What does healthy impact by Christianity upon government look like? It is common within Christianity, especially among lay persons in the local church to identify certain patterns of thought as solutions when historically their ideas have been proven unsuccessful and unhelpful. This can be easily determined with the help of history – especially with the help of Church history. This section shall serve as the back-end of a capstone on the topic of government and freedom, it will be the conclusion.
Healthy Christian influence on government should never: 1) Advocate or push for a theocracy. This form of government, especially within Christendom, can be found within the Old Testament of the Bible. Specifically, the people of God (Israelites) were seen operating under this form of government. A theocracy is defined as a government where a god is the head of state. The government functioning under that god’s authority is normally lead by priests or some other religious leader or leaders. This system, in the Christian mindset, seems to some to be ideal. Several reasons exist as to why this system is not ideal. The system has already been tried in ancient Israel and failed miserably. The story of the divided Kingdom of Judah and Israel is known by most Christians. The ultimate failure of both those kingdoms individually is also known. The ultimate problem to any government led by God is not the God part – it is the human part. Humans ultimately will be responsible for carrying out and executing the will of God. Even if that is successful and honestly done for decades, even generations, the human aspect of governance rears its head and obfuscates all the good ideal of a theocracy. King Saul did this in the Old Testament, the Judges did it, and the successive kings of the two divided kingdoms did it. Humans in their depravity and sinfulness cannot hold up the ideals of the theocracy; that is why it can never live up the potential of the general concepts.
Healthy Christian influence on Government should never: 2) Lay all hope on one political candidate or party to fulfill either an American or Christian goal. Again, humans fail. They fail often and ultimately any human run organization (Democrats, Republicans, and even Libertarians) will feel the effects of human depravity. While its goals being may be just, the organization will ultimately be met with the egos and selfishness of its human leaders. Whether the mistakes come in the decisions of an individual or in the wider commission of a party, the untrustworthiness of political affiliations should be clear to Christianity.
Healthy Christian influence on Government should never: 3) Organizationally endorse one candidate or party but should only hold to ideals and principles consistent with Scripture. The Trump campaign in 2016 exposed (Or rather the reaction to Trump’s campaign) the danger of supporting or condemning one candidate or party. When the initial onslaught against Trump began, often with the claim of racism or sexism, it was typical of some Christians to jump on the #NeverTrump bandwagon. Certainly, some activities and statements of Trump’s were not in line with Christian thought. For example of his statements, like those surrounding his comments on adultery and women. Any number of ‘mean tweets’ could be drug up as evidence for claims that he was morally inept and therefore not worthy to serve as President of the United States. I am not making a case for or against Trump during his candidacy or presidency. Generally, I would say that there was ‘good Trump’ and ‘bad Trump’. I will let how you define good and bad be left up to your personal thoughts on morality. Trump is merely a good example to prove my thoughts behind #3.
A prime example of #3 occured during the run-up to the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) head, Russell Moore was one of the rallying Christian voices against Donald Trump. The core issue of his attacks on Trump were not the attacks themselves. It was the fundamental division it caused within Christianity – especially in the context of Southern Baptist Church life. By demonizing and vilifying Trump, Moore and others were vilifying indirectly supporters of Trump. Many which happened to be Southern Baptists and members of other Christian denominations.
In a 2015 piece posted in the New York Times, Moore says this of evangelicals and other social conservatives, “To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe”.74 To many this translated as “You are a hypocrite if your support Trump. All the Christian beliefs you held to do not matter; you are now acting hypocritically by supporting Trump”. A slap in the face of social conservatives and evangelicals. He quickly demonized a whole segment of the population. Not just any segment, but the target audience of his work with the ERLC. Moore displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how this issue should be approached. Not only did he vocally demonize Trump followers, but he also created a divisive environment within the church. Either you fell under the #Never trump hashtag or the MAGA movement. He easily could have absolved himself from this conflict and still given an authentic and valid Christian witness. Addressing the shortcomings of morality within the candidates could have been done more tastefully. When he became obstinate to the point of aggressively calling for the ‘Never Trump’ mantra and rebuking Christians who supported Trump, he crossed a line. There is a difference between holding leaders accountable for negatives actions and disparaging a candidate and all his followers. He helped stoke a fire that appeared akin to Liberal attacks on the Christian right. Instead of CNN or another liberal outlet calling Christians backwards – it was one of their supposed leaders.
In 2021 post by the Baptist Press, an explanation is given based off a blog post presented by Dr. Moore. In it, he attempts to walk back some of his previous comments. He says, “pastors and friends who told me when they read my comments they thought I was criticizing anyone who voted for Donald Trump…I told them then, and I would tell anyone now: if that’s what you heard me say, that was not at all my intention, and I apologize. There’s a massive difference between someone who enthusiastically excused immorality and someone who felt conflicted, weighed the options based on Biblical convictions, and voted their conscience”.75 A more measured approach by Moore, admitting that not everyone was morally hypocritically as he alluded to on the first quote above about repudiating what they believe. The fall out among the SBC and evangelicalism was strong because of messages like those presented by Moore and others – of which he was probably the ringleader. A cursory web search can display just how divisive his message was amongst the church. It even allowed for calls from outside the church, specifically secular sources, to criticize the church. One example of this appears in a rolling stone article from 2016. I hold Moore, as well as others, responsible to opening the church up to this outside criticism. As if evangelicalism needed any more enemies from the outside. 76
Preaching policies consistent with scripture is good. Demonizing individuals by calling out a certain candidate does equal moral repudiation of followers. On a personal level, I fully support the right of anyone to support vocally or announce dislike for certain candidates. Personal discussion about who you would support is a good thing. When you begin to do that same thing as a member of a Christian organization, it becomes divisive. I think the example of Dr. Moore, who otherwise serves as a shining example of Christian witness, overstepped his bounds on the tone he took with Trump and his supporters.
Ultimately, whether it be organizationally or personally Christians must remember one clear fact: our ultimate allegiance is to God and our heavenly home. This is echoed by two particular passages, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20) and “for we do not have an enduring city here; instead, we seek the one to come” (Hebrews 13:14). When your work organizationally separates the church, it is time to rethink your approach and methodology. That is not to say the church should not be controversial. The church will always be controversial when it comes to political and moral issues. Your rhetoric should not reach such a divisive level as that of Moore’s, at least for a topic of 2nd tier relevance. It seems almost dishonest when such an energy was spent confronting Trump, when the alternative had far less in common with evangelical Christianity. Regardless, condemnation or support of one candidate or part by organizational Christianity is sure to backfire and be detrimental to the ultimate goal of focusing on the real home – heaven. The Gospel is harmed by divisive efforts like Moore’s. Dr. Moore should not be judge by this one negative occurrence, though. He has been instrumental in the life of the church – especially in the SBC. He should be appreciated for the breadth of his work.
Healthy Christian influence on Government should never: 4) Call for blind obedience to Authority, especially when foundational principles have been violated. Two main thoughts stand juxtaposed in regards to the previous statement. Two obvious passages from Scriptures seem to strongly indicate that submission to authority is necessary and even required. The First, “Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command” (Romans 13:1-2). This appears to be a very strong condemnation of resistance to God ordained governmental authority here on Earth. Another passage speaks to this topic, “Submit to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the emperor as the supreme authority or to the governors as those sent out by him to punish those who do what is evil and to praise those who do what is good” (1 Peter 2:13-14). Again, what seems to be another strong condemnation of any sort of civil disobedience directed towards the government. These passages raise some very valid questions about any level of resistance from Christians. The Declaration of Independence seems to stand in contradiction to this ‘submission principle’ found in the two mentioned Biblical passages. The Declaration says, “That whenever any form of Government become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness”. On the surface, there is a wide chasm between “submit to every human authority” in the 1 Peter passage and the “abolish’ language found in the Declaration of Independence. How are these seemingly contradictory trains of thought reconciled? The submission to governmental authority on the one hand, and civil disobedience and rebellion on the other.
First, both Paul and Peter contradict these statements of submission by actions in their own lives. Paul was sought by a leader of the city Damascus, instead of submitting himself for arrest, he had himself concealed in a wicker basket and lowered through a window in the wall of the city. Peter similarly resisted against the governing authorities in a similar escape story. King Herod had Peter arrested and placed on public trial. Shortly before the trial, Peter was awakened by an angel of the Lord. This angel led Peter out of captivity – obviously against the wishes of King Herod and the ruling authorities. Are Paul and Peter acting in a contradicting and hypocritical fashion by calling for submission and not submitting themselves? The term submit or subjection is different from the word “obey” in the Greek language. Paul and Peter were not calling for blind obedience but a call to order. They did not obey evil but generally encouraged submission to governmental order – this was ultimately an evangelistic issue. They wished Christianity to hold a positive standing in the culture, and submission and subjection to a system of government order accomplished that. Blind obedience is not what they called for – resisting evil is something they participated in, though. I do not believe they would find inconsistency between their calls for submission and the call of civil disobedience found within the Declaration of Independence.
Further, examples throughout the Old Testament display the Israelite people resisting evil and governments exerting control over them. Moses’ mother rebelled against the command of Pharoah to have children of a certain age killed. Resisting infanticide is a noble cause, is it not? The Israelites during the period of the Judges rebelled against foreign governments, often violently so. The Israelites resisted the reign of Pharoah by leaving Egypt to free themselves from his rule and slavery. Situations understood by those in our modern context, like abortion or slavery, might clarify the topic of civil disobedience. Should slavery have been blindly accepted by the abolitionists of the 19th century? They could have said “Oh well, we really hate slavery and think it to be a terrible moral evil. We just can’t resist or speak out against the government because the law is the law!”. Of course, they would not say that – and they certainly spoke out and acted on the issue of slavery! Should opponents of abortion stifle their speech and activities solely because governments allow the practice? I think the answer is obvious, Christians should resist evil even if it is allowed or even encouraged by government authorities. There is a difference between orderliness/submission to government and resistance to evil. The founding fathers thought freedom and liberty important enough to resist the evil of the British Crown. The same can be true in our modern context and many contexts between the late 18th century and the modern 21st century!
The founding fathers, we explored their influence in an earlier look at Christian impact on the U.S. legal system. Just what form of government was it that they instituted with the U.S. Constitution? Ah! Yes! A representative republic or a democratic republic, established under a federal system. It is a democracy as the people of the United States govern themselves. Remember the words of the Declaration, “it is the right of the people to abolish” and the U.S. Constitution in its preamble exclaims “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union”. The two most important documents in U.S. law declare the people as originators of law and governance. This is where the democratic relationship of the U.S. system arises. It is also representative and a republic because these citizens who ARE the government decide to elect representatives to conduct business and establish law. This was considered ideal, as a true democracy can lead to mob rule. Something the founders desperately wished to avoid. By looking at the two above quotes about “the people” being the foundation for the U.S. government; also understanding the republic/representative portion of our government relays something important. If WE are the government, then it is our duty to speak out in acts of civil disobedience as Christians. That does not mean just because one obscure law passes we are obligated to revolt. It does mean when foundational principles close to the identity of America/Christianity are violated in violent/oppressive manners – we should speak out and act. We are in fact the government; therefore, we must speak – to not do so would be to reverse violate Romans 13. Remember, the command was to submit to governing authorities. However, if we the people are the governing authorities – it is our duty and responsibility to act against violations of freedom held closely and earnestly. This should be done with measure and grace, meaning we do not escalate straight to violent struggle. We cannot reverse violate Romans 13 and Peter 2. We must act, with measure and if possible, with Christian grace and principle. Ruling out violent action is not outside the realm of possibilities. Just as it was on the table for the founding fathers, so it is for the Christian and the American as well.
Healthy Christian influence on Government should never: 5) Forget that Human beings are fallen, therefore government suffers from the effects of sin. It may seem unnecessary to mention this, but human beings are every often untrustworthy. Not just the unfortunate individuals in the corner of society suffer from a lack of education on the importance of morality. Those in the ivory towers of society suffer from poor ethical decision making – this is especially true for the representatives of our government. How should we respond to political authorities when inevitably they fall short of ethical ideals? Paul in the book of Acts offers a pattern of response that can be helpful. Paul and Silas in Acts chapter 16 were on a missionary journey. While on that journey they were detained and poorly treated by the authorities of the region, including physical beatings and public humiliation: “And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace.But Paul said to them, They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out. The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. So they came and apologized to them. And they took them out and asked them to leave the city” (Acts 16:36-40). Two things are important to recognize: 1) Paul and Silas were Roman citizens and 2) they were brutally treated. Being Roman citizens, the pair were afforded legal protection, especially as relates to corporeal punishment. When the leaders of the city realized they had beaten Roman citizens they wanted Paul and Silas gone quickly. They even encouraged them to go. Paul responded by calling out the wrongdoing of the leaders and demanded they acknowledge and even come to see them. Paul wanted the wrong to be corrected and required the leaders to be held accountable to the standards of the law. We should do much the same. Our leaders will fail to hold up the standards of the law. They will even do far worse acts then an improper beating as Paul experienced. In those instances, we must be ready to hold them accountable and address the wrong.
Christians should carefully recognize their responsibility to approach political topics with a measured and Biblical approach. The 5 topics discussed in this section is a good start, but a spirit of grace and carefulness must be carried in all political matters. Failing to engage in politics in a Godly manner can negate all the positive effects of Christianity on government and personal freedom we have discussed in this section.
75. https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/moore-clarifies-comments-on-trump-supporters/
Chandler Fayard 