Is Being a Christian Enough?: Kingdoms in Conflict Today

In the past few weeks, the issue of religion and politics has occupied center stage in the presidential campaign. When one person isn't predicting the outcome based on what he claims God personally told him, another person is insisting that, appearances notwithstanding, he is a Christian.

While this makes for fascinating political theater, the important question is: How important is the religious faith of a particular candidate?

In a recent New Republic article, Franklin Foer called Vermont Governor Howard Dean "one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history." In Foer's estimation, Dean's secularism, and not his policy proposals, is his biggest political liability, particularly in the South and Midwest. His admission that he doesn't "go to church very often," Foer writes, "[marks] him as culturally alien to much of the country."

And Dean seems to agree. The past few weeks have witnessed a concerted, almost frantic, and sometimes comical attempt on Dean's part to portray himself as a religious believer. He even talked about his "favorite book" in the New Testament: Job. Judging from the response in the media, few are buying it.

Now, Dean's church attendance, or lack thereof, is the least of my problems with him. Still, his efforts to establish his religious credentials remind me of a similar mistake made by some Christians I know. They tell me that "things would really be different in this country if we could just get more Christians elected to office." They believe that if we could fill the Congress and the courts and the White House with born-again believers, we'd straighten out this country in a hurry -- all problems solved.

Now, while I'm in favor of Christians running for public office, and I'm thrilled when believers are elected, things just aren't that simple. That sentiment ignores biblical principles about the role and limitations of civil government.

Someone who understood these principles was Martin Luther. Luther once compared a man who "would venture to govern with the Gospel" to a shepherd who should place in one fold "wolves, lions, eagles, and sheep together and let them freely mingle."

Thinking that electing Christians to high public office answers all of our problems ignores a reality that Luther knew: In every society, "the wicked always outnumber the good."

It's a sinful world. Therefore, government's prime job is to restrain sin and to preserve order. That is its ordained role from God. Our leaders, therefore, have to be those who are best-suited for carrying out these tasks, the most confident and responsible. Or, as Luther is supposed to have said, it is better to be "ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."

Does this mean that we shouldn't encourage our fellow believers to seek elective office and support them once they do? Of course not. Christians are called to apply biblical truth to all areas of life, including politics and government. Nor does it mean that a candidate's beliefs are irrelevant. A candidate's beliefs shed light on his values, priorities, and character -- all of which matter when it comes to governance. A believer should be a force for virtue, and having one in office is a witness, of course.

But this doesn't change the fact that the first requirement is competence. And some non-Christians may be better prepared to carry out government's biblical mandate than some Christians, no matter how often the latter attend church.

Jimmy Carter was a prime example of a Christian whose policies were "dumb as a stick". And his policies were a result of his flawed Christian theology, where he didn't recognize the basic sinfulness of man, and therefore was so naive that he was surprised by the Soviets invading Afghanistan, and his continual pandering to despots.

The sinfulness of man means that nobody should be given too much power. There should be a separation and balancing of powers. That was the beauty of our Founding Fathers. They recognized that because they were heavily influenced by the Puritans of their day. The sinfulness of man is also why government should not get too big. carter didn't recognize that. Besides all that, Carter has proven himself to be a vain and bitter person. Certainly not an example of good Christian character. As for Clinton, he only faked being a Christian, carrying his big Bible to church so that the media could see it.

That does not follow. Since it's a sinful world, is it therefore the fire department's prime job to restrain sin and to preserve order?

1. You are applying a generalization to one very specific government organ.

2. If there was no sin, there would be perfection, and no death. If there was perfection, there would be no uncontrolled fires, and no death or destruction of property from those fires. There would then be no need for a fire department. Disorder/danger proceeding from sin is controlled by this government arm.

3. If you doubt the government mandate to restrain sin and preserve order, here's the appropriate text from Romans 13:1-7:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Short answer: government's prime job is to restrain only those sins which violate the rights of others.

Longer answer:

Contention IV: The Conditionality of the Authority which God has Granted to Government

Question: If Government is empowered ONLY to punish Evil, and if those who do Good should therefore have no Fear of the Government, what Evil is the Government empowered to punish?
Answer: The State is empowered ONLY to punish those who violate the Second Table of the Law.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

This exegesis is soundly supported by the mainstream of Reformation political theology (or “Theonomy”) which provided the philosophical basis for our own American Revolution, and which holds that Paul clearly defined the Evils which the State was to punish in Romans 13: 8-10.

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

So long as Paul’s readers abided by these Commandments, they should have no Fear of the State. It follows, then ,that any re-definition of “Evil” by the State, other than that which Paul has specifically authorized, is illegitimate and UnScriptural; for if the State could define as “Evil” anything it wanted to define as evil, then Paul could not offer his readers his assurance that, by upholding the Second Table of the Law, they had “fulfilled the law” and should therefore “not be afraid of the power”.

there are many functions and regulations of civil society that are not fully described, prescribed, or conradicted by Scripture

From the article:

The following five major theological problems are created when Christians tell our Magistrates that they need “pay no heed” to the specific Authority granted them in Romans 13: 8 - 10:

We set the Ten Commandments against themselves: Paul tells his readers, in Romans 13: 8-10, that by the doing of these things -- abiding by the Second Table of the Law -- his readers had “fulfilled the law”. Obviously, Paul could not have been speaking of the Moral Law, the Law of relations between Men and God (the First Table, Commandments I through V), for one cannot “fulfill” the Moral Law and yet be an Blasphemer, or an Idolater, or a Worshipper of False Gods. In order for Paul to assure his readers that by the doing of these things (the Second Table) they had “fulfilled” the Law, Paul must have been speaking about the Civil Law only -- the Law of relations between Men and Men. And given that these things represent the fulfillment of the Civil Law, how can the State claim any Biblical sanction to go beyond them?
We cause Paul’s promises, recorded in Infallible Scripture, to become Nonsense: ONLY if the Second Table of the Law represents the Biblical Standard for Civil Good and Civil Evil, could Paul assure his reader that by the doing of these things, they should have no fear of the State. But if the State could define anything it liked to be illegal, then Paul could not offer his reader that by upholding the Second Table of the Law, they need “not be afraid of the power”. Thus, ANY alteration of this Mandate by the State represents a violation of the Pauline mandate and is illegitimate.
We necessitate an Ecclesiocratic Totalitarianism as the only “Righteous” sort of Government: If the State exists to enforce the Moral Law as well as the Civil Law, there is no argument which may be made for the Prohibition of “Moral Evils” which would not necessitate the Prohibition of all religions other than orthodox Reformation Christianity, for if the State is to proscribe Moral Evil then it must outlaw Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, deism, atheism, and (if the Reformers were right) Roman Catholicism for doing far more Moral Evil in keeping men from Salvation in Christ Alone than “Moral Vices” have ever done.
We deny the Sufficiency of Scripture: If Romans 13: 8-10 is NOT instructive to the Magistrate as well as the Common Man, then we have denied the Promise of II Timothy 3: 16-17, that Scripture will thoroughly equip the believer for all good works -- which includes the Work of Good Governance. Where may the Magistrate find his Authority to Govern? In Romans 13: 1-7. Where may the Magistrate find his instruction on how to govern? In Romans 13: 8-10 (Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.) If we deny that Scripture instructs the Christian Magistrate on how to Govern, we deny that Scripture has thoroughly equipped the Magistrate to all good works.
We establish a Different Rule of Morality for “Men of State”, than for “Common Men”: This is perhaps one of the most damning errors which the ignorance of Romans 13: 8-10 engenders, particularly in a Republic where the Men of State are drawn from among the Common Men. But it would be true enough in any State. A man may be King in the eyes of men and under the authority which God has granted him, but he is entitled to no different rule of morality in the eyes of God than the humblest of his subjects. It is no more Moral for a Magistrate to commit Theft, than for a Common Man. According to Romans 13, a Magistrate may tax for "this cause" and to attend to "this very purpose" -- the enforcement of the Second Table of the Law. To confiscate my monies for any purpose save that which they are specifically authorized to undertake... whether stocking their own wine cellars, or imprisoning/shooting those who have not violated the Second Table... is Theft, and may not Morally be supported by Christians.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.