When it comes to the relationship between Christians and the government of our United States, we want to root our attitudes, ideas, and actions in Scripture. Yet, when it comes to our historical situation, we don’t match the hierarchies in place during Old and New Testament times. As a Democratic-Republic in which supreme power is vested in the people as we select men and women to represent our views, we are a different creature than what we see with Israel and Rome.
Israel was a theocracy. God created a community of people and he established the rules. Even after giving the nation a king, the monarchy was to be subject to the rule and commands of God. The kings were expected to learn, know, and obey God’s Law, though most failed miserably at this. The church exists as a singular people spread throughout many nations. This means that from culture to culture and period to period, the church lives and thrives under many different types of governments, including monarchies, dictatorships, and democracies.
The early church existed primarily within the Roman Empire that at times sought to persecute and kill Christians. Still, Jesus, Paul, and Peter all taught that God’s people should pay their taxes, pray for their leaders, honor authorities, and submit to just laws.
Though, situationally, our relationship to our government is different than that of Old Testament Israel or the early church, we find guiding principles in scripture that help us determine our Christian duty in regards to the government. Briefly, I want to detail five primary duties we have.
First, we have a duty to honor and pray for those in authority. “Authority” in our system is different than what we see in a monarchy or empire. The opening line to the preamble of the constitution is “We the people.” Authority ultimately resides in the voting population. Still, we elect persons to represent us and thus grant to them representative authority. Therefore, we will not equate our president or senators or representatives like an “emperor as the supreme authority” as Peter writes, but we can still see them as fitting the bill of governing authorities in passages such as 1 Peter 2:13-17, which tells us to honor those in charge (as a subset of “honoring everyone”), and 1 Timothy 2:1-4, which tell us to pray for those in authority that we might live peaceful lives and that they might be saved.
We live in a climate where respect has almost become an artifact of the past. Social media and polarized “news” channels have brought out the worst in us. We need to relearn respect, for those in government and for our fellow citizens, even those with whom we deeply disagree. We must relearn what it means to argue against ideas without belittling the person. Followers of Jesus should pave the way in this. A person made in the image of God is of much greater worth than winning a particular argument.
And praying for someone will help build respect. If we truly pray with deep concern that another might act in wisdom, know Jesus, and follow Jesus, then it will change for the better the attitudes we harbor toward them.
Second, we have a duty to obey just laws. In the gospels when Jesus was asked if it was lawful to pay taxes, he replied, “Whose image is on the coin?” When those testing him answered, “Caesar,” Jesus said, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” In Romans 13, Paul continued this thought, telling us to obey governing authorities and pay our taxes. Then in 1 Peter 2, Peter commanded that we “submit to every human authority.” For, as both Paul and Peter state, government exists as a representative of God to punish evil and support good.
We, of course, know that in a post-Genesis 3 world, governments struggle to do this well and some flat fail. Still, we are to obey the laws of government when they are just. How do we know what a just law is? Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:17 that we’re to “honor everyone, love the brothers and sisters…honor the emperor.” The phrase in that ellipsis is “fear God.” This is Peter’s way of saying that as much as we are to honor those in authority, we are to honor God far, far more. A king might be supreme in the land, but Jesus is the King of kings over creation.
So, if a law contradicts God’s commands or results in us treating another person in a way that degrades the image of God in them, then the law is unjust. If the law is unjust, then we are justified in disobeying it, indeed we even have a responsibility to disobey it because God is the greater King. But any law that does not contradict God’s commands or degrade another person is to be obeyed, even if we dislike it.
The great thing in the United States, however, is if we don’t like a law and enough of our other citizens don’t like a law, then we can vote in people who will work to change said law. But as long as it is law, it is to be obeyed.
Third, we have a duty to vote for men and women of character. In 1998, the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention passed a wonderful resolution on “Moral Character of Public Officials.” The first “resolved” states: “We, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 9-11, 1998, in Salt Lake City, Utah, affirm that moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders.”
Scripture tells a consistent tale: Governmental leaders of good character lead to a better nation; those of immoral character lead to ruin and disgrace. We see this in the pattern of the kings where those who “did evil in the sight of the Lord” often brought political, social, and spiritual damage. And we see this in Proverbs 14:34, quoted in the resolution: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” Or in Proverbs 11:10-11, “When the righteous thrive, a city rejoices… A city is built up by the blessing of the upright, but it is torn down by the mouth of the wicked.” And in Proverbs 28:12, “When the righteous triumph, there is great rejoicing, but when the wicked come to power, people hide.”
At the last presidential election, when the two major parties presented candidates of poor moral character, some held their nose and voted “for the lesser of two evils.” Some voted for the party with the platform they saw as being the least morally repugnant. And others of us voted third party.
What was shocking and continues to be shocking is seeing some Christians enthusiastically support a candidate of poor moral character. That flies in the face of the wisdom of scripture. Some respond, “Well, God can use evil men for his good ends, just look at Nebuchadnezzar [or: insert a different Old Testament governmental head].” That might be all well and true, but God’s people didn’t vote in Nebuchadnezzar, and neither should we.
Fourth, we have a duty to vote from a biblically informed conscience on various issues. Every election cycle there is a home in my town that places a big sign in their front yard with words you can see from the highway: “Vote the Bible.” In a way, they’re right—the Bible should inform our decisions; but the Bible doesn’t directly speak to a variety of issues. For example, the Bible gives no specifics about tax rates or infrastructure funding or gun control or automotive emissions or health care coverage or trade deals. In these cases, one platform isn’t necessarily more morally right or good than another.
But there are certain realities we find in scripture that should thoughtfully and prayerfully shape our views on such things. For example, the Bible teaches that every person is made in the image of God, that we are to honor all people, and that our lives began within our mothers’ wombs. Thus “sanctity of human life” should be a foundational principle for how we as Christians vote. Abortion, obviously, is a large part of that. But, how does sanctity of human life play into the other issues?
Some might say we have a responsibility to provide basic health care for everyone. Others might argue that a free market health care industry is best. Some might say that stronger gun control laws will help preserve life. Others might argue that an ability to protect oneself and one’s family is the better route.
And here’s the thing: As faithful followers of Jesus, we might actually come to different conclusions about these matters. That’s why Paul wrote about respecting each other’s conscience on secondary matters. That same principle applies here.
But however we end up voting on such issues, we should let our hearts and minds be guided and convinced by what the Bible clearly teaches. Then we vote our biblically informed conscience over popular thinking or strict platform/party lines.
Finally, we have a duty to seek for just causes. If you miss this one in Scripture, then it’s because you have your eyes closed while reading. In the prophets, nations are judged all the time by the way the marginalized or less fortunate are treated by the culture. We seek for just causes as we lift up those who have been marginalized and as we work against laws and attitudes that degrade the humanity of another. This means we stand against the various isms—racism, sexism, classism, ageism, etc. And we stand for that which elevates the dignity and potential of others.
We could say more on each of these topics, but as we draw near to yet another election day, let’s keep in mind these things that Scripture calls us to. Let’s cast off attitudes and political maneuvering that degrades others. Let’s stand for the kingdom of God above all others—the kingdom of love and light as the hymn goes…
All scripture quotations taken from the Christian Standard Bible.
Mike, perhaps a bit of clarification? You said:
“Third, we have a duty to vote for men and women of character….
“At the last presidential election, when the two major parties presented candidates of poor moral character, some held their nose and voted “for the lesser of two evils.” Some voted for the party with the platform they saw as being the least morally repugnant. And others of us voted third party.”
*Comment: at this point you have not made a judgment about any of these choices
“What was shocking and continues to be shocking is seeing some Christians enthusiastically support a candidate of poor moral character. That flies in the face of the wisdom of scripture…..That might be all well and true, but God’s people didn’t vote in Nebuchadnezzar, and neither should we.”
*Comment: Here you seem to start by critiquing the enthusiastic support for a person of low moral character, but the end seem to equate you critique with all those who “held their nose and voted for the lesser of two evils.”
—> Do you believe those who did that to have violated scripture?
Thanks,
-Andy
Good article Mike. One thing I wonder. You said, “What was shocking and continues to be shocking is seeing some Christians enthusiastically support a candidate of poor moral character.”
Do you have any particular candidates running this cycle in mind that Christians enthusiastically are supporting who are of poor moral character? I know in Missouri we face no such dilemma.
Good post.
There are always points of tension, however.
For example, what if candidate A’s platform is more just and in line with biblical causes as a voter sees them. But candidate A is divorced from his wife, single, and doesn’t live the way scripture teaches.
And candidate B is a model of moral rectitude, but has a platform that the voter believes does not promote justice or biblical values.
What would you advise the voter to do?
Vote for candidate A because his policies will affect the country for good.
Vote for candidate B because his personal moral example would be good for the country.
Vote for someone else (even a write in) who has no chance of winning but to make a statement. And add to this the recognition that given the issues and political alignment at the time, many people who would otherwise vote for A are considering this choice, which would aid candidate B’s chances, with the result being that the person elected would pursue unjust and non-biblical policies.
The trouble with the lesser of two evils strategy, is that both Republicans and Democrats are racing headlong downward. Our choices are only likely to get worse. Who would have ever imagined the party of “family values” would be what it is today? Criminals, lechers, and bullies. Christians are not shaping or influencing the Republican party, the Republican party is shaping American Christendom and not in a positive way.
If I disagreed with you I’d still be a Republican. I haven’t changed my views but I came to see the GOP did not have convictions- just a thirst for power and unending willingness to compromise and sell out principles to get it.
And if we let the GOP know we will vote for the lesser of two evils they will increasingly give us worse and worse evil.
Agreed. I personally cannot fathom someone worse than what we have now, but 2 years ago I could not have fathomed what we got then, so clearly my imagination is defective.
Bill, if you can’t imagine HRC, as being morally worse than what we have now, then I would offer this advice,
If I were you, I think I would have my fathomer taken in for service. It may have a loose screw or two…..
Yep
I agree with you about character, but in practice this gets tricky. For example, just because a person voted for Trump doesn’t mean that he endorses every aspect of Trump’s character or that he considers character unimportant. When faced with deeply flawed candidates in a two-party system, difficult choices must be made. You can abstain from voting, vote for a third-party candidate who has no realistic chance of winning, or vote for the major-party candidate that you think has the better chance of governing more righteously than the other (even if the difference is incremental). I can understand why someone would choose any one of those options, but they are all problematic.
A politician is coarse, not well spoken , arrogant , lives a totally secular lifestyle, is a Christian like the majority of Americans , in name only {CINO} , is open about his goals and what he intends to do wins the election over a politician who is for basically unlimited abortion rights, does not consider freedom of religion important or even acknowledges the concerns of many faith based voters, who is not strong in the promotion of American security and well being, who derides those who disagree with their politics as not worthy of consideration and who party promotes a liberal and social leaning agenda.
Then the voters elect the first candidate electing some one they agree with politically but not in lifestyle. We can see the subtle change in tone and messaging, “all” life is precious not just unborn children making the illegal alien issue on the same level of killing unborn babies. Of course” all” life is important and this is a traditional liberal talking point. Politics is being inter linked with faith. It is clear what to do, vote your choice based on issues unless you truly think we are a theocracy.
I do not need a list of who to vote for, the issues are out there, the information about the people are out there and the organized faith based institutions should stay out of politics. I voted for Romney , based on the issues, not his religion or lifestyle. Will Donald Trump do more damage to faith based issue than President Obama did or Hillary Clinton would have? Whatever you or I think, voters should make their own minds up based on their decision without an official religious endorsement and if a religious leader wishes to actively enter the political arena than be up front and not obscure about it. Personally I like the Franklin Graham approach.
When someone pronounces themselves Never Trump there is no longer any reason for any dialogue, the have made a statement and closed their mind and staked out a position that is closed to counter opinions. Have not seen any Always Trump bandwagon, no matter how sincere many of his voters are. However Always Trump would be denounced as closed minded and brain washed.
People of faith make the right decision on their own.
Steve: Has there never been a candidate so odious to you that you would never vote for them? It isn’t close-mindedness. It’s simply looking at the evidence and making a reasoned decision. I’ve had two years to collect new evidence and rethink my decision. Nothing has changed. Actually I find the president far more objectionable than when he was merely a candidate.
And yet the fact remains that I would vote for Trump every day and twice on Sunday over any Democrat like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren based completely on issues. Do I think Trump should call someone “horse face”? No. But I’m supposed to vote for a socialist because he is “mean”. No way.
That’s fine. I wouldn’t vote for them either although I fear the term socialist has lost its meaning.
Right on Mark Smith. Socialism is a concern I agree. But my main marker is NEVER to vote foe someone who advocates the slaughter of babies. Rather, to vote for someone who works to lessen the number of babies slaughtered. I’ll not waste a vote by writing in or voting for a moral nobody when I have an option to lessen the number of babies slaughtered.
It is on this hill I shall plant my flag and on which I am willing to die. Thanks for the clarity of purpose my Presbyterian friend, Les Prouty.
Bill Mac, yes , I would not vote for a candidate who would continue the terrible and wrong decision of President G.W. Bush who got us into a 17 year old Middle East war with no purpose. I would find it impossible to vote for a candidate who would support late term abortions and all the policy endorsed by an official party platform. I would not vote for a science denying party that created out of thin air a federal policy creating a trans gendered protected status community. I could not vote for someone who did nothing to promote religious freedom and to help Christians from religious prosecution. I find it odious that American laws , passed by a lawful elected Congress are not only ignored but American citizens are deeded wrong in asking the laws of the land be enforced. I find it offensive when a President asks Americans at a prayer breakfast to get off their high horse and harkens back to the Crusades. I find it offensive when I see over a high percent of my money being taxed while many abuse the American social welfare system in so many ways. I will stop there. but there is more.
I do not like, support or appreciate the personal conduct of President Trump , who is, like Popeye says I am what I am. He is a brash, super wealthy, spoiled, publicity seeking, big ego, speaks for the hip and gut blue collar New York. G.W. Bush was a nice, quiet man with great manners and an absolutely terrible President. President Obama was a political genius, a great public speech giver but did govern well, in my opinion. Family wise , great guy but that is all . Just my opinion , thanks for the reply.
Like it or not we are electing someone to run the government for the good of the citizens of the USA. That is what Trump is trying to do .
Well, I don’t quite agree. I don’t think Donald Trump cares one little iota about what is good for the citizens of the USA. I think he only cares about what is good for him. If that happens to coincidentally result in a policy that benefits someone, that’s fine. But I’m under no illusion that he cares for my well being, only his.
In what way is DT blue collar? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has, as far as I can tell, never done a day’s manual labor in his life. He is crude, profane, boorish and loud, but I would hesitate to classify that as blue collar.
Interesting Dynamic:
Leading up to the 2016 Election, neither me nor my wife were going to vote for Trump, since other Republican candiadates were far better. When he became THE candidate, my wife had planned to vote for him until a couple of weeks before the election when the audio of his crass comments came out. She then decided she could not vote for him, and decided not to place a presidential vote.
I was the opposite. I’ve known for 20 years the kind of man Trump was, and that recoding did not surprise me at all. I was planning to not vote for him or Hillary, but as it got near I realized that I hoped he would win over Hillary, and was abstaining just for my own sake to be able to say I didn’t vote for him, so I’m the end I did vote Trump because of policies, Supreme Court issues, etc…, and my wife did not.
Neither of us thinks the other has done wrong. We both think he’s an immoral man, and we are also glad he beat Hillary.
I am passionately pro-life and anti-abortion but the tendency to make that the only issue can be troubling when we use abortion to negate the importance if other issues.
We talk about racism and someone turns the discussion to 60 million abortions.
We talk of abuse or other “#metoo” issues and people shift the focus to abortion.
Let’s not use abortion as an excuse to avoid dealing with other issues.
I don’t think anybody here does not comprehend the multiplicity of issues, including racism and abuse, as those which define Christian virtue and righteousness.
At the same time there must be a sense of proportion: Most victims of racism and abuse remain with us – troubled, depressed, yet alive to deal with their problems and issues. With God’s Grace and help from the people of God, they can attempt to cope and live productive and God glorifying lives. The baby victim of abortion will not by definition be “alive.” They are dead. Whatever comfort and joy they receive will be at the Throne of Grace for they will never get the opportunity to play, have fun, or see the Grace of God displayed through the jar of clay they were going to be born in. If there is any consolation, they will never see the second death = I believe God has a special place for them.
So please don’t see (at least from me) the excuse of not wanting to deal with other issues “because abortion.” I think with most of us if we get abortion right, then all the other issues are right too.
Rob
Thank you Rob. I was slowly typing as you commented apparently. Well said.
Rob, Dave, Abortion is the major issue to most people of faith as it so fundamental to their belief , however it is not the “only” issue. As this thread proves the issues get blurred , at least to me, are we talking about moral, personal conducts issues as the main issue or policy issues. See my above post , not a one issue person as most are not. Trump for example signed the Executive Order on the Johnson Amendment, while symbolic. it sent a signal from the previous over sight of religious tax exempt organizations. Religious freedom and the effort to protect Christians around the world including pressure to bring home long forgotten persecuted Christians. A pledge to protect the borders and laws of the USA versus a blind eye approach to illegal entry into this nation. Economic opportunity for minority individuals to have a job versus a hopeless cycle of losing ground to those willing to work for lower wages because they have no legal status, the expansion of anti family foundations such as giving protected status to every conceivable special interest group.
In short no group plays the abortion “card” anywhere close to the race and economic envy class “card” being played. This is obvious to me with the fairly recent branding of accepting , condoning illegal aliens as on the same moral level as protecting unborn babies. Abortion is the issue that is so important to those who oppose it and those who support it. The pro abortion side will not comprise or back down and it is the number one issue for a true liberal politician who must support abortion. Public payment and access to unlimited abortion is the non demand of the pro abortion side, again no comprise. The best we can do on the pro life side is hold the fort and pray. How far we have come from Bill Clinton answer the abortion be “safe, legal and rare” How the issue is that abortion be unlimited and a medical right for the Mother.
If Hillary Clinton would have won, USA would still be funding UN sanctioned abortion, Mexico agreement world wide. Ask a liberal such as H. Clinton to comprise, not to make abortion the main issue and see what happens. The whole issue on the Supreme Court appointments is based on what issue?
All groups and viewpoints who are alive and in this world have anadvocacy group,. Unborn humans only have one group to defend their right to be born and to life. An unborn baby has no choice, no voice and no chance if society deems them expendable.
Dave, one does not need to avoid dealing with other issues such as racism or abuse or any number of other things so they can make the life/death issue the single most important thing on which to base a vote. I strongly oppose race intolerance (and have African Americans as part of my family) and I also strongly oppose abuse of any kind. I experienced that and saw it first j=hand growing up. Nevertheless, IMO the single issue above all else is life. Someone can survive abuse and still be used of God. Someone can survive racist insults and actions toward them and be used of God. Not one single baby slaughtered at the hands of an abortionist has survived. Not one.
Here is one example. This woman’s story. Well worth the read. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/a-woman-of-whom-the-world-was-not-worthy-helen-roseveare-1925-2016/
I have seen more than once recently the diminution of racism as an issue because of abortion.
“I have seen more than once recently the diminution of racism as an issue because of abortion.”
Relative to life/death, it is lesser. That does not make it unimportant to battle. It’s just that racism inherently does not snuff out a life. It can lead to that of course but in most instances it does not. Hence the word inherent. Baby slaughter, AKA abortion, by definition ends in death. So yeah, racism next to baby killing is relatively less important. Relatively.
All evil is the same, cut from the same cloth. We are the ones who assume that Racism. Abuse, and Abortion are all different. My neighbor was complaining one day that we needed to catch the “moes” in both our yards – that somehow they were communicating. I commented that odds were we had the same moe – we catch that one and we probably would eliminate both our problems. Moe’s don’t know property lines – they go where they please. Evil does not either. It all connects.
Abortion is Racism and Abuse all wrapped up in a tidy bow. In terms of identity, who are the greatest baby victims of abortion? That would be children of color. Margaret Sanger founder of PP was a eugenicist, and often found herself at a lectern at racist assemblies (both KKK and Nazi). She was of the opinion that the black race should be eliminated and sterilization and abortion would get it done. To this day PP clinics are in some of the most poverty stricken neighborhoods of color. Abortion abuses women who are just as much victims as those found in the MeToo movement. Many are browbeat by the men in their life to get rid of the “problem.” Most are abused by abortionists who really do not care about the women but just the money – go read the grisly affair called “the Gosnell Grand Jury Report.”
Rob
Rob, just to lend some perspective to what you stated. If abortion is figured in to African American mortality rates, 61% of all black deaths nationwide are from abortion. How are we not rightfully calling this genocide?
The trouble I have with the “whoever is against abortion” formula, is although it makes decisions very easy, you willingly enter a hostage situation where a candidate does not have to demonstrate anything, or have a record of anything, they only have to say the magic words. It means if David Duke or Louis Farrakhan say they are pro-life, they automatically get your votes. Your choice of course but I can’t do it. Supporting Trump may possibly result in fewer abortions, but I firmly believe that our Christian witness is diminished; greatly diminished in the country and in the world because evangelicals are in bed with Trump. I’m not enough of a Calvinist to think that doesn’t matter.
“In bed” is a fairly strong metaphor. Also disturbing is the picking of extreme examples of Duke and Farrakhan. Though we have heard the”magic” words from lots of politicians – men who in public presented themselves “as” with character and integrity they were fakes- once elected they became abysmal failures and turncoats – yet were “good” men of manners and culture. Your sounding like the Times columnist David Brooks who looked at the well creased slacks of Obama and called him good – or Samuel who looked at the outward countenance of Jesse’s oldest son and thought that this was the one God had chosen. Decisions matter, actions matter, not just mere words. The reason many evangelicals (aside from yourself of course) like Trump is not because of the theatrics and drama and the lifestyle. It is because he fights and does what he says. “Be doers of the Word and not hearers only” James tells us. Now I do not know why Trump fights – I do not know how long he will fight in the face of intransigent naysayers and carpet bombers (I imagine you would find yourself in that lot). As long as he does fight for good, I will support that.
Rob
And i might add…Trump was not pictured together at the same place on the same podium as Farrakhan. Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama did that. Just saying…
Rob
In 1888 – the election was between Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine. It was one of the dirtiest elections of the 19th century. Cleveland’s illegitimate child was brought to light. Blaine’s shady business become public fodder. There were campaign songs written that would fit in well today about the scandals.
Cleveland as governor of NY had brought down the political machine – Tammany Hall. Blaine was the political operative of the GOP. The people had to decide between a good family man in Blaine or a good man in Cleveland. Cleveland won in 1888, lost in 1892, and won again in 1896, becoming the only prez to do so. He was a president of integrity and honor. The people made the right choice.
Why this long story? Ethics matter. Values matter. Truth matters. Why I am now an Independent.
Amen. I want them to matter, I’m just not sure they do.
Amy, Facts matter also Grover Cleveland was President from 1885 to 1889 and then from 1893 to 1897 , however your point is well taken. Perhaps you have an independent set of facts. Grover Cleveland is ranked as a slightly above average President , not in the top tier but not in the bottom half either, he would be similar to President Ford, a good caretaker and a good man. President Ford was replaced by a ethical man, with good values and was fairly truthful and was not a very good President at all. It would have been better for the country for Ford to remain but the ethically challenged, no true values except being President and untruthful Nixon killed Fords reelection. You just never know until time passes for history to make its judgement.
I am a historian. I would rank him as above average. He is blamed for the economic panic of the late 1800s that were more Benjamin Harrison’s fault than Cleveland’s. He also vetoed hundred of pork bills from his own party because he didn’t want to burden the people. That is integrity.