What does Bible doctrine have to do with politics?

[Evan Jellicoe]

What does the Bible have to do with politics, anyway?

Some people say “nothing,” because of a misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of church and state. The separation of church and state does not deal with an individual’s support of (or opposition to) a law, or even with the way a candidate conducts a campaign. No law prohibits a candidate from emphasizing his membership in this or that church. And no law tells a voter that religion cannot be allowed to influence the voter’s choice. Of course it can! A voter can vote for any reason imaginable, including religious beliefs.

Now, everybody knows that the reality today is that conservative Bible-believing Christians do tend to vote Republican because of their personal religious beliefs. Often it is implied, and occasionally stated out loud, that a good Christian could not possibly vote for a Democrat.

I believe this is untrue primarily because the doctrine of freedom of conscience (found in Scripture) prohibits it. That is, I am free to believe that I cannot vote Democratic with a clear conscience, but I cannot require another Christian to agree with me. Furthermore, I believe that Jesus Himself forbids me to hate a person who votes “wrong.” Politics should never separate two people who both love the Lord. Consider the example of Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector. Here you have one man who believes in throwing off Roman rule by any means possible, teamed up with a man who earns his living by helping to fund that Roman rule. If ever two people were destined to hate each other, it would be those two. And yet they didn’t. Their devotion to Jesus outweighed their personal political opinions.

Now, I happen to believe (call me closer to Simon the Zealot) that an inspired and inerrant Bible:

Does not define when the spirit enters into a fetus, making it alive, and does not equate the termination of a pregnancy with murder;

Does not restrict non-believing people from governing themselves in a democratic manner;

Does not say that business practices that were accepted in Colonial days should still be the norm today;

Does say quite a bit about safeguarding the welfare of the poor;

Does not prohibit civil government from assisting the poor;

Does not support the idea that America can be made good by the passage and enforcement of laws.


Every one of these ideas can of course be debated. But that is precisely the point: belief in freedom of conscience is an important theological doctrine that, let’s face it, we owe historically to Baptists, but that doctrine is now generally accepted by all sorts of Americans. I can argue, and defend, every one of those points using only the Bible as my base, but the arguments belong in this forum because the conclusion is a political conclusion. It is all about how people vote.

I am arguing for one of two alternatives. My preferred alternative is that the Democratic platform is better than (or perhaps not as bad as) the Republican platform (since neither party can properly be called Christian), implying that you should vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils; or I can argue that if you still vote Republican and the person in the seat next to you in church votes Democratic, that should in no way create a barrier between you. I personally prefer the former, but I regard the latter as a Biblical absolute. Freedom of conscience must be respected. And for the Christian, the most important thing is not the victory of this or that political party, it is love. Love for the brethren, and love even for those outside the Church.

 

[Dave L]

What does the Bible have to do with politics, anyway?

Some people say “nothing,” because of a misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of church and state. The separation of church and state does not deal with an individual’s support of (or opposition to) a law, or even with the way a candidate conducts a campaign. No law prohibits a candidate from emphasizing his membership in this or that church. And no law tells a voter that religion cannot be allowed to influence the voter’s choice. Of course it can! A voter can vote for any reason imaginable, including religious beliefs.

Now, everybody knows that the reality today is that conservative Bible-believing Christians do tend to vote Republican because of their personal religious beliefs. Often it is implied, and occasionally stated out loud, that a good Christian could not possibly vote for a Democrat.

I believe this is untrue primarily because the doctrine of freedom of conscience (found in Scripture) prohibits it. That is, I am free to believe that I cannot vote Democratic with a clear conscience, but I cannot require another Christian to agree with me. Furthermore, I believe that Jesus Himself forbids me to hate a person who votes “wrong.” Politics should never separate two people who both love the Lord. Consider the example of Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector. Here you have one man who believes in throwing off Roman rule by any means possible, teamed up with a man who earns his living by helping to fund that Roman rule. If ever two people were destined to hate each other, it would be those two. And yet they didn’t. Their devotion to Jesus outweighed their personal political opinions.

Now, I happen to believe (call me closer to Simon the Zealot) that an inspired and inerrant Bible:

Does not define when the spirit enters into a fetus, making it alive, and does not equate the termination of a pregnancy with murder;

Does not restrict non-believing people from governing themselves in a democratic manner;

Does not say that business practices that were accepted in Colonial days should still be the norm today;

Does say quite a bit about safeguarding the welfare of the poor;

Does not prohibit civil government from assisting the poor;

Does not support the idea that America can be made good by the passage and enforcement of laws.


Every one of these ideas can of course be debated. But that is precisely the point: belief in freedom of conscience is an important theological doctrine that, let’s face it, we owe historically to Baptists, but that doctrine is now generally accepted by all sorts of Americans. I can argue, and defend, every one of those points using only the Bible as my base, but the arguments belong in this forum because the conclusion is a political conclusion. It is all about how people vote.

I am arguing for one of two alternatives. My preferred alternative is that the Democratic platform is better (or perhaps not as bad, since neither party is even remotely Christian) as the Republican platform, implying that you should vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils; or I can argue that if you still vote Republican and the person in the seat next to you in church votes Democratic, that should in no way create a barrier between you. I personally prefer the former, but I regard the latter as a Biblical absolute. Freedom of conscience must be respected. And for the Christian, “Job #1” is not the victory of this or that political party, it is love. Love for the brethren, and love even for those outside the Church.

Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start World War III … to Speed Up the Second Coming - Global Research

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start World War III … to Speed Up the Second Coming - Global Research

As someone who believes the vast majority of revelation already happened...this is distressing news.

Jesus would not be pleased.

 

[miamited]

Hi evan,

I say, not much, because the Scriptures aren't written to change the course of the governance of man. The Scriptures are written to change the heart of a man.

As each one becomes convinced in his heart of the truth of God's word, he is changed. Now, if that person happens to be in the political arena, then it may change the trajectory of his personal voting record, but it's not likely to change the outcome of overall voting unless a lot of such people begin to fill the legislature. According to the Scriptures, that isn't likely to happen. The Scriptures paint a picture that as a society, we're going to fall worse than rise to better.

When Jesus walked the earth, and the Roman Empire was the most powerful nation upon the earth in that day, even though we know that it was, at times, very corrupt and misled, he never once encouraged people to go out and fight against the laws of man. His gospel was to the individual heart and as one individual heart was given over to the kingdom of God, the kingdom of God was built. He didn't go out and say, "Listen! You people that are a part of the fishing community of Galilee. You must all comply with the will of my Father. You must all give your life to me and fish in accordance with God's will." In fact, he didn't even expend much effort trying to correct the leaders of Israel, but instead told the people that they must obey their leaders, but not to be like them.

I don't see that the Scriptures ever give us any command or encouragement or example where some group of God's people went out and about to change the laws of any government existing in that day. Paul wrote that believers must live with them, but not like them. So, whatever law is made by man, the believer is asked to live by a greater law. So, if abortions are legal, then unbelievers are free to get abortions. Believers should not. In that, they should understand that they don't live by that law. However, if a believer does, or at some time in the past, did, get an abortion...Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for that also.

But two things, I believe, happen to someone who has given their life to the Lord and been born again. First, they're not going to be as willing to practice the kinds of sexual relations that lead to having any desire to have an abortion. They're not going to be involved in promiscuous sexual relations like they are taught to us in our entertainment. Secondly, if they do have a problem with a pregnancy, they're going to be more willing to let God's will be done.

I think that part of the problem, as the world sees christianity today, is that there are a lot of 'christians' who are not 'born again'. The world doesn't understand that difference and so they look at the christian community as a whole and believe that all of them truly represent God's will in their lives. I think that Jesus' words were pretty clear when he spoke to his disciples and told them of the day of his Father's judgment and said that not all who say to him, Lord, Lord, will be saved. He even quantifies his account by saying to them that their number will be 'many'.

They he describes how they're going to cry out to him that they did great miracles 'in his name'. Now, as far as I know, there is no one who does things in Jesus' name that does not identify themselves on the earth as a christian. We don't see atheists doing things in Jesus' name. We don't see Muslims or Hindus doing great miracles in Jesus' name. So, this 'many' people who will be crying out to Jesus about their wonderful and mighty deeds done in his name, will be people who thought of themselves, and likely kept many of the practices of christianity and were likely seen by the world as the representation of a believer. But, Jesus says to them to depart from him. He never knew them

So, for my 2¢ worth: If the world wants to legalize abortion that's ok with me. A believer isn't judged by the world's laws, but by God's righteous judgment. A believer should therefore, know that even though the world says it's ok to have an abortion...God doesn't. The believer should live by the law of God. But still, even though there were similar unrighteous laws in the Roman Empire in the days that Jesus walked upon the earth, there doesn't seem to be any example by Jesus that we were to go out and try to change world governments. I think a follower of Jesus should actually follow Jesus' example in all things, as much as it is within his power to do so.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start World War III … to Speed Up the Second Coming - Global Research

I personal guess would be not millions, but thousands. Still a lot more than zero. But that raises another question: Do we consign this world to hell and just withdraw from it, or even encourage it to get worse, or do we do what we can to make our material circumstances (and those of the people around us) better than they were? I favor the second. The spiritual world is more important than the material world, but the material world is not unimportant. I get that belief from the Bible, not from mere "common sense."

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

So, for my 2¢ worth: If the world wants to legalize abortion that's ok with me. A believer isn't judged by the world's laws, but by God's righteous judgment. A believer should therefore, know that even though the world says it's ok to have an abortion...God doesn't.

That's what I mean by "freedom of conscience." When some politician says "I personally am opposed to abortion, but I believe in allowing others to make their own choice," that is actually good Bible. "What have I to do with judging those outside the church?" wrote Paul. And that is why I do not feel compelled to vote only for politicians who will outlaw abortion.

 

[Pommer]

What does the Bible have to do with politics, anyway?

Some people say “nothing,” because of a misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of church and state. The separation of church and state does not deal with an individual’s support of (or opposition to) a law, or even with the way a candidate conducts a campaign. No law prohibits a candidate from emphasizing his membership in this or that church. And no law tells a voter that religion cannot be allowed to influence the voter’s choice. Of course it can! A voter can vote for any reason imaginable, including religious beliefs.

Now, everybody knows that the reality today is that conservative Bible-believing Christians do tend to vote Republican because of their personal religious beliefs. Often it is implied, and occasionally stated out loud, that a good Christian could not possibly vote for a Democrat.

I believe this is untrue primarily because the doctrine of freedom of conscience (found in Scripture) prohibits it. That is, I am free to believe that I cannot vote Democratic with a clear conscience, but I cannot require another Christian to agree with me. Furthermore, I believe that Jesus Himself forbids me to hate a person who votes “wrong.” Politics should never separate two people who both love the Lord. Consider the example of Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector. Here you have one man who believes in throwing off Roman rule by any means possible, teamed up with a man who earns his living by helping to fund that Roman rule. If ever two people were destined to hate each other, it would be those two. And yet they didn’t. Their devotion to Jesus outweighed their personal political opinions.

Now, I happen to believe (call me closer to Simon the Zealot) that an inspired and inerrant Bible:

Does not define when the spirit enters into a fetus, making it alive, and does not equate the termination of a pregnancy with murder;

Does not restrict non-believing people from governing themselves in a democratic manner;

Does not say that business practices that were accepted in Colonial days should still be the norm today;

Does say quite a bit about safeguarding the welfare of the poor;

Does not prohibit civil government from assisting the poor;

Does not support the idea that America can be made good by the passage and enforcement of laws.


Every one of these ideas can of course be debated. But that is precisely the point: belief in freedom of conscience is an important theological doctrine that, let’s face it, we owe historically to Baptists, but that doctrine is now generally accepted by all sorts of Americans. I can argue, and defend, every one of those points using only the Bible as my base, but the arguments belong in this forum because the conclusion is a political conclusion. It is all about how people vote.

I am arguing for one of two alternatives. My preferred alternative is that the Democratic platform is better (or perhaps not as bad, since neither party is even remotely Christian) as the Republican platform, implying that you should vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils; or I can argue that if you still vote Republican and the person in the seat next to you in church votes Democratic, that should in no way create a barrier between you. I personally prefer the former, but I regard the latter as a Biblical absolute. Freedom of conscience must be respected. And for the Christian, “Job #1” is not the victory of this or that political party, it is love. Love for the brethren, and love even for those outside the Church.

If folks would like a country built upon Biblical Principles...yeah, good luck with that and where’s it going to be? because if you think it’s going to be in the USA, yeah, no, we have a secular government here.

 

[durangodawood]

Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start World War III … to Speed Up the Second Coming - Global Research

Surely nobody here wants that!

 

[Dave L]

Surely nobody here wants that!

I think many Dispensationalists do. Grace Halsell also mentions it in Prophecy and Politics. It lines up with their end-time kingdom views.

 

[Jay Sea]

I personal guess would be not millions, but thousands. Still a lot more than zero. But that raises another question: Do we consign this world to hell and just withdraw from it, or even encourage it to get worse, or do we do what we can to make our material circumstances (and those of the people around us) better than they were? I favor the second. The spiritual world is more important than the material world, but the material world is not unimportant. I get that belief from the Bible, not from mere "common sense."

For us human beings the spiritual and the physical world is one and the same. We live our spiritual; life in the here and now through our human bodies in or words and deeds were are not to beings spiritual and physical but one in spirit breathed body. Creatures created thus and love by God to do his work in co-creating His Kingdom which is among us as we strive to imitate Jesus. We are to be the anointed ones to others to treat others as family so that in God's time our welcomed guests will recognise if not on this earth that when they go to the judgement they will know and be known by Jesus. We do not change hearts only Jesus does but we can continue to create the environment through being on the side of the oppressed and poor against the power of the wealthy and the state and the church and for humility and compassion in these institutions. That is our political responsibility.

 

[variant]

As someone who believes the vast majority of revelation already happened...this is distressing news.

Jesus would not be pleased.

It doesn't seem to be in keeping with Christian principles to try to force God's hand in any way.

But, that's people for you.

Maybe they had a different take on that book I read that says what they are all about, or had a vastly different experience than all those years I attended church to learn about it.

 

[variant]

What does the Bible have to do with politics, anyway?

It provides a metaphysical and ethical framework for a large portion of the population and how they approach society and reality in general.

So it's going to come up.

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

2 Peter 1:3, NASB: "seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence."

Life and godliness. This includes politics.

 

[Jay Sea]

It doesn't seem to be in keeping with Christian principles to try to force God's hand in any way.

But, that's people for you.

Maybe they had a different take on that book I read that says what they are all about, or had a vastly different experience than all those years I attended church to learn about it.

The book of Revelation was for the people at that time to deal with the Romans. It is for us to learn from secular and biblical history and read the signs of our times we in a sense through the churches in a sense write scripture for following generations being our history of our kingdom experiences and our relationship with God.

in love
Jay

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

. . . the Scriptures aren't written to change the course of the governance of man. The Scriptures are written to change the heart of a man.

You know, I agree with you on this point in general. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost individuals. But I also believe that overall policies that affect all of society can be discussed from Scripture, too.

Let's start with what is probably the worst uniquely American social problem, which would be slavery and the legally-enforced racism that followed. That was never Biblical; it flowed from a profound twisting of what the Bible really did say, which is that all people, from every nation, every continent, every background everywhere can, by faith, stand on equal footing before God. [Revelation 7:9 is the simplest and most obvious statement of this principle.] Treating black people as specifically singled out to be slaves, and as less human than non-black people and therefore unfit to be "social equals" to whites, was a horrible example of being conformed to the world and opposed to God. If more individual white people had accepted that simple Bible truth in Colonial days, society would have been profoundly different. But because so many Americans based their reasoning on dollars (and social pressure) rather than plain Scripture, we got what we got.

Today we have Christians reasoning that God agrees with fiscal conservatives that government behaves unethically, even unconstitutionally, when it awards "charity" directly to individuals. Therefore many Christians vote, with a completely clear conscience, to cut back--or eliminate, when possible--social programs such as food stamps, unemployment insurance, and so on. This type of fiscal conservatism is not based on anything found in the Bible, but is just another example of "Bible-believing" Christians misinterpreting what the Bible actually says.

So, yes, the Bible is aimed at converting individuals, but it can have a profound impact on society when individual Christians follow what it actually says, rather than acting as though it applies only to personal behavior.

 

[Jay Sea]

You know, I agree with you on this point in general. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost individuals. But I also believe that overall policies that affect all of society can be discussed from Scripture, too.

Let's start with what is probably the worst uniquely American social problem, which would be slavery and the legally-enforced racism that followed. That was never Biblical; it flowed from a profound twisting of what the Bible really did say, which is that all people, from every nation, every continent, every background everywhere can, by faith, stand on equal footing before God. [Revelation 7:9 is the simplest and most obvious statement of this principle.] Treating black people as specifically singled out to be slaves, and as less human than non-black people and therefore unfit to be "social equals" to whites, was a horrible example of being conformed to the world and opposed to God. If more individual white people had accepted that simple Bible truth in Colonial days, society would have been profoundly different. But because so many Americans based their reasoning on dollars (and social pressure) rather than plain Scripture, we got what we got.

Today we have Christians reasoning that God agrees with fiscal conservatives that government behaves unethically, even unconstitutionally, when it awards "charity" directly to individuals. Therefore many Christians vote, with a completely clear conscience, to cut back--or eliminate, when possible--social programs such as food stamps, unemployment insurance, and so on. This type of fiscal conservatism is not based on anything found in the Bible, but is just another example of "Bible-believing" Christians misinterpreting what the Bible actually says.

So, yes, the Bible is aimed at converting individuals, but it can have a profound impact on society when individual Christians follow what it actually says, rather than acting as though it applies only to personal behavior.

The bible is the story of the relationship of a people to their God which acts at many levels as a mythical history, a legal framework, a spiritual inspiration and guidance, a message of love, tales of hate and blood shed, of God and man struggling in their relationship, of man's constant rebellion and God's constant compassion. It's aim to prepare us to see our greatness in God and our weakness, our uselessness when we act in rejection of His love. To bring everyone together as His ONE people. I believe that God has spoken to every tribe on earth through their stories and if we look we will find His seeds everywhere unfortunately among the stories in religions man has sown his false arrogant seeds of interpretation which need to be discerned. If it brings people together in love it is of God; if not it is of MAN-SATAN.
in love
Jay

 

[miamited]

Hi evan,

Thanks for your response:

You know, I agree with you on this point in general. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost individuals. But I also believe that overall policies that affect all of society can be discussed from Scripture, too.

Oh absolutely! Believers can discuss the righteousness of laws and governance and there's nothing wrong with that. We talk about various ones as they come up in our small group sometimes on a Sunday. My point is that there isn't any example that we're to make changing the laws of man, working within the framework of how government works, some particularly important part of the work of following Jesus. We have the entire writings of the Acts of the Apostles. It's an account of the things the first apostles did in following the Lord and teaching others to do so. Not once, is there a single reference about getting militant and loud about unfair or unrighteous laws that they spent some effort to gather in groups to chant and march and beat the drum to change. And we know that there were some really wicked things going on in Roman government overall. Some historians point out that drunken orgies were a reasonably common practice and had the approval of the government. Some evidence shows that this very issues, abortion, was practiced in ancient Rome. Not once do we find any reference in the Scriptures that a believer took it upon himself to go out and rouse up the people against abortion.

I have no problem with a group of believers sitting around the table and discussing some new law that's been passed or how a law might effect a believer's life or that even though something has been made lawful for the people, doesn't mean that a believer has to approve. I'm against abortion for my wife or any of my children or grandchildren. I would absolutely tell them in no uncertain terms that first, they should not be entertaining themselves with sexual relations just because they're dating someone. Kiss, hold hands, go to the movies or go out for pizza, but sex is something to be enjoyed within the confines of a marriage. So, hopefully none of the children I've trained up will even have the issue of abortion come up. However, if one of my granddaughters does come up pregnant and unwed and is considering an abortion, I would tell her that it would not be in keeping with God's will for her or the child.

Faith in God is a personal and individual issue. Following the law of God is for those whose faith is in God.

You then wrote: "So, yes, the Bible is aimed at converting individuals, but it can have a profound impact on society when individual Christians follow what it actually says, rather than acting as though it applies only to personal behavior."

That, honestly, doesn't make any sense. When individual christians follow what it actually says, than they are using the Scriptures to establish their personal behavior. And that's a good thing. But establishing their personal behavior by following the Scriptures, has nothing to do with the militancy in 'making' everyone else follow their behavior.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[jayem]

What does the Bible have to do with politics, anyway?

Some people say “nothing,” because of a misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of church and state. The separation of church and state does not deal with an individual’s support of (or opposition to) a law, or even with the way a candidate conducts a campaign. No law prohibits a candidate from emphasizing his membership in this or that church. And no law tells a voter that religion cannot be allowed to influence the voter’s choice. Of course it can! A voter can vote for any reason imaginable, including religious beliefs.

All very true. Church/state separation doesn't encumber an individual in his private beliefs and worship. (Providing no harm is done, or laws broken in exercising said beliefs and worship.) But it encumbers government. Especially insofar as government is prohibited from giving preference, or showing favoritism to any lawful religion over another. And that's what rankles many Christian conservatives. Who believe that government policies should reflect their particular religious dogma. An obvious recent example is the anger over the Obergefell decision. Traditional Evangelical Christians believe homosexuality is sinful. They see government allowing a same sex couple to obtain a marriage license as a rejection of, and an affront to, their religious values. And it's especially offensive in those states where homosexuality is a protected class as regards public accommodations. The Supreme Court ruled a state must consider religious belief when there is a conflict. State laws can't be overtly hostile to religion. But the decision still left a lot of gray areas and unanswered questions.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Some evidence shows that this very issues, abortion, was practiced in ancient Rome. Not once do we find any reference in the Scriptures that a believer took it upon himself to go out and rouse up the people against abortion.

If I take that statement as something we ought to imitate today, then we Christians should not be organizing to outlaw abortion for those whose conscience says it is permissible for them. I'm on board with that.

Faith in God is a personal and individual issue. Following the law of God is for those whose faith is in God.
You then wrote: "So, yes, the Bible is aimed at converting individuals, but it can have a profound impact on society when individual Christians follow what it actually says, rather than acting as though it applies only to personal behavior."

That, honestly, doesn't make any sense. When individual Christians follow what it actually says, than they are using the Scriptures to establish their personal behavior. And that's a good thing. But establishing their personal behavior by following the Scriptures, has nothing to do with the militancy in 'making' everyone else follow their behavior.

But that is exactly what I meant. If all the individual Christian slaveowners had followed the Bible's plain language instead of the dollars, there would have been no slavery. And if the typical American citizen had believed, and acted like, a black person was no different than a white person, then slavery would not have existed because everybody would have agreed that it was harming people rather than chattel animals. So, if every individual, as an individual, had actually followed the Bible, slavery (and the racism that followed) would never have been.

 

[Jay Sea]

You cannot be a christian, a follower of the Way, as an individual. We are called to community as part of the Kingdom of God, to sit down with one another in fellowship and eat and drink together. Were two or three etc. are gathered in the name of Jeshua there is Jeshua present. We are one family. Whenever we sit down, with or without a "Priest" and we eat and drink together, as brothers and sisters and guests and foreigners and tax collectors and prostitutes, in all our frailties, that is communion most sacred.
A Jesuit priest once said to me: When you go before the chair you will be asked two questions "Who will speak for you?" "Who will you recommend?"
Another thing he said was: "The only hope for the church is the people."
Everything that we do for change in the relationship between the powers and the anawin, the forgotten, the poor, those discriminated against for what ever reason, is politics. We should be political: we should be turning over the tables in the temple.