Christianity and Politics

The Attempted Seduction of the Bride of Christ

Petruzzi

• Publisher: Resource Publications
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781621896135
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

As the Bride of Christ, the body of Christian believers has been called to serve Him. One aspect of this calling is that we are God's instrument to change the world. This book addresses the question of how Christians should go about facilitating that calling.Politics is the process through which some people attempt to prevail over others for the control of government. Is that what Christ wants for his holy people, or is the lure of politics an attempt to bring us into Satan's world?Christianity and Politics presents a logically developed analysis of this question using the Bible, history, and modern theories of economics and political science. Christians from all political and theological backgrounds are likely to find that this book changes their thinking about the church and political involvement.

1

The Unholy Alliances of Politics

“Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.” (Rev 19:7)

The Bride of Christ is the Church, the body of all Christian believers. As His Bride, our souls should be preoccupied with serving Him. When the world takes us away from Christ’s methods, we lose our focus on Christ, and in this way we are seduced. The result of the seduction is that we are yoked with people, causes, and methods which are not holy. Throughout history some Christians have yielded to the seduction of politics, and history shows that this was a loss for Christianity. Today, Christians are again encouraged to become actively involved in politics. I hope to show through this book that when Christians use the ways of the world to become involved with politics it is an unholy alliance that does not serve God.

The term “politics” has several meanings. In this discussion I will use the definition which states that politics is the struggle for the control of government. It is the conflict between different individuals who seek to change legislation and policy so that the legislation and policies follow what they want as opposed to what other people want. As such, politics has winners and losers.

The administration of government does not fall under this definition of politics. Daniel served as an administrator for Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar and Belzhazzar before serving the Mede king, Darius. While he held fast to his beliefs, he did not try to influence government policies in a way which had winners and losers. Similarly, Joseph, the son of Jacob, served the Pharaoh of Egypt by giving advice and administering public works, but he did not engage in politics. Conflicts and outcomes which have perceived winners and losers are at the core of politics, but mere administration does not fall into those categories.

Early Christians like Paul used the Roman judicial system to protect their rights to witness for Christ, and this was not engagement in politics either. Courts in Rome (and in the United States today) do not make new laws or new policies. They only interpret existing laws and apply that interpretation to specific situations. That is not politics, and it is appropriate for Christians to peaceably use the judicial system to protect their own rights. My chapter entitled The Economics of Politics will explain this in more detail,

Because of the State’s exclusive right to use violence to enforce political outcomes, political conflicts are intense. As Mao-Tse tung stated in his “Little Red Book,” “Political power rolls out of the barrel of a gun.”

The purpose of this book is to analyze the appropriate participation of Christians in these conflicts, with particular emphasis on politics in the United States. I believe in the truth of the Scriptures, and I assume that the reader has those same beliefs. Therefore, while this book uses some analytical techniques of economics and philosophy, my arguments are all consistent with the best interpretations of Scripture which I am able to make.

It is sometimes argued that Christians should be involved in politics because if good people do not take roles of political leadership, then those positions will be taken only by bad people. This argument misses both the meaning of Christianity and the purpose of politics. Christians are not good people, for there are no good people. Christians are sinners who have been forgiven and filled with the Holy Spirit. We are part of God’s Kingdom, not the Kingdom of this World. We do not need and should not want to use worldly methods to compete with worldly people to run the affairs of the world. In fact, this book will show that worldly methods of politics are not productive activities for Christians.

The argument concerning good people also misses the purpose and nature of politics, and the analysis of that purpose and nature is the principal theoretical development in this book. I first show that Christian political activity has been unsuccessful throughout history. It damaged the souls of Christians and hindered the salvation of others. I then proceed to develop an exposition of the nature of politics. I show in this exposition that the nature of politics is selfish activity in which one party prevails at the expense of others. I proceed to look at specific ways that Christians sometimes seek to use politics to further their own ends, and show that Christians can always serve Christ better without using the ways of the world to influence politics. While most of this discussion is theoretical, I also discuss some specific issues (such as abortion) which are of interest to many Christians.

Despite the fact that worldly involvement in politics is not the best way to serve Christ, some Christian issues may also be political issues. Some of Paul’s letters to Christians dealt with order in society and the treatment of various classes of people. These inherently political issues are also Christian issues. In the US, the Christian charity which we show for others is politicized through tax deductions, matching grants, and government supported welfare. By contrast, Christian charity is penalized or even prohibited in some oppressive Third World dictatorships. Part of our Christian respect for human life is enforced by government (as in laws prohibiting murder) while parts are ignored (by allowing abortion, for example). Even Christian prayer and worship are affected by politics.

Writing in The Political Meaning of Christianity,1 Glenn Tinder states that it is desirable that Christians have an influence on political issues. I do not know of any Christians who contest that point. The issue is one of how Christians influence political issues. The worldly way of influencing those issues is to join in the political struggle through electoral politics and, sometimes, through the violent means of war and revolution. Peter tried the worldly method of influencing politics when he cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. He was rebuked by Jesus for doing this. Except for this instance, no Christian in the New Testament tried to use worldly means to influence politics. Christians are exhorted to pray, witness, give to charity, and to be good examples, and the position of this book is that these Christian activities should be the exclusive means by which Christians work to exert influence on the political process.

Christians in the United States sometimes look to the Constitution for guidance on the appropriate political activity of Christians. Some Christians also look to other writings of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to see if those political leaders ever intended a complete separation of church and State. Those efforts miss the pertinent point for Christians. Christian behavior is not necessarily what the nation’s Founding Fathers wanted and what is revealed in their writing. It is what God wants and reveals in the Bible. While we must comply with every law that is not opposed to God, the fact that political participation by Christian groups may be legal does not imply that it is holy.

Jesus said that his Kingdom was not a kingdom of this world. Despite the allegations of the Pharisees, Jesus was not trying to take Caesar’s place. While Jesus was still on earth, the disciples apparently wanted him to establish a worldly government with himself as king. When the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, however, they acquired a better understanding of Christ’s Kingdom and no longer sought a worldly government. Instead, Paul and the other authors of the New Testament told Christians to submit to the world’s government, to honor the worldly king, and to pray for him. The influence of the apostles on the government came from evangelism, prayer, charity, their own good examples, and preaching about the Scriptures. While Paul repeatedly used the Roman courts to enforce his right to preach, his use of courts was consistent with obedience to the existing state since the courts only applied the state’s laws.

Proponents of Christian participation in politics often associate themselves with “traditional values” or “family values,” but because Christianity is not worldly, Christian values are not traditional values and they are not family values. As Jesus said, “ For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household” (Mt 10:35–36).2 Jesus also tells us not to follow the traditions of men. St. Paul states, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.” Consequently, we should not try to accomplish our Christian goals through the worldly method of politics. While Christians have an advantage over non-believers in Godly activities such as prayer and being good examples, we are at a disadvantage in worldly methods. The early American religious leader Roger Williams had a good understanding of this principal when he taught that the characteristics for success in government were not the characteristics for success in religion, and we should be grateful that his teachings had an important influence on the authors of the U.S. Constitution. (The Godless Constitution, Isaac Kramnick, WW Norton and Company 1997)3 The kingdoms of the world belong to Satan, and their ownership (in exchange for worship) was rejected by Jesus Christ (Luke 4:6). When we seek those Kingdoms of the world for ourselves, we fail to walk in Christ’s holy path.

Four recent Presidents of the United States have indicated that they were evangelical Christians: Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, William Clinton, and George W. Bush. The history of their administrations should provide some lesson to Christians; a born-again Christian who lives in the world of politics is a fish out of water (see note 1). By trying to use the ways of the world to accomplish Christian goals, he divides himself and, in the end, fails. No amount of intelligence, training, and hard work will let the Christian succeed in a world which belongs to Satan.

Christians are called to be peacemakers and to be meek. We are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We are not to seek the things of this world (Mt 6:19). Whatever we ask in the name of our Savior Jesus Christ will be granted. We are told to change the world by evangelism (Mark 16:15) and by our example (1 Tim 4:12 ).

Christians sometimes reject a sole reliance on the biblical tools of prayer, charity, evangelism and example out of perceived practicality. Their argument seems apparent. If we could effect change by ourselves in other ways, wouldn’t God want us to do so? Should Christians just sit back while worldly people rule the world? Wouldn’t it be better if Christians ruled the world instead? After all, the Bible says that Christians are to someday rule the world. Shouldn’t we try whatever means are available to bring Christian practices into our society today?

While well-intentioned, it is obvious that the rationale of practicality is secular and non-biblical. Practicality can be a disguise for worldliness, and the nature of practical politics is quite worldly. In fact, the essence of politics is un-Christian worldliness. The argument of practicality misses the major message from both the Old and New Testaments: that the way of man does not work while faith in God does. The Bible gives us alternatives of prayer, charity and evangelism, and these methods have proven to be successful for Christians.

Humanism is the philosophy which is concerned with the achievements of man as opposed to the ways of God. Christians who attempt to change the world through their own efforts in worldly politics are therefore humanists. They are trusting the efforts and ways of man rather than using the ways of God and waiting for God to act. Since born-again Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit of God, their attempts to use the ways of man make them a house divided against itself, and for that reason they must fail.

Although Christian pacifism goes hand-in-hand with refusal to participate in worldly politics, this is not a book on pacifism. Many books have already been written on that subject, and I believe that a Christian should only need to read Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, particularly Mt 5:38–48 to be convinced that Christians are not to be violent. These verses are well-known, even to unbelievers, and we make ourselves poor witnesses for our faith when we resist with violence. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell entitled his best known work Why I am Not a Christian.4 In that book Russell wrote that many contemporary politicians claimed to be Christian, but he doubted if they would pass the test of not hitting back if he struck one on the cheek. When Christians strike back, every unbeliever knows that we have failed our faith.

(see note 2).

At the same time, the New Testament describes many interactions of Christians and the government. Paul pleaded his case in the courts and sought to convert political leaders. He sought the protection of police from the mob, and demanded that his rights as a Roman citizen be respected. While the actual meeting is not described in the Bible, it is generally believed that Paul was called to bring his case to the emperor in Rome, and that he appeared before the Emperor Nero, who then had him beheaded. The Bible and secular history both teach that Christians were persecuted for their beliefs and practices, but they persisted in the face of this persecution. Christians are called on to obey laws which do not prohibit the practice of their faith and to show respect for governing authorities. God even gave instructions for ruling Israel, and some Christians believe that the Body of Christ is the modern Israel.

I hope in this book to leave the reader with a better understanding of the Christian’s appropriate position with respect to government. In order to acquire a good perspective on that position, it is helpful to begin with our history.

Note 1: Richard M. Nixon was a member of the Society of Friends (“Quakers”), while James Earl Carter was a Southern Baptist and a self-declared born-again-Christian. Clinton was also a Southern Baptist and at the time of his graduation from high school he was so committed to Christ that his speech as valedictorian was a call for salvation and discipleship. According to The Washington Post5 George W. Bush was among the most openly religious presidents of all time. He prayed daily and regularly turned to the Bible for guidance. Only God knows which of these men really had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but all four professed to be Christians. In general, however, fundamentalist Christians who have been born again do not have high opinions of the work of the first three of these presidents, and the fourth is so disliked around the world that his presidency continues to be a source of international ill will.

Nixon expanded an unpopular war and, following a resolution of impeachment which was introduced in the U.S. Senate, he resigned with the disgrace of criminal charges. While few people discuss the issue, Nixon also bears some disrepute from having campaigned as a conservative but having acted as the most politically left-wing president of the twentieth century. Nixon recognized Red China (thereby ending diplomatic rela...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Chapter 1: The Unholy Alliances of Politics
• Chapter 2: A Selective History of Christians in Politics
• Chapter 3: The Economics of Politics
• Chapter 4: The Nature of Politics
• Chapter 5: The Way of the World
• Chapter 6: Taxation and Redistribution of Wealth
• Chapter 7: How to Change Behavior
• Chapter 8: The Civil Rights of Christians
• Chapter 9: The Christian’s Wealth
• Chapter 10: Israel and Foreign Policy
• Chapter 11: Preparation for the End Times
• Conclusion
• Bibliography