Should Christians Be Involved in Politics?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Yes, with limits — the New Testament situation and Philemon

• The question posed (in the host's frame): later this year, american voters are going to head to the polls, for what we call here in the united states, the midterm elections. Maybe there's somebody in our audience out there, who's listening, watching. And they've been praying about their involvement in the political system. Maybe they feel like that even — they might even consider running for office. Or volunteering to serve (in) an election campaign. Or maybe making a donation, to a candidate or a cause. But at the same time, they also recognize that it feels like that being involved in politics becomes ('is becomes', as the frame's words run) an ethical landmine, or minefield, for believers. And sometimes, to be honest, even voting is tough. Because it can feel like every candidate's flawed, and they don't really represent my values. considering all this: should christians be involved in politics? And if so, to what extent should they be involved? The answer: the short answer is yes. But there are limits. And first of all, we need to understand that in ancient times — particularly the new testament — that believers did not have the opportunity we have today. They lived under the roman empire, which is a dictatorship. They didn't have the right to vote. They couldn't participate. They couldn't help influence the laws. And so there is not a direct parallel comparison ('a direct impair comparison', as heard). You don't see in the new testament some appeal to social action. Because, first of all, the focus is on the gospel. And second of all, it would be counterproductive. Even such things as slavery — which is obviously evil, and any fair reading of the new testament would demonstrate slavery's ('slaveries', as heard) contrary to god's will. In the book of philemon — if you study it carefully, and i've written a little commentary, called the message of colossians and philemon — i argue that paul was actually arguing that this slave, onesimus, should be set free. That (slavery) was contrary to the gospel. I use that as an illustration. But nevertheless, you don't have an appeal in the bible: let's take up arms. Or let's vote and outlaw slavery. Because that option wasn't available. And if they had tried to rebel, they would have been crushed. And then the gospel would have been crushed. So it was counterproductive, to do something they couldn't do — didn't have an opportunity (to do). But that doesn't mean we should not take advantage of the opportunities we have. So if there's slavery in the world today, we should speak against it. Because we have the opportunity to do so. So i would argue that in our western democracies — particularly, we're talking about the us and canada, but it would apply anywhere else in the world — that if we have an opportunity to influence our government, it's our right. And i would even argue our responsibility, as good citizens.

Scriptures: Philemon (book-only)

Good citizens — pray, cooperate, and obey God rather than men

• So we should, first of all, pray for our governmental leaders ('pray from', as heard). The new testament is very clear, that we should — we should be good citizens. So we find this in romans (the chapter as he gives it). We find this in first peter: that we should pray for our government officials. We should cooperate with the laws of the land. In other words, be good citizens. But we should stand against evil. And acts (the pinpoint as he gives it): we should obey god, rather than men. So we're not going to succumb to evil, and not going to cooperate with sinful activities. We're going to always do the will of god. So — and that indicates that, if we have influence, we should influence our government, in a right way. So: definitely pray. I think definitely we should vote. And we can argue: if we don't vote, we're neglecting our responsibilities. We're neglecting an opportunity ('neglecting neglecting an opportunity', in his doubled form), to do something about the problems that we see. And you know, if god tells us to pray about something: if there's an opportunity to act, shouldn't we act, to fulfill those prayers? It's like when the lord says: pray that god will send forth laborers, to the harvest. I think kind of the unstated assumption is: well, you could help fulfill that prayer request. Once you start praying, you start realizing: you know what, i can be part of answering that prayer. So you're praying for the government. You're praying for justice. You're praying for righteousness. You ought to think: well, i can start fulfilling, and be part of, the answer. I can go vote. And that, i think, also could mean that we could get involved in political campaigns. Or even run for office. Hold office.

Scriptures: Romans 13; 1 Peter (book-only); Acts 5:29

Godly officeholders, and praying for the city

• Well, you say: is that even possible? In the old testament, we find many examples of godly people, who had places in secular, pagan government. But they did not compromise their convictions. So: joseph, esther, daniel, hananiah, mishael, and azariah ('hannah and i and michelle and azariah', as heard) — also known as shadrach, meshach, and abednego. They're pagan names. So they even went by pagan names. That ('but', in sense) they stayed true to their scriptural convictions. In the new testament, we have the ethiopian eunuch, who is a treasurer for the ethiopian government, for the queen. That's a pretty high position. Also, in the city of corinth, we see in paul's epistles there was erastus. Who — his title is variously translated — but he was the director of public works, or the city treasurer. So he was a christian, in a high political office, in a major city. Likewise, a cornelius was the captain of the italian band ('the italian ban... he was in centurion', as heard). So we do find people, even (in) the new testament, who are christians, who had governmental offices. So it's not wrong to hold an office. Obviously, you're going to have to be true to your convictions. Now, i think sometimes pentecostals have shied away from government. I think, originally, we felt like we're marginalized. We had no ability or influence. Kind of like the new testament, right? But that's not really true. And then also, we felt like: the lord was coming. This world is not my home. I'm just a passing through. But i mean, while we're passing through: the old testament psalm says — pray for the peace of jerusalem. That was the capital city of the israelites. Jeremiah says: when you're in exile, pray for the peace of the city, where you're located. So while you're there, pray. And by extension, be involved, to make it the best you can. So i do believe there are some principles here: that we can, and should, be involved. And some people will feel called, or led ('called or lit', as heard), to work in city government. Or to work in political campaigns.

Scriptures: Psalms (book-only); Jeremiah (book-only)

The church above parties — and the lesser-of-evils close

• Now, i would say that, as the church, we should stand above political parties. In other words, we're trying to win souls. So we don't want to say, or do, anything that either states, or implies: you have to belong to a certain political party, to be a member of our church. Or you have to vote for a certain candidate, to be a member ('to remember be a member', as heard) of our church. We want republicans, democrats, independents — everybody — to come. Now, maybe their ideas will be changed, as they become a disciple. But we don't want to create barriers. And in our discussion on social media, we have a right to give our opinions. But we should also think: what is our responsibility, as christians? We're trying to win souls. We're trying to extend influence. So maybe we should moderate our views. So even people that don't agree with us won't feel like they're kicked out, or they're ostracized. But they feel like: we could agree to disagree. But when it comes to the gospel, we could respond to the gospel. So i think we want to be careful there. And of course, under u.s. law, a church is not supposed to be involved directly in a political campaign. Although some — especially on the liberal side — seem to violate that. Nevertheless, i think we should be law-abiding. And — but the primary reason is not to preserve our tax-exempt status, although that is a factor. The primary reason is: because we want to position ourselves, for all people, to win all, to the gospel. And then, as we preach and teach our moral values, and our responsibility (as) citizens, we can expect probably people's voting patterns may well change. But that's not our main goal. Our main goal is to disciple them, to be followers of jesus christ. So, as the united pentecostal church international: obviously, we're not going to promote a political campaign. We're not going to promote a party, or a candidate. We are going to speak on moral issues, when (we) feel it's important. So we're going to speak pro-life, against abortion. We're going to speak for religious freedom, freedom of speech — freedom — a separation of church and state, in the sense that the church — i mean, the state — should not try to intrude, and control, the church. Although we do feel like the church should be able to have a voice. But so — but we do also have the naclc, which is an endorsed organization of the upci. And other apostolic organizations are participating. The national apostolic christian leadership conference. And that's the avenue. We have the alliance, which is a group of people organized — not as a church, but for policies that we agree on. And the action network is where we talk to state legislators, and government officials, for policies and laws that we believe will defend religious freedom, particularly. So if you're interested in that: i do believe there's a legitimate way for political involvement(s). The naclc.org. And you can go there, and sign up, as a local church, or as an individual. And the church can sign up to get benefits. You automatically get benefits of the alliance defending freedom (as he names it), which is a conservative christian legal association, that focuses on defending religious freedoms in our secular culture. So i do believe there's some legitimate ways, that we can be involved in the process. But i think, at the end, the church does need to maintain an independent voice. Because here's some of the problems with politics. You know, most politicians are not going to reflect our values, in every dimension. And even in their personal lives. So, you know, where there may be a politician who's committed adultery. Or who's committed — to ('has committed to', as heard) — fornication. Or has divorced his first wife, married a second wife, without biblical justification. So, to us, those are sins. But if you had — if you could only support politicians who didn't live in sin: well, that's going to eliminate every politician. And likewise, they're going to be politicians that might have 10 positions: we agree with eight of them; we don't disagree ('we don't agree', in sense, as the words run) with two of them. Well, it would depend on the position, obviously. But you know, as a voter, we have to decide: which one is going to do the best job, of protecting our religious freedom, defending our nation, fulfilling laws, promoting economic opportunity? And so we may have to choose someone we like better than the other. Or, in some cases, it might be the lesser of two evils. And we're even reluctant to vote at all. But if we don't vote, that's a choice in itself. So even not voting is a political choice. So i would urge: even if it's the lesser of two evils, i would rather still have influence, than not. And if it's a politician where we don't agree with all the policies, but if we agree with most of them — or more of them — i would still make that choice. But we do have to understand that we live in a pluralistic society. And we don't live in a theocracy. It's not practical, or advisable, to try to enforce divine law, on every aspect of society. So there are some aspects of divine law — like a law against murder: yes, the society agrees. But the law against fornication: society does not agree. So i think it'd be mistaken, to try to force that on a society that doesn't agree. We just have to agree to disagree. So i said all that, to say: that's why the church is separate. So where we can agree, in supporting certain laws, we do. But where we're in a pluralistic society, that's not realistic. Or even the politicians that we prefer aren't going to follow it. Well, that's why we're the church. And so we're going to preach against fornication, even if all the political parties say it's okay. Even if our recommended choice, for a certain office, is practicing fornication: we don't agree with that. But we can say: well, that's why we're the church. That's why we're independent. So we keep a voice independent. So we can say: i agree with these policies. But i disagree with what this politician has done. Or i disagree with what they've said. So i don't feel like i have to defend ('depend defend', as heard) every action, or every statement, of a certain politician, in order to vote for them. That's why (the) church says: well, i disagree. You know, i'm not going to go along with that. We don't agree with that statement, or that speech, or that action, or that vote. But we still advise you to be part of the process, and vote for people that will do the best job, under the circumstances of our society. I do believe we should be involved. At the end of the day, of course, our ultimate trust is not in politicians, or laws, or society. Our ultimate trust is always going to be in the lord, and in the gospel.

Scripture index: Philemon (book-only); Romans 13; 1 Peter (book-only); Acts 5:29; Psalms (book-only); Jeremiah (book-only).