- Aug 2, 2016
- 755
- 839
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
From a Christian, Biblical perspective, what is the point of political action?
To many in the world, the point is simply To Win. To destroy the enemy. To Conquer The Hated Foe.
But for a Christian, it seems that the goal should be different, as the Apostle Paul writes in I Timothy chapter 2:
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” [I Timothy 2:1-4]
For Paul, peace and tranquility—to be free from war, conflict, and civil unrest—was the ultimate material blessing in this world. However, there is one critical difference between ancient Rome and modern America: in Rome, the common people had no say in selecting their leaders or controlling what their leaders did. In American, common people can vote. In the Biblical record, voting for leaders never makes an appearance, but in Western civilization today, voting is assumed to be universal. And because we can vote, ordinary Americans can get caught up in political activity in a way that ordinary Romans could not.
But that doesn’t change what Paul wrote; we Christians should pray (and work) for peace and tranquility, so that we can lead a quiet life in all godliness and dignity. It does, however, allow us to legitimately add something to what Paul wrote: we can also work for the material well-being of ourselves and our fellow American citizens. Given that the New Testament so frequently and harshly condemns, not rich people, but the methods that some rich people use to acquire and maintain their riches, it is perfectly appropriate for Christians to use political means to achieve material well-being for all, and not just for those in the upper part of the Status Pyramid.
But Christian political activity should (ideally, anyway) be free of nasty conflict. By that I mean that in a Christian campaign, I visualize a Christian candidate acknowledging that his/her opponent may be a fine person who could do an adequate job in the position, but the first candidate would claim to be able to do a better job, and then explain why. The question would be who is better, not who is worse. But that isn’t typically the way it works in our world. Usually, a campaign is based on negative advertising, or what is euphemistically described as “defining the opponent.” The candidate who can do a better job of destroying the other tends to emerge as the victor.
This has been described as “the politics of personal destruction.” That’s not an unfair description. It’s also probably not going to stop as long as human nature remains unchanged. Hate is easier to express than love, defeating a foe is more fun than winning him over, and condemning is a whole lot easier than understanding and persuading. And even many Christians are more attracted to the Jesus who furiously drove the money-changers out of the Temple than to the Jesus who taught “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies, and pray for those who despitefully use you.”
But the fact remains that the goal of political action should be peace and tranquility, not the thrill of defeating an enemy.
*
To many in the world, the point is simply To Win. To destroy the enemy. To Conquer The Hated Foe.
But for a Christian, it seems that the goal should be different, as the Apostle Paul writes in I Timothy chapter 2:
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” [I Timothy 2:1-4]
For Paul, peace and tranquility—to be free from war, conflict, and civil unrest—was the ultimate material blessing in this world. However, there is one critical difference between ancient Rome and modern America: in Rome, the common people had no say in selecting their leaders or controlling what their leaders did. In American, common people can vote. In the Biblical record, voting for leaders never makes an appearance, but in Western civilization today, voting is assumed to be universal. And because we can vote, ordinary Americans can get caught up in political activity in a way that ordinary Romans could not.
But that doesn’t change what Paul wrote; we Christians should pray (and work) for peace and tranquility, so that we can lead a quiet life in all godliness and dignity. It does, however, allow us to legitimately add something to what Paul wrote: we can also work for the material well-being of ourselves and our fellow American citizens. Given that the New Testament so frequently and harshly condemns, not rich people, but the methods that some rich people use to acquire and maintain their riches, it is perfectly appropriate for Christians to use political means to achieve material well-being for all, and not just for those in the upper part of the Status Pyramid.
But Christian political activity should (ideally, anyway) be free of nasty conflict. By that I mean that in a Christian campaign, I visualize a Christian candidate acknowledging that his/her opponent may be a fine person who could do an adequate job in the position, but the first candidate would claim to be able to do a better job, and then explain why. The question would be who is better, not who is worse. But that isn’t typically the way it works in our world. Usually, a campaign is based on negative advertising, or what is euphemistically described as “defining the opponent.” The candidate who can do a better job of destroying the other tends to emerge as the victor.
This has been described as “the politics of personal destruction.” That’s not an unfair description. It’s also probably not going to stop as long as human nature remains unchanged. Hate is easier to express than love, defeating a foe is more fun than winning him over, and condemning is a whole lot easier than understanding and persuading. And even many Christians are more attracted to the Jesus who furiously drove the money-changers out of the Temple than to the Jesus who taught “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies, and pray for those who despitefully use you.”
But the fact remains that the goal of political action should be peace and tranquility, not the thrill of defeating an enemy.
*
