CONTENTS

Cover

Chapter 1: FIVE WRONG VIEWS ABOUT CHRISTIANS AND GOVERNMENT

A. GOVERNMENT SHOULD COMPEL RELIGION

B. GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXCLUDE RELIGION

C. ALL GOVERNMENT IS EVIL AND DEMONIC

D. DO EVANGELISM, NOT POLITICS

E. DO POLITICS, NOT EVANGELISM

Chapter 2: A BETTER SOLUTION: SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT

A. UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE RIGHTLY

B. LIBERAL DISTORTIONS OF THE BIBLE

C. BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE

D. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE ON SECULAR GOVERNMENTS

E. IS THE UNITED STATES A CHRISTIAN NATION?

F. WHAT ABOUT OLD TESTAMENT LAWS? (THE QUESTION OF THEONOMY)

G. SHOULD CHRISTIANS ONLY VOTE FOR CHRISTIAN CANDIDATES?

H. WITHOUT CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE, GOVERNMENTS WILL HAVE NO CLEAR MORAL COMPASS

I. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PASTORS TO TEACH ON POLITICAL ISSUES

J. THE OBLIGATIONS OF ALL CHRISTIAN CITIZENS

K. CHURCHES AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) GUIDELINES

L. CONCLUSION

Copyright

Chapter 1

FIVE WRONG VIEWS

ABOUT CHRISTIANS AND

GOVERNMENT

Before explaining my own understanding of the proper role of Christians in politics, I need to examine what I think are five wrong views on this question—sadly mistaken views that have been propagated by many writers throughout history. Then in the following chapter I propose what I think is a better, more balanced solution.

A. GOVERNMENT SHOULD COMPEL RELIGION

The first wrong view (according to my judgment) is the idea that civil government should compel people to support or follow one particular religion.

Tragically, this “compel religion” view was held by many Christians in previous centuries. This view played a large role in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48) that began as a conflict between Protestants and Roman Catholics over control of various territories, especially in Germany. There were many other “wars of religion” in Europe, particularly between Catholics and Protestants, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Also in the sixteenth century, the Reformed and Lutheran Protestants persecuted and killed thousands from the Anabaptist groups in Switzerland and Germany who sought to have churches for “believers only” and practiced baptism by immersion for those who made a personal profession of faith.

Over the course of time, more and more Christians realized that this “compel religion” view is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and inconsistent with the nature of faith itself (see discussion below). Today I am not aware of any major Christian group that still holds to the view that government should try to compel people to follow the Christian faith.[1]

But other religions still promote government enforcement of their religion. This is seen in countries such as Saudi Arabia, which enforces laws compelling people to follow Islam and where those who fail to comply can face severe penalties from the religious police. The law prohibits any public practice of any religion other than Islam and prohibits Saudis from converting to other religions. Islamic advocate Bilal Cleland writes at the pro-Islamic web site Islam for Today, “Legislation contained in the Quran becomes the basic law of the state.”[2]

The “compel religion” view is also used by violent groups around the world to justify persecution of Christians, such as the burning by Muslims of an entire Christian village in Pakistan, killing six Christians in early August 2009,[3] or the warfare waged by Islamic militant groups against Christians in Nigeria, Sudan, and other sub-Saharan African countries. The “compel religion” view has also led to the violent persecution of Christians by some Hindu groups in India. In 1999 it was reported that fifty-one Christian churches and prayer halls were burned to the ground in the western state of Gujarat. An Australian missionary, Graham Staines, and his two young sons were burned to death in their jeep by a Hindu mob in Orissa state on the eastern coast of India.[4] In 2007 it was reported by the Associated Press that Hindu extremists set fire to nearly a dozen churches.[5]

But it must be noted that other Muslims and other Hindus also favor democracy and allowing varying degrees of freedom of religion.

In the early years of the United States, support for freedom of religion in the American colonies increased both because of a need to form a united country with people from various religious backgrounds (such as Congregational, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Quaker, Baptist, Roman Catholic, and Jewish) and because many of the colonists had fled from religious persecution in their home countries. For example, the New England Pilgrims had fled from England where they had faced fines and imprisonment for failing to attend services in the Church of England and for conducting their own church services.

In 1779, just three years after the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which demonstrated the increasing support for religious freedom in the United States. Jefferson wrote:

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[6]

Several teachings of the Bible show that “government should compel religion” is an incorrect view, one that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible itself.

1. Jesus distinguished the realms of God and of Caesar

The first biblical argument against the “compel religion” view comes from Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 22. Jesus’ Jewish opponents were trying to trap him with the question, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (Matt. 22:18). To say “yes” to Roman taxes ran the risk of appearing to support the hated Roman government. To say “no” to Roman taxes would make Jesus sound like a dangerous revolutionary against Rome’s power. Taking his opponents by surprise, Jesus said, “Show me the coin for the tax,” and “they brought him a denarius” (v. 19). After that, here is how the teaching unfolded:

And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:20–21).

This is a remarkable statement because Jesus shows that there are to be two different spheres of influence, one for the government and one for the religious life of the people of God. Some things, such as taxes, belong to the civil government (“the things that are Caesar’s”), and this implies that the church should not try to control these things. On the other hand, some things belong to people’s religious life (“the things that are God’s”), and this implies that the civil government should not try to control those things.

Jesus did not specify any list of things that belong to each category, but the mere distinction of these two categories had monumental significance for the history of the world. It signaled the endorsement of a different system from the laws for the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. With regard to Old Testament Israel, the whole nation was a “theocracy” in that God was the ruler of the people, the laws were directly given to Israel by God (rather than being decided upon by the people or a human king), and the whole nation was considered “God’s people.” Therefore everyone in the nation was expected to worship God, and the laws of Israel covered not only what we today would consider “secular matters” such as murder and theft, but also “religious matters” such as animal sacrifices and punishments for worshiping other gods (see Lev. 21–23; Deut. 13:6–11).

In Jesus’ statement about God and Caesar, he established the broad outlines of a new order in which “the things that are God’s” are not to be under the control of the civil government (or “Caesar”). Such a system is far different from the Old Testament theocracy that was used for the people of Israel. Jesus’ new teaching implies that all civil governments—even today—should give people freedom regarding the religious faith they follow or choose not to follow and regarding the religious doctrines they hold and how they worship God. “Caesar” should not control such things, for they are “the things that are God’s.”

2. Jesus refused to try to compel people to believe in him

Another incident in Jesus’ life also shows how he opposed the “compel religion” view, for he rebuked his disciples when they wanted instant punishment to come to people who rejected him:

And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” (Luke 9:52–54).

The disciples apparently thought they had an excellent way to convince people to come to hear Jesus in the next village. If fire came down from heaven and wiped out the Samaritan village that had rejected Jesus, then word would get around and Jesus and the disciples would have 100% attendance in the next village. What a persuasive method to “compel religion”!

But Jesus would have nothing to do with this idea. The next verse says, “But he turned and rebuked them” (Luke 9:55). Jesus directly refused any attempt to try to force people to believe in him or follow him.

3. Genuine faith cannot be forced

The nature of genuine faith fits with Jesus’ condemnation of any request for “fire from heaven” to compel people to follow him. The underlying reason is that true faith in God must be voluntary. If faith is to be genuine, it can never be compelled by force. This provides another reason why governments should never try to compel adherence to any particular religion.

A clear respect for people’s individual will and voluntary decisions is seen throughout the ministry of Jesus and the apostles. They always taught people and reasoned with them and then appealed to them to make a personal decision to follow Jesus as the true Messiah (see Matt. 11:28–30; Acts 28:23; Rom. 10:9–10; Rev. 22:17).

Genuine religious belief cannot be compelled by force, whether by fire from heaven or by the force of civil government, and Christians should have no part in any attempt to use government power to compel people to support or follow Christianity or any other religion.

But what about the laws God gave to Israel in the Old Testament, especially in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? Those laws required people to give tithe money to support the Jewish priesthood and temple services, and they required people to make certain specified sacrifices to the Lord every year (see Lev. 23). They even ordered severe punishments for anyone who tried to teach another religion (see Deut. 13:6–11). But these laws were only for the nation of Israel for that particular time. They were never imposed on any of the surrounding nations. They were part of the Old Testament system that came to an end when Jesus established a “new covenant” for God’s people in the New Testament. Such a system was ended by Jesus’ teaching that some areas of life were “things that belong to Caesar” and some areas of life were “things that belong to God.” Such Old Testament laws enforcing religion were never intended for people after Jesus established his “new covenant,” or for any time after that.

4. Not a worldly kingdom

In another incident, just after Jesus had been captured by Roman soldiers near the end of his life, he told the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate,

“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36).

Jesus refused to have his disciples fight with swords and military power, because he was not attempting to establish an earthly kingdom like the Roman Empire or the various other nations in the history of the world. Earthly kingdoms are established by armies and military power, but Jesus’ kingdom would be established by the power of the Gospel changing people’s hearts, bringing people to trust in him and obey him.

This does not mean that Jesus’ kingdom has no effect on the world. Indeed, it transforms and overcomes the world (1 John 3:8; 5:4–5), but it does so by changing people’s hearts and their deep convictions, not by military power. The power of government should never be used to compel a certain kind of religious belief or adherence to any specific religion, whether the Christian faith or any other faith.

In summary, the “compel religion” view is contrary to the Bible, and it is simply wrong.

5. Practical implications of rejecting the “compel religion” view

What are the practical implications of rejecting the “compel religion” view? One implication is that governments should never attempt to force people to follow or believe in one specific religion, but should guarantee freedom of religion for followers of all religions within the nation.

Another implication is that Christians in every nation should support freedom of religion and oppose any attempt by government to compel any single religion. In fact, complete freedom of religion should be the first principle advocated and defended by Christians who seek to influence government.

Sometimes non-Christians express a fear that if Christians get too much power in government, they will try to force Christianity on everyone. This is a common argument made by groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Center for American Progress, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Some critics even suggest that right-wing Christians are trying to establish a theocracy in the United States by incremental means. Michelle Goldberg writes, “The Christian nation is both the goal of the religious right and its fundamental ideology, the justification for its attempt to overthrow the doctrine of separation of church and state…. Right now … is high tide for theocratic fervor.”[7] To counter this kind of false accusation, it is important for Christians involved in politics to affirm again and again their commitment to complete religious freedom in America (and in every other country).

A third implication has to do with governments giving direct financial support to one church as an established “state church.” Such government support is a more benign form of the “compel religion” view, but it is still one that I do not think is right. This support occurs in some countries where the civil government uses tax money and privileged status to support one single religion or denomination as the “state church.” Such action was prohibited to the US government by the First Amendment—”Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—where an “establishment of religion” meant giving governmental support for only one church, the “established church.”

An established church does still exist in some countries. For example, in the United Kingdom today the Church of England is still the state church;[8] in Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden the Lutheran Church is the state church;[9] and in many countries with a highly Catholic populace such as Spain, the Roman Catholic Church is the state-supported church. In Germany, church taxes are accessed on Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish wage-earners, up to 8 or 9% of their total income. The state then disperses these funds to the churches to be used for social services.[10]

I recognize that some Christians in these countries argue that the benefits that come from having such a state church outweigh the negative effects, but I still cannot see sufficient warrant for it in the New Testament. I see no evidence that government tax money, rather than the donations of individual Christians, should be used to support the religious activities of a church. In addition, the historical pattern seems to be that direct government support weakens a church rather than strengthening it. (Notice the extremely low church attendance at state-sponsored Lutheran churches in Germany or Sweden, for example.)

6. What about giving some tax benefits to churches?

If the government gives some tax benefits to religious organizations, is that another example of the “compel religion” view? For example, in the United States, churches do not pay property taxes on the land and buildings they own, and individuals do not have to pay income taxes on the amount of their income that they donate to churches or other charities.

I do not object to these policies because I do not think they are compelling religion in any meaningful sense. No specific denomination or religion is given preferential treatment. Baptist churches receive these benefits, but so do Buddhist temples, Jewish synagogues, Roman Catholic churches, and Muslim mosques. The reason for this preferential tax treatment for churches and other charities is that the society has decided that, in general, charitable organizations such as churches do much good for the society as a whole. In the classic wording of the preface to the US Constitution, they “promote the general welfare.” Therefore it is entirely reasonable for a society to decide to give churches some tax benefits that are open to all religions equally. This is not compelling support of any one religion; it is not giving any government funds directly to any religious group; and it is certainly not contrary to the original meaning and intention of the First Amendment. Giving such tax benefits is not compelling religion.

7. The spiritual influence behind the “compel religion” view

There is an invisible spiritual power with a hidden goal behind this “compel religion” viewpoint, and it can be seen in its results. By compelling religious belief, this viewpoint tends to destroy true Christian faith in two ways. If it compels people to follow a non-Christian religion (such as Hinduism in India or Islam in many other nations), then it often leads to violently suppressing Christians and aims at driving Christianity out of a nation. On the other hand, if it attempts to compel people to become Christians, then it also tends to drive out true Christianity because the opportunity to choose freely to become a Christian is removed from people’s lives. A few people will have genuine faith, but most will not. The result is that the entire society will be “Christian,” but in name only. In addition, such a church will then be governed by “Christians” who are not really Christians at all because they do not have genuine faith. And a church governed primarily by non-Christians will quickly become a spiritually dead and ineffective church.

Therefore it should not be difficult for Christians, who believe the teachings of the Bible, to discern the real spiritual influence behind the “compel religion” view. It is an influence that is completely opposed to the teachings of the Bible and to genuine Christian faith. It is an influence that seeks to destroy true Christianity.

B. GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXCLUDE RELIGION

The opposite error from the “compel religion” view is the view that says we should completely exclude religion from government and politics. According to this view, religious beliefs should never be mentioned in governmental functions or on government property and should never play a role in the decision-making process in politics or government.

This second view is the one effectively promoted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and much of the rest of secular society today. According to this view, religious belief should be kept at home and kept quiet. There should be no influence from religious groups in the political process.

Examples of this view are seen when people object to prayers being given at the beginning of a city council meeting or at a legislative session.[11] Other examples are seen when groups demand that the Ten Commandments be removed from any public places or crosses be removed from government seals and veterans’ memorials,[12] or demand that student Bible studies, prayers before a sports event,[13] a prayer at a graduation ceremony,[14] or a valedictorian talking about his or her faith at graduation[15] should be prohibited from public high schools.

For example, after ACLU threats, the cross was removed from the Los Angeles County seal[16] and a high school valedictorian in Las Vegas, Nevada, was told she had to remove all references to Christ from her speech. She chose to keep them in and had the sound cut off by the school principal in the middle of her address.[17]

The “exclude religion from government” view was seen when a judge threw out the death sentence in a murder trial in Colorado because it was discovered that some of the jurors had quoted Bible verses during the jury’s deliberations. This was considered juror misconduct.[18]

The most troubling example of this view was seen in the 1996 Supreme Court decision Romer v. Evans. The case concerned a constitutional amendment that had been passed by the citizens of Colorado. The amendment prohibited giving special legal rights to homosexuals, and the result of the amendment would be that homosexuals would be treated the same as everyone else in society, not given special rights and protections simple because they were homosexuals. The Supreme Court struck down this amendment because the majority of the court held that the amendment “lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests” and that the citizens of Colorado had shown “animosity towards homosexuals” when they voted for the amendment.[19]

This “exclude religion” view has had a strong influence in recent campaigns to persuade the courts to legalize same-sex “marriage.” When the Iowa Supreme Court decided to impose same-sex “marriage” on the state of Iowa (in the case Varnum v. Brien, April 3, 2009), it noted that only 28.1% of Iowans supported it.[20] The court then observed that “much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.” But such views should not be taken into account, said the court, because the Iowa constitution says, “The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”[21] In other words, limiting marriage to one man and one woman would be equivalent to “establishing” a religion.

The same kind of argument was made in California. David Boies, a prominent lawyer challenging Proposition 8 (a California constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman), argued that, while people may have “genuine religious beliefs” that marriage should be between a man and a woman, still “the other half of the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause … says that a majority is not entitled to impose its religious beliefs on a minority.”[22] In other words, even though 52% of Californians voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman, they were wrongly “establishing” a religion.

There are several reasons why the “exclude religion from government” view is wrong.

1. It fails to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law

Such “exclude religion” arguments are wrong because marriage is not a religion! When voters define marriage, they are not establishing a religion. In the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the word “religion” refers to the church that people attend and support. “Religion” means being a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Jew. It does not mean being married. These arguments try to make the word “religion” in the Constitution mean something different from what it has always meant.

These arguments also make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law. There were religious reasons behind many of our laws, but these laws do not “establish” a religion. All major religions have teachings against stealing, but laws against stealing do not “establish a religion.” All religions have laws against murder, but laws against murder do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to abolish slavery in the United States and England was led by many Christians, based on their religious convictions, but laws abolishing slavery do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to end racial discrimination and segregation was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist pastor, who preached against racial injustice from the Bible. But laws against discrimination and segregation do not “establish a religion.”

If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed in court, they could soon be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments against abortion. Majority votes to protect unborn children could then be invalidated by saying these voters are “establishing a religion.” And, by such reasoning, all the votes of religious citizens for almost any issue could be found invalid by court decree! This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established, and the direct opposite of what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment.

2. It overrides the will of the people

In Colorado, supporters of the constitutional amendment mentioned above included many thousands of Christians whose views on homosexual conduct were influenced by the teachings of the Bible and traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. But such a religious viewpoint, said the court, could not be said to have “a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”[23] In other words, religious or moral reasons that were sincerely held by the citizens of Colorado were not “rational” reasons. Their votes did not count because they used religious reasons to decide their vote. So their 52% vote was overturned by the Supreme Court.[24] This kind of decision is the natural outcome of the “exclude religion from government” view, and it simply overrides the will of the people in amending their state’s constitution (as was the case also in Iowa and California, mentioned above).

3. It changes freedom of religion into freedom from religion

From the perspective of American history, another reason that “exclude religion” is a wrong viewpoint is that it twists the positive ideal of “freedom of religion” to mean “freedom from all religious influence”—which is something entirely different and something the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the US Constitution never intended.

In fact, the “exclude religion from politics” view would invalidate the very reasoning of the Declaration of Independence, on which the United States of America was first founded. The first two sentences mention God twice in order to say that God’s laws authorize this independence from Great Britain in 1776 and that God is the one who gives human beings the rights that governments seek to protect:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men….

In other words, the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that both the laws of nature and God himself gave our country the right to become an independent nation. They are claiming divine authorization for the very existence of the United States of America!

Then the signers say that the entire purpose of government is to protect the rights that are given to people by God. The second sentence states “that all Men are created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Then the signers add that “Governments are instituted among Men” in order to protect or “secure” these rights. In other words, these most basic of human rights are given by God (“endowed by their Creator”), and the purpose of government is to protect those God-given rights, according to the Declaration of Independence upon which the country was founded. The “exclude religion from government” view is wrong when it implies the illegitimacy of statements like these found in the very basis of our existence as a nation. Using religious reasons to support a secular law is not establishing a religion.

The First Amendment to the Constitution then declared: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” What they meant by “an establishment of religion” was an established state church, a government-sponsored or government-endorsed denomination or specific religion. The First Amendment therefore prohibited the United States from having a state church such as the Church of England, from which many of the original colonists had fled in order to gain their religious freedom.

In fact, the now-famous “separation of church and state” letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut dealt with this issue. The Danbury Baptists had written to the new President expressing their concern over their home state of Connecticut designating the Congregational Church as the official state church. In his response, Jefferson pointed out that the meaning of the First Amendment was to keep government out of the affairs of the church, not to keep the church out of the affairs of government. Jefferson argued that when government left the church alone and did not compel its citizens to be members of an official state church, religious freedom could flourish.[25]

The First Amendment was never intended to guarantee that government should be free from religion or religious influence. The only “freedom of religion” that was intended was freedom from government sponsorship of one particular religion or denomination.

4. It wrongly restricts freedom of religion and freedom of speech

The First Amendment also excluded any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Therefore the First Amendment is directly opposed to the “exclude religion from government” view, which actually seeks to prohibit Christians and Jews and many from other religious backgrounds from exercising their religious freedom when arguing for an amendment to the Colorado constitution, or when arguing for a certain jury verdict, or when speaking or giving a prayer at a public event. Their free exercise of religion is taken away from them.

This view also wrongly restricts individual freedom of speech. Why should a high school valedictorian not be free to express her own viewpoint in her graduation speech? Why should Christian citizens not be free to campaign for or against a certain polity based on their moral convictions—convictions that are derived from their religious faith? Speaking a religious opinion in public is not compelling people to accept that viewpoint!

The nature of a free society requires that people should be able to base their political convictions on whatever reasoning process and whatever authority they prefer, and they should be free to attempt to persuade others that their reasoning is correct. We should protect people’s freedom to base their moral and political convictions on the dialogues of Plato if they want, or the teachings of Confucius or the Bible or the Jewish Talmud—or, I suppose, even a song by Bob Dylan if that is what they find persuasive. And if other voters choose to accept the reasoning put forth by the followers of Plato or Confucius or the Bible (or Bob Dylan!), then the Supreme Court should not take it upon itself to say that the reasons that voters used are not “rational” reasons. It is not up to the Supreme Court to decide that some people’s votes are legitimate and some people’s votes are illegitimate.

5. It was never adopted by the American people

The “exclude religion” view was never adopted by the American people through any democratic process, but it is being imposed on our nation by the exercise of “raw judicial power” by our courts, and especially by the Supreme Court. This has been an increasing problem for the last several decades in America.

The Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) was especially significant. In that case the court said that government actions “must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.”[26] It did not say “advancing or inhibiting one particular religion” but “religion” in general.

In fact, the court’s tendency to exclude government actions that brought benefit to religions generally had first found expression in the 1947 decision Everson v. Board of Education, in which the majority opinion opposed aid to “all religions.”

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another….The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.[27]

Although subsequent decisions have not applied the Lemon guideline stringently, when it is understood broadly it results in excluding all religious expression from the public square. It is an extreme example of the “exclude religion” view, never adopted or approved by the American people but simply decreed by our Supreme Court, taking to itself powers it never legitimately had.

6. It removes from government God’s teaching about good and evil

The Bible says that a government official is “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4), but how can government officials effectively serve God if no one is allowed to tell them what they believe God expects of them? The Bible says that government officials are sent “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14), but how can they do that if no spokesmen from any of the world’s religions are allowed to give them counsel on what is “good” and what is “evil”?

Such a viewpoint has to assume that there is no God, or if there is, we cannot know his moral standards.

7. Biblical examples of God’s people giving counsel to rulers

The Bible gives several examples of faithful believers who gave clear witness to government officials about how they should govern. The prophet Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the most powerful ruler in the world in about 600 BC:

“O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Dan. 4:27).

In the New Testament, John the Baptist rebuked Herod the Tetrarch (a civil governor under the Roman Empire) “for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done” (Luke 3:19). Certainly John’s rebuke of “all the evil things” included many acts that Herod had done as a governmental ruler.

Later, the apostle Paul reasoned with the Roman governor Felix “about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” (Acts 24:25). It is likely that Paul was calling Felix to account for his conduct as a government official under the Roman Empire, and “Felix was alarmed” and sent Paul away (v. 25). In addition, many Old Testament prophets spoke to foreign nations about their sins. One can read these prophetic rebukes in Isaiah 13–23; Jeremiah 46–51; Ezekiel 25–32; Amos 1–2; Obadiah (to Edom); Jonah (to Nineveh); Nahum (to Nineveh); Habakkuk 2; and Zephaniah 2.

Therefore the Bible does not support the “exclude religion from government” view.

8. The spiritual basis for the “exclude religion” view

It should not be hard for Christians to discern a deep spiritual basis underlying the “exclude religion” view. This is because the final goal of the “exclude religion” view is to make government completely secular and then, by extension, to make society completely secular. This view would remove from government any sense of accountability to God for its actions. And since government has such a huge influence on all people’s lives, it would tend to remove from the nation in general any sense of accountability to God, especially as all religious viewpoints are removed from the entire system of public education of children.

Moreover, since all absolute moral standards are in some way based on religious convictions and a sense of moral accountability to God, this view would tend to remove from the entire nation any sense of absolute moral standards or any sense that there is any clear way of knowing right from wrong. Therefore the ultimate goal of this viewpoint is not only the destruction of all belief in God, but also the complete moral disintegration of a society. For Christians who believe the Bible, it should not be hard to discern the ultimate spiritual force behind this viewpoint.

C. ALL GOVERNMENT IS EVIL AND DEMONIC

According to this third view, all use of government power is deeply infected by evil, demonic forces. The realm of government power is the realm of Satan and his forces, and therefore all governmental use of “power over” someone is “worldly” and is not the way of life that Jesus taught.

Those who hold this view also usually favor military pacifism. They argue that since Jesus told us to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39), the best way to resolve disputes—even among nations—is never to use military force, but always to negotiate and build friendships and act in a Christlike way, showing love to other nations.

1. Support from Luke 4:6

This viewpoint has been strongly promoted by Minnesota pastor Greg Boyd in his influential book The Myth of a Christian Nation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005). Boyd’s views in this book have had a large impact in the United States, especially on younger evangelical voters.[28]

Boyd says that all civil government is “demonic” (p. 21). Boyd’s primary evidence is Satan’s statement to Jesus in Luke 4:

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours” (Luke 4:5–7).

Boyd emphasizes Satan’s claim that all the authority of all the kingdoms of the world “has been delivered to me” and then says that Jesus “doesn’t dispute the Devil’s claim to own them. Apparently, the authority of all the kingdoms of the world has been given to Satan.”[29]

Boyd goes on to say, “Functionally, Satan is the acting CEO of all earthly governments.”[30] This is indeed a thoroughgoing claim!

2. The mistake of depending on Luke 4:6

Greg Boyd is clearly wrong at this point. Jesus tells us how to evaluate Satan’s claims, for he says that Satan “has nothing to do with the truth” because

“there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

Jesus didn’t need to respond to every false word Satan said, for his purpose was to resist the temptation itself, and this he did with the decisive words, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve’” (Luke 4:8).

In evaluating Boyd’s claim that “the authority of all the kingdoms of the world has been given to Satan,” we have a choice: Do we believe Satan’s words that he has the authority of all earthly kingdoms, or do we believe Jesus’ words that Satan is a liar and the father of lies? The answer is easy: Satan wanted Jesus to believe a lie, and he wants us to believe that same lie, that he is the ruler of earthly governments.[31]

By contrast, there are some very specific verses in the Bible that tell us how we should think of civil governments. These verses do not agree with Satan’s claim in Luke 4:6 or with Boyd’s claim about Satan’s authority over all earthly governments. Rather, these verses where God (not Satan) is speaking portray civil government as a gift from God, something that is subject to God’s rule (not Satan) and used by God for his purposes. Here are some of those passages:

“The Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Dan. 4:17).

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are the ministers of God, attending to this very thing (Rom. 13:1–6).

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good (1 Peter 2:13–14).

At this point it is interesting that both Paul (in Romans) and Peter see civil government as doing the opposite of what Satan does: civil governments are established by God “to punish those who do evil,” but Satan encourages those who do evil! Civil governments are established by God “to praise those who do good,” but Satan discourages and attacks those who do good. In addition, it would not make sense for Peter to say, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every institution in which Satan is the CEO.” Peter would not want Christian citizens to be subject to Satan’s control and direction.

The point is that Satan wants us to believe that all civil government is under his control, but that is not taught anywhere in the Bible. (Of course, Satan can influence some individuals in government, but he is not in control.) The only verse in the whole Bible that says Satan has authority over all governments is spoken by the father of lies, and we should not believe it. Greg Boyd is simply wrong in his defense of the view that “all government is demonic.”

3. But where did Jesus ever teach us to use force?

In supporting his position, Boyd often appeals to the teachings of Jesus rather than the teachings of the whole Bible. For example, “Jesus didn’t come to give us the Christian answer to the world’s many socio-political quandaries”[32] Boyd also says that the “just war” theory is “something that Christ never taught or hinted at”[33] (quoting George Zabelka with approval).

But this form of argument fails to recognize that the whole Bible was given to us by God. We have no right to restrict our views to the teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels. If the main teaching on civil government in the Bible is found in Genesis 9:5–6, and in the historical narratives and laws in Exodus to Deuteronomy and Judges to 2 Chronicles, and in Romans 13, and in 1 Peter 2:13–14, then getting Christians to neglect those passages gets them to misunderstand what the Bible says about civil government. That is exactly what Boyd is doing when he asks, “Where did Jesus ever act or talk like this?”[34] The answer is that the whole Bible comes with the authority of God and the authority of Jesus Christ, and our position on government should be based on the teaching of the whole Bible. (Also, Jesus did seem to authorize the use of a sword for self-defense and protection against robbers in Luke 22:36–38; see discussion below on pp. 201–3.)

4. Support from Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey

One other argument used by Boyd depends on the Greek writer Homer in his epic poems Iliad and Odyssey. Boyd says that

in Homer “the gods” are always involved in the affairs of humans…. For Homer, the inevitability of war is not just the result of conflicting passions—it has a supernatural dimension. And all the while, Zeus sits on Mount Olympus, amused by the sport of it all.[35]

Boyd says that if we understand these Greek “gods” to be demonic forces, then

Homer was also right about the gods…. Our tribal, territorial, and ideological passions have a demonic dimension to them…. From a scriptural perspective, these fallen gods are behind and involved in the conflict that occurs between nations. And all the while, Satan, the ultimate single “power over” god of this age, watches the bloodshed with a demonic sense of amusement.[36]

5. This view leads to a “moral equivalence” between good and evil governments

There are two problems with Boyd’s analysis here: (1) Homer is not the Bible, nor did he write (in the eighth century BC) from a biblical worldview, and we should be suspicious of any worldview that is derived from ancient Greek mythology rather than from the Bible. (2) In Homer (as interpreted by Boyd) the motivating factors of the governments on the two different sides in a war are both demonic.

This leads Boyd to adopt a “moral equivalence” view of various conflicts between nations: both sides are following Satan. (Although Boyd does not explicitly say it, this view would imply that Adolf Hitler was following Satan, for example, and England and the United States were also following Satan in sending armies to defeat Hitler!) Boyd does apply his “moral equivalence” view to the modern conflict between American forces and terrorists in Iraq, and specifically the terrorists’ beheading of an American civilian, Nicholas Berg. Boyd says this to his American readers:

Your yearning for justice is, of course, natural. But this rage is exactly what led the terrorists to cut off Mr. Berg’s head in the first place. You probably passionately believe that our cause is just, and theirs is evil, but the terrorists passionately believe that their cause is just and ours is evil. Your passion for American justice is mirrored by their passion for Islamic justice.[37]

How could Boyd come to the point where he sees Islamic beheading of innocent civilians as morally equivalent to America defending itself against terrorist attacks? How could he believe that a nation that never intentionally targets innocent civilians is morally the same as a terrorist movement that makes it a conscious policy to target, torture, and kill innocent civilians?

Boyd reaches this conclusion because he follows this wrongful “all government is demonic” view. Boyd sees committing horrible terrorist acts and defending against terrorists as morally equivalent because he believes Satan’s lie in Luke 4:6 that all the authority in the earth’s kingdoms has been given to him, and he believes Homer’s false Greek mythology that the “gods” (which Boyd sees as demons) motivate both sides in human conflicts. Boyd believes these errors from Satan and Homer rather than fully believing the Bible when it says that the civil government “is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4).

Thus Boyd’s “all government is demonic” view makes him unable to see the truth, namely, that terrorists who attack innocent civilians (as at 9/11) are evil, and the American military, when it pursues and kills terrorists who are attacking innocent civilians, is working as “God’s servant for your good” and “is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4). Boyd simply fails to realize that carrying out terrorist murders of innocent civilians is evil and defending a nation against such terrorists is good. But his position is the logical consequence of the “all government is demonic” view.

6. Boyd’s rejection of all governmental “power over” as “worldly”

There is yet a deeper reason behind Boyd’s “all government is demonic” view. The deeper reason is that Boyd rejects what he calls governmental “power over” others as worldly and not part of the kingdom of God. Boyd says,

Wherever a person or group exercises power over others … there is a version of the kingdom of the world. While it comes in many forms, the kingdom of the world is in essence a “power over” kingdom…. There have been democratic, socialist, communist, fascist, and totalitarian versions of the kingdom of the world, but they all share this distinctive characteristic: they exercise “power over” people.[38]

Boyd explains that this power over people is sometimes called “the power of the sword.” He says, “The power of the sword is the ability to coerce behavior by threats and to make good on those threats when necessary: if a law is broken, you will be punished.”[39] While Boyd admits that this exercise of “power over” others is “not altogether bad,”[40] because Romans 13 explains that God uses this power of government “to keep law and order in the world,”[41] he immediately returns to his main emphasis on Satan’s authority over all the kingdoms of the world[42] and concludes that “even the best political ideology lies under the influence of a ‘power over’ cosmic ruler who is working at cross-purposes to God.”[43]

By contrast, Boyd thinks people should recognize the contrast “between the ‘power over’ kingdom of the world and the ‘power under’ kingdom of God,” which is the same as “Lion power” versus “Lamb power.”[44] He says, “The kingdom God advances by people lovingly placing themselves under others, in service to others, at cost to themselves.”[45]

Boyd says that “coming under others has a power to do what laws and bullets and bombs can never do—namely, bring about transformation in an enemy’s heart.”[46] He then says,

Obviously, when hearts and motives are transformed, behavior is eventually transformed as well—but without “power over” threats. Similarly, where the rule of God is established, law and order are established—but without “power over” force…. Do you trust “power over” or “power under”? Do you trust the power of the sword, the power of external force, or do you trust the influential but non-coercive power of Calvary-like love?[47]

7. Boyd says Christians should not even fight to defend their wives and children or their country

This rejection of governmental “power over” other people leads Boyd to say that a person totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ should not even use physical violence to defend against an attacker who “threatened to kill you, your wife, or your children.”[48] Plus, the rejection of the “power over” kingdom also leads him to say that Christians should never serve in combat situations in the military:

I find it impossible to reconcile Jesus’ teaching (and the teaching of the whole New Testament) concerning our call to love our enemies and never return evil with evil with the choice to serve (or not resist being drafted) in the armed forces in a capacity that might require killing someone.[49]

He also says, “I honestly see no way to condone a Christian’s decision to kill on behalf of any country—or for any other reason.”[50]

So at the heart of Boyd’s teaching is a fundamental opposition to the use of superior force to restrain evil, even an evil criminal who attacks one’s wife and children. Boyd’s “all government is demonic” view leads him to advocate an absolute, total pacifism for those who wish to follow Christ.

8. God has established both evangelism and the power of government to restrain evil

The problem with Boyd’s view here is that he fails to distinguish the task of evangelism from the task of civil government. Of course God has not told us to spread the Gospel of Christ by using the “power of the sword” or the power of government. We spread the Gospel by the proclamation of the Word of God (see Rom. 10:17). But God has told us that we should restrain evil by the power of the sword and by the power of civil government (as in the teaching of Romans 13:1–6, quoted above).

If the power of government (such as a policeman) is not present in an emergency, when great harm is being done to another person, then my love for the victim should lead me to use physical force to prevent any further harm from occurring. If I found a criminal attacking my wife or children, I would use all my physical strength and all the physical force at my disposal against him, not to persuade him to trust in Christ as his Savior, but to immediately stop him from harming my wife and children! I would follow the command of Nehemiah, who told the men of Israel, “Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes” (Neh. 4:14; see also Genesis 14:14–16, where Abraham rescued his kinsman Lot who had been taken captive by a raiding army).

Boyd has wrongly taken one of the ways that God restrains evil in this world (changing hearts through the Gospel of Christ) and decided that it is the only way that God restrains evil (thus neglecting the valuable role of civil government). Both means are from God, both are good, and both should be used by Christians.

This is why Boyd misunderstands Jesus’ statement, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). When this verse is rightly understood, we see that Jesus is telling individuals not to take revenge for a personal insult or a humiliating slap on the cheek.[51] But this command for individual kindness is not the same as the instructions that the Bible gives to governments, who are to “bear the sword” and be a “terror” to bad conduct and are to carry out “God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:3–4). The verses must be understood rightly in their own contexts. One is talking about individual conduct and personal revenge. The other is talking about the responsibilities of government. We should not confuse the two passages.

9. Could more pacifism have stopped slavery or stopped Hitler?

Near the end of his book Boyd responds to the objection that war was necessary to end slavery in the United States (in the Civil War) and to stop Hitler’s campaign to take over the entire world (in World War II). Didn’t the use of military force bring about good in those cases?

Boyd’s response is to say that if Christians had been better pacifists, history would have been different: “Had professing Christians been remotely like Jesus in the first place, there would have been no slavery or war for us to wonder about what would have happened had Christians loved their enemies and turned the other cheek.”[52] With regard to the US Civil War, Boyd says, “A kingdom person should rather wonder what might have happened had more kingdom people been willing to live out the call of the radical kingdom.”[53]

But this is just an elegant way of saying, “If history was different, it would prove my case.” And that is another way of saying, “If the facts were different, they would prove my case.” That is not a valid argument. It is appealing to wishful thinking rather than facts. Boyd is simply saying that if the world were different, the world would be different. But that proves nothing. History is what it is, and history shows that both the evil of American slavery and the evil of Adolf Hitler were only stopped by the power of superior military force. That is the task that God has assigned to governments when they “bear the sword” (Rom. 13:4).

10. The more ominous implications of the “all government is demonic” view

I am concerned about the influence of Boyd’s position because his mistake is not simply a harmless failure to distinguish the task of evangelism from the task of government. There is a much more serious problem with his position, namely, that it tends to persuade Christians to oppose all governmental power over evil. Although we cannot discuss the biblical passages in detail, at many places in the Bible God approves the use of governmental power over evildoers: see, for example, Genesis 9:5–6; the narratives concerning Moses and other righteous judges and kings in the Old Testament; Romans 13:1–6; and 1 Peter 2:13–14. God establishes civil government and authorizes it to use its power to restrain evil, “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14).

But what would happen if more and more Christians agreed with Greg Boyd that the use of “power over” evildoers by government is serving Satan as “CEO” and Christians should have no part in it?

On the world scene, it would mean less and less support for a strong military and more and more insistence on endless conversations with aggressive nations who would attack us and our allies. It would mean more and more of the kind of appeasement that led Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of England to sign the Munich Agreement of 1938, giving Hitler a large section of Czechoslovakia with no objection from Britain, only in exchange for Hitler’s (empty) promise of peace. This view would today result in increasing objection to the use of military power to oppose evil aggressors anywhere in the world. And that, in turn, would result in increased aggression by Islamic terrorists as well as by countries such as Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and any others who realize that no act of aggression would be answered by American military force anywhere in the world.

At the local level, this rejection of all governmental “power over” evil would mean more and more opposition to the use of superior force by local police, for Boyd’s ideal way of opposing all evildoers is “by people lovingly placing themselves under others, in service to others, at cost to themselves.”[54] Because Boyd’s approach neglects God’s appointed way of using governmental power to restrain evil, the result would be the unrestrained growth of violent crime in every community.

At this point, discerning Christians should be able to see a more ominous spiritual component at the heart of Boyd’s position. Who would ultimately profit from persuading Christians that all government power over evil is wrong and demonic? Who would ultimately want to eliminate all use of power over evil by those who are followers of Jesus Christ? It would ultimately be Satan himself, who wants no force for good to restrain his evil deeds in the world.

Therefore, at the heart of Greg Boyd’s position is an exact reversal of the role of God and Satan with regard to civil government. Boyd says that when government exercises power over evil, this itself is demonic and evil. But the Bible tells us that the ruler who exercises power to restrain and punish evil is doing “good” and is “God’s servant” (Rom. 13:4).

The “all government is demonic and evil” view is a third wrong view.

D. DO EVANGELISM, NOT POLITICS

A fourth wrong view about Christians and politics is promoted by evangelicals who essentially say, “We should just preach the Gospel, and that is the only way Christians can hope to change people’s hearts and change our society.” I call this the “do evangelism, not politics” view. It claims that the church is only called to “preach the Gospel,” not to preach about politics.

I hear this view expressed quite often in personal conversations. But are there any evangelical authors who actually advocate this view? There are some authors whose writings tend in this direction, even if it is qualified by statements that of course some political influence by the church is appropriate—but it will not do any spiritual or eternal good! Consider some statements by Cal Thomas and John MacArthur, two writers for whom (on other topics) I have great appreciation.

Nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas has written:

No matter how hard they try to protect the gospel from corruption, ministers who focus on politics and politicians as a means of redemption must minimize their ultimate calling and message. The road to redemption does not run through Washington, D.C. Politicians can’t redeem themselves from the temptations of Washington. What makes anyone think they can redeem the rest of us?[55]

John MacArthur, in Why Government Can’t Save You, wrote the following:

It is all right occasionally to support legitimate measures designed to correct a glaring social or political wrong…. A certain amount of healthy and balanced concern about current trends in government and the community is acceptable, as long as we realize that such interest is not vital to our spiritual lives, our righteous testimony or the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. Above all, the believer’s political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel because the morality and righteousness that God seeks is the result of salvation and sanctification.[56]

[Jesus] did not come to earth to make the old creation moral through social and governmental reform but to make new creatures (His people) holy through the saving power of the gospel and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit.[57]

1. Too narrow an understanding of “the Gospel” and the kingdom of God

While I agree with Thomas and MacArthur on many other things, I cannot agree with their disparagement of the value of Christian political involvement for God’s purposes on this earth. I think it represents too narrow an understanding of the work of God’s kingdom and of the nature of the Christian gospel message.

“The Gospel” in the New Testament is not just “trust Jesus and be forgiven of your sins and grow in holiness and go to heaven” (though that is certainly true, and that is the heart of the Gospel and its foundational message). No, the Gospel is God’s good news about all of life! Jesus said,

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20).

The phrase “all that I have commanded you” means more than John 3:16, as wonderful as that verse is. All that Jesus commanded includes everything that he taught as recorded in the four Gospels. This is because Jesus promised his disciples not only that the Holy Spirit would “bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26), but also that the Holy Spirit “will teach you all things” (v. 26) and will “guide you into all the truth” (16:13).

That is why the apostle Peter could say that “the commandment of the Lord and Savior” came “through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2), and Paul could say, “The things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Their epistles are also things that Jesus now commands us! Both the Gospels and the Epistles in the New Testament come to us with Jesus’ authority, and he wants us to teach these things to our churches.

What about the Old Testament? Since Jesus and the apostles repeatedly relied on the Old Testament as the Word of God, we also receive the Old Testament Scriptures on the authority of Jesus and his apostles. Therefore, understood in a broad sense, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” means that we should faithfully teach the entire Bible to those who become disciples of Jesus. Preaching “the whole Gospel” must also include preaching what the Bible says about civil government. That means that Christians will learn from the Bible how to influence governments for good. And since these things are taught in the Bible, God must count them important for the advance of his kingdom and his purposes on the earth.

Does Christian political activism do any spiritual good? A short answer is that if it is part of what God teaches us in Scripture, then of course it does spiritual good, because it is something that pleases God. “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3)—therefore, following his teachings regarding government is one way of showing love to him.

Another answer is provided by Tom Minnery, who looks to the example of Jesus’ life. Jesus did not only forgive people’s sins; he also healed their physical diseases. Jesus was concerned both about people’s spiritual life and about the well-being of their actual physical life in this world. Healing people’s physical bodies was doing spiritual good, in God’s eyes. Minnery applies this pattern to any social activity we do to improve the state of people’s lives:

Social activity not only follows evangelism as its consequence and aim, and precedes it as a bridge, but also accompanies it as its partner. In His own ministry, Jesus went about teaching and preaching, and also doing good and healing. Both were expressions of his compassion for people, and both should be ours.[58]

I cannot therefore agree with John MacArthur’s statement about the effect of good and bad governments:

The ideal human government can ultimately do nothing to advance God’s kingdom, and the worst, most despotic worldly government in the end cannot halt the power of the Holy Spirit or the spread of God’s Word.[59]

I think of the difference between North Korea and South Korea. Even if the dictatorial, oppressive government of North Korea has not completely halted the spread of God’s Word, its severe persecution has hindered it so much that millions of North Koreans are born, live, and die without ever hearing of Jesus Christ, and North Korea sends out zero missionaries. By contrast, the church in South Korea, where the government has allowed freedom, is growing, thriving, and sending missionaries around the world. Or compare the relatively small, repressed church in Cuba, which is unable to send out any missionaries anywhere, with the growing, thriving churches throughout many Latin American countries that have more freedom. Governments do make a difference to the work of God’s kingdom. This is why Paul urged that prayers be made “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2). That is, good governments help people to live a “peaceful” and “godly” life, and bad governments hinder that.

Governments can allow churches to meet freely and evangelize or they can prevent these things by force of law (as in Saudi Arabia and North Korea). They can hinder or promote literacy (the latter enabling people to read a Bible). They can stop murderers and thieves and drunk drivers and child predators or allow them to terrorize society and destroy lives. They can promote and protect marriages or hinder and even destroy them. Governments do make a significant difference for the work of God in the world, and we are to pray and work for good governments around the world.

2. The “whole Gospel” includes a transformation of society

A second reason that “do evangelism, not politics” is a wrong view is that the whole Gospel includes transformation of society. Yes, forgiveness of sins is absolutely wonderful, and it is the central message of the Gospel. Of course we must proclaim forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone. Of course this is the only way that people’s hearts will be truly transformed.

But forgiveness of sins is not the only message of the Gospel. That is because Jesus is looking for transformed lives and through them a transformed world. “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). The good news of the Gospel will result in changed lives, but Jesus wants that to result in changed families as well. And when the Gospel changes lives, it should also result in changed neighborhoods. And changed schools. And changed businesses. And changed societies. So shouldn’t “the Gospel” also result in changed governments as well? Of course it should!

And should churches teach their people what the Bible says about God’s will for families? About God’s will for business? About God’s will for educating children? Certainly they should. But then, shouldn’t churches also teach about God’s will for human government? Of course they should! And some Christians are called to implement that teaching in actually influencing governments for good.

It seems to me that the “do evangelism, not politics” view has a mistaken understanding of what is important to God, as if only spiritual (nonmaterial, other-worldly) things matter to him and not the actual circumstances of people’s physical life in this world. That is a philosophical view akin to Platonism, and it is similar to an ancient deviation from Christianity called Gnosticism—but it is not the view of the Bible.

3. Which parts of the Bible should the church not preach about?

A third response to those who say, “The church should just do evangelism and not get involved in politics,” is to ask this question: “What parts of the Bible have you decided not to preach about because you are ‘just going to preach the Gospel’?” Have you decided that you won’t preach on Romans 13:1–7? Or that you won’t preach on 1 Peter 2:13–14? What about Genesis 9:5–6? Or what about the narratives of the Old Testament kings and their good and evil deeds? Are you not going to preach about Daniel’s influence on the government of Babylon? Or on Isaiah’s prophecies to the other nations in Isaiah 13–23? Are you not going to preach on the prophecies to the other nations in Amos 1–2? What parts of the Bible are left out of your preaching by the idea that you’re going to “just preach the Gospel”?

4. God leaves Christians here on earth both to do evangelism and to do good for others

The fourth reason that the “do evangelism, not politics” view is wrong is that it misunderstands the reason why God left Christians on the earth. Think about this for a minute: When people trust in Christ as their Savior and have their sins forgiven, why does God not snatch them up to heaven immediately? Why does he leave them here on earth? Is it only so that they would preach the Gospel to others? Well then, what are those people supposed to do after they trust in Christ as Savior? Is their only purpose on earth to preach the Gospel to others, or does Jesus want us to do some other things, such as loving our neighbors as ourselves (see Matt. 22:39)?

Clearly, if we are here on earth to glorify God, we will glorify him (in part at least) by obeying the command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). But that means that I should seek the good of my neighbors in all parts of society. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” means that I should seek good laws that will protect preborn children. It means that I should seek good laws that protect marriages and families. It means I should seek good laws that protect children from the corrupting moral influences that want to use the classroom to teach that all kinds of sexual experimentation outside of marriage are just fine and that there is nothing wrong with pornography.

One reason why Jesus left us here on earth is that we should glorify him by doing good to other people in all areas of life. “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). Certainly that means that we should do good to others, as we have opportunity, by being a good influence on laws and government and by having a good influence on the political process. Paul says this about Christians:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).

Jesus left us here on earth in part because he wants to allow our lives to give glory to him in the midst of a fallen and sinful world: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).

So, should churches teach their people how to do “good works” in hospitals and in schools, and in businesses and in neighborhoods, but not in government? Why should that area of life be excluded from the influence of the “good works” of believers that will “give glory to your Father who is in heaven”?

I conclude that Jesus’ command that “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” means that I should seek the good of my neighbors in every aspect of society, including seeking to bring about good government and good laws.

5. God established both the church and the government to restrain evil

A fifth reason that the “do evangelism, not politics” view is wrong is that it overlooks the fact that God gave both the church and the government to restrain evil in this age. I agree that one significant way that God restrains evil in the world is through changing people’s hearts when they trust in Christ as their Savior (see 2 Cor. 5:17). But we should not turn this one way into the only way that God restrains evil in this age. God also uses civil government to restrain evil, and there is much evil that can only be restrained by the power of civil government, for there will always be many who do not trust in Christ as their Savior and many who do not fully obey him.

For example, why do we need laws against drunk driving? Someone might say, “We really don’t need laws against drunk driving. The influence of the Gospel should be enough to change society. If Christians were really doing their job of witnessing to others, and if Christians were really being a good example of sober driving, that would be enough to eliminate all drunk driving in the United States.”

Of course, that is a foolish position. We recognize that in this present age there are many people who do not accept the Gospel. (And sadly, even some of those who do trust in Christ continue to do things as foolish as driving while intoxicated.) Until Christ returns there will always be drunk drivers who will not be persuaded by the Christian Gospel or by their conscience or by the example of others or by common sense. They will still get themselves drunk and then drive on our streets unless there is some other means of restraining this evil than just preaching the Gospel.

The way that God has established to stop drunk drivers in this age is the power of civil government. Government has been “instituted by God” so that it would be “not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Rom. 13:1, 3). The primary means God uses to stop drunk driving today is for civil government to take away these drunk drivers’ liberty to drive. If they persist in driving anyway, they will go to jail. God restrains drunk driving not merely by preaching the Gospel, but also by the power of the civil government. Government is sent “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14).

To take another example, when did people in the United States stop owning slaves? It was not when the Gospel had been preached throughout the South, but after the US government made it illegal through the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. That happened when many Christian abolitionists influenced the government of the United States to change its laws (see discussion below).

6. Christians have influenced governments positively throughout history

Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374);[60] outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404);[61] outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315);[62] instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361);[63] stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations;[64] outlawing pedophilia;[65] granting of property rights and other protections to women;[66] banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today);[67] prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829);[68] outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women’s feet in China (in 1912);[69] persuading government officials to begin a system of public schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century);[70] and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.[71]

During the history of the church, Christians have had a decisive influence in opposing and often abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire, in Ireland, and in most of Europe (though Schmidt frankly notes that a minority of “erring” Christian teachers have supported slavery in various centuries).[72] In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire by 1840.[73]

In the United States, though there were vocal defenders of slavery among Christians in the South, they were vastly outnumbered by the many Christians who were ardent abolitionists, speaking, writing, and agitating constantly for the abolition of slavery in the United States. Schmidt notes that two-thirds of the American abolitionists in the mid-1830s were Christian clergymen,[74] and he gives numerous examples of the strong Christian commitment of several of the most influential of the antislavery crusaders, including Elijah Lovejoy (the first abolitionist martyr), Lyman Beecher, Edward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin), Charles Finney, Charles T. Torrey, Theodore Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, “and others too numerous to mention.”[75] The American civil rights movement that resulted in the outlawing of racial segregation and discrimination was led by Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, and supported by many Christian churches and groups.[76]

There was also strong influence from Christian ideas and influential Christians in the formulation of the Magna Carta in England (1215)[77] and of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787)[78] in the United States. These are three of the most significant documents in the history of governments on the earth, and all three show the marks of significant Christian influence in the foundational ideas of how governments should function. These foundations for British and American government did not come about as a result of the “do evangelism, not politics” view.

Schmidt also argues that several specific components of modern views of government also had strong Christian influence in their origin and influence, such as individual human rights, individual freedom, the equality of individuals before the law, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state.[79]

As for the present time, Charles Colson’s insightful book God and Government[80] (previously published as Kingdoms in Conflict) reports dozens of encouraging narratives of courageous, real-life Christians who in recent years, in causes large and small, have had significant impact for good on laws and governments around the world.

Therefore I cannot agree with John MacArthur when he says, “God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation and court rulings that advance a scriptural point of view.”[81] When I look over that list of changes in governments and laws that Christians incited, I think God did call the church and thousands of Christians within the church to work to bring about these momentous improvements in human society throughout the world. Or should we say that Christians who brought about these changes were not doing so out of obedience to God? That these changes made no difference to God? This cannot be true.

MacArthur says, “Using temporal methods to promote legislative and judicial change … is not our calling—and has no eternal value.”[82] I disagree. I believe those changes listed above were important to the God who declares, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24). God cares how people treat one another here on earth, and these changes in government listed above do have eternal value in God’s sight.

If the Christian church had adopted the “do evangelism, not politics” view throughout its history, it would never have brought about these immeasurably valuable changes among the nations of the world. But these changes did happen, because Christians realized that if they could influence laws and governments for good, they would be obeying the command of their Lord, “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). They influenced governments for good because they knew that “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).

7. Doesn’t the Bible say that persecution is coming?

Sometimes people ask me, “Why should we try to improve governments when the Bible tells us that persecution is coming in the end times before Christ returns? Doesn’t that mean that we should expect governments to become more and more anti-Christian?” (They have in mind passages like Matt. 24:9–12, 21–22; 2 Tim. 3:1–5.)

The answer is that we cannot know when Christ will return or when the events preceding his coming will occur (see Matt. 24:36; 25:13). What we do know is that while we have opportunity, God tells us not to give up but to go on preaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and doing “good works” (Eph. 2:10) and loving our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39). That means we should go on trying to influence governments for good as long as we are able to do so.

If all the Christians who influenced governments for good in previous centuries had just given up and said, “Persecution is coming and governments will become more evil, so there is nothing we can do,” then none of those good changes in laws would have come about. There would still be human sacrifice and burning of widows alive and slavery and racial discrimination protected by law. That mentality would have been a defeatist, fatalistic attitude, and it would have led Christians to disobey many of God’s commands for how we are to live our lives during this present age. Instead of giving in to such a hopeless attitude, courageous Christians in previous generations sought to do good for others and for governments, and God often blessed their efforts.

8. But won’t political involvement distract us from the main task of preaching the Gospel?

At this point someone may object that while political involvement may have some benefits and may do some good, it can so easily distract us, turn unbelievers away from the church, and cause us to neglect the main task of pointing people toward personal trust in Christ. John MacArthur writes, “When the church takes a stance that emphasizes political activism and social moralizing, it always diverts energy and resources away from evangelization.”[83]

Yet the proper question is not, “Does political influence take resources away from evangelism?” but, “Is political influence something God has called us to do?” If God has called some of us to some political influence, then those resources would not be blessed if we diverted them to evangelism—or to the choir, or to teaching Sunday School to children, or to any other use.

In this matter, as in everything else the church does, it would be healthy for Christians to realize that God may call individual Christians to different emphases in their lives. This is because God has placed in the church “varieties of gifts” (1 Cor. 12:4) and the church is an entity that has “many members” but is still “one body” (v. 12).

Therefore God might call someone to devote almost all of his or her time to the choir, someone else to youth work, someone else to evangelism, someone else to preparing refreshments to welcome visitors, and someone else to work with lighting and sound systems. “But if Jim places all his attention on the sound system, won’t that distract the church from the main task of preaching the Gospel?” No, not at all. That is not what God has called Jim to emphasize (though he will certainly share the Gospel with others as he has opportunity). Jim’s exclusive focus on the church’s sound system means he is just being a faithful steward in the responsibility God has given him.

In the same way, I think it is entirely possible that God called Billy Graham to emphasize evangelism and say nothing about politics and also called James Dobson to emphasize a radio ministry to families and to influencing the political world for good. Aren’t there enough Christians in the world for us to focus on more than one task? And does God not call us to thousands of different emphases, all in obedience to him?

But the whole ministry of the church will include both emphases. And the teaching ministry from the pulpit should do nothing less than proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). It should teach, over the course of time, on all areas of life and all areas of Bible knowledge. That certainly must include, to some extent, what the Bible says about the purposes of civil government and how that teaching should apply to our situations today.

This means that in a healthy church we will find that some people emphasize influencing the government and politics, others emphasize influencing the business world, others emphasize influencing the educational system, others entertainment and the media, others marriage and the family, and so forth. When that happens, it seems to me that we should encourage, not discourage, one another. We should adopt the attitude toward each other that Paul encouraged in the church at Rome:

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God…. So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother (Rom. 14:10–13).

For several different reasons, then, I think the view that says the church should just “do evangelism, not politics” is incorrect.

E. DO POLITICS, NOT EVANGELISM

The fifth view says that the church should just try to change the laws and the culture and should not emphasize evangelism. I do not know of any responsible evangelical leaders or prominent Christian groups today who hold this view or say that Christians should just “do politics, not evangelism.” But this was a primary emphasis of the Social Gospel movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with its campaigns to get the church to work aggressively to overcome poverty, slums, crime, racial discrimination, and other social evils. These were good causes in themselves, but this movement placed little emphasis on the need for individuals to place personal trust in Christ as Savior or the need to proclaim the entire Bible as the Word of God and worthy of our belief. The Social Gospel movement gained followers primarily among liberal Protestants rather than among more conservative, evangelical Protestant groups.

Some writers accuse Christians who emphasize political involvement of holding this “do politics, not evangelism” view. They say some conservative Christians seem to think that voting Republican will save the nation or that we should trust government to save us rather than trusting in God, or they make some similar allegation.

But these seem to me to be attacks against a straw man, a hypothetical opponent that does not really exist. So far as I know, this view has not been advocated by leaders at Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, the 700 Club, Concerned Women for America, the Alliance Defense Fund, the American Center for Law and Justice, or previous organizations such as Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. No responsible leader that I know in those or similar organizations advocates seeking to change government instead of doing evangelism. In fact, many of the evangelical leaders who are involved in seeking to influence government have been active evangelists, such as the late D. James Kennedy, who preached regularly on biblical perspectives on political issues and whose Evangelism Explosion[84] book and program provided much encouragement to personal evangelism among many thousands of evangelicals.

Not once have I heard any Christian in any of these groups say, “Good government will save us” or “If we just win this election we do not have to pray or do evangelism or seek change in people’s hearts.” Not once have I heard anyone say, “We should trust government and not God”!

Yet Christians who encourage greater Christian involvement in politics need to hear an important word of caution: If we (and I include myself here) ever begin to think that good laws alone will solve a nation’s problems or bring about a righteous and just society, we will have made a huge mistake. Unless there is simultaneously an inner change in people’s hearts and minds, good laws alone will only bring about grudging, external compliance with the minimum level of obedience necessary to avoid punishment. Good government and good laws can prevent much evil behavior, and they can teach people what society approves, but they cannot by themselves produce good people. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson rightly caution, “But we who are Christians are deluded if we think we will change our culture solely through political power.”[85]

Genuine, long-term change in a nation will only happen (1) if people’s hearts change so that they seek to do good, not evil; (2) if people’s minds change so that their moral convictions align more closely with God’s moral standards in the Bible; and (3) if a nation’s laws change so that they more fully encourage good conduct and punish wrong conduct. Item 1 comes about through personal evangelism and the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Item 2 takes place both through personal conversation and teaching and through public discussion and debate. Item 3 comes about through Christian political involvement. All three are necessary.

Whether it comes from the liberal Social Gospel movement or perhaps from evangelicals who might be tempted to think that political victories will solve everything, this “do politics, not evangelism” view is certainly wrong. The church must above all proclaim that “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). People definitely have a change in their hearts when they believe in Christ: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17).

What then? Is there a correct view that is different from these five wrong views? The view I propose in the next chapter is “significant Christian influence on government.” “Significant Christian influence on government” is not compulsion (view 1), it is not silence (view 2), and it is not dropping out of the process (views 3 and 4), nor is it thinking the government can save people (view 5). It is different from each of these wrong views, and I think it is much closer to the actual teaching of the Bible.

1. There is a small, fringe movement called Christian Recon-structionism that advocates government enforcement of Old Testament laws today (see discussion, pp. 65–66), but most or all recognized leaders in the evangelical movement in the United States have clearly distanced themselves from this position regarding civil laws.

2. Bilal Cleland, “Islamic Government,” Islam for Today. www.islamfortoday.com/cleland04.htm.

3. Ben Quinn, “Six Christians Burned Alive in Pakistan Riots,” guardian.co.uk (Aug. 2, 2009). www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/02/christians-burned-alive-pakistan.

4. Ramola Talwar Badam, “Christians, Hindus Clash in India,” Associated Press (Oct. 30, 1999). www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991030/aponline111427_000.htm.

5. Gabin Rabinowitz, “Hindus, Christians Clash in India,” Associated Press (Dec. 27, 2007). www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007Dec27/0,4675,IndiaChurchesAttacked,00.html.

6. “The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786.

7. Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (New York: Norton, 2007), 27–28. See also Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy (New York: Viking Adult, 2006).

8. John L. Allen Jr., “In Europe, ‘Church Taxes’ Are Not Unusual,” National Catholic Reporter (Jan. 29, 2009). www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/012999/012999f.htm.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. See ACLU of Kentucky v. Mercer County, Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, No. 03–5142. Argued: April 27, 2004. Decided and Filed: Dec. 20, 2005; and numerous other cases.

12. John Antczak, “ACLU Demands Removal of Cross from Los Angeles County Seal,” Associated Press (May 25, 2004); Peter J. Smith, “City of ‘Las Cruces’ Sued to Remove 3 Crosses from Emblem,” LifeSite.com (Aug. 8, 2006), and David Asman, “Battle to Tear Down a Tribute,” Fox News (June 2, 2005).

13. Adam Nossiter, “ACLU Asks Jail for Tangipahoa School Officials,” Associated Press (May 18, 2005), and “High School’s Pre-Game Prayer Called ‘Un-American and Immoral,’” WKYC.com (April 6, 2005).

14. “West VA School District Ends Graduation Prayer Policy; Student’s Lawsuit ‘Educated’ Officials,” ACLU Press Release (Aug. 14, 2002).

15. Nisha N. Mohammed, “Victory: Federal Court Again Rules That High School Valedictorian Silenced for Referencing Christ Should Have Day in Court” (June 22, 2007). www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=671; and Nathan Burchfiel, “Valedictorian Silenced over Her Christian Faith Will Go to Court,” CNSNews.com (Dec. 19, 2006).

16. Antczak, “ACLU Demands Removal of Cross from Los Angeles County Seal.”

17. Burchfiel, “Valedictorian Silenced over Her Christian Faith Will Go to Court.”

18. The 2005 death sentence of Robert Harlan was eventually changed to life in prison as a result of a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court. See “Colorado’s Death Row,” Coloradans Against the Death Penalty. www.coadp.org/thedeathrow/RobertHarlan.html.

19. Romer v. Evans, No. 94–1039, Decided by the United States Supreme Court, May 20, 1996. www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94–1039.ZO.html.

20. Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa Supreme Court, 2009), 64, n. 29.

21. Ibid., 64–65.

22. “Prop. 8 Defenders Say Plaintiffs Attacked ‘Orthodox Religious Beliefs,’” Wall Street Journal (online blog, Feb. 10, 2010). http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/02/10/prop-8-defenders-accuse-plaintiffs-of-attacking-orthodox-religious-beliefs/tab/print/.

23. Varnum v. Brien.

24. Ibid.

25. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1, 1802), www.loc.gov/loc/lcih/9806/danpre.html; see also Daniel Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Myth of Separation (New York: New York University Press, 2002), 29; Joseph LoConte, “The Wall Jefferson Almost Built” (Dec. 27, 2001), www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary.ed122701c.cfm.

26. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger.

27. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), italics added.

28. For example, echoes of Boyd’s writing can be seen at various places in Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, Jesus for President (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).

29. Greg Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 21.

30. Ibid., 22.

31. Boyd also quotes some other verses in Myth of a Christian Nation, 21–22, but none of them refer specifically to civil governments, so they do not prove his point.

32. Ibid., 59.

33. Ibid., 168.

34. Ibid., 91.

35. Ibid., 23.

36. Ibid., 24.

37. Ibid., 25.

38. Ibid., 18, italics added.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid., 19.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid., 21.

43. Ibid., 22.

44. Ibid., 31.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., 32–33.

48. Ibid., 162, 166.

49. Ibid., 166–67.

50. Ibid., 173.

51. See explanation of this verse in ESV Study Bible, p. 1830; see also pp. 2554–55.

52. Boyd, Myth of a Christian Nation, 174.

53. Ibid., 177.

54. Ibid., 31.

55. Cal Thomas, “Pulpit Bullies,” Tribune Media Services (Oct. 3, 2008). See www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2381. A “do evangelism, not politics” view is also promoted by Greg Boyd’s book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, which I discussed in the previous section.

56. John MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You: An Alternative to Political Activism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 8, italics added.

57. Ibid., 11–12.

58. Tom Minnery, Why You Can’t Stay Silent: A Biblical Mandate to Shape Our Culture (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 49.

59. MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You, 7.

60. Alvin Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004; formerly published as Under the Influence, 2001), 51, 53, 59.

61. Ibid., 63.

62. Ibid., 65.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid., 65–66.

65. Ibid., 87–88.

66. Ibid., 111.

67. Ibid., 115.

68. Ibid., 116–17.

69. Ibid., 119.

70. Ibid., 179.

71. Ibid., 179–80. Although this is not a matter of merely influencing laws, Schmidt also points out the immense influence of Christians on higher education: By the year 1932 there were 182 colleges and universities in the United States, and of that number, 92 percent had been founded by Christian denominations (p. 190).

72. Ibid., 274–76.

73. Ibid., 276–78.

74. Ibid., 279.

75. Ibid., 279–90.

76. Ibid., 287–89.

77. Ibid., 251–52.

78. Ibid., 253–58.

79. Ibid., 258–70.

80. Charles W. Colson, God and Government: An Insider’s View on the Boundaries between Faith and Politics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007).

81. MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You, 130.

82. Ibid., 15.

83. Ibid., 14.

84. D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1977).

85. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, Blinded By Might: Why the Religious Right Can’t Save America (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 51.

Chapter 2

A BETTER SOLUTION:

SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN

INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT

In the previous chapter I examined five incorrect views about Christian involvement in civil government. In this chapter I propose what I think is a better solution: “significant Christian influence” on civil government.

The “significant influence” view says that Christians should seek to influence civil government according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible (when rightly understood). But while Christians exercise this influence, they must simultaneously insist on protecting freedom of religion for all citizens. In addition, “significant influence” does not mean angry, belligerent, intolerant, judgmental, red-faced, and hate-filled influence, but rather winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, persuasive influence that is suitable to each circumstance and that always protects the other person’s right to disagree, but that is also uncompromising about the truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word.

A. UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE RIGHTLY

Someone might immediately object, “But who can understand the Bible rightly? And who is to decide what is a right interpretation?”

My response is that it is not impossible to understand the Bible rightly. Of course there are some areas where Christians have legitimate disagreement about the meaning of the Bible, but among responsible evangelical interpreters of the Bible there are vastly more areas of widespread agreement than disagreement, both today and throughout history, regarding the main teachings of the Christian faith and the methods of proper interpretation.

For example, among interpreters who take the whole Bible to be the trustworthy Word of God (that is, among mainstream evangelical interpreters at least, as well as among many conservative Roman Catholic interpreters), there is no significant disagreement over the fact that, according to the Bible, murder is morally wrong (Exod. 20:13), adultery is morally wrong (v. 14), stealing is morally wrong (v. 15), and bearing “false witness against your neighbor” is morally wrong (v. 16). There is also widespread agreement about the fact that God established civil government for our benefit, in order to restrain evil and promote good (Rom. 13:1–6; 1 Peter 2:13–14; also Gen. 9:5–6), and that there should be a distinction between those things that are governed by the church and those that are under the authority of civil government (Matt. 22:21). Other elements of a biblical worldview and its implications for civil government could be mentioned, but these should be enough to show that there is widespread consensus throughout the world among evangelical interpreters regarding the most significant principles that affect a person’s view of the Bible and politics.

Of course, there are also areas where Christians disagree about the meaning of the Bible as it applies to government. There are disagreements, for example, over the theory of a “just war,” disagreements over the death penalty, and disagreements over the specific responsibilities of government with respect to poverty and wealth. But even these disagreements are healthy when they can be pursued in open public forums (both spoken and written) in which different sides have opportunity to argue from the Bible in favor of their positions. As such respectful arguments continue over time, eventually one viewpoint or another has the more persuasive arguments and then the majority of pastors, seminary professors, parachurch leaders, and other opinion leaders, and then the vast majority of evangelical believers, come to be persuaded about that viewpoint, and the opposing viewpoint is marginalized and persists, if at all, among only a small minority of Christians. I saw this process happen regarding the question of abortion, for example, in the 1960s and 1970s. To take two earlier examples, consensus gradually developed throughout the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries with regard to the validity of charging interest (“usury”) and the validity of the civil government allowing freedom of religion.

In fact, I argue on the basis of verses in the Bible for precisely that reason: I am attempting to persuade others who believe the Bible that the points I am making can in fact be substantiated from a responsible use of the Bible. Others who disagree have the right to publish arguments opposing what I say, and in that kind of healthy dialogue, Christians who read both sides often come to deeper understanding of the important issues.

B. LIBERAL DISTORTIONS OF THE BIBLE

One word of caution is appropriate at this point, however: Theologically liberal critics of the Bible are not a good guide to right interpretation of the Bible. (By “theologically liberal” I mean the viewpoint that holds that the Bible is not the divinely authoritative and entirely truthful and trustworthy Word of God, but that it consists of merely human writings with many mistakes and contradictions.) Sometimes liberal religion writers in the secular media mock anyone who claims to say “what the Bible teaches,” and they do this by tossing out a rapid list of verses taken out of context and questions that seem to make it impossible to follow the Bible at all.

For example, British author A. N. Wilson, in criticizing American Southern Baptists, wrote this in the New York Times:

It seems … as impractical as it is undesirable to try to recreate the ethics and behavioral patterns of a vanished age….[do] Southern Baptists condone slavery (as Paul does in his Epistle to Philemon)? Do the Southern Baptists pool all their property and hold everything in common, as the first Christians did? Do they condemn giving money upon usury … and if so, how do they manage to invest in the stock market, put savings into pensions or even have a bank account? … How many Christian fundamentalists in America today keep the Jewish dietary laws? How many of them would approve of stoning adulteresses? … Yet all these things are part of “Biblical morality.” … Paul … advised his followers not to marry at all. The early church was consistently hostile to family life…. A true Biblical faith recognizes that the Bible is not a book of answers. It’s the story of the human race getting it wrong, over and over and over again. Even Saint Paul frequently contradicts himself….[1]

Here I count six things that Wilson says “are part of ‘Biblical morality’“: (1) slavery, (2) communal property, (3) forbidding the collection of interest on loans (“usury”), (4) Jewish dietary laws, (5) stoning people for adultery, and (6) discouraging marriage.

Yet I have taught and written on biblical ethics for more than thirty years, and I do not teach that the Bible requires any of those things, nor do any of the leading evangelical denominations and parachurch organizations advocate these things, nor do any of the commonly used ethics textbooks in evangelical colleges and seminaries.[2] Wilson is simply distorting and misrepresenting the Bible.

My point is that, as with any written document, it is always possible for a hostile reader to lift biblical statements unfairly out of their contexts and announce that “this is what the Bible teaches,” but this is done with no attention to responsible principles of interpretation and no awareness of the place of specific verses within the broad sweep of historical development throughout the Bible. Wilson’s objections are designed to lead people to conclude that “nobody can obey the Bible today,” but they can all be answered, one at a time, by saying, “You are interpreting the Bible incorrectly at this point, and here are the reasons why.”[3]

Today there are hundreds of millions of evangelical Christian believers throughout the world who earnestly seek to obey the Bible, rightly understood, in all areas of life. They take the Bible as the Word of God, as their reliable, divinely authoritative guide to all of life, just as Christians have done throughout the centuries. And although they are aware of their own shortcomings, they find that seeking to follow the Bible daily is not at all impossible, but rather—when the Bible is understood rightly and obeyed wholeheartedly—it leads to a joyful, fulfilling pattern of life that knows frequent blessing from God.

I think that this applies to the Bible’s teachings on civil government as well. These teachings can be understood, and to the extent that they are followed, they will bring many benefits to nations that follow them. That is why I am writing this book.

C. BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE

1. Old Testament examples

The Bible shows several examples of believers in God who influenced secular governments.[4]

For instance, the Jewish prophet Daniel exercised a strong influence on the secular government in Babylon. Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar,

“Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Dan. 4:27).

Daniel’s approach is bold and clear. It is the opposite of a modern multicultural approach that might say something like this:

“O King Nebuchadnezzar, I am a Jewish prophet, but I would not presume to impose my Jewish moral standards on your Babylonian kingdom. Ask your astronomers and your soothsayers! They will guide you in your own traditions. Then follow your own heart! It would not be my place to speak to you about right and wrong.”

No, Daniel boldly told the king, “Break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed.”

Did Daniel specify in more detail what “sins” and “iniquities” needed to be changed in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign? Did he tell the world’s most powerful ruler how the God of the entire universe wanted him to act as king? The context suggests that he did.

At that time Daniel was a high official in Nebuchadnezzar’s court. He was “ruler over the whole province of Babylon” and “chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (Dan. 2:48). He was regularly “at the king’s court” (v. 49). Therefore it seems that Daniel had a significant advisory role to the king. This leads to a reasonable assumption that Daniel’s summary statement about “sins” and “iniquities” and “showing mercy to the oppressed” (Dan. 4:27), was probably followed by a longer conversation in which Daniel named specific policies and actions of the king that were either good or evil in the eyes of God.

Daniel is an Old Testament example of a believer exercising “significant influence” on a civil government, and one ruled by a pagan king at that.

The counsel that Jeremiah proclaimed to the Jewish exiles in Babylon also supports the idea of believers having influence on laws and government. Jeremiah told these exiles, “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jer. 29:7). But if believers are to seek to bring good to such a pagan society, that must include seeking to bring good to its government (as Daniel did). The true “welfare” of such a city will be advanced through governmental laws and policies that are consistent with God’s teaching in the Bible, not by those that are contrary to the Bible’s teachings.

Other believers in God had high positions of governmental influence in non-Jewish nations. Joseph was the highest official after Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and had great influence in the decisions of Pharaoh (see Gen. 41:37–45; 42:6; 45:8–9, 26). Later, Moses boldly stood before the Pharaoh and demanded freedom for the people of Israel, saying, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Let my people go’” (Exod. 8:1). Nehemiah was “cupbearer to the king” (Neh. 1:11), a position of high responsibility before King Artaxerxes of Persia.[5] Mordecai “was second in rank to King Ahasuerus” of Persia (Esth. 10:3; see also 9:4). Queen Esther also had significant influence on the decisions of Ahasuerus (see Esth. 5:1–8; 7:1–6; 8:3–13; 9:12–15, 29–32).

In addition, there are several passages in the Old Testament prophets that address the sins of foreign nations around Israel: see Isaiah 13–23; Jeremiah 46–51; Ezekiel 25–32; Amos 1–2; Obadiah (addressed to Edom); Jonah (sent to Nineveh); Nahum (addressed to Nineveh); Habakkuk 2; Zephaniah 2. These prophets could speak to nations outside of Israel because the God who is revealed in the Bible is the God of all peoples and all nations of the earth. He is their Creator, and they will one day stand before him in judgment. Therefore the moral standards of God as revealed in the Bible are the moral standards to which God will hold all people accountable. This includes more than the way people conduct themselves in their marriages and families, in their neighborhoods and schools, and in their jobs and businesses. It also concerns the way people conduct themselves in government offices. Believers have a responsibility to bear witness to the moral standards of the Bible by which God will hold all people accountable, including those people in public office.

2. New Testament examples

A New Testament example of influence on government is found in the life of John the Baptist. During his lifetime the ruler of Galilee (from 4 BC to AD 39) was Herod Antipas, a “tetrarch” who had been appointed by the Roman emperor and was subject to the authority of the Roman Empire. Herod was not from the people of Israel but was an Idumean (from Edom, a neighboring nation). Matthew’s Gospel tells us that John the Baptist had been rebuking Herod the tetrarch for a specific personal sin in his life:

For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Phillip’s wife, because John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Matt. 14:3–4).

But then Luke’s Gospel adds more detail:

[John the Baptist] preached good news to the people. But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, added this to them all, that he locked up John in prison (Luke 3:18–20).

Certainly “all the evil things that Herod had done” included many evil actions that he had carried out as a governing official in the Roman Empire. John the Baptist rebuked him for all of them. He boldly spoke to officials of the empire about the moral right and wrong of their governmental policies. In doing this, John was following in the steps of Daniel and many Old Testament prophets (see above). The New Testament portrays John the Baptist’s actions as those of “a righteous and holy man” (Mark 6:20). He is an excellent example of a believer who had what I call “significant influence” on the policies of a government (though it cost him his life: see Mark 6:21–29).

Yet another example is the apostle Paul. While Paul was in prison in Caesarea, he stood trial before the Roman governor Felix. Here is what happened:

After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, “Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you” (Acts 24:24–25).

While Luke does not give us any more details, the fact that Felix was “alarmed” and that Paul reasoned with him about “righteousness” and “the coming judgment” indicates that Paul was talking about moral standards of right and wrong and the ways in which Felix, as an official of the Roman Empire, had obligations to live up to the standards that are given by God. Paul no doubt told Felix that he would be accountable for his actions at “the coming judgment,” and this was what led Felix to be “alarmed.” When Luke tells us that Paul “reasoned” with Felix about these things, the word (Greek dialegomai) indicates a back-and-forth conversation or discussion. It is not difficult to suppose that Felix asked Paul, “What about this decision that I made? What about this policy? What about this ruling?” It would be an artificial restriction on the meaning of the text to suppose that Paul only spoke with Felix about his “private” life and not about his actions as a Roman governor. Paul is thus an excellent example of attempting to exercise “significant Christian influence” on civil government.

Therefore if we as Christians attempt to bring “significant Christian influence” to bear on civil governments and government leaders, we have many positive examples in the narrative history of the Bible, including Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah, Mordecai, and Esther. We also have as examples the written prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. In the New Testament we have the courageous examples of John the Baptist and the apostle Paul. Such influences on governments are no minor examples in obscure portions of the Bible, but are found in Old Testament history from Genesis all the way to Esther (the last historical book), in the canonical writing prophets from Isaiah to Zephaniah, and in the New Testament in both the Gospels and the Epistles. And those are just the examples of God’s servants bringing “significant influence” to pagan kings who gave no allegiance to the God of Israel or to Jesus in the New Testament times. If we add to this list the many stories of Old Testament prophets bringing counsel and encouragement and rebuke to the good and evil kings of Israel as well, then we would include the histories of all the kings and the writings of all the prophets—nearly every book of the Old Testament. And we could add in several passages from Psalms and Proverbs that speak of good and evil rulers. Influencing government for good on the basis of the wisdom found in God’s own words is a theme that runs through the entire Bible.

3. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2

In addition to these examples, the mere existence of specific Bible passages that teach about government is an argument for “significant Christian influence” on government. Why do we think God put Romans 13:1–7 and 1 Peter 2:13–14 and other related passages (as in Psalms and Proverbs) in the Bible? Are they in the Bible simply as a matter of intellectual curiosity for Christians who will read them privately but never use them to speak to government officials about how God understands their roles and responsibilities? Does God intend this material to be concealed from people in government and kept secret by Christians who read it and silently moan about “how far government has strayed from what God wants it to be”?

Certainly God put them there not only to inform Christians about how they should relate to civil government, but also in order that people with governmental responsibilities could know what God himself expects from them. This also pertains to other passages in the Bible that instruct us about God’s moral standards, about the nature and purpose of human beings made in God’s image, about God’s purposes for the earth, and about principles concerning good and bad governments. All of these teachings are relevant for those who serve in governmental office, and we should speak and teach about them when we have opportunity to do so.

4. The responsibility of citizens in a democracy to understand the Bible’s teaching

There is another argument for “significant Christian influence” on government that applies to anyone who lives in a democracy, because in a democracy a significant portion of the ruling power of government is entrusted to the citizens generally, through the ballot box. To be able to vote is to have a share of ruling power. Therefore all citizens who are old enough to vote have a responsibility before God to know what God expects of civil government and what kind of moral and legal standards he wants government to follow. But how can citizens learn what kind of government God is seeking? They can learn this only if churches teach about government and politics from the Bible.

I realize that pastors will differ in the degree of detail they wish to teach with regard to specific political issues facing a nation (for example, whether to teach about issues such as abortion, euthanasia, care for the poor, the military and national defense, use and care of the environment, or the nature of marriage). But surely it is a responsibility of pastors to teach on some of these specific policies in ways that go beyond the mere statement, “You all have a responsibility to vote intelligently.”

After all, who else is going to teach these Christians about exactly how the Bible applies to specific political issues? Would pastors think it right to leave their congregations with such vague guidance in other areas of life? Would we say, “You have a responsibility to bring up your children according to Christian principles,” and then never explain to them what those Christian principles are? Would we think it right to say to people in the business world, “You have a responsibility to work in the business world according to Christian principles,” and then never give them any details about what these Christian principles are? No, the responsibility of pastors is to give wise biblical teaching, explaining exactly how the teachings of the Bible apply to various specific situations in life, and that should certainly include instruction about some policy matters in government and politics.

D. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE ON SECULAR GOVERNMENTS

An examination of the history of the Christian church throughout almost two thousand years shows an amazing pattern of positive influence on secular governments. We must readily admit that the church made some mistakes, sometimes very harmful ones, especially as it forgot Jesus’ teaching about the distinction between “the things that are Caesar’s” and “the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). When it forgot this distinction, the church too often fell into the mistake of wrong view #1 that I mentioned earlier, the “government should compel religion” view (see previous chapter). But in spite of these mistakes, there are many examples of excellent results that came from significant Christian influence on governments.

As I mentioned in some detail in the previous chapter, the Christian church throughout history has been largely responsible for persuading governments to place much greater value on individual human rights, individual freedom, freedom of religion, equality before the law, and separation of church and state. Significant Christian influence can be traced in the Magna Carta, the US Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution. Moreover, Christian influence led to the abolition of evils such as abortion, infanticide, gladiatorial contests, human sacrifice, polygamy, the burning alive of widows, and slavery, as well as the granting of property rights, voting rights, and other protections to women.

The biblical teaching that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore have equal status before God had a significant influence on the thinking of the Founding Fathers of the United States and their bold declaration that “all men are created equal.” This stood in clear contrast to the prior assumption in many European nations that there was a special group of human beings known as “royalty” who had the hereditary right to rule over ordinary people. In many nations, this conviction of the equality of all people led to the spread of democracy and, even in nations that preserved a monarchy, this conviction led to the limitation of the role of the monarch to mostly ceremonial and symbolic functions, and to a role of leadership by example for promoting a nation’s exemplary behavioral standards and the best of its cultural heritage (for example, in the United Kingdom or in Norway, both of which still have a monarchy).

In the twentieth century, the Christian convictions of Martin Luther King Jr. had a significant influence in the outlawing of racial segregation and discrimination in the United States. More recently, tens of thousands of committed Christians have formed the backbone of the pro-life movement that continues to work for the prohibition of abortion (except to save the life of the mother) in the United States.

Many more examples could be given, but these should be sufficient to demonstrate that the entire history of the Christian church gives significant support to show that there should be “significant Christian influence” on governments and that this influence brings beneficial results to a nation.

Here is a common objection to my position: When I talk about “significant Christian influence” on government, some people are quick to raise the issue of Prohibition in America, which was a period from 1920 to 1933 in which a constitutional amendment outlawed making or selling alcoholic beverages in the United States. People explain that this was a failure, and from that they conclude, “You can’t legislate morality.”

But I think the example of Prohibition proves something else entirely and actually supports my position. The history is this: In 1919, the United States adopted the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Jan. 16, 1920), which prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes.” But this law was widely disobeyed, and many people had their own breweries and distilleries. The law was impossible to enforce effectively. Finally, in 1933, the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution was passed, which said “the 18th Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.” (However, it allowed for states to regulate alcohol usage and sale according to their own laws.)

What does this experience prove? It proves that it is impossible to enforce moral standards on a population when those moral standards are more strict than the standards found in the Bible itself. Although the Bible contains frequent warnings against drunkenness (see Eph. 5:18), it does not prohibit moderate use of alcoholic beverages, and the apostle Paul even tells his associate Timothy, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim. 5:23). Therefore the absolute prohibition on alcoholic beverages was a law that did not find an echo in the hearts of people generally, because it did not reflect the moral standards of God that he has written on all people’s hearts (see Rom. 2:15).

I do not think, therefore, that Prohibition in the United States was an experiment in attempting to enforce biblical standards of conduct on the nation. I think it was an experiment that proved the impossibility of trying to enforce standards that went beyond what the Bible required. And I think Prohibition was rightly repealed.

E. IS THE UNITED STATES A CHRISTIAN NATION?

When I begin to explain that I think there should be “significant Christian influence” on government, sometimes people ask me if I think the United States is “a Christian nation.”

The question cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” until we define more carefully what we mean by “a Christian nation.” That is one reason why people sometimes become so upset about this question—different people have different meanings in mind for the phrase “a Christian nation,” and therefore they can end up talking about different things but using the same words and just misunderstanding one another.

Here are several meanings one can attach to the phrase “a Christian nation,” together with an answer to the question that varies according to each meaning:

(1) Is Christian teaching the primary religious system that influenced the founding of the United States? Yes, it is.

(2) Were the majority of the Founding Fathers of the United States Christians who generally believed in the truth of the Bible? Yes, they were.

(3) Is Christianity (of various sorts) the largest religion in the United States? Yes, it is.

(4) Did Christian beliefs provide the intellectual background that led to many of the cultural values still held by Americans today? (These would include things such as respect for the individual, protection of individual rights, respect for personal freedom, the value of hard work, the need for a strong national defense, the need to show care for the poor and weak, the value of generosity, the value of giving aid to other nations, and respect for the rule of law.) Yes, Christian beliefs have provided much of the intellectual background for many of these and other cultural values.

(5) Was there a Supreme Court decision at one time that affirmed that the United States is a Christian nation? Yes, there was, but that wasn’t the issue that was under dispute in the case. It was in an 1892 decision, Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States, 143 US 457 (1892). The ruling established that a church had the right to hire a minister from a foreign nation (England), and thus the church was not in violation of an 1885 law that had prohibited hiring “foreigners and aliens … to perform labor in the United States.” The court’s argument was that there was so much evidence showing the dominant “Christian” character of this nation that Congress could not have intended to prohibit churches from hiring Christian ministers from other countries.

It seems to me that here the Supreme Court was arguing that the United States is a “Christian nation” according to meanings (3) and (4) above. There is a long history of significant Christian influence on the United States.

(6) Are a majority of people in the United States Bible-believing, evangelical, born-again Christians? No, I do not think they are. Estimates range from 18 to 42% of the US population who are evangelical Christians, and I suspect a number around 20% is probably more nearly correct. In a 2005 poll, Gallup, after doing a survey designed to find how many Americans had true evangelical beliefs, came up with a figure of 22%.[6] In addition, there are many conservative Roman Catholics who take the Bible plus the official teachings of the Catholic Church as a guide for life, and a significant number of them have a personal trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior. But even if these groups are added together, it does not constitute a majority of people in the United States.

(7) Is belief in Christian values the dominant perspective promoted by the United States government, the media, and universities in the United States today? No, it is not.

(8) Does the United States government promote Christianity as the national religion? No, it does not.

(9) Does a person have to profess Christian faith in order to become a US citizen or to have equal rights under the law in the United States? No, certainly not. This has never been true. In fact, the Constitution itself explicitly prohibits any religious test for public office:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States (Article VI, section 3).

In conclusion, how can we answer the question, “Is the United States a Christian nation?” It all depends on what someone means by “a Christian nation.” In five possible meanings, the answer is yes. In four other possible meanings, the answer is no. Because there are that many possible meanings in people’s minds (and possibly more that I have not thought of), I do not think the question is very helpful in current political conversations. It just leads to arguments, misunderstanding, and confusion. The same points that a speaker wants to make with this claim can be made more clearly, without causing confusion, in terms of one or more of the expanded meanings that I have listed above.

F. WHAT ABOUT OLD TESTAMENT LAWS? (THE QUESTION OF THEONOMY)

There is a view among a few Christians in the United States today called “Theonomy.” It is also called “Christian Reconstructionism” and sometimes “Dominion Theology.” Critics have labeled it “Dominionism” (which has echoes of “Jihadism”). I will use the term “Theonomy,” which is the general term used in theological critiques of this movement.

Theonomists argue that the Old Testament laws that God gave to Israel in the Mosaic covenant should be the pattern for civil laws in nations today. This would include carrying out the death penalty for such things as blasphemy or adultery or homosexual conduct!

The error of Theonomists is that they misunderstand the unique place that these laws for Israel had in the history of the whole Bible, and they misunderstand the New Testament teaching of the distinction between the realm of the church and the realm of the state that Jesus established when he said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). (See further discussion of the unique status of the Mosaic laws in chap. 3, pp. 83–85.)

The primary defenders of Theonomy have been Rousas John Rushdoony (1916–2001)[7] and Greg Bahnsen (1948–1995).[8] Critiques of Theonomy have been written by Vern Poythress[9] and John Frame.[10]

Some secular critics of Christian influence on politics and government have attempted to claim that evangelical Christians generally seek to follow Theonomy or “Dominion Theology,” and they accuse Christians of wanting to enforce these extreme Theonomist views in the United States: see Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism.[11] But these accusations are based on careless scholarship and guilt by association. I am aware of no Christian today who has significant influence in the evangelical world or the political world who holds to the small minority viewpoints of Theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism regarding modern civil government enforcement of such Old Testament laws.

G. SHOULD CHRISTIANS ONLY VOTE FOR CHRISTIAN CANDIDATES?

When I speak about “significant Christian influence” on government, I want to be very clear that I do not mean that Christians should only vote for Christian candidates for office, or even that Christians should generally prefer an evangelical candidate over others who are running.

To take one example, President Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist who taught a Sunday school class at his home church in Georgia, and media reports made much of Carter’s profession of faith as a “born-again” Christian. But many politically conservative evangelical Christians decided to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 instead of Carter, based on differences with President Carter’s policies (regarding national defense and economic policy, for example). (Reagan also professed Christian faith, but he was not so publicly identified as an evangelical Christian as Carter was.)

To take another example, I personally wrote an endorsement for Mitt Romney, a Mormon candidate, during the Republican presidential primary campaign in 2007. I did this because I agreed with Romney’s policies, especially on economics and national defense, more than with those of other candidates, even Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist candidate who is a winsome, articulate representative of evangelical Christian faith. I strongly differed with Romney’s theological beliefs but agreed with his political views and thought him to be well qualified. Here is what I wrote:

What about his religion? Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney’s conservative political values.

Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian? Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a “Christian nation” and only want evangelical Christians in office. For evangelicals to support a Mormon candidate would be similar to supporting a conservative Jewish candidate—someone we don’t consider a Christian but who comes from a religious tradition that believes in absolute moral values very similar to those that Christians learn from the Bible. Here in Arizona a few years ago I voted for Matt Salmon, a Mormon candidate for governor. He lost, but his policies would have been much more conservative than those of Janet Napolitano, who has now vetoed dozens of pro-life, pro-family bills.

Or have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. God used Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to raise Joseph to a position of authority over the whole country, so he could save his people from famine (Genesis 41:37–57). God used Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, to protect and raise up Daniel and his Jewish friends to positions of high authority over Babylon (Daniel 2:46–49). God used Cyrus, King of Persia, to restore the Jewish exiles to their homeland (Isaiah 45:16; Ezra 1:1–4), and used Darius, King of Persia, to protect the Jewish people as they rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 6:1–12). God used Ahasuerus, King of Persia, to raise up Esther as Queen and to give Mordecai high authority and honor in his kingdom (Esther 6:10–11; 8:1–2, 7–15). In the New Testament age, God used the peace enforced by the secular Roman Empire, the Pax Romana, to enable the early Christians to travel freely and spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean world.

Here in the United States, God used not only Founding Fathers who were strong Christians, but also Deists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to build the foundation of our nation. Jefferson even became our third President in 1801, a demonstration of the wisdom of Article 6 of the Constitution, which says, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The Bible tells us to pray not just for Christians who happen to have government offices, but “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2). It is not just Christians in government but all governing authorities who are “instituted by God” (Romans 13:1) and whom Paul can call “God’s servant for your good” (Romans 13:4).[12]

Looking back now, though I still have great appreciation and respect for Romney, I can see that when I wrote that endorsement of Romney I did not realize how deep the anti-Mormon sentiment was among evangelical Christians, especially in the South, so that Romney did not carry even the evangelical vote in states such as South Carolina, placing fourth in the primary there with only 15% of the vote.[13] And the political reality is that a Republican candidate who cannot carry the evangelical vote in the South simply cannot win the presidency. In addition, the health care system that Romney successfully advocated in Massachusetts costs far more than was predicted and has lost much of its initial appeal. Therefore I do not know if I would support Romney or some other candidate in the future.

But the principle remains: I think Christians should support the candidate who best represents moral and political values consistent with biblical teaching, no matter what his or her religious background or convictions.

H. WITHOUT CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE, GOVERNMENTS WILL HAVE NO CLEAR MORAL COMPASS

Try to imagine what a nation and its government would be like if all Christian influence on government were suddenly removed. Imagine what it would be like if all the churches and all the Christians in a society stopped seeking to have any kind of influence on laws or on government. What would such a government and such a society look like?

Within a few years very few people would have any moral absolutes beyond their individual moral sentiments and moral intuitions, which can be so unreliable. Most people would have no moral authority beyond that of individual human opinion. Therefore, how could a nation find any moral guidance?

Consider how many political issues that now face the United States (and that face other nations) have significant moral components to them. For example, here are some of the issues:

- (a) War: Is it right to use military power to protect one’s own nation against aggressors from without? Or is it right to use military power to help a weaker nation defend itself against a much stronger aggressor?

- (b) Same-sex “marriage”: Should state governments or a national government give the privileges and benefits of marriage to couples of the same sex? Should a society, through its laws, give its approval and encouragement to such relationships?

- (c) Abortion: Is abortion the murder of another human being, and if so, should governments enact laws against abortion?

- (d) Pornography: What is pornography, and what should governments do about it? Should there be any restrictions on materials available in public libraries or available to children?

- (e) Poverty: What is the government’s responsibility to the poor in a society? What are the best solutions to poverty? Should government money be given to religious organizations that help the poor?

- (f) Care for the environment: What government regulations should be enacted to protect the environment? Is “untouched nature” the ideal, or does God want us to “subdue” the earth in some ways? Is there anything wrong with nature as it now exists?

- (g) Capital punishment: Does God authorize or require civil governments to carry out the death penalty? Should retribution be part of the purpose of the punishment that is imposed by the courts?

- (h) Education: Who has the primary responsibility to decide what children are taught in public schools? Should it be the parents? Or should it be agencies appointed by the local or national government?

- (i) Moral standards: What moral standards should be taught in public schools? Or should none be taught to children?

There are many other issues like these, but this list should be sufficient to demonstrate that the United States at the present time (as well as many other nations) has a tremendous need for moral guidance. I am convinced that there is a great need for Christians to study and discuss and then speak publicly about these issues.

But if pastors and church members say, “I’ll let somebody else speak about that,” where will a nation’s moral standards come from?

To put it another way, if Christians do not speak publicly about moral and ethical issues facing a nation, who will? Where will people learn about ethics? Where will a nation learn how to tell right from wrong? Perhaps from Hollywood movies? From their friends at work or at the local bar? From their professional counselors? From their elementary school teachers? But where do these people learn about right and wrong?

The simple fact is that if Christians do not speak publicly about what the Bible teaches regarding issues of right and wrong, there aren’t many other good sources for finding any transcendent source of ethics, any source outside of ourselves and our own subjective feelings and consciences.

This is a matter of utmost importance for any nation: If Christians are silent about such moral and ethical issues, then where will moral standards come from?

As Christians, we need to remember that the entire world is locked in a tremendous spiritual battle. There are demonic forces, forces of Satan, that seek to oppose God’s purposes and bring evil and destruction to every human being that God created in his own image. They are seeking to bring destruction to every human society and every nation. “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19).

Therefore if pastors and church members say, “I’m going to be silent about the moral and ethical issues that we face as a nation,” that will leave a moral vacuum, and it will not be long until the ultimate adversaries of the Gospel—Satan and his demons—will rush in and influence every decision in a way contrary to biblical standards. And if that happens, then governments around the world will increasingly use their tremendous power to silence the church. Governments will in effect say to Christians and to churches, “Keep your homophobic, misogynist, oppressive, fear-inducing, intolerant, militarist, hate-mongering Christianity out of our lives, and out of our schools, and off our college campuses, and off our radio and TV stations, and out of any part of government, and out of our quiet suburbs where you are never going to get permission to build any more churches; and keep your hate-mongering Christian religion locked up in the privacy of your own home!”

That is where moral standards will come from if Christians remain silent.

(I read the previous paragraph aloud in a graduate classroom where I was discussing these things, and one seminary student immediately responded, “Isn’t that too alarmist? Surely people aren’t going to use that kind of inflammatory language in opposing Christians!” Then someone else in the class who had been involved for several years in attempting to bring Christian influence on civil government immediately responded, “That sounds exactly like the emails I receive on a regular basis.” Recently, when a student at Los Angeles City College gave a speech about his Christian faith and his support for marriage as the union between one man and one woman, his professor stopped the speech and told the student, before the entire class, that he was a “fascist bastard.” He then refused to grade the speech, telling the student, “Ask God what your grade is.” When the student complained to the dean, the professor tried to have him expelled from the school.)[14]

For several reasons, then, I am convinced that it is right for Christians to seek to bring “significant Christian influence” to bear on civil governments. It is right for Christians to speak publicly and say, “This is what the Bible says about the purpose of government,” and “This is what the Bible says about moral standards for human conduct.”

When that happens, sometimes other Christians will answer, “No, I understand the teachings of the Bible to have a different view on the question of war” (or laws concerning abortion or same-sex marriage, etc.). And then a healthy discussion will follow, which is an excellent thing in a free society. Eventually a growing consensus will emerge among evangelical Christians, sometimes rather quickly and sometimes over a period of time. Then others in the society, who may or may not be Christians, will have to decide whether they think such a Christian position (for example, regarding the protection of preborn children) is persuasive or not.

This kind of dialogue is healthful in a free society. Christians may not be able to persuade a majority of the society in every case—they will no doubt win some arguments and lose others. But over the course of time, the “significant Christian influence” view will eventually result in many positive changes in societies and governments. It has always been that way, and Christian influence has led to wonderful changes such as the abolition of slavery, the emphasis on universal literacy, universal education, laws that protected children and protected people working in factories, and laws that protected women from abuse.

To repeat the main point one more time: This kind of “significant Christian influence” on government is not (1) compulsion, it is not (2) silence, it is not (3) withdrawal from government, it is not (4) doing evangelism only, and it is not (5) trusting the government for salvation. It is simply being faithful to the biblical teaching on how Christians should have a positive influence on civil government.

I. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PASTORS TO TEACH ON POLITICAL ISSUES

At this point some pastors reading this material might think, “Okay, I can see the need for some Christians to speak out publicly in these things, especially those who feel God calling them to be involved in the political process. But that doesn’t mean that I’m actually going to preach about such issues from the pulpit! That would be too controversial, and, in addition, I know that I have both Democrats and Republicans in my congregation and I just don’t want to alienate any of them! Preaching on politics is just too divisive!”

Here is my response:

1. I appreciate such a pastor’s recognition that God calls people to different tasks in the overall work of his kingdom. I think God calls some people to be involved heavily in the political process, perhaps even running for office. He calls others to moderate political involvement, such as devoting time to writing and campaigning for various issues and candidates. He calls still others to form parachurch organizations, which have much more freedom than churches to devote most of their effort (if they wish) to certain political issues (such as pro-life and pro-marriage stands).

God calls still others to minimal political involvement because he wants them instead to sing in a church choir, help sponsor a youth group, teach a Sunday school class, or lead a home fellowship group, and so forth. We need to recognize that God calls people to give themselves to a wide variety of ministries as Christians. (See 1 Corinthians 12:12–31, where Paul compares the different gifts of people in the church to the different parts of the human body such as the hand or the foot or the eye or the ear, all of which have different functions but all of which are essential to the proper functioning of the body.) Christians who give a lot of time to politics and Christians who give little time to politics need to respect and be thankful for each other’s gifts and callings. We can all do good in different areas of life.

2. But I still believe that pastors have a special responsibility to preach and teach from God’s Word on at least some issues affecting laws and government and politics. After all, these topics are a part of the teaching of God’s Word.

I realize that some of these topics are “controversial.” I want to emphasize that pastors will need much wisdom to distinguish between political topics where they can say, “There is a clear biblical position on this issue” (for example, protecting the lives of preborn children) and other topics where they should wisely say, “I realize that Christians may legitimately have differences of viewpoint on this issue” (for example, leading evangelicals a few years ago differed publicly over whether the United States should grant China “most favored nation” trading status). There will also be some topics where a pastor says, “We should all agree on the goal (for example, helping the poor), but we have freedom to differ on the best means to reach that goal (such as what mix we should have of government welfare, job training programs, different tax policies, private charities, and incentives for businesses).” On still other issues, the pastor may say, “People disagree on this issue, not because they disagree about the result we should seek (for example, preserving an earth that is a good place for human beings to live), but because they disagree over the relevant facts (for example, whether human activity is contributing significantly to differences in the earth’s temperature).”

Even such simple sentences from a pastor can actually help people understand the other side and place the issues in a context where further healthy dialogue can occur. And the pastor can also help the congregation talk privately about these things in ways that show respect for the other person and preserve friendships even when there are political differences. Pastors should regularly pray for God’s guidance and seek counsel from their elders (or deacons, or church board) rather than simply surprising a congregation on these matters or rushing into an ill-considered and unwise sermon about a political issue.

Yet I want to emphasize this: The mere fact that something is “controversial” does not excuse pastors from the responsibility to preach about it and (sometimes) the responsibility of a church to take a stand on it. The apostle Paul did not think it enough to preach on only some of the teaching of God’s Word. He didn’t think it enough to preach on the easy topics and avoid the controversial topics. Rather, he thought he was accountable before God to preach on everything that the Bible teaches. When Paul met with the elders of the church in Ephesus and summarized his three-year ministry among them, he said,

“I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26–27).

Paul was saying that he had faithfully discharged his responsibility before God. He had not shrunk back from teaching on any topic simply because it was unpopular. And the word “for” in Paul’s statement to these elders indicates that his blameless standing before God regarding what he taught depended on not shrinking back from unpopular topics.

If Paul had been fearful and therefore had failed to teach the church at Ephesus about biblical standards showing that adultery or premarital sex or homosexual conduct is wrong, and if young people growing up in the church had become involved in some of those sins because of Paul’s failure to teach about them, then he could not have said, “I am innocent of the blood of all of you.” He would have had some responsibility before God for the sin of those people—confused people that he had failed to teach.

If the teachings of the Bible about civil government and God’s moral standards are part of “the whole counsel of God,” then it seems clear that pastors have a responsibility to teach their churches about these things.

3. As for the question of “divisiveness,” pastors will need wisdom to distinguish between clear biblical issues, where people who disagree with him simply don’t agree with the Bible’s teachings, and more difficult issues, where people who disagree with him simply evaluate the relevant facts and Bible teachings differently.

I can think of two recent examples. In November 2008, Arizona had a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to say that marriage may only be between one man and one woman. Our pastor, from the pulpit, explained the issue briefly and told the people, “You should vote for this amendment.” If someone had disagreed on that, it would probably have been because the person disagreed about the biblical definition of marriage. I don’t think that kind of disagreement should make a pastor think he had preached something that was wrong.

On the other hand, there are topics where a pastor should not take a public position. For example, a current issue in the United States concerns what rate of interest the Federal Reserve Board should set for loaning money to banks and how that rate affects inflation, economic growth, and the exchange rate of the dollar against foreign currencies. The issue mostly turns on the results that will come from different policies, not on any teaching of Scripture. I surely don’t think a pastor should advocate a particular interest rate from the pulpit!

Good judgment is required for each issue along with an ability to distinguish between the clear teachings of Scripture and disputed areas of relevant, present-day facts. On some issues the correct application of Scripture may not be very clear, and the pastor may decide not to preach on that issue at all.

In all cases, however, the decisive question should not be, “Will people disagree with me?” but rather, “What does Scripture teach, and how can I faithfully teach that to my congregation?” The question is faithfulness to God and his Word, not simply avoiding divisions in the church at all costs.

4. Pastors need to avoid placing excessive emphasis on politics. Christians come to church with hearts that are hungry for worship and fellowship and spiritual nourishment. They need to hear the pastor teach on “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). That should include some sermons about the Bible and key political issues, but it has to include the teachings of the rest of the Bible as well! If a pastor feels that God is calling him to devote most of his professional time to political matters, then he should consider working for a Christian parachurch organization that focuses exclusively on politics and let somebody else serve the church as its pastor.

J. THE OBLIGATIONS OF ALL CHRISTIAN CITIZENS

1. The obligation to be informed and to vote

I believe that every Christian citizen who lives in a democracy has at the very least a minimal obligation to be well-informed and to vote for candidates and policies that are most consistent with biblical principles. The opportunity to help select the kind of government we will have is a stewardship that God entrusts to citizens in a democracy, a stewardship that we should not neglect or fail to appreciate. That at least means that Christians are responsible to learn enough about the important issues to be able to vote intelligently.

One good way to become better informed is to discuss some key political issues in a church small group. A helpful new resource for this, including quotations of key Bible passages, statements from well-known political leaders of the past and present, and questions for discussion, is a book by Hugh Hewitt, The Good and Faithful Servant: A Small Group Study on Politics and Government for Christians.[15]

2. Is there an obligation to do more than vote?

Beyond this, I ask every Christian in the United States to consider whether he or she has a higher obligation than merely voting. (A similar question could be asked of Christians in other countries.) The question is whether someone thinks it is morally right to receive great benefits from a nation but to give almost nothing in return. The great freedoms that citizens have in the United States came only as a result of great sacrifice on the part of millions of others. The original signers of the Declaration of Independence knew that they were publicly declaring themselves to be guilty of treason against Britain, and they knew they would be subject to the death penalty and to confiscation of their property if the British caught them or defeated them.[16] Nor could they have any great confidence that they would win a war against the most powerful nation on earth at that time. Therefore the last line in the Declaration of Independence says this:

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.[17]

Independence from Britain did not come cheaply. In the War of Independence, approximately 4,500 Americans died. Later wars were even more costly. In the Civil War, although the nation was preserved as a Union, 550,000 Americans died. Approximately 116,000 died in World War I, 405,000 in World War II, 36,000 in the Korean War, and 58,000 in the Vietnam War. Just over 4,000 died in the Iraq War, and more than 550 in the Afghanistan War (up to mid-2008).[18] Many others, equal to or more than those killed, were wounded in those wars.

These hundreds of thousands of men (and many women as well) sacrificed their lives to protect their nation and preserve the freedoms we enjoy today. Is it right that we simply enjoy these freedoms while giving back to our nation nothing in return? Should we not rather give heed to the challenge with which Abraham Lincoln ended his Gettysburg Address in 1863, as he surveyed the battlefield on which more than 6,650 soldiers had died and more than 29,000 were wounded?[19] His challenge in light of their sacrifice was this:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.[20]

If so many have given their very lives to protect and preserve our nation, then do the rest of us who receive such great benefits from these sacrifices not have an obligation to do something more than merely voting? Should we not participate at least at some level in giving money or giving time to support specific candidates and issues? Or writing letters or helping to distribute literature? Or even running for office or volunteering to serve in the military? Is it not right that all of us at least do something more than merely voting to preserve and protect this nation?

K. CHURCHES AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) GUIDELINES

In the United States, since 1954 the Internal Revenue Service has had regulations that prohibit pastors or churches from explicitly saying that they support or oppose any candidates by name (though they are still allowed to take positions on moral issues that are part of an election campaign).

But however that controversy is resolved, pastors in the United States today can easily teach on the moral issues that are at stake in any election without naming any specific candidate or even naming any political party, but simply saying that “Party A (or Candidate A) holds this view,” and “Party B (or Candidate B) holds this view” and leaving it to the congregation to read and discover which party holds which view.[21]

L. CONCLUSION

For many reasons, then, it seems apparent that pastors have some responsibility to preach and teach about the significant moral issues that are at stake in each election. They should use wisdom (and seek the wisdom of their elders or church board) in deciding which issues are addressed by the moral teachings of Scripture and by the teachings of Scripture on civil government, and then they should faithfully instruct their congregations in these issues.

In addition, individual Christians have at least an obligation to be well-informed and to vote intelligently. And I believe that Christians should also seriously consider whether God is calling them to do more—perhaps to sacrifice a significant portion of their time, effort, or money to help influence the government of the nation for good.

1. A. N. Wilson, “The Good Book of Few Answers,” New York Times, op-ed page (June 16, 1998), emphasis added.

2. Here are some of the most commonly used textbooks for evangelical ethics: John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics, 3d ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2004); John Feinberg and Paul Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1993); John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2008); Scott Rae, Moral Choices, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). Another one, from a pacifist perspective, is Glen Stassen and David Gushee, Kingdom Ethics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

3. A recent one-volume Bible interpretation resource with contributions from ninety-five evangelical scholars is the ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008). The interpretative notes at the passages Wilson refers to give far different and (I think) far more responsible answers to the issues Wilson raises. See also the topical essays on biblical ethics and on interpreting the Bible on pages 2535–65 of that volume. The ethics textbooks mentioned in the previous footnote also provide responsible, academically competent treatments of these issues.

4. A number of these passages were also mentioned in the previous chapter but not developed with regard to view 2, “exclude religion.”

5. “The position of cupbearer to the king was a high office and involved regular access to the king,” ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 825.

6. Albert L. Winseman, “U.S. Evangelicals: How Many Walk the Walk?” Gallup.com (May 31, 2005). www.gallup.com/poll/16519/US-Evangelicals-How-Many-Walk-Walk.aspx.

7. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1973).

8. Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1979).

9. Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1991), 311–61.

10. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2008), especially 217–24, 957–76.

11. Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007).

12. Wayne Grudem, “Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney,” at Townhall.com (Oct. 18, 2007).

13. Results: South Carolina. www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#SC.

14. Complaint filed in Lopez v. Candaele, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, February 11, 2009. See www.alliancedefensefund.org/UserDocs/LopezComplaint.pdf.

15. Hugh Hewitt, The Good and Faithful Servant: A Small Group Study on Politics and Government for Christians (Nashville: Townhall Press, 2009).

16. Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), 59, 118, 125, 147, 152.

17. Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776. www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html.

18. “Fact Sheet: America’s Wars,” Department of Veterans Affairs (Nov. 2008). www1.va.gov/opa/fact/amwars.asp.

19. See http://gburginfo.brinkster.net/Casualties.htm.

20. Gettysburg Address, delivered by Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863.

21. For one example of a sermon that I preached just prior to the 2004 presidential election, discussing six issues but not mentioning the name of any candidate or the name of any political party, see “The Bible and the Election (2004)” at www.phoenixseminary.edu/, under Wayne Grudem—Publications.

Copyright

ZONDERVAN

How Christians Should Relate to Government

Previously published in Politics—According to the Bible

Copyright © 2010 by Wayne A. Grudem

EPub Edition JANUARY 2012 ISBN: 978-0-310-49618-2

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530

The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows

Grudem, Wayne A.

;Politics—according to the Bible: a comprehensive resource for understanding modern political issues in light of scripture / Wayne Grudem.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978-0-310-33029-5 (hardcover, printed)

1. Politics in the Bible. 2. Bible and politics. 3. Christianity and politics. 4. Church and social

problems. I. Title.

BS680.P45G78 2010

26l.7-dc22

201002252

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Italics in Scripture quotations are added by the author.

Any Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc.) and telephone numbers in this book are offered as a resource. They are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement by Zondervan, nor does Zondervan vouch for the content of these sites and numbers for the life of this book.

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, down-loaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Zondervan.

Cover design: Ron Huizinga

Table of Contents

Cover

Chapter 1: FIVE WRONG VIEWS ABOUT CHRISTIANS AND GOVERNMENT

A. GOVERNMENT SHOULD COMPEL RELIGION

B. GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXCLUDE RELIGION

C. ALL GOVERNMENT IS EVIL AND DEMONIC

D. DO EVANGELISM, NOT POLITICS

E. DO POLITICS, NOT EVANGELISM

Chapter 2: A BETTER SOLUTION: SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT

A. UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE RIGHTLY

B. LIBERAL DISTORTIONS OF THE BIBLE

C. BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE

D. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE ON SECULAR GOVERNMENTS

E. IS THE UNITED STATES A CHRISTIAN NATION?

F. WHAT ABOUT OLD TESTAMENT LAWS? (THE QUESTION OF THEONOMY)

G. SHOULD CHRISTIANS ONLY VOTE FOR CHRISTIAN CANDIDATES?

H. WITHOUT CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE, GOVERNMENTS WILL HAVE NO CLEAR MORAL COMPASS

I. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PASTORS TO TEACH ON POLITICAL ISSUES

J. THE OBLIGATIONS OF ALL CHRISTIAN CITIZENS

K. CHURCHES AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) GUIDELINES

L. CONCLUSION

Copyright