The following pages chronicle my upbringing and experiences in politics and contain the details of my thoughts on the proper relationship between a Christian and the governments to which he owes obedience while on earth.
Disclaimer: This work is not written by a theologian! Rather, I will have to claim what a prominent author of the past century did, namely that as a lay Christian, I write to fellow lay Christians. Neither do I boast a superior education in the topic. In short, I appear to be eminently unqualified to instruct others. But it is this reality that gives me confidence, for I do not and could not ask you to accept my thoughts unquestioningly as truth. Instead, it is my highest hope that these pages will instead cause you to re-evaluate your allegiances and commitments on this earth. Do not trust what I have written! For that matter, nor should you trust what anyone else has written. Do your own examination, study the scriptures yourself, and above all pray to God for wisdom, for it is He who can give you all that you need if only you will believe.
I
[A]
I grew up in a Christian subculture that was consistently politically active. My parents always voted and the importance of that rubbed off on me such that as a teenager, I was unable to conceive of any point in my life where I would choose to not vote. In the 1980s, my church group supported the anti-communist movement/militia (the Contras) of Nicaragua out of concern that communism was not approved by God, nor was it beneficial to the kingdom of God. When I was 12 or 13, I worked as a volunteer in Michael Farris' campaign for governor of Virginia (one that he lost). In addition to Farris, I remember some families that we were friends with later on in my life that had very close ties to John Ashcroft who later on became a high ranking official in Bush's cabinet. The one big issue that decided almost all voting decisions of my parents and my culture was that of abortion. If a candidate was pro-choice, no matter what other convictions he/she had, that individual was an adversary and would receive no votes from us.
Because of this abortion stance, my culture was aligned with the Republican Party by default as they were always pro-life as well and the Democrats usually were not. This viewpoint on abortion rose from a concern to treat life as precious and given by God Himself, as Christian scripture clearly indicates that it is. Government was viewed as something corrupt but necessary and even capable of introducing good changes. My father was the more disinterested party; he clearly held the viewpoint that government officials were usually deceivers and used people to get what they wanted (power). But he was open to some of those officials promoting good things and so was always informed of political issues relevant to our Christian faith. My mother was the more politically active and concerned person of the family. It was she who urged that I help campaign for Michael Farris who was running for governor of Virginia. Farris was also liked by my mother and other families in our circle because of his strong support for homeschoolers. This is a fairly important element that I should briefly mention. Back in the 1980s when I was being home schooled, very few Americans engaged in this. Just about the only ones who did so, were in it for religious (Christian) convictions. Therefore, it became an important concern that candidates in office were friendly to an extremely small minority. In Virginia at that time, only Republicans seemed to care about these sorts of rights.
Although, it was never heavily emphasized in our home, I intuitively picked up on the fact that the Republican candidate was almost always the better one to vote for because the Democrat was always in favor of abortion and thus the Republican was the lesser of two evils. Because I tended to be radical in my approach toward religious beliefs, I took the lazy Republican favoritism of my parents and others and made it more of a duty for myself to support the Republican Party. Lazy I say, because my parents would indeed vote for a Democrat who was pro-life. In so doing, I became more dogmatic than my parents were. In later times now, I have seen that there are and were Christians on the other side of the issues who supported the Democrats for the same general reasons I supported Republicans- that they might promote social change more in accordance with the teachings of the bible. But in my early days, I knew no one like this, so the Democrats were the enemy.
In my latter high school years I listened to the popular radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. This man, though seemingly unconverted, had highly developed reasoning and logical skills. I always enjoyed listening to him destroying the arguments of the opposition and pointing out hypocrisy. Talented though he was, he never addressed many biblical issues which at times made me think he was afraid to. For example, he always skirted the issue of homosexuality, never willing to take a firm stance on it. Such an issue as that, being so black and while in scripture, made me wonder at his commitments. But I never thought too much on those weak points. While I was in high school, Bill Clinton was the president of the United States. All I ever heard was how wicked he was and how we (the Republican Right) needed to get a good guy back in office. I went along with all of it. Most of the Christian right views of the Republican Party were expounded upon through the radio. Because I listened to quite a few Christian radio stations and conservative talk show hosts, I was saturated with the opinions of the conservative party, especially in the mid to late 1990s. Although I knew from scripture that I should not speak evil of an authority, I nonetheless did so, though uneasily.
When I arrived at college, I was the most politically active that I have ever been in my life. There was a presidential election my first semester in school. The candidates were George W. Bush and Al Gore. I hated Gore and saw him as one who would destroy the country. Part of my rational for that intense dislike was his beliefs regarding welfare, business, and nature. He advocated welfare for all (not considering the cost in taxes for me); his policies towards businesses were ones that would destroy some of the entrepreneurial spirit of this nation; and he was radical in his protection of wildlife and nature to the point that he wanted to help little spotted owls more than human beings. These issues still readily raise the hackles of conservatives in this nation as they did to me then. Besides all that, was the fact that he was fanatically pro-choice. And he just looked evil! While the election was going on, I was fasting and praying that God would send Bush into office. Evidently my prayers were heard, for that is exactly what happened. During this time, I was more politically active than anyone in my dorm hall.
While I was in college, I began to get challenged on my political positions. First, I began to meet nice people who happened to be Democrats and I met some mean people who were Republicans. This made me become more careful in handing out gross over-simplifications of what type of people Democrats were. My freshman week teacher was a liberal Democrat... and also one of the nicest teachers I had at my university. I approached a man who was in the republican club and he seemed so full of hate towards those who did not share his view points that I wondered whether Jesus had indeed commanded us to love our enemies. I see now looking back, that my confusion then arose when I mistakenly associated a political party as being allied with Christ. Secondly, I met people who had all the right political beliefs, but who were not Christians nor appeared to be close to that state of being. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, my theological beliefs developed and changed more in my four years at school than the nineteen years before. I started studying the scriptures with a critical eye. Now I do not want to sound condescending; in high school I sincerely believed that I knew Christian doctrine and had a well developed world view. But I have to now disagree with myself then. I knew little reality, though I knew many facts. It was in college, that I really opened scripture and was willing to begin to believe whatever it said; even if it went against things I had strongly believed before. Almost every major belief I had in my Christian faith was challenged and eventually changed into something different than it originally was. Changes in my basic beliefs in soteriology and eschatology especially began to throw my political worldview into turmoil. Early on in this time, I did not have a church which I regularly attended or felt apart of. The result was that I felt alone in the world concerning discerning all truth. I was alone with God and often in my life that has turned out to the better. So, alone I began to read through scripture and re-analyze many previous beliefs. My worldview then was radically altered as I began to come to different conclusions than the ones I had assumed as a youth. Looking back now, I understand that various experiences I went through prompted tremendous spiritual change in me and many effects came from this change, the topic of this essay being one.
I began to re-evaluate my Christian faith as it regarded politics. Why were the Republicans the good guys and the Democrats the bad guys? What impact did politics have on Christianity? I had always believed that some good laws put into place would solve some (though not all) of our ills. But that line of thinking I did not find in scripture anymore, even though my textbooks had taught me that even in primary school. I was home schooled through eighth grade, and the textbooks my family used were primarily created by Christian producers. How "Christian" they were I do not know. However, we were all taught that the first two institutions created by God were the family and government. They were sacred and holy as they came from God Himself. I looked in the bible and saw marriage right off. But government did not come into the picture until much later.
Although I have read many books over the years that have had a profound influence on me in this area, several in particular stand out. One was called "The Anatomy of a Hybrid” by Leonard Verduin. The other was called "Blinded by Might" coauthored by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson. I do hope that the reader can sympathize with me in the position wherein I found myself (at my university) regarding this topic. I have tried to outline the important events in my life that create a trail of thought which can be useful to those who wish to analyze where my conclusions have come from. The rest of this essay deals with what I reasoned through and found in Christian scripture as I studied with perhaps a more critical eye.
[B]
I then began to read through scripture to try to see what politics should mean to a Christian. Government in scripture first appears with the tower of Babel. There was some sort of loose leadership structure in place at that time that prompted men to build a city and a tower whose top reached to heaven. Surely not all wanted to labor in the pits creating the bricks and materials necessary for such a grand structure. Not all would want to work in the hot sun. Central leadership was needed to unite and command the people. Furthermore, consider that at this time, wickedness was covering the earth once more, because shortly after this the Lord came down with judgment on all these people for breaking one of His first commands to them. People can certainly be united in wickedness, but they cannot labor together in peace toward a common goal without a rod of iron. That has never been seen in the history of mankind for an extended period of time. This government then that was in place at this time was not a godly government. We do not know much about it, but God most certainly did not order its structure and existence as a blessing for all mankind, as He later came down and pronounced a cursing on the inhabitants of Babel.
As I mentioned earlier, some Christian sources will attempt to argue that government was instituted by God along side of marriage and as such is a holy institute similar to marriage. Marriage most certainly is a holy thing, but this second consideration is not something I have found in scripture. However, this was a belief system I embraced until the Lord had mercy on me and showed me my error. Now I consider that people go outside of scripture when they teach this. Marriage was something that God created in perfection, in the Garden of Eden. The first governmental structure ever seen was based upon sin.
Consider also that after Babel, there appear literally dozens of accounts of kingdoms in scripture, the vast majority of whom are wicked. It seems that men gravitated toward making a king over them without a word from the Lord. Not until the middle part of the book of Exodus does one find something that vaguely resembles a government being set up by the Lord. And indeed there was one, but this government structure that God set up with Israel could never ever be used as an example for how modern day governments should run their affairs. This government structure was first of all established with Israel and not with any Gentile nation. It was only for Israel, not any other as mandated by God. Secondly, this government structure was symbolic of the new covenant that God made with all His chosen people (not just Israel) around the time of Jesus. It was referred to time and time again in scripture and had direct implications on the greater spiritual covenant that was to come with Christ. This second covenant came about with the coming of Jesus. And the lessons that Jesus taught were spiritual fulfillments of the old physical covenant that failed because of the disobedience of God's people. I find need to start with this crucial point because many Christians seem to find modern day literal significance in this government that God set up. There is significance in it but not toward an earthly government as many suppose.
[C]
The first covenant had several aspects of what God communicated to Israel. There were moral, legal, and ceremonial aspects to this covenant. The moral commands dealt with behavior that God wanted from His people, in the absence of which there were no direct legal consequences or punishment. An example of this is found in Deuteronomy 26:11. Joy is commanded of the people, yet there is no way to accurately measure whether one has fulfilled this commandment. As a result, there could be no punitive result if this is not fulfilled. The legal commands were ones that had punishments attached to the failure to correctly observe them. These are found all over the Torah, an example being in Deuteronomy 22:22. Finally, there were ceremonial commands, such as regarding the proper way to sacrifice animals. Each of these three facets is reflected in a spiritual way in the new covenant.
To illustrate my point, and to save time and space, I will give an example of how each aspect is spiritually fulfilled. Deuteronomy 25:10 "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together." The spiritual fulfillment of this literal ceremonial command given to the common Israelite is found in 2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers." This second one being also given to the common Christian and exhorts us to be separate from the wickedness of the world. The moral command I mentioned beforehand (Deut 26:11) "So you shall rejoice in every good thing which the Lord your God has given you and your house...” finds its fulfillment in Philippians 4:4 and Romans 8:28. We see from the Romans passage that all things which happen to a believer are for his good, for even the bad things the Lord turns to be good for him. Thus Paul can rightly exhort the Philippians to rejoice at all times. Rejoice for the Lord is good. Finally, in Exodus 20, the people of God are told to not commit adultery. But in Matthew 5:28, Jesus says that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The spiritual fulfillment of that 7th commandment was greater than its original application.
All three aspects of the old covenant point to a higher spiritually reality. The legal code is no exception. The fear of legal consequences was a motivating factor for the Jew in the old covenant. That fear of physical punishment no longer exists for the Christian in the new covenant. Why? A higher, more spiritual motivation has taken its place. In the old covenant, examples of punitive actions included the 39 lashes, paying various fines, and the death penalty by stoning. What motivates in the new covenant? It is the love and mercy of God (Romans 12:1). And if that is not enough for an individual in the church, there is a fear that motivates. Yet it is not the fear of physical retribution by an outside source but rather spiritual retribution. Consider just a few examples. 1 Corinthians 5:5 deals with church discipline on one who merits severe action. Paul tells the church to "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Such an action seems to indicate a leader's (and church's) withdrawal of spiritual protection toward a member. That protection being gone, Satan (in the spiritual realm) is much freer to harass and even perhaps destroy an individual. In Revelation 2, Jesus is warning the church at Ephesus to "repent... or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lamp stand from its place..." This language is indicative of the church at Ephesus loosing its spiritual designation or significance before God. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, declared that "he who breaks the least of these commandments and so teaches others will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 3, Christians are taught by Paul to be careful how they engage in ministry, in building into the lives of others. Paul notes that some will spend their lives building things that are useless in eternity. These things will be burned in the fire of adversity and those who built them will suffer loss. How so you ask? They will lose the reward that a faithful steward would have had.
Friend, I urge you to contemplate how the structure of the kingdom of heaven on earth now is radically different than that of the government of the Israelites in the old covenant. And yet, it is also very similar. The outward form has changed dramatically, yet the inward reality remains the same in each. For the Christian, his king is Christ, his president is his elder, and his representatives are his deacons. The real government for the Christian is the kingdom of heaven. The real motivation is the love of Christ. An honest unbiased reading of the New Testament will only render the conclusion that for the Christian, the authorities of significance are spiritual ones. What then of these various earthly kingdoms that we live in across this earth? To be sure, we owe them our obedience in things that do not violate the commandment of the Lord. Peter and John were submissive to the Sanhedrin until they were commanded to not do something that the Lord had told them to do. At that point they respectfully and firmly refused.
[D]
Many Christians in America today argue that democracy is a gift from God and we owe it to God to participate in this form of government which allows us a voice. They quote the scripture "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s" but many fully forgot that the context of this verse is regarding something that the Roman government required their subjects to do, even forcing them at the point of a sword to do so! We are not required to participate in our government here in America, though we are required to pay taxes as Jesus and Peter were. We are not even required to vote. Some will say that if we do not vote, we can not stand before God and say that we have done the best we can with the resources He has given us. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that voting and being active in worldly governance produces quality results in the well-being of the church. This assumption in my opinion is usually poorly made; however I do not condemn any who choose to vote, for even the apostle Paul chose to use his Roman citizenship to avoid punishment. Rather, I fault those who have hope in the structure of government such that they compromise with clear teachings of scripture, for it offers no hope for any Christian. Brethren, our citizenship is in heaven (America is a distant second) and we wait for the coming of Jesus not of a Christian friendly administration or Congress.
There is (in this country) a wide spread assumption that the free market economy is a more godly form than any other, such as communism, and because of this assumption people argue for the godliness of democracy because the two often seem to be linked. I therefore feel compelled to offer some comments upon yet another assumption of American Christians. Regarding the value of a free market economy, a Ukrainian Christian once told my uncle that free market economics has destroyed far more Christians that communism ever did, because under democracy and the free market economy Christians grow so wealthy that they forget their God and fall into moral laxity. Those that tought the inherent godliness of our market economy seem to not have read the passage in Acts, where the church "had all things in common." A free market democratic society is just and only another system of rule that fails ultimately like all the rest, for it does not deliver its inhabitants from sin!
The reader would do well to consider just what it is that makes a democracy work so well. It is the spiritual condition of the people within any given democracy in the world that directly correlates with the spiritual condition of the given nation. For instance, have you never wondered that some countries flourish under democracy while others flounder and the people become desirous of an absolute ruler who will restore prosperity? Nazi Germany is a good example of this fact. In the 1920s, the country was an economic wreck. When Hitler came to power, he assumed the role of a dictator and quite effectively brought about prosperity and peace that was not achieved under the previous democratic governance.
Now I have illustrated what makes a democracy work well; I ask you the reader to consider what makes a free market economy work so well? If you care to research that question, you will see that it is again the spiritual condition of the people within that economy that allows for the success of it. It is not the other way, around as many assert, that the spirituality of an individual will lead to him embracing democracy. It is rather the mere existence of many spiritual persons within any system of government that leads to the general good fortune of many. Take again for example the case of the Christians in Acts who had all their possessions in common. Such an act in this country would at various times be regarded as treason. Yet it was blessed by God. Why? Those involved were walking with God, were filled with the Holy Spirit, and full of love for one another. And under these same conditions, most any form of government conceived would work. Democracy would work well! So also would socialism and absolute monarchies, as well as the communism that the early church was seen to be engaged in. Now, if none of these things were true, then having all things in common would turn out to evil.
Now some of the readers will be thinking of the fact that democracy seems to have produced more prosperity and peace than any other system, thus proving its superiority. That democracy has produced more peace is highly dubious given the bloody wars of the last 300 years. There was far more world peace under the absolute tyrants of the Roman Empire than you or I have every experienced. But then we come to the issue of prosperity. Do you know upon what principles our economic system was built? As most students of history or business know, the writings of Adam Smith heavily influenced the formation of our government in regards to the economy. And just what did he base his reasoning upon? That which he called the "invisible hand" of market forces, many do also recognize as the human elements of fear and greed. In a free market economy, what causes the "market" to create a product or service that fulfills a need or desire of the market place? It is the desire for profit or economic gain. Or it could be the fear of being left behind economically. Christian, the holy scriptures say that "having food and clothing we shall be content." But the vast majority of commerce that takes place in this country comes about from a desire to obtain far more than these things. We do know from scripture that God does choose to give more than this requisite, but an inordinate desire for this extra can be labeled greed. That which does not come from greed, comes from a fear that the person in question will be possessed with a societal position that is economically less than those around him. That these traits are contrary to the teachings of scripture should be evident to all. The New Testament speaks highly of those that worked for their living, but condemns greed, the desire to become rich, and fear of not being provided for. Greed and fear are contrary to the will of God for a Christian’s life, but the whole market system of economics is completely run off of these two traits of fallen man. And it was ingeniously designed (as far as prosperity of its inhabitants goes) for it recognized that greed and fear universally existed- something that many today fail to do. If the reader remains dubious, he should consult with some professionals that have associations with Wall Street and he will be assured that in that arena (representative of many others) fear and greed drive almost every action of mankind. Herein we see that democracy and the free market economy are not inherently more moral than any other system of governance or economics.
[E]
The abuses of power, hypocrisy, and straight-out wickedness of the Democratic Party and those who are labeled liberals (in this country) have been well documented to me from my youth. However, I recognize that though the majority of persons who may read this report will be from conservative Republican stock, there may also be others from the other side. In an effort to be fair and to make this report more widely relevant to readers of various backgrounds, I do want to briefly examine some examples that show the evil of the liberals in the United States from the perspective of God. (Abortion, Clinton's sex scandal, homosexuality, radical feminism, radical environmentalism, and government welfare abuses will be added to this section.)
But issues pertaining to the supposed righteousness of the cause of the Republican Party are where I want to spend the vast majority of time, for I perceive those to be far more deceptive for many. Take for example George W Bush. He claims to be a "born again Christian" and such a claim probably won him many millions of votes for who would vote for an atheist in a country that only has around 15% of the population professing to be atheists? But let us compare his actions to what scripture talks of and we see very quickly that if he is a Christian, he is in a wretched state of sin that is alien to what God communicates to us concerning the changed nature of a Christian. Early in his campaign, Mr. Bush was caught on microphone saying something that even the newest Christian I have seen would know is wrong. He, in referring to a nearby irritating reporter, called the man a "major league ass-hole." Such language usage is expressly forbidden by Eph 4:29, 5:4, and Colossians 3:8. One would expect a Christian to apologize for his sin, but we were disappointed in the aftermath of the incident, for no such thing occurred. Now, is it not strange to you reader, that so many people look up to Mr. Bush as a "man of faith" but if one of our children in even our cold churches today were to say such a thing, he or she would be reprimanded? One could say that some Christians swear also, but scripture is alien to the thought that Christians could be engaged in this activity and never feel guilt and repent. I personally have known Christians who swore. But God dealt with these same individuals, and later on they apologized for such actions and truly attempted to turn away from their sin. Where is Bush’s apology? Where is his repentance? One must also wonder, considering the supposed fact that he was converted in the 1980s, why he is still in bondage in this trivial sin 15 years after new life was given him. Is the power of God limited when dealing with politicians?
Mr. Bush also (for a variety of reasons) promised to promote free trade, and eliminate tariffs. But relatively soon after he got into office he instituted a huge tariff on imported steel. Of course this was to pay off his supporters in the steel industry, but the fact remains that he deceived the rest of the electorate and the world for that matter.
Such things should make you pause and reconsider what is truth and what is fabricated.
[F]
Christian, have you never read the scripture where it says "...the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one"? And have you not also read of when Jesus was tempted by the devil? The devil said that he was willing and ready to give every kingdom of the entire world to Christ if he would only worship Satan. My friend, the devil rules the world and every kingdom within. By contrast, the Kingdom of Christ is a spiritual one that knows no boundaries, but rather by the power of the Holy Spirit spreads into every tribe, tongue, and nation. However, until the end of this age, Satan is the master of all earthly kingdoms. And these earthly kingdoms gladly join the deceiver in his defiance of God; "why do the nations rage and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and His Anointed." You may justly point out that the preceding scripture was pulled from the Old Testament and that we do live in New Testament times. Very well, let us look at more scripture. In Revelation 18, those who committed evil with Babylon are spoken of. "For all the nations of the earth (think of that, reader) have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her..." The concept of Satan ruling and controlling the rulers of this earth does not change from Old Testament to New Testament. That concept is a constant throughout all scripture. From Revelation, we see that every nation, every ruling power is swept into the service of this mystery religion, this anti-Christ. Where is the good, noble nation? There is none. This is because the devil still rules over the entire world. Friend, I ask you, why should the church join with Satan in his rule, in his dominion? Indeed, "shall the throne of iniquity which devises evil by law, have fellowship with [God] Psalm 94:20"? Christian, it should not.
I would also like to point out how trying to use government to defeat evil is, in some ways similar to witchcraft and the occult. In the later organizations, individuals are usually drawn into it because of the tremendous power that is offered to its adherents. Power over the very lives of other people is extremely addicting. From my experience and that of others, it seems that often the individual realizes that the power comes from Satan who is untrustworthy. But they still hope to use that very power to cast out Satan someday and become their own gods and determine their own destinies. Now compare this to governing power. An honest inquire into scripture, I believe, shows that the rulers of this world are corrupt and controlled by the Devil. Not only that, but when it comes to Christianity, they are united in their hatred and intent to destroy it. For a Christian to realize all this and still desire ruling power and/or power over the ruler, appears to me to be only nominally different from the first example. There are some differences though, and to be fair I want to delineate those right now. A person desiring power through government at least (generally speaking) acknowledges that people are inherently corrupt and need outside restraint on them to prevent sin from being rampant. This acknowledgement gives God recognition because His world talks about the sin nature of mankind. On the other hand, adherents to the occult are capable of believing that through obtaining power, they can make the world a better place. Both sides share this basic and fundamentally flawed belief.
II
[A]
A second main consideration I began to examine was what effect laws have upon moral behavior. Everything that I have outlined above is in my consideration enough evidence and logic to bring about a conclusion to the whole topic for most open minds. But, this second part of my article was quite important for me to study and think about as well, for many people believe completely (without thinking much about it) that spiritual change proceeds from outward legal changes.
Many people in my country want to pass a constitutional amendment against abortion. They cry out against the 1973 law legalizing this procedure (as well they should) and think that if only it could be outlawed again, all would be well or at least much better. The question arises now in my mind, what is the duty of the Christian in the new covenant toward an issue like this? Is it not as Christ said to build up the body of Christ and to preach the gospel to all nations? Are Christians to have abortions? Most certainly not, but that is part of building of the body, which is teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded us. Shall we be surprised that the heathen around us engage in barbaric and wicked practices? We should morn over their sin, but a sinful heart begets sinful practices. That process can never be changed! “Fixing” their specific wicked deeds is none of our concern. Rather, preaching Christ to them and urging true repentance which comes with a changed heart or spirit as the scriptures speak of. Out of this new heart will flow righteousness like a river life? Trying to change the evil behavior of the heathen is like trying to change the spots on a leopard. Moreover, trying to change their behavior through use of the government is totally alien to the New Covenant. Jesus never considered such a thing for He came to usher in a spiritual kingdom. Now let us together consider a few examples which closely illustrate my point here.
The 1973 Supreme Court ruling which legalized abortions, also created a new statistic for pro-life groups around the country. Since that time, the number of babies that have been killed has been approaching 45 million. This figure is one that I am well acquainted with as are most professing Christians in this country. What the vast majority of people do not know is the number of abortions that occurred before 1973. It is amazing to me the way Christians will look back on former times and assume with no basis that those times were better than now (Eccl 6:10). The astonishing fact is that in the late 1890s, from the research that I have done, the abortion rate per pregnancy was between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 pregnancies ending in abortion at that time! And, all this took place when abortion was largely illegal! This is something that no politically active pro-life group seems to know. The logical conclusion of this incredible example is that the laws of a country do not have so much to do with morality as the inner state of men's hearts do.
Another example concerns William Wilberforce who was a political activist in England in the 1800s. He is hailed by many as bringing about the abolishment of slavery in that nation through his efforts in politics, and his example is one that politically minded Christians in America look up to. But did the law that he endorsed cause morality to happen in England? Or did morality "happen" and then the law followed? Wilberforce first introduced his bill in 1796, but it was not until 18 years later that the bill was passed into law. And what was this man doing in the mean time? He was preaching against the evils of slavery. He visited churches and spoke against it. He persuaded individuals. And in all of this he used scripture as his authority. Wilberforce did not change England's morality, rather God through the foolishness of preaching His word changed people's hearts and the law of the land changed later because the people of the land had already been changed themselves.
In observing the relationship between the laws of a land, I have seen a curious thing. The laws do not cause men to become more moral, but neither are they completely divorced from the moral condition of men. Indeed there is a correlation between the legal code and morality, but what are the causes and effects in this relationship? We know from scripture that outward restrictions on men never effectually restrain real wickedness, for true wickedness flows from the heart as does true righteousness. We also know from the book of Romans that the legal authority exists ordained by God to restrain evil in the land. This must be observed as one of the common mercies of God given to both good and evil people alike. Just as His rain falls on all people, so also does government exist in all parts of the earth and is successful in various degrees of restraining outward wickedness. There must be a desire for legal authority and structure bestowed by God into the fallen and depraved heart of man. This is one of his common graces toward mankind in general. As the Father loves all men on earth but has a special electing love toward his children, so also does God permit and ordain, through the depraved heart that desires power, men to set up a ruling authority and legal structure to govern their affairs, but bestows a special ruler for His elect- the Holy Spirit. The former can only regulate what comes out of mankind, but can never affect the reality of the heart. Therefore, man's wickedness only shifts from one expression to another with the passage of laws within a nation and their enforcement. Why then should God care? It is because of His general love toward all that He uses the depravity of men to set up a governing structure that will limit certain types of outward expressions of wickedness thus propagating a type of limited and imperfect. However, the Holy Spirit can affect even the hidden parts of people's hearts, effecting change from the inside that displays itself ultimately on the outside. This is the true governing power that really matters in an eternal sense. Yet the earthly government structures are retained for the meanwhile as a common grace of God toward mankind. I can say then that there is a strong correlation between the legal code and the moral condition of mankind, but there is in the end almost zero causation from the legal code toward the moral condition. How can I say such a thing you ask? Consider Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. He said “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit murder’ but I say to you whoever hates his brother has committed murder already in his heart.” Jesus equates murder with hate in the spiritual kingdom. There are different consequences for the two acts on earth, but not in heaven. The composite wickedness of a person in Jesus’ eyes does not change much whether that person violently hates another, or outright kills another. How then can you argue that preventing one but not the other will lead to real spiritual and eternal moral improvement? You can not. This is the point upon which so many are wrong. They argue that the passage of a law will make a country a more moral place in the eyes of God. How so? Many times, holding all else equal, it will not do so in the least bit. Christians should instead be laboring to cause a spiritual change within people which is usually followed be a change in the legal code. The latter is far less important than the former.
[B]
We have by now reviewed a large amount of material, some of it perhaps quite new for the reader. I want to now paint a picture of what reality should look like instead and perhaps this picture can speak more than words. Think then with me of an America where the Christians did not, for the most part, eagerly participate in politics nor look to legal changes to aid them in their spiritual work. In fact, they mostly disdain politics all together, for they realize their calling is a much nobler one. They have a work which can effect lasting change in people and ultimately society; this is much greater than merely restraining evil through a legal system. Instead of spending their time campaigning for certain political candidates, Christians now spend time in prayer for the peace of the nations and for the advancement of the church worldwide. Instead of arguing with other citizens over who should be elected, we will speak to them of Christ who can cause all facets of life to be new. We do not look any more to a certain type of government to solve our spiritual problems, for we know that only a spiritual change can solve spiritual problems. By disavowing a political connection, we are motivated to remember our spiritual connection and citizenship. We shall suffer less disillusion for we recognize that evil continues as long as the world remains and shall not be abated by earthly governments, but rather by intervention by God in the spiritual realms. Perhaps the Democrats will rule, or perhaps the Republicans will. But it matters not to us for authorities will come and go, but it is God who sets them up and tears them down. What an amazing change would come upon the church if this was true of it! And it can happen, for "all things are possible for him who believes, who is called according to His purpose."
[C]
The reader at this point may be bogged down with objections or exceptions or reasons why this noble sounding idea could never be true in reality. I too have realized of some of these. Here are the ones I thought of.
I first thought that it is terribly inconsistent of a Christian to say that government is a good thing ordained of God, yet to be totally unparticipative in that same good thing. What sort of hypocrisy is it to recognize something as good but not be willing to participate in setting it up and maintaining it? That is a question I have pondered some. How do the scriptures approach that? I do not think that Jesus recognized the Roman system as one to be overthrown, no he definitely did not though it was quite oppressive and evil (far more so than king George ever was to America). However, government is the realm of the natural man; let him keep to his realm and us to ours. To look to government for answers to spiritual issues is to cross a chasm that is never crossed by Christ. It would be uniting under one yoke a sheep and a goat. Government is a corrupt thing used by God who causes good to come from evil. To have the church actively participating in it would be similar to the world actively participating in the church while remaining part of the world. In both these illustrative cases, a good thing ceases to be so by a critical change in its constitution. Brethren, allow me to urge you to leave the unbelievers to the lot that God has given them AND to be faithful yourselves in the lot that God has given you.
The second objection I had was just the thought of how such a thing would work out. What if most of the society was composed of Christians who refused to organize a government? How would that work out? In most parts of the world and for most times in history, the Christians are a minority. No problem here. Their absence from the government will not be missed or noticed. Occasionally however, there are revivals or special extenuating circumstances which cause the Christian population (or the professing Christian population) to be much greater than other times. A skeptic sees a problem, but I see great things coming out of this scenario. Where non-believers are replaced by believers, greater peacefulness, love, and general righteousness will prevail in the land. Consider Galatians 5:22-23 "but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such as these there is no law." Brethren, these are characteristics that will be present in your life in increasingly greater quantities if you are indeed a child of God. And when the inhabitants of a land exhibit all this, there truly ceases to be any need for laws. That which is imperfect is swallowed up by that which is perfect. The Holy Spirit will guide these Christians into all that is right as Jesus said in the gospel of John.
But, if there are still unbelievers, they will be the ones who erect the structure of government, yet where love abounds, less law is needed for love is outside the law. Proportionately less government would be needed in this scenario if the ratio of christian/non-christian goes up. And because the Christian influence in this case is far greater than normal, the unbelievers themselves will be more outwardly conformed to a righteous standard than we observe today. Any form of government that they set up will work. Another scenario which causes fright to many Christians today is the thought that the radical liberal wing of the Democratic Party will seize control should the Christians of America ever withdraw from politics. First of all, the actual number of Christians in this nation is far less than most purports, so the impact of that fallout will be less. Second, remember that this is not our concern. Who cares if the Greens do rule this country? Sure, it would change our life style. But our mission from Christ remains the same whoever rules. And it may even be healthy for the church of America to experience some hostility. It would shake off some of the false professing converts and refine the faith of the real ones.
Third, some Christians may think that government was indeed instituted and maintained by a God who wants His followers to rule to the benefit of the world. Did not scripture say of Christ "...and the government shall be upon His shoulders"? I feel that I have already addressed this point somewhat in my section on spiritual fulfillment of the old covenant. However, I should add some comments to that. In scripture, the different natures, character, goals, and desires of Christians and non-Christians are frequently referenced. Consider with me some of these. Jesus said of unbelievers that they were those "who practice lawlessness." But in 1 John we read that the Christian does not sin [in practice] and can not sin for [God's] seed remains in him. Brethren, that is a big difference. 2 Cor 5:17 states the point I making very clearly, "therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, old things have passed away, behold all things have become new." Brethren, all things really do become new! A person really is born again a second time; at conversion a new spiritual being exists and begins to have influence upon who the person is. This influence becomes more and more throughout the Christian’s life, trending upward in the long run. Every facet of a Christian’s life tends toward righteous, but in the short term can be in overtaken and deceived by evil. Whereas, every facet of an unbeliever's life tends toward wickedness. Hear what God says about those who are not His children: they [walk] in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries" speaking evil of Christians. (1 Peter 3, 4) Romans 1 notes that all men have received some revelation from God, but all (unless they have been born again) suppress that truth and become ungrateful fools who worship the creature rather than the Creator, being dominated by "vile passions" and being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, immorality, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness...haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, practicing and applauding wickedness. Brethren, this is not a description of Hitler, but rather of a description of ALL who are not born again. Romans (and all of scripture) clearly indicate that if a person is not and does not do these things, he will be instead grateful to God and glorify Him as God. Now, after you have read all this, will you insist on telling me that it is a great thing that a Christian and a non-Christian should co-rule in a democratic society to create laws? That would be an incredible statement to make. Shall light have union with darkness? Especially in a democratic society that would be impossible for the two would always be clashing on every issue because one tends toward righteousness and the other tends toward wickedness. That is putting an ox and a donkey together in the same yoke. This is not right and should not be done. A better solution, but not one I endorse for it is still inferior, is to have Christians rule in a monarchial system without any non-Christians to clash with. But a democracy precludes any Christian involvement in a significant way. For a response to the rightness of a Christian monarchy, see the next point.
Fourthly, I considered the analogy of a family to government. In a family, the parents could be Christians and have children that are not. Yet by reason of force they will restrain their children. They will make rules to govern the children's behavior and will hope for their conversion. Could it not also be with the government? Why could not Christians attempt to control and rule through the government, setting up laws that are ultimately good for the citizens of the land, though they be heathen? Now first of all, I personally think that this argument is the closest to gaining approval. Yet, there remains a crucial difference: a family is a physical representation of what God's spiritual family looks like and how it operates. One major reason God ordained family was to illustrate to people what spiritual realities look like, inferring from earthly realities. This is all over scripture; the reader would be very hard pressed to deny its importance. In most books of the Old Testament, one receives a picture of God as the father (what Jesus taught also) and His followers as children. Take this fact one step back and we realize too, that marriage was instituted by God to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church. This also seems to be a dominant theme throughout all of scripture. In a family, parents can and should use discipline to enforce standards among their children. In God's spiritual family, He uses discipline to enforce standards among His children.
But the earthly fallen governments do not represent anything significant in the spiritual realm. They are not to be emulated nor desired. Governing power is quite similar to the proverbs passage... Proverbs 23:31-33 "Do not look on wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things and your heart will utter perverse things." Power is alluring; it tempts one to pick it up and control it. I know… I have felt its draw. But do not yield to it or in the end, you will be the one controlled and will be saying perverse things that you would not have beforehand.
[D]
Here are some thoughts upon Christians and warfare. One pastor has told me that he thinks there is such a thing as a just war. Until about now, my focus has been elsewhere, things more important. For an at least one good reason, this topic must also be addressed…
I started by wondering which war, if there has been such a thing, was a just war. I considered WWII. Surely the United States War against Germany was a just war if ever one existed. Germany was the wicked aggressor and the U.S. not only fought for itself but also for the rest of the world, bringing freedom to its inhabitants. After only a little longer in contemplation I determined that this war could not be classified as “a just war.” First of all, the U.S. did not fight the war for the purpose of freeing enslaved and persecuted nations; the U.S. fought the war for her own selfish reasons. For several years, she watched while all of Europe and Asia burned. Only after a strike occurred against America did this nation fight.
But, it could be said, America was just in defending herself from Germany/Japan. They were the ones that started the whole thing; it was right that they were defeated. The second part of that sentence I do not disagree with. It is the thought that Germany takes sole responsibility for the war that I find fault with. Most people never think of how cruel Europe and the U.S. were to Germany after the conclusion of WWI. They forced Germany to admit complete fault and to shoulder the vast financial responsibility of paying for the war damage. This plunged Germany’s people into poverty. The destruction of Germany that was created by the war only added to the misery. It can be forcefully argued that it was the U.S. and the rest of Europe that unjustly and cruelly created the environment that led to WWII; they then have responsibility, not Germany. One must ask then, why is the U.S. praised for a war which it created?
The same question can be asked of the 2 Iraqi wars in our modern times. Were they just wars? I have no shadow of doubt that they were not. Again, it was the U.S. that created conditions that lead to both of those wars. It was the U.S. that supplied Saddam Hussein with military might throughout the 1980s to keep Iran in check. They turned a blind eye to what he did while in power as long as Iran was neutralized. All the people he tortured and all the groups he suppressed, these mattered little to those in power in the U.S. Why now are we given these actions of Hussein as rationale for war, when he was encouraged and supported by the very nation that now has destroyed him? My friend, think of the injustice of this type of war.
Think also of a war which was started by 535 men, of whom only one has a son or daughter participating in that war. What justice is there of a war which is started by one class of people and fought by another class of people? A more just solution is if those very senators and representatives that voted for war, would go fight it themselves. No, the Iraqi wars do not qualify as “just wars.”
What then shall we say of the Christian that is somehow involved in this? Is it just for him to fight? Suppose for some reason, he finds himself in the military and is called upon to participate in a war. I think the answer to that can vary. If the nation in which this Christian resides clearly has started the war for imperial gain or profit, then I say that it is wrong for that Christian with that knowledge to fight. And in my experience and contemplations, the vast majority of wars are fought for imperial gain and profit. But suppose that one nation invades another. Would it be right for a Christian to fight in defending his family and life? Though it is not a just war even for that invaded nation, I do think that no wrong would be imputed to the Christian if he chose to do so. If the Christian reacts from a pure spirit and motive of desiring peace and desiring justice to be promoted on earth, his action of self defense only will be counted as a good thing. But for the unbeliever, it is impossible to react from a pure spirit and motive. Indeed those that are outside the faith can do nothing right, as their spirits are yet dead and depraved. All that they do is an abomination to God until they turn from sin and repent and a new spirit is born in them.
We see then, the same action can be rightly judged as good or evil depending on the source of the action. The outward physical actions of the man whose spirit is re-born may sometimes incidentally line up with the outward physical actions of the man whose spirit is yet in darkness. But the two never, ever line up in the spiritual realm. They come from opposite sources and will be judged differently in the last great judgment day.
The answer to our question then is that there can never be a just war for the nations of this earth, for evil comes after evil and no beginning of fault can ever be found. Additionally, wicked men do not engage in just things, for they are not just in the inward man. But for the Christian, things are different.
Scriptural Objection Number One
1 Kings 18:3-4
It is noted from this passage that a godly man (Obadiah) served in a high position of power in a wicked government and did good from his position. Therefore it is argued that good men in government will affect the land for good. There is nothing wrong about this flow of reason. However, when the next step is taken, error usually occurs. Proponents will then argue that Christians should attempt, if it is God’s will, to infiltrate our democratic government so as to increase the amount of good accomplished.
First and only problem; Obadiah seems to have been appointed to his post, not elected. There is a huge difference between the two. An appointed man is merely obeying the will of his governing authority for him to oversee or manage a certain realm. I say that there is nothing inherently evil about serving in government. But an elected man or woman almost always must compromise in order to win the favor of the masses. Because of the way democracy works, it will never happen that a Christian will get elected when the sample size of the electorate is large enough. To illustrate, let me ask the reader a question: why in the world would a wicked king like Ahab appoint a godly man like Obadiah to oversee his kingdom? It is a very good question indeed. Obadiah gained his post for the same reason as Daniel, Joseph, and David gained theirs. Each of these individuals brought profit or gain to the one who appointed them. Daniel had knowledge, wisdom, skill in literature, and understanding in all visions and dreams. The first three qualities gained him general recognition before the king along with the other promising youth of his day. The last quality enabled him to help the king in a matter in which no other man could help. Why did Nebuchadnezzer promote Daniel? It was not because the king was a godly man and wanted to extend favor to a like minded one. Shortly after Daniel’s interpretation, the king set up an idol and commanded all to worship it. No, this king was not godly. The real reason was Daniel gave him profit, he was an asset to the king. Because of this reason, it is possible that there are Christians in places of high authority in an authoritarian government. Only one man, the one in charge, need to profit from the Christian in order for the Christian to be appointed a position of power. However, within a democracy, many groups must profit for one to gain a position of authority. In our complex society, a godly man may indirectly bring profit to some, but not all. And this man’s convictions (for a Christian has many) will make him many enemies. This later class does not profit from him, but rather suffers loss. Let me pose a second question to the reader: why in the world would a large diverse wicked group of people appoint a Christian to a position of governmental oversight? Indeed it is far more difficult for this scenario to occur than the first. And the first rarely has occurred in the history of the world.
In conclusion, as the Waldensians said, what need is there for government if all people would obey the law of Christ, that is the law of love? In reality, there would be no need at all for government if all peoples in the world obeyed the law of Christ. But there shall always be government because there shall always be evil men. Brethren, let the dead rule the dead; you go and follow Christ (Matt 8:22).
[D]
“Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” These instructions referred to a professing Christian who had committed a horrible sin and this judgment could possibly have ramifications for the future of his spirit. Such an action is what now needs to take place with Christendom in America. They have committed the horrible sin of desiring and craving power above the way of the cross, such as Simon the sorcerer did. And what was Peter’s response to him? “Your silver perish with you…” And since this sin goes on unabated and indeed grows every passing year, judgment will come soon; not on the homosexuals or liberals, but on the professing church of America. It is the right thing to do, to deliver these to Satan in hopes that they may be eternally saved though their time on earth by filled with suffering.
What would happen if every Christian pulled out of politics and government? The country would not grow more evil, for evil is not created in that fashion. Rather its true corruption would quickly manifest itself. Perhaps this is the more loving thing to do as it may precipitate the just scourging of God upon His church, scourging which purifies the church. The purified church then truly becomes a light in the world, no longer a candle set under a basket. For such a day I do pray.
