Over the summer a number of questions came in that pertained to politics and voting. This is not only a controversial topic, it's also complicated. This episode will provide six reflections for Christians to consider as they develop a political theology.
Resources:
The Brian Dainsberg Podcast
Q&A: Politics and Voting
Over the summer a number of questions came in that pertained to politics and voting. This is not only a controversial topic, it's also complicated. This episode will provide six reflections for Christians to consider as they develop a political theology.Resources:Give Honor and Vote? A Reflection on the Christian's Voting Conscience - Robert GoldingLiberty for All: Defending Everyone's Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Age - Andrew T. WalkerPolicy is Character, Too - Andrew T....
- Duration:
- 34m
- Broadcast on:
- 15 Sep 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
Well, if that doesn't get your attention, I don't know what will. Greetings. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to the Bryan Dainsburg Podcasts Christian Living in a Complicated World. I'm your host Bryan Dainsburg and today we kick off a series of podcasts where I'm going to be answering questions that you have submitted over the recent months back in May. I mentioned I'm going to be taking a break from podcasting over the summer and using that time to feel the bring in any way questions that you have and they have rolled in. So I'm going to be spending the next few months trying to chip away at some of those questions and providing some semblance of coherence to these various topics. They are of, there's a vast array of questions that came in, which is great. I look forward to diving into those and we begin today. There were a number of questions that came in on politics and voting. Politics and voting. All right. So before I dive into this, I just want to make you aware that I have done a four part series on politics, about 90 minutes worth, and it would be good for you, if you haven't, to listen to those, today's episode is going to have some repeat from that, but there's also some new stuff because the way in which the questions were asked offered a little bit different angle so I could expound upon some other things regarding politics and voting. And so some of this material is new and was not contained in that four part series. So here we go. There were a number of questions that came in about it, but so I'm just kind of going to encapsulate it under politics and voting and offer some thoughts on this. I've got six. If you're taking notes, I've got six reflections on politics and voting, obviously it's presidential election year and the political temperature in our country is very high. So how should we as Christians be thinking about this subject? It's important. We don't want to just blow it off as unimportant. It's important. Let me, let me offer six reflections on this. Number one, the mission of the church and the nature of human change. I want to, and this is probably the most important of the six reflections. We need to be reminded of the mission of the church and the nature of human change. I am concerned about churches getting so embroiled in politics that they end up neglecting their clear biblical calling. The mission of the church is to make disciples of all nations, baptizing those disciples and teaching them to obey everything Jesus has commanded. This is why we preach and teach the Bible here at my church, why we teach passages of scripture from the pulpit on Sundays, and we don't pontificate on the latest political headlines. I want to come at that though from a different angle. I will always seek to be a scripture saturated pastor. I'm also a preacher. How does scripture shape our view of what preaching should be? Or let me ask this, have you ever considered that the Bible actually does provide direction for what preaching on Sunday should be? You can read the scriptures and develop a theology of preaching. Entire books have actually been written on that subject. What does the Bible say Sunday morning preaching ought to be? The Bible answers that question. The short answer is the exposition of scripture, systematically teach people the Bible. This is my firm conviction. I am to preach the Bible to my congregation because that is a critical element of faithfully executing the mission of the church, which is to make disciples. This is why I don't go out of my way to preach politics from the pulpit. Whatever social commentary or political commentary I might have or reflections I want to have or some guidance I want to try to give people, I'm going to reserve for this podcast because I don't believe politics ought to hijack the pulpit, which is to be reserved for the disciplined exposition of scripture for the spiritual growth and edification of God's people. Now it's not to say that we never talk about a political issue from the pulpit. We do, but we are quick to note that it was a biblical issue long before it was a political issue. Additionally, while Christians need to have a developed political theology, I do think Christians need to have a developed political theology, which I'm going to get to momentarily. I don't believe the nature of politics provides the deepest, longest lasting change in people or society. For example, take what is a hot button political moral, biblical issue abortion, abortion laws, heartbeat laws, they've been lightning rod issues in the political world. These past couple of election cycles. And we can talk about the moral goodness of those laws all day long, but I have a more fundamental question. Why does this woman want an abortion? What would cause her to change her mind? Not out of external coercion, but internal conviction. What would have to happen in her life for her not to desire an abortion, the least bit at all? Well that question points us to the mission of the institutional church. The answer is she would have to acquire a completely different nature that puts to death thoughts of killing her baby and instead nurtures a heart attitude that is hospitable to life. She needs a complete reworking of her nature that radically transforms her desires and will. Well, how does that happen? By the way, we could ask all these same questions for the abortion doctor. How does it happen? How does this complete rewiring of our nature so that there are certain desires that are no more that are eradicated and new desires that take their place? So how does that happen? Well, the primary mission of the church seeks to put abortion clinics out of business by working to erase the desire for an abortion at all. If nobody wanted one, this wouldn't be an issue. So this is where conversion and sanctification do the deepest work and why evangelism and discipleship are critical to influencing the moral landscape of a nation. Now in my view, the storyline of scripture both affirms the goodness of just laws and the inferiority of just laws to change what people want to do. Take the love of Moses. The love of Moses were told in the New Testament was good, holy, righteous, spiritual, but that law lacked the power to change people. Laws lack the power to change people at the heart. It's the inward transformation of the individual that changes the outward behavior of desire and deed, which is why gospel ministry, ministry of the word, God working on people through his word and spirit will always be the priority for me in ministry and it ought to be the priority of every institutional church. So that is the first reflection in my view. It's the most important one. Now that is not to say Christians can't or shouldn't be involved in shaping the political landscape of their nation. I do think Christians should have a political theology which has been largely underdeveloped in American evangelicalism. So I want to offer some reflections on that. So second, number two, so the first reflection is keeping in mind the mission of the church and the nature of human change, mission of the church and nature of human change. This is the most important reflection. Second, we got to talk about the goodness of a code of law and the need for just laws. There is a place for a code of law. The law of Moses was not authored by Moses, but by God. The idea of a set of laws was God's idea. Even in the New Testament, there's the law of Christ. So on those grounds alone, I can affirm the goodness of a code of law while still pointing out its limitations in changing a human being. Just because a code of law has limitations doesn't mean I oppose a code of law. Just because it has limitations doesn't mean I oppose it. Let's walk and chew gum at the same time. Now once we have established that a code of law is a good thing, what laws should we have in that code or what laws would a Christian political theology say we have in that code? This is where I actually think Martin Luther King Jr. was spot on in his letter from Birmingham jail. He wrote that a just law is one that squares with the moral law of God. King was processing what human laws are just, what human laws are unjust. His argument, and I think he's right, is that a just human law is one that squares with the moral law of God. He's thinking of laws in terms of biblical justice. He's starting with the moral law of God with biblical justice. I'm equating those two, the moral law of God has revealed in his word biblical justice. Those are the same thing. It's the standard of justice. He's starting with that and then asking does this human law codified in my country or my community square with the moral law of God? So let's say we did the meticulous work of putting together a code of law in our nation that squares with the moral law of God. Do all those laws then carry the same moral weight? This question is actually I think helpful in vetting political candidates. Do all laws carry the same moral weight? Do all laws carry the same moral weight? Sometimes you'll hear people say all sins are the same as if there's no differentiation. I mean it might sound right initially but I think actually if you review that a little more meticulously it's not that simple. Are all sins the same? Well yes and no. Take the book of James chapter 2 for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. I mean you got another passage in Galatians 3 it basically says the same kind of thing. No matter how small just one sin makes us guilty before God in deserving of his justice. So on that level coveting your neighbor's boat and killing your neighbor are the same. Both sins make us guilty before God but that's not all scripture says about it. In the Old Testament law if someone was found guilty of premeditated murder they would they were to be put to death. If someone was found guilty of stealing they were to pay back what they owed. If all sins are the same why is there a difference in the severity of the consequences? There's a difference in the severity of the consequences because there's a sense in which all sins are not the same. They're not the same. Jesus understood sins to have categories. Speaking of Pontius Pilate in John chapter 19 Jesus said to him you would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin. Jesus himself is saying Judas is guilty of a greater sin than Pontius Pilate. So there's a sense in which all sins are not the same. So on one level coveting your neighbor's boat and killing your neighbor are the same. They both make a skill before God and deserving of his justice but on another level they are not the same because some sins more than other sins disrupt our relationship with other people and God to a greater degree. This is why I would say not all laws carry the same moral weight. Some laws are more important to me than others. Which ones? Well what if the most important laws are the ones the Bible levies the stiffest penalties against? The law that God gave to Moses and the people of Israel contained capital offenses, murder, rape, human trafficking were sins that received some of the harshest penalties under the law of Moses. If those are a reflection of true justice, biblical justice to what degree do our political leaders advocate for laws that police and appropriately enforce those offenses? Now let me pause. The thoughtful Christian is thinking yes but the law of Moses has been replaced by the new covenant. Well yes and no. Some aspects to it have been but others have not. I think the Ten Commandments are still in effect. You could quibble with me about whether or not the Sabbath has been modified but the Ten Commandments are still in effect. The thoughtful Christian is going to come back again and say yes but wasn't the law of Moses designed to police God's covenant community and today that covenant community is the church not secular government or any geopolitical nation. My response is yes but to what extent did God have moral expectations of quote unquote secular governments and nations in the Bible? That brings me to reflection number three, the expectation of secular governments. Genesis 9, the time of Noah, Noah and his family get off the boat. God says and for your lifeblood I was surely demanded an accounting, I would demand an accounting from every animal and from each human being too. I would demand an accounting for the life of another human being, whoever sheds human blood by humans shall their blood be shed. For in the image of God God has made mankind. These verses form part of God's covenant with Noah. After Noah and his family got off the boat he gave them some instructions on how the human race was to function moving forward. These verses form the core of administering justice. The seeds of judicial institutions are here in the no way of covenant. Notice something, in the no way of covenant we see that God has not authorized judicial institutions governments to prosecute crimes against himself. The penal code of Genesis 9, the no way of covenant, adjudicates wrongs between fellow human beings, not wrongs between human beings and God. This doesn't mean that God grants a right to rebel against him, but it does mean that God prohibits governments from vindicating God through retributive or punitive actions. I went into this in much more detail in one of the previous episodes. Let me just read a sampling from Andrew Walker's book. He writes this. The no way of covenant reveals that adequate and social cooperation can occur apart from absolute agreement on religious matters for society to remain legitimate and ordered toward the common good. The no way of covenant implies that while society cannot exist without a common morality, it can exist without a common religion. Additionally, he writes, "What this means practically is that only forms of worship that physically harm other persons should be restrained or punished in light of the minimalist social order of Genesis 9." Now, it's my view that the no way of covenant, which is still binding, essentially says to government when it comes to religion hands off, don't promote it, don't forbid it. Theological belief, religious belief is not the world government is to operate in. Rather, the government has a responsibility to create a modicum of social stability that allows even conflicting beliefs within a population to be held without fear of retributive action on the part of the state. So God does expect secular government to uphold a common morality that squares with the moral law of God, but God does not expect government to uphold a common religion. So if that's true, where would it be wise for government to intervene in religious matters according to the no way of covenant? Well, if Baal is a man to come back and we saw the horrific practice of children being sacrificed to the God Moloch, it would be right for government to intervene. Whoever sheds the blood of man, my man shall his blood be shed. This is why abortion remains a very important evil to address in our country. And so I believe there is biblical warrant for Christians to work for Christian conceptions of justice in the public square because God expects even secular nations to hold to a common morality. The clearest way to see this, and again, I went into this in a previous episode, the clearest way to see this is seen in how God judges quote unquote secular nations in the Old Testament. He does not hold them accountable for bad theology, but he does hold them accountable for bad morality. Even though these nations do not worship the God of the Bible, doesn't mean they're off the hook for upholding the God of the Bible's moral expectations. That's third. The possibility of supporting flawed leaders, so if God expects government to establish a common morality, not a common religion, a common morality that squares the scripture and Christians are to work for Christian conceptions of justice in the public square. What is a Christian to do with a personally flawed governing leader who may on points of public policy share the same moral space as the Christian citizen? Can Christians vote for flawed candidates if their policies seem to possess overlap with their own moral compass biblically calibrated? Let me read the passage from Romans 13 just to get that in your heads. Paul writes, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this, you also pay taxes for the authorities or ministers of God attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed them. Taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenues owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Christians are to be subject to the governing authorities. God has established these governing authorities. Christians who resist these governing authorities say for occasions where they are governing out of biblical bounds. You could think of Acts chapter four, those in those occasions they'll incur judgment. That's what the text says. So here's what we have to think through. If the historical reconstruction of Romans is correct, Paul is writing during the reign of Nero before he put Christians to death, escape goats for the great fire in Rome. I think that's important to keep in mind. The fact that Nero would do such a thing speaks to his lack of character and we can go to other sources, plenty of sources that were written on Nero that talk about his debased character. And yet, Paul is saying that this is one of the governing leaders, Christians were to honor. Okay. They're supposed to honor him, though he's obviously a deeply flawed character. They were still supposed to honor him, though he seems in Romans 13, though he was a deeply flawed character, not everything he stood for or did was evil. Paul is affirming leaders like Nero are capable of doing good. For moments when rulers with deeply flawed character are not a tear to good conduct, but a tear to bad conduct. Paul is saying there's overlap between what the Christian would want from its government and what the government wants or does. Some things secular and flawed rulers want are the same things Christ the king wants. So with this very mixed bag where you may have a deeply flawed character and a governing ruler still managing by common grace to rule at times in ways that harmonize with Christian virtue, why is Paul commending to us to honor them by submitting to them? It should be noticed in the passage that he's exhorting us to submit to the governing authorities, not on the basis of their personal character, but rather the office they hold. It was common knowledge that the Roman authorities were not exemplars a moral virtue, but they were to be submitted to because of the God ordained function they served. Paul Golden, who's written an article on this, and I'll quote him extensively here, puts it this way. He says, "Paul had a category for honoring leaders that did not include morality within its consideration. Paul and the Romans were capable of giving honor to debauched sinners because they were providing a good service. They were enacting in that limited sense the will of God and they were instituted by God. Therefore Christians today should simultaneously rebuke the sins of their political leaders while rendering them due honor for the God ordained services they provide." He continues, "It is common to hear Christians say that they are refraining from voting for a political candidate because both candidates are morally reprehensible. In America, voting for a person is seen as not only as an endorsement of political services, but also an endorsement of the candidate's character. To be sure, voting and democracy would be completely foreign concepts to Paul and the church in Rome. However, their capacity to give honor while simultaneously rejecting sin should free the American Christian's conscience to vote for a political candidate that displays non-Christian actions, even sinful ones. There is nothing inherently contradictory with desiring a certain political candidate to take office, even though his scruples are far from exemplary. This biblical category of honoring those who are sinful unbinds the conscience of those Christians who seek to vote for various political candidates in order to promote social order and gospel proclamation by means of religious liberty." And he finishes. He says this, "Of course, one could argue that voting for a candidate in a democratic system is defacto an endorsement of the individual's behavior. Paul clearly operated from a paradigm that had categories for honoring those who were morally debauched. This paradigm is analogous to the system of democratic voting. For Paul, one is able to acknowledge political good in a spiritually depraved individual. For a citizen of a democracy, one is, or at least should be, capable of acknowledging potential political value while simultaneously rejecting spiritual and moral sinfulness." And so, Golding is arguing for, and I think he's right, that just because you vote for a certain political candidate doesn't mean it's an automatic endorsement of their character. And therefore that frees Christians to be able to vote for candidates with flawed character. In fact, every political candidate you've ever voted for has had flawed character. So on this point, the Bible tends to be far more nuanced than American Christians are. Fifth, policy is character two. Andrew Walker has written a piece over at World. I'll be brief with this, where he brings up this important topic. Every election cycle brings with it political figures who have a character. Every political character is a mixed bag. You've never voted for some without flawed character. And that should impact how we assess our national leaders. However, one piece that seems to have gone missing in this assessment is that policy is character two. The policies they advocate for are character two. Once again, if we consider the Ten Commandments, it should be noted that God didn't invent them on a whim. They are a natural outflow of his own character. God's character creates the policy of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments, the policy, tells us something about God's character. What policies are your political candidates proposing? And what does that say about their character? Policy and character are connected. In American politics, we have not done that enough. Policy and character are connected. Policy is character two. Last, conscience. So what happens when the only choices before you are bad ones? What does a Christian do? Well, the bottom line here is conscience. But I want to work through three ethical paradigms, Christian ethicists talk about. And this sort of thing comes up. Don't get bogged down in the language. The three ethical paradigms are this, unqualified absolutism, conflicting absolutism and graded absolutism. Let me walk through these. First is unqualified absolutism. The basic premise of unqualified absolutism is that all moral conflicts are only apparent. They're not real. Sin is always avoidable. On the classic question of whether or not one should ever lie to save a life, the unqualified absolutist will say emphatically, no, you should never lie to save a life. The choice in that situation is between the permission of another sin or the commission of one's own sin and one under this rubric, one is always to avoid committing sin at all costs, even if it means others are left to committing their own sin. This view is based on the notion that God's character is unchanging and therefore God's law is unchanging, which is true. It rightly stresses rule over result. Something isn't good because it brings about a good result. Something is good or not good in itself, irrespective of the result. Frankly, I think that's needed in a Christian ethic because if you don't have that, then morality becomes relative. It changes depending on this or that scenario. So positively, this view shows that there is a trust in the providence of God. And what I mean by that is the believer can trust him absolutely and refrain from taking matters into his own hands. The Christian can confidently believe that since God made the rules, it's simply our duty to keep them and leave the results in his hands. That's the basic premise of unqualified absolutism. The second is conflicting absolutism. This view is the position that we live in a fallen world and in such a world, real moral conflicts occur. According to conflicting absolutism, when two duties conflict, we are responsible to both duties. The moral law of God ought never be broken without guilt. If there is such an occasion where two duties conflict, one must simply do the lesser evil. So this conflicting absolutism is also known as the lesser evil. Do the lesser evil confess the sin and ask for God's forgiveness. So like the unqualified absolutist, this view holds to the unchanging moral law of God. It also rightly, in my view, acknowledges that in a fallen world, moral conflicts are unavoidable. In a fallen world, we don't always have a good option. Sometimes our only options are between a bad option and a less bad option. When faced with the conflict between these two moral duties, we have a duty to do the lesser evil. This again, rightly in my view, takes Jesus' words to pile it into account. Not all sins are the same. So on the question, should you lie to save a life, whereas the unqualified absolutist will say, no, you should never lie to save a life. The conflicting absolutist would say, yes, you should lie to save a life, but recognize that you're sinning and doing so, and you need to confess that sin and ask for forgiveness. Conflicted absolutism, which is the third, is closely related to conflicting absolutism. I would say it's a more positive version of conflicting absolutism. Graded absolutism acknowledges that moral duties sometimes come into conflict. In a fallen world, sometimes they come into conflict, and when they do, one is morally responsible for the greater good. It acknowledges like conflicting absolutism that not all laws carry the same moral weight. It also acknowledges like conflicting absolutism that moral conflicts are sometimes unavoidable. The big difference between conflicting absolutism and graded absolutism is this, God does not hold individuals responsible for personally unavoidable moral conflicts, providing they keep the higher law. For example, when the governing leaders forbade Peter and John to preach the gospel in the book of Acts, what do Peter and John do? They disobeyed. They rebelled against the governing leaders. Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, talk about the fact that Christians have an obligation to submit to governing authorities. Did Peter and John sin by not doing so and instead obeying the higher law of obedience to God's command to make disciples? Well, if they did, the text never tells us that. It never indicates that Peter and John sinned. The graded absolutists would say that they didn't sin because they chose the greater good, obedience to God over obedience to governing authorities. One could use the same rationale when thinking through Rahab. Rahab lied in order to save the lives of the Israelites spies. The book of Hebrews props her up as a model of faith for what she did and nowhere condemns her for lying because she chose the greater good. Now, these ethical situations need to be worked out by each person, and this is where your conscience comes to play. Your conscience is going to play a role in directing you. But I'm going to note one detail as it pertains to voting. In each of these ethical scenarios, you are pictured as being directly involved in the action. If faced with the conflict of lying to save a life, would you? Would you? That's a very heavy burden for people to carry. I believe that in voting, there is a degree of separation. Would you vote for a person who would lie to save a life? That's different than would you lie to save a life. There is a degree of separation and it ought to lighten the load a bit because ultimately you're not going to be the one held accountable for the actions a political leader takes he or she will. If the honor that Christians were to give the emperor of Rome is to be manifested in numerous ways, that in no way would make those Christians who are giving honor to that emperor culpable of the things that the emperor decided to do. There is a degree of separation, particularly when it comes to voting and that hope that helps lighten the load a little bit as you process unethical grounds what you do. I know that's a lot to digest. God give us wisdom as we try to sort this all out. Thanks for tuning in and I will see you next time with the next question. a.m. [BLANK_AUDIO]