Can Christians Be Political?

I used to think that Christians ought to take part in the political process was a given. I have previously written about the permissibility versus impermissibility of voting for Mitt Romney, a Mormon. After all, Christians and governments are seeking to influence the same thing: the public. Christians are called to make disciples of all nations, and governments rule all nations. From this, a Christians should at least be conscious of the kind of government he is in. To my surprise however, many Christians in my acquaintance want nothing to do with government, and they attempt to cite Holy Scripture to defend their position. There are numerous problems with this.

The Bible is not apolitical, that is, it does not remain silent about governments and the powers that be. For example, Psalms 2 and 72 make strong statements about governments such as, “Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear and trembling” after God sets his own King in Zion to defy those who would stand against Him, and more noble visions of government like, “Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness. He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. The mountains will bring prosperity to the people, the hills the fruit of righteousness. He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor.” Here we see many elements we recognize in the modern world such as judgment (like the court systems), prosperity (worked at with our system of economics), standing up for the poor (humanitarian efforts), saving the children (possibly through a social program) and the crushing of oppressors (through military might). God has a vision for governments.

I have been told that morality cannot be legislated. This is silly. Most laws deal with ethical consideration, even tax laws. Therefore morality is legislated all the time. Some obvious examples are laws that outlaw rape and murder. Obviously, we as a people agree that such crimes are heinous and should not be permitted. And laws that will punish you for stealing. Why be punished if stealing is not wrong? Obviously it is, so government will enforce such punishments. Implicit in laws against stealing is the principle that people have the right to private property, which is also a moral consideration. Questions like, “How much of this person’s money should we take?” creates tax laws. The recently elected French President Hollande proposed a ridiculous 75% income tax on people who earn more than a million dollars. Is 75% too much? Why or why not? These are ethical questions. So it is quite obvious that morality is legislated all the time. The question that remains is, Whose morality will be legislated?

The most frequently cited verse I have seen in opposition to Christian’s being involved in government is 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, which reads, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” When this verse is cited in the context of the discussion pertaining to Christians and politics, I have never seen the same person finish quoting the last verse, which reads, “‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’” Why is it that this part is not additionally cited? My hunch is that when it is cited, it sticks out like a sore thumb. It reveals that this particular passage was not cited in context and is not an appropriate passage to cite concerning the topic of Christians and politics. So what is Paul actually talking about? Paul is talking about church discipline. And as a church leader, it is obvious that his jurisdiction does not include government! Therefore, he can not tell someone to disassociate with certain people if they are not in Church in the first place! Then there is the issue of equivocation. Is Paul using the word “judge” the same way some other people use “judge”? If the person who cites this passage means to say that we simply can not pass ethical judgment on people or their actions, then how does one explain Paul actually making these moral assessments of the people not in the church when he calls them, in verse 10, “…the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters”? In the very next verse, he lays out his church discipline concerning the immoral acts of those within the church. So what Paul is basically saying is, “Hey, look, there are people in the church who are being sinful. Don’t associate with them. I’m not talking about disassociating with the sinful people in the world, that’s not my jurisdiction, but as long as they are in the church, don’t even eat with them.” This has absolutely nothing to do with refraining from passing judgment on worldly people.

Another objection to Christian involvement in politics are Christian slogans like, “We are in the world, not of it” or “God’s Kingdom is a spiritual one, not an earthly kingdom”. The thing with slogans is, people tend to think of themselves so wise, reasoning with them becomes increasingly difficult. But still, my points must be made so unshackle people from shallow thinking caused by slogans. What do we make of “God’s kingdom is not an earthly kingdom”?

It is false. The great political power in Jesus’ day was that of Caesar’s, represented in the Bible by Pontius Pilate. When Jesus meets Pilate, the first question Pilate asks him is, “Are you the king of the Jews?” That’s a political question. That’s a question of power. Pilate is wondering if Jesus poses a threat to Rome. And what does Jesus say? He affirms it. He is the King of the Jews. But in John, it adds, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” Some anti-political Christians read that and will say, “See! There it is! What else do we need?” But that is reading into it. All Jesus is saying is that the origin is from heaven, not that the reign is exclusively for heaven. God’s reign is for earth as it is in heaven. All authority on heaven and earth is given to Jesus. The Kingdom of God is a very political thing. After all, wasn’t that the motivation to kill Jesus and persecute his church? God’s kingdom is not just a spiritual one.

So what exactly is the appropriate relationship between God and government? The relationship between God and Caesar is one that always intertwined, but never quite met, and will not meet until the last days, as Revelation 11:15 describes, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.” This poses a further political threat to the world as it makes every other kingdom inferior and obsolete, if God is King. For Israel and its Jews, this is not a difficult thing to understand at all. How many stories are there that tell of God’s prophets rebuking and correcting kings? If a prophet were to come up to Caesar and tell him to repent, Caesar would have had his head cut off immediately. Caesar believes himself to be the highest authority, even God, as to deserve worship. When a small group comes along and says there is no god but God, and Caesar is not God, there will inevitably be bloodshed. And that is what we see in the persecution of the early church.

I do not mean to say that because God is king and sovereign over all, that therefore the governments of this world have no authority. All authority ultimately belongs to God, but even Jesus told Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” Also, when Jesus said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, there is the implication that Caesar does have power and authority, and therefore, some obligations are due to him. Additionally, Paul writes in Romans 13:1-7 that we are to respect our rulers, for God has established them there for justice, to terrify the evil doers and to commend those who do right. Here we see the relationship government has with us, the approach and actions that government brings upon ourselves. So God imposes a government on his people, and for good reasons.

But does that mean all governments are perfect? Was Hitler then appointed by God? What is a Christian to do if he is outlawed from practicing his faith? In 1st Peter 2:13-17, we read the same thing that Paul wrote in Romans 13, that we are to respect and submit to the powers that be. However, in the next paragraph, verses 18-25, Peter describes what happens in the case that a government goes wrong. He talks about the possibility of martyrdom in an unjust society in the case that your faith is outlawed or made illegal. So here is the implication that not all governments will be just, and when they are, we are not to submit to them in the sense that we will be Caesar’s sheep, but God’s sheep ready to be slaughtered. Caesar can not kill you if you do not defy him first, which is to say, in those cases, you rebel. The Christian who says that we completely stay out of politics will probably say to submit to the authorities. That seems like the minimalist way to go if you want to stay out of politics. However, that does not seem like an approach that will appease God. Therefore, action against government must be taken, and hence, a political move must be taken. Yes, it is also an ethical move, but not solely ethical. As I have already said, most of law and politics is intrinsically ethical.

Is there any other Biblical precedent to resist the government and other institutions? I think there are. For example, Daniel was to be put to death for worshipping God. Yet not only did he defy the law of the land, but he did it publicly. That seems like a political move. This is echoed in Peter’s response to Sanhedrin, when faced with threats, that “We must obey God rather than men.” It is following this response that Stephen is martyred, and thus began regular persecution. Is it any wonder that Peter, in his second letter, had something to say about martyrdom, since his response ignited the whole era of persecution and martyrdom? Also in Acts, Paul is beaten and thrown into prison, and realizes that as a Roman citizen, this was unjust. So what does Paul do? He does the modern equivalent of threatening to sue and the Magistrates settle with him! Paul uses his citizenship as a Roman to his benefit. He understand that he has certain rights, and Paul is not afraid to use his Roman citizenship as a tool. And finally, also implied in Jesus’ answering to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s, is that Caesar cannot take away what belongs to God. Many Christians in my acquaintance take away from this that as Christians we are not to interfere with Caesar and those who hold this view are quick to argue with me and tell me I must stay out of Caesar’s business. But the sword cuts both ways. If you are going to resist me about getting involved with Caesar, then you must also resist Caesar when he tries to get involved with what belongs to God. But how many Christians do I see taking that approach? Not many. For example, when government tries to say that the baby in a mothers womb is not a person and can be dismembered and killed, that is Caesar taking away what belongs to God. What image was on the coin Jesus presented? Caesar’s. Whose image is on us? God’s. Therefore, Caesar cannot take our lives through abortion. This must be resisted.

The benefits of this balanced separation of church and state is beautifully played out in the Massacre of Thessalonica in 390 A.D. A popular charioteer was arrested for an attempted rape, and when the general public’s demand for his release was ignored, there was mutiny, and Roman guards and officials were killed in an uprising. This seems odd to us, all this for a charioteer, but we have to understand that chariot racing became very popular because they replaced the popular gladiatorial battles, that is, where men face each other in an arena and kill each other. But that became outlawed when Christians began to fight against it and argued, as human beings made in the image of God, man could not be killed for sport or entertainment. This is a wonderful example of how Christians can influence society through governmental means. So, as gladiatorial battles were outlawed, chariot races became the new entertainment, which explains why the arrest of one of the more popular charioteers caused such a commotion.

When the Roman emperor Theodosius heard about the mutiny, he, in typical Roman fashion, with an iron fist, sent a military unit to Thessalonica, which was in the jurisdiction of where the mutiny took place, and slaughtered 7,000 people, including women and children. But this is nothing new. This is how Roman emperors have always squashed rebellions. These are, after all, the killing experts that put to death Jesus. But what happened next was absolutely revolutionary. As the Emperor and his crew approached the cathedral in Milan for Mass, Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, having heard of what the Roman emperor had done, stepped out and stopped him from entering the cathedral and publicly rebuked him for the massacre of thousands of innocent people.

In tears, the emperor returned to his palace. In the months following, the emperor would return to the cathedral, often times on his knees and dressed as a pauper, and begged for forgiveness. Only after a few months did Ambrose see his repentance and allowed him entrance into the cathedral.

Now, what is so revolutionary about that? What is revolutionary about it is not what happened, but what did not happen. What did not happen was the Roman emperor did not kill Ambrose. In any other era prior to the one when Christianity began to get a foothold in the public square, the emperor would have simply had Ambrose’s head on a pike and walked right into church. But, instead, he recognized the authority of the church. He recognized the authority of God. He recognized that even he, as emperor, a title that would have given him worship by men as a god, is accountable to a higher power. Government is not the highest power in the world. Government does not in fact, own everything. There is a realm that even government cannot touch, and when Ambrose stands up to the most powerful man in the world and says, “You do not have the right to come and worship after you massacre thousands of people!”, we see the beginnings of a world envisioned by Jesus, a world where Caesar does not take away, as he always did in the past, what belonged to God. We see a world where God and Caesar can coexist.

That is just the beginning of a long history of what Christianity can do in politics. Imagine a world where infanticide and child abandonment was not made illegal. That was so through the efforts of Christians. Imagine a world where the Gospel did not challenge the tyranny of Adolf Hitler. Sure, many Christians did not in fact do that, but we always hold up people who did, people like Dietrich Bonheoffer. Can you imagine how different the world might be like if the Christians like William Wilberforce, upon their distinctive Christian convictions, did not try to abolish slavery (the full length movie of his efforts can be found here)? Or telling Abraham Lincoln to keep God out of his speeches. Imagine telling Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to keep his religion out of his work to end racial discrimination. These men were moved by biblical conviction to advance the kingdom of God through political means. As Christians, we are charged not only to make disciples of all nations, but to teach what Jesus taught (which means teaching what he taught about Caesar and preaching on passages like Romans 13), and doing good to others. Politics can be an effective tool for Christian work and give glory to God.

Let me avoid the charge that I am supporting a theocracy. In some of my discussions with Christians about politics, this often comes up. A theocracy is a government where the religious duty become identical with civil duties. For example, if the Catholic church and Italy became a theocracy, the Pope would lead Italy and there would be laws mandating people to attend Mass. That kind of government I am emphatically not advocating. There may be some Christians who advocate this view by pointing to the Old Testament law where worshiping other gods was punishable by death. The problem with that is the laws that are referenced are for a specific people during a specific time. We see God acting as a tribal god, a god who is concerned only with a certain group of people. This is nothing new, as even Roman gods like Jupiter and Saturn were worshiped as national duty. But what is revolutionary about what Jesus taught and the new covenant that he established was that he claimed God’s sovereignty over the entire universe, no longer exclusive for Jews, but for gentiles as well. This universality of rule by God dissolved the theocracy Judaism was accustomed to, and put in its place religious liberty (which was another reason the Roman empire persecuted the church). It is because of the Christian notion that God is a transcending being, not a being limited by nation or a temple, that freedom of religion was born.

What I have tried to argue so far that is it certainly permissible and beneficial for a Christian to be active in politics. There seem to be no good reasons to refrain from political involvement and there are many Biblical reasons to use government as a tool, a tool that God himself established. And even though government can work against the Christian, the Christian is permitted to defy that government. On the other end, a theocracy is also out of place. The Christian teaching of civil government seems to resemble that of classical liberalism.

What that being said, I realize that not everyone has the gift to be a public servant. Not everyone can be President or a Senator. Maybe God has not made that your gift or calling in life. However, God did give us certain talents, and as Americans, we have a very special talent that God has given us, and that is the ability to vote. It is a relatively precious thing. While I won’t say which way you ought to vote (at least, not here, but in personal conversation instead), I think voting is a huge responsibility that God has given us. We have been given stewardship over the world, and voting is a valuable tool for an effective stewardship of the most powerful country this world has ever seen. As Hugh Hewitt wrote, “If inviting nonbelievers to worship matters, then so does preserving the freedom to worship. If ministering to the needs of the poor is a mandate, then changing the policies creating poverty is very much within that mandate. And if building shelter in developing countries is part and parcel of a Christian’s burden, so is the destruction of the power of tyrants who oppress peoples around the globe. Taking first steps on a path is not running an entire race.“

Let us be ambassadors for Christ to a lost world.