Another problem with dragging politics into Christian forums is its effect on other believers. If political claim A is presented in Christian forum B, it implies that A is the Christian position. Other believers who disagree are implied to be anti- or unchristian for differing, put in the difficult position of arguing against the implied ‘Christian’ position, and reduced to being political themselves to defend the legitimacy of Christians adhering to their own position. It is unfair to them, in other words, and would seem to violate the thrust of Romans 14’s ethical principles as applied to citizenship and political involvement.
C.S. Lewis once said that there is an advantage in believers “comparing notes,” that is, not always presuming to teach in an authoritative manner but sharing their experiences so that their audience may ponder how they match their own.[1] Consider this article to be in that vein. The contemporary world is full of blessings. And while I think they outnumber difficulties for most of us most of the time, life at its best in this world still retains plentiful causes of suffering and frustration.
Of the many irksome things in the contemporary world, one of the most irksome is the dragging of politics into Christian forums. Before proceeding further, let me state that: a) this is nothing new, as much of the history of the church has also been the history of Christendom, with its mingling of Christian faith (of wildly varying degrees of sincerity and accuracy) with all other elements of life in this world; b) this phenomenon of dragging politics into faith is an easy – dare I say, natural – thing to do, one which most of us have succumbed to at some point, and one which is probably the majority position among believers; and c) in discussing it I do not say that it ipso facto proves those that do it are hypocrites or false professors of faith. But though common historically and contemporaneously, and though not necessarily discrediting one’s faith claims, it is wrong.
One, it misdirects such forums from their proper purpose of declaring eternal, spiritual truths about Christ Jesus and sets their focus on the temporal affairs of this world. God says:
Seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:1b-3).
He then goes on to tell us to kill those passions (“covetousness” and “anger, wrath, malice, slander”) which politics brings out, both by its nature and by the intentions of its practitioners (vv. 5-9).
But politics would have us walk by sight, not faith (comp. 2 Cor. 5:7), by the grievances we do see rather than the promises of God we await. It would have us trust our own understanding (comp. Prov. 3:5-6; Jer. 17:5), seeking the advantage of earthly kingdoms – which belong to Satan (Matt. 4:8-9) – that will soon perish, instead of Christ’s kingdom, which “is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36) and is that “better country” (Heb. 11:16) that endures forever (“of his kingdom there will be no end,” Lk. 1:33). Christ said being weighed down with the cares of this life chokes out his word in our hearts (Matt. 13:22), that same word which we are elsewhere told is the seed of our faith and our new birth in Christ (1 Pet. 1:23). Pray tell, what is politics, if not a preoccupation with the cares of this life?
Politics is the enemy of faith and piety, and in many people it drives out the Christian form of both: once wed politics and piety and politics becomes your piety. Thus also with faith. This process of politics subverting faith is dangerous because it is subtle and frequently effective, which is why there are multitudes of professing believers and churches that loudly declare all manner of political causes, often in Christian terminology, all while not declaring Jesus’ basic message of “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17) as he intended.
Again, meshing politics and faith does not always end there, and there are many people who stumble into the error without losing a sincere faith; but many people have made shipwreck of their faith by sailing rather for earthly shores than setting their minds on Christ’s kingdom. There is in fact an immense difficulty on this point, that of distinguishing between false teachers who make the faith political to subvert it, and sincere believers who are simply caught up in a common if mistaken trend (as is frequent, Gal. 2:11-14), and whose political preoccupations are straw that will be consumed in judgment while they themselves are yet saved (1 Cor. 3:9-15). The best thing, then, is to assiduously avoid politics except where it has a clear moral element (e.g., abortion) or a clear effect on our faith (e.g., a law forbidding its exercise). Key word ‘clear’: there are some people who regard everything as having a moral element. Of such people I have nothing to say except that God will deal with them as he sees fit, and hopefully bring many to repentance.[2]
Another problem with dragging politics into Christian forums is its effect on other believers. If political claim A is presented in Christian forum B, it implies that A is the Christian position. Other believers who disagree are implied to be anti- or unchristian for differing, put in the difficult position of arguing against the implied ‘Christian’ position, and reduced to being political themselves to defend the legitimacy of Christians adhering to their own position. It is unfair to them, in other words, and would seem to violate the thrust of Romans 14’s ethical principles as applied to citizenship and political involvement.
Consider an example. In a recent Gospelbound podcast, Collin Hansen interviewed Allen Guelzo about the state of American democracy, doing so in reference to Guelzo’s new book Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment. They can hold what historical and political opinions they please, and I do not here impugn the sincerity of their faith. But it is wrong to drag those opinions into a Christian forum or imply they have anything to do with the gospel.
Lay aside the enormous impropriety of referring to anything other than the Christian faith as “our faith” in a Christian forum, and consider that the views they mention are ones about which we might differ in good conscience. No one who reads Proverbs can doubt that it is permissible to be a Christian monarchist (16:10-15). No one who reads the Pentateuch or Judges fairly can deny that, as shown by their depraved deeds and the consequences thereof, the voice of the people at large is often not – most emphatically NOT – the voice of God, and that they show their unfitness to rule themselves (Ex. 32:25; Jdgs. 21:25). Viewed from the other direction, it is legitimate to believe in a hierarchical, oligarchical, or representative government of some sort (Ex. 18:13-26; Acts 6:3).[3] An allegiance to democracy is not a part of being a believer, in other words.
I don’t doubt that Hansen and Guelzo would agree with me on that point. But what kind of message do they send to believers living under despotism, or to novice believers here? Does it not imply that the faith has a political angle, that a Christian should be concerned about democracy? Could someone in such circumstances receive grace to sustain or edify in the face of struggles? In many cases no: all this talk about Lincoln would be quite alien and meaningless to him – whether a foreigner or a typically ambivalent-to-history American – and he would go away from a podcast named after the gospel (at the website of a group named after the gospel) unfed, associating the gospel with American history and politics and not the things of the Spirit and Christ’s kingdom.
Or again, one can differ about the historical claims. I know local Presbyterians who would say, and that in high dudgeon, that all of the talk about democracy is mistaken because our national government was intentionally framed as a republic, not a democracy. There is good evidence for that view. James Madison, the so-called “father of the constitution,” says in Federalist No. X that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” and contrasts them with “a republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”[4] He later spoke of the erroneous “confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasoning drawn from the nature of the latter.” As for whether Lincoln is to be lauded as the savior of our traditional form of government, one suspects those Presbyterian “neo-Confederates” I pondered in my last article would demur on the ground that he presided over a war that destroyed one national, eleven state, and many hundreds of local governments that were popularly-elected.
Such difference of opinion on historical interpretation and proper political system is why it is irksome to hear Hansen say (about 42:27) “I’m gonna make my students here at Beeson Divinity School listen to this podcast to help them understand why I teach Abraham Lincoln in a course designed to train pastors,” and that he ranks Lincoln’s second inaugural address as one of “the two greatest works of public theology in American history.” There is indeed a further problem, one which bears consideration as an example of how fascination with a past political figure can bear mistaken notions in the present.
Guelzo admits (44:08) that Lincoln read Scripture as moral literature and culturally-relevant, not as inspired revelation: “he did not embrace a particular revelation, the authority of the Bible for himself personally, he recognized that it was authority, an authority in his time, and so he will in fact quote it.” Or again, “he will read it as he read Shakespeare, as something that will teach him important lessons.” If he didn’t personally regard it as authoritative – and Guelzo says Lincoln “doesn’t read it in the sense that a believer will read the Bible” – then why would he quote it at all, unless it be that he used it for pragmatic reasons as a bit of civil religion?
One might then conclude that his second inaugural address was not good public theology, but actually willful hypocrisy, the saying of what he didn’t personally believe because he knew it would be well received and politically advantageous. Pardon me, but isn’t it of the essence of one form of profanity when something is converted from its use as a sacred thing devoted to God’s service and instead employed in the common affairs of men? By Guelzo’s telling, that is what Lincoln did with Holy Scripture; it is, indeed, pretty much all he did with it publicly.
And yet we are to laud him in Christian forums and commend his “public theology” brilliance to pastors in training? Is that what it means to be “gospelbound”? The thing seems terribly naïve, a foray in hero-worship that creates a hero where there is none from a Christian standpoint—for misusing scripture for worldly purposes is wicked.
Now you will notice that my example here is rather obscure and academic: I have used it for that reason so that I might not have to attempt to make my point by a consideration of current electoral contests or by other points of political controversy. But my arguments stand, both in regards to it and to other, more immediately pressing and popular matters of politics. It is wrong to use a Christian forum, be it ecclesiastical or parachurch, for political purposes.
Doing so might roil few people’s blood, as with my example, but it might also so much discomfit others as to drive them from one’s church. Again, even defending against someone else’s political claims, as I have sometimes done, is difficult owing to its tendency to distract from a proper focus on Christ. And so, as I finish ‘sharing my notes,’ I ask: do we wish our faith to be a refuge from worldly woe? If yes, then can we agree that it is best to keep it free of non-essential things about which we can and will disagree?
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation.
[1] “A Slip of the Tongue,” p. 184 of The Weight of Glory
[2] It is tempting to see a similarity of such people to the Pharisees, because, like that mistaken group, they find a matter of intense moral and spiritual consequence in the most mundane of everyday affairs.
[3] My argument in citing Acts 6 (the election of the first deacons) is one from the greater to the lesser: if representative government is good for the church of God that endures forever, will it not suffice for temporal nations? But I recognize that some peoples are not fit for representative government at some times and need to be ruled from above by a strong government.
[4] Granting that the franchise was widened between the constitution’s adoption and Lincoln’s day, the adherents of this view would say the nation was still (then and now) a republic, not a democracy.