The Politics of Defending Christ

The last presidential election gave me (and continues to give me) a lot to think about. And I mean a lot. Challenging points have been raised, and the answers are not always clear cut on their own. I’ve been involved in a lot of discussion around the topic of voting in the 2016 election, and I’ve narrowed down two common conservative mindsets that I want to take time to address. The primary goal of this article is simply to provide Biblically grounded, contrarian points for these stances to encourage voters and Christians alike to open their mind to possibilities beyond seemingly inevitable results.

Stance 1:
“This candidate is better morally than that candidate, therefore you should vote for this candidate.”

Let’s break the line of thought down behind this one. The proposition is a comparison between candidate A and candidate B. The proposer claims that candidate A or B has less flaws than the other candidate. The proposer concludes that because candidate A or B is morally better, they are the worthwhile vote.

I’ve seen this on both sides of the table. Opponents to either candidate in an election point to their flaws all the while excusing the flaws of the candidate they defend so vigorously. Sure, it makes sense from a worldly perspective, and I would go so far as to say that apart from Christ there might even be a “right” answer. If you hold no concern for the Christian message, feel free to stop here because everything after this gets deeply into morality which is not something that necessarily affects you.

To Christians, I offer this line of thought.

Counter-stance 1:
“While this candidate may be less flawed than that candidate, without the saving message of Christ both candidates are still flawed, sinful and damned people. Constraining yourself to willingly choosing one evil over the other is still choosing evil, and is equatable to the justification of sin.”

Proponents of this argument often point to the account of the Pharisees questioning of Jesus about taxes in three of the gospels, in which Jesus summarizes with “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Mark 12:17) They claim that voting is a duty to the state, something that is a responsibility for all citizens, and that it fits into Jesus’ teaching to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. However there is good evidence that both halves of this ideology are mistaken.

Where do we get the idea that the duty of an American citizen is to vote? Simple. Patriotism. “If you love your country, your troops, your freedom you will vote.” Merriam-Webster defines a patriot as “one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests”. How does this fit into the picture of the Christian lifestyle? Well, quite frankly it doesn’t. Let’s talk about why.

Where does our duty and citizenship lie? Certainly not here. Despite being labeled as an American citizen and given the true duties that come with that, the picture in scripture is radically different. John 14:2 talks about Jesus’ preparation of a place for us in heaven. Matthew 6:19-21 warn us to not be concerned with worldly treasures, but heavenly treasures. Philippians 3:20 and Ephesians 2:19 expressly talk about citizenship in heaven!

From the beginning of scripture to the start of Revelation there is a picture of a people who do not belong where they currently live, sometimes literally and other times metaphorically. We are exiles, from the garden, from the Presence, and from eternity. We were not made for death, but for eternal life and perfect relationship, and none of that exists where we exist (yet). Therefore how can we be made to exist here in this state? And if we are not made to exist here, then how can we truly be considered citizens of anywhere here? And if we cannot be considered citizens of anywhere on this side of eternity, then what true duty can we hold?

The answer is that we cannot. Our duties come from Christ and Christ alone, and when the temporary duties placed upon us by the world contradict those of the message of Christ, we are called to refuse them. Furthermore, the idea that there is a duty to vote is also weak. To claim that we have a duty to vote assumes that we have a vote in our pocket before election day. You see, votes do not exist before the ballot is cast. They exist theoretically, but physically they do not exist. They are not owed, can’t be bought, swayed, corrupted or destroyed, and they certainly do not belong to the government. What does exist are people, but people are not votes and while I won’t get into it here in detail, it is long past time that politicians be reminded of that.

Therefore, there are appropriate things to render unto Caesar, however a vote is not one of them.

Stance 2:
“Candidate A/B will have the potential to affect the Supreme Court in drastic ways. Therefore we should vote for the candidate that will best serve our ideologies.”

This one gave me long pause, and forced me to ration out my theology of politics in many other areas as well. Let’s talk about it. There are 7 Supreme Court Justices who set the precedent for law in the United States. They interpret the Constitutional legitimacy of passed or potential laws. The common fear is that the liberal agenda will prevail through the Supreme Court by means of a stacked deck of liberal Justices, which is a valid fear if your concerns are governmental opposition to the Christian message.

To Christians I offer this counter thought.

Counter-stance 2:
“The Christian duty is not to legislate their faith into practice, but to practice their faith into legislation.”

C.S. Lewis handles this topic eloquently, so I will allow him to speak.

“My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.” – Mere Christianity

He is speaking of divorce, but the practical logic behind his argument applies to all legislation, which is thus: If we as Christians cannot keep the commands and statutes of our morality, how can we in good conscious seek to enforce them upon a nation who has no semblance of faith? We cannot, and therefore our concern in law disappears, even in cases where law may put us at disadvantage.

After all, why are we afraid of becoming unpopular? Jesus promised this to us. John 15:18, Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:9, 1 John 3:13 all tell us that the world will hate us because of Christ. So why are we afraid? I would make the point that we are afraid because we have forgotten the promise of John 16:33, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.“

We have been blessed by God’s providence to live in a nation that has tolerated, even encouraged Christianity. But the day is coming soon, and is perhaps already here where it is not popular to hold firmly to the Faith and all of the ideals and values that come with it. We cannot affect that through legislation but through feet on the ground ministry, and perhaps it is time for the American church to realize this.

---

Originally posted on my blog in August of 2016. Adapted here for Steemit.