of their right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as set forth in the Constitution.
I am aware this is an emotionally charged issue, and I certainly reserve the right to be wrong on this subject, but taking on the issue of abortion from a constitutional perspective is much more palatable to a society who is at enmity toward God than a biblical approach.
I may be nitpicking and it does not necessarily detract from what you are trying to say, but “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is not from the United States Constitution, but rather from the Declaration of Independence.
Not nitpicking at all. You are correct sir.
I guess I will have to rationalize my constitutional defense of the unborn from the Constitution, or call it a “Declaration of Independence” defense?
Indeed, politics has nothing to do with the faith. No matter how you vote, you will not find yourself on the side of a Christian party. We vote as best we can and hope for the best.
Charlie – this article may be of interest to you.
http://changeworthmaking.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/politics-and-the-pulpit/
I think you’re right. There’s a degree to which that’s true.
David:
Given the way your propositions are phrased, would you conclude, “if trying to change votes hurts my ability to persuade hearts to change, it should be shunned?”
Because the corollary that begins “If my efforts to save a few innocent lives hurts my ability to change hearts….” seems troublesome.
Jon,
Good question. I think I agree with your suggested concluding proposition, and I somewhat understand the dilemma you posit regarding the corollary. My initial answer, pending further reflection, is that the hearts that might be “changed” as a result of refraining from saving innocent lives are almost certainly not truly changed in the way we are hoping to they will be changed. But, also, there may be some methods of saving innocent lives that are more consistent with a concomitant commitment to change hearts, and others that are less so. When faced with such a choice, we should opt for the method that is more consistent with a concomitant commitment to change hearts.
An example that comes to mind here is the burning down of abortion clinics, or even the forceful picketing of abortion clinics, physically denying access to those who would want to enter (though it may also be debated what positive effects these methods may ultimately have toward the saving of lives anyway).