As I’ve mentioned previously, I’ve begun to rethink some of my political positions in the light of re-reading the Gospels. What I’ve found so far has shaken the foundation of some of my political beliefs (again, as I’ve mentioned before). This change in thinking has afforded me some interesting conversations with friends about my faith and how it is (and should) direct my political thinking, and how other Christians direct their political thinking.

My first observation? Many Christians (especially those in the Christian Right) put the cart before the horse — that is, they have two circles of thought and opinion when it comes to religion and politcs, and they look for the intersection of those circles. Their faith does not completely inform their politics. This observation came about through discussions with several people about my post regarding Matthew 20. Specifically, people have pointed out a single verse there (15’Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ ) . They point out that the landowner understands the free market economy — he can do what he wants with his money. But is that really what this selection is about? Isn’t verse 16 (“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”) the whole point of this passage?

Let’s apply that verse to the political concept of the free market economy (I won’t refer to that as “capitalism” since a friend pointed out that the term was used in a derogatory manner by Karl Marx). The whole point of a free market economy is that anyone can succeed. You are free to do business as you please, and you are free to make as much money as possible. An extension of this line of thought is that it is up to the individual to take care of themselves as there is ample opportunity to do so. You got fired from you last job? Well, get another. You’re not making enough money to support your family? Find a better job, or get the training you need to get a better job. It’s all there for the taking. Help yourself.

But, doesn’t this passage turn that concept on its ear? Sure, there are the workers who put in an honest day’s work for their wage, and the owner wants the freedom to do as he pleases with his money, but what those people who only worked for an hour, yet still received a full day’s pay? What’s the point of that? Didn’t these workers essentially get a free handout? Isn’t the point of this passage to say that the lowliest among us will the greatest in God’s eyes?

Apply this to the free market. If God (the landowner in the passage) is willing to give out equal shares of His riches to everyone, regardless of a person’s “qualifications”, shouldn’t Christians be willing to do the same? I’m not advocating some radical switch to communism or socialism here, but why do conservative Christians want to throw people off welfare and make them fend for themselves? Why do conservative Christians fight against the concept of living wage? Shouldn’t Christians want people to be treated fairly and equally, since that’s what God does?

So, here’s where the cart is before the horse. Christianity has been tied to conservatism based on two things:

1. Conservatism has fought for “family values” and “morality,” clearly things that Christians should fight for as well.
2. Conservatism seeks to minimize government intervention. People should not rely on the government for their needs.

Item #1 sounds quite noble on first glance, but let’s look a little closer. Currently, there are two moral battlegrounds in this country — homosexuality and abortion. Let’s look at the former a bit. As I’ve pointed out in the past, homosexual behavior is quite plainly listed as a sin in the Bible. But remember, it’s listed along with just about every other sin, and it is not given any greater weight than other sins. Sin is sin is sin is sin in God’s eyes. Yet, the Christian right is waging a fierce crusade against homosexuality, while aligning themselves with the right on issues like gun control. Murder is a sin (and a crime, you might point out). But if the Christian right is so zealous about morality, why not try to limit the choice of weapons available to the murderer? Sure, people will kill each with paper clips if they need to, but why don’t more Christians speak out for gun control?

Or what about other sexual sins? Why isn’t the Christian right crusading against a stiffer adultery law? Or perhaps a law banning pre-marital sex? Those sins are listed right up there with homosexuality. The Christian right wants an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between man and woman, but they don’t want to extend that definition to claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Why? Because it may dilute that base of non-religious conservatives?

What about item #2? This is the issue that is really shaking the foundation of my political beliefs. If you are a politician who counts him or herself as a Christian, how can you support the idea that welfare is a bad thing? As a Christian, you should be seeking to do God’s will in every aspect of your life. Look at Matthew 25. Here’s the most interesting bit:

37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Why do people on the Christian right think this doesn’t apply to the government? How can you call yourself a Christian, yet vote to limit (or cut off) the amount of assistance available to people? These people are allowing their political beliefs (limited government and personal responsiblity) rather than their faith to direct how they act.

So, it seems that Christians are faced with a choice regarding their attitudes towards government and politics. As I see it, there are three choices:

1. Submit to the authority of the government (as it is established by God regardless of who is in office). Biblical support? Matthew 22:15-22, Romans 13:1.

2. Allow faith to direct political thinking, regardless of whether or not it crosses party lines. As Christians, we live in a modern Babylon. This is not a Christian nation. But that doesn’t mean as Christians we can’t do God’s will in all aspects of life, including government service. There is no perfect political party for a Christian — we like to draw lines with homosexuality and abortion, but the issues go much deeper, and suddenly we are blinded by issues of morality when there are people who truly need help. It’s time for Christians to put down their swords and get their hands dirty helping people. See the above references in Matthew.

3. Fight to change the political system and the Constitution so that Christ is identified as our King. This is a noble cause, but again, it’s putting the cart before the horse. If the citizens were primarily Christian, this would be the right thing to do, but that’s just not the case. We would be fighting for a few words on a piece of paper while ignoring the people who need help.

An I advocating socialism? Well, no. Is there something Biblically wrong with being rich or successful? No. But I can’t be comfortable with putting something else before my religious beliefs. Am I advocating that every Christian become a democrat? No. Obviously, both political parties have their warts. But I am advocating letting your faith guide your political decisions. If that means crossing party lines on issues, so be it.

Also, it’s easy to dismiss applying many of the passages to politics. “Jesus was speaking about individuals, and as a conservative, I’m all for the individual helping his neighbor,” someone might say. But my response is simple: do these lessons not apply to you when you enter politics? Can a politician say they’re truly trying to do God’s work in the government, yet support limiting welfare, increasing defense spending, and ignoring the ever-increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots?

Posted on 21 February 2004