God created everything

Pretty simple and obvious. God created the universe and everything in it (Genesis 1). Whilst Christians disagree about the details of how He did it, and how long it took, it’s one of the most basic foundations of a Christian worldview. It has the implication that Go deserves our obedience and worship (Revelation 4:11), and that creation reflects God (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20). Grudem deplores that this fact is concealed from children in the school system, but gives no clear indication of how and when he thinks it should be taught.

God reveals both Himself and His standards in the Bible

Another foundational one here. The Bible affirms that scripture is from God himself in passages like Matthew 4:4 and 2 Timothy 3:16. And says that God will ultimately judge all of humanity (1 Peter 4:4-5, Acts 17:30-31). The implication for politics is that a Christian understanding of the God’s moral standards will affect our view of those political issues that have a moral dimension.

Creation was very good

Another foundational belief, this is seen in Genesis 1:31. Creation started off very good, being pretty much perfect. But even in this state, God gave humanity work to do (Genesis 2:15), which means that productive work is something good, being part of the purpose for which God made us. Therefore, the “ideal” life for human beings is not perpetual inactivity and laziness, but includes meaningful, productive activity. Although Grudem doesn’t say so, it’s worth noting that this doesn’t mean that every instance of work is good. There are jobs that are immoral, jobs that are utterly pointless, and jobs that are just wrong for the person doing them.

Sin

The Christian view is that there is some measure of moral evil (sin) in every human being (except Jesus). The Bible says that this is, historically speaking, the result of the sin of our first parents – Adam and Eve (Romans 5:12, 18-19), and that none of us are innocent of sin (Romans 3:23). Grudem draws several points out of this:

Firstly, he points out that the moral standard by which we should judge is something external to humanity. A moral standard derived from the belief that humans are inherently good, from observing human conduct, and considering human opinions is not a Christian one.

Secondly, he points out that human nature is not “basically good”. Grudem says that there are parts of us that are good (conscience – see Romans 2:15) and parts that are evil (selfish desire – James 1:13-15). He draws from this that evil does not come merely from the external influence of society, but from a result of a person’s evil choices.

Thirdly, he says that people should be held accountable for their actions, and rejects secular views that this should be avoided because they blame wrongdoing on the influence of society.

Fourthly, he talks about the existence of violent and irrational evil. He draws on Romans 13:3-4, which talks about government using force to restrain evil, and dismisses the idea that these people in this category can be reasoned with and that the “causes” (his punctuation) of their behaviour can be dealt with.

A curse on the earth

One impact of Adam and Eve’s sin was that God cursed the planet (Genesis 3:17-18), and that a lot of the bad things that we see in nature are not creation as God originally intended. The result of the curse is that nature gives us a harder time.

Using the world’s resources

Here, Grudem cites God’s command to humanity to rule over the earth (Genesis 1:28). He takes this passage to mean that we are to use the planet’s resources for the benefit of humanity. He says that this does not mean that we should use the earth in a destructive or wasteful way (the principle of stewardship), or treat animals with cruelty (Proverbs 12:10). He says that the command to love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:39) implies that we should think about future generations.

He then goes on to say that we should view the development and production of goods from the earth as something that is morally good, rather than an evil kind of “materialism” (his punctuation). He applies this to all sorts of consumer goods, and considers that wrong attitudes about them (such as pride, jealousy, and coveting) do not mean that the products in question are evil. He takes the view that they are morally good, and doesn’t mention the possibility of them being morally neutral.

Finally, he mentions that it is not God’s intention that humans should live in abject poverty, or live as subsistence farmers barely surviving from crop to crop. He says that God’s intention is that we should enjoy the abundance of the planet’s resources. As an aside, I don’t think he’s objecting to people growing most of their own food, but merely to the fact that most human beings who do so live pretty much on the absolute poverty line.

So what does Grudem miss out?

The notable things that are missing in this brief survey of a Christian worldview is anything that points out that the two defining features of the 21st Century Western worldview (consumerism and individualism) are not Biblical. Both viewpoints have very significant implications for our view of a wide variety of political issues. By omitting them, some of Grudem’s conclusions on the implications of a Christian worldview are incomplete (in particular, some of what he says under the heading of sin, and what he says about consumer goods when it comes to using the world’s resources). Let’s look at them in turn.

Consumerism

In Western society, you are defined, in large part, by the things that you own. You are judged primarily on factors like the brand of clothes that you wear, whether you own your home or or rent it, or which smartphone you own. Those without the latest and “greatest” consumer goods are looked down on.

This is a complete contrast to the Biblical view of possessions. Christians are not to judge people according to their wealth and possessions (James 2:2-4), we are to be content in our circumstances (Hebrews 13:5), we are not to worry about our basic material needs (Matthew 6:25-33), and are to give generously and sacrificially out of what we have (2 Corinthians 9:6-11, Mark 12:41-44). Whilst we are not necessarily called to give up all the comforts of the place and time in which we live (though the call to simple living is absolutely prophetic), we should stand out as examples of people who do not make idols of consumer goods.

And this should have a profound effect on Christian views of politics. It should make us exceedingly cautious about pursuing greater wealth for the already rich nations in which we live at the expense of policies that will benefit the poorest in the world. It should make us wary of policies that will entrench the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poorest within our society. It should make us more enthusiastic towards policies that will prevent the rich from having a greater political voice than the poor. And, above all, it will ensure that we stand out by advocating policies that put people before possessions and profit.

Individualism

One of the striking things about Western societies over the last few decades is how much we have moved away from valuing community. In the UK, pretty much every institution that provides community has shrunk since the days when Margaret Thatcher famously proclaimed that there was “no such thing as society”. Social clubs, trade unions, political parties, churches, and even marriages have seen declining rates of participation. As I understand it, this is something that’s occurring across the Western world. We see ourselves as individuals first, and members of a wider community second, if at all.

And this is a profoundly unbiblical way of seeing the world. Whilst God holds us to account individually for our actions, He also holds us to account as a community. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples in the Old Testament of God holding cities and nations to account for their collective actions. Most of the New Testament letters are written to communities of believers, rather than to individuals – and 1 Corinthians 12:14-27 makes it crystal clear that Christianity is something that can only be properly worked out in community.

In terms of politics, this means that we cannot take a purely individualistic approach to issues. There are some cases where we much take collective, rather than individual, responsibility. Whilst individual sin is very real, there are also collective sins that a community can commit. This may be in the form of sinful social practises. It may be that the structures and institutions we build encourage particular sins, that they systematically discriminate (e.g. institutional racism), or that they remove any sense of individual responsibility for certain actions (e.g. de facto slavery in sweatshops).

Basically, Christians should be aware of the possibility of communal and institutional sin. Our politics should aim to minimise its effects and ensure that it does not prevent justice being done for the poor and marginalised within our societies. In an age where every man looks to his own interest above those of others, we should do the opposite (Philippians 2:4), and our politics should not mimic the world in this respect (Romans 12:2)

Bookmark to:

We’ve already touched on this issue a couple of times in this series. In the post about what isn’t a Christian view of politics we established that the state should not compel a particular religion, nor should it seek to exclude religion from the political sphere. We also established that Christians should value freedom of religion. In the post on what is a Christian view of politics we looked at some of what that means in practice.

In this section, Grudem looks at three specific areas where these issues come into focus for a Christian. However, he does not directly deal with the issue of having an established church, like the Church of England is in England. Which is hardly surprising, given that he’s focused entirely on issues relevant to the USA.

What about the law of Moses?

This section is fairly brief look at whether Christians should, in our political engagement, seek to apply the 613 laws God gave to Moses in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Grudem deals with this by pointing out that these laws were given in a specific context (including that Israel was supposed to be a theocracy, an arrangement which we already ruled out). However, there are certainly some principles that can be drawn out of them. For example, observing the sabbath is an issue of conscience, but the principle of having a day of rest is exceedingly good for practical reasons.

What Government Can’t Do

Here, Grudem goes back to the foundations of Christianity. He points out that, for Christians, any society’s greatest need is to hear and respond to the gospel – the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. And then goes on to point out that this is clearly something that government pays no real part in. He goes on to say that, if we want to see a transformed society that better reflects a genuinely Christian view, then that requires people who have been inwardly transformed. A nation of genuine Christians living out their faith is the only way to to change the behaviour of a nation to genuinely reflect God’s morality.

However, Grudem then points out that government does have a role to play in moral convictions and behaviours of a nation. He says that the personal conduct of a nation’s leaders, and the laws that they pass set an example that the rest of the nation is more likely to follow. As one example of this, he suggests that the reason that British Christians have radically different views on the morality of gun ownership from Christians in the State of Arizona, where he lives, is because of the gun laws in their respective countries. He doesn’t bring up any examples where the general public has clearly ignored both examples, but they would only serve to show that government example isn’t the only factor.

Church and State

Finally, Grudem looks directly at the issue of the relationship between church and state. He begins by going back to the principle established in earlier chapters (from Matthew 22:21) that establishes that there are separate spheres of church and state.

The first clear implication is that the church (as an institution) should not have control of the actions of government, and Grudem cites an example of Jesus refusing to exercise a function of government in Luke 12:13-14.

The second is that the government should not interfere with the church. Firstly, it shouldn’t prevent anybody from exercising the freedom to choose their own religious beliefs. Secondly, it has no business interfering in the internal affairs of any given church. Here, Grudem cites various examples in New Testament of church leaders being chosen by the church with no interference from the state.

The third implication Grudem draws out is that government should support and encourage churches and bona-fide religious groups in general, although he doesn’t elaborate on what he measn by “bona-fide religious groups” (is he thinking of Scientology?) He justifies this in terms of the government’s responsibility to “promote the general welfare”, and cites as examples of this the tax-exempt status of religious organisations and support for chaplains in the military and prisons.

Finally, he acknowledges that we won’t always agree about what issues are in the sphere of the church and that of the state.

So what are the implications in Britain?

Because Grudem is writing in a very different context, and because he doesn’t say anything particularly controversial, I thought I’d look at how these principles apply to the issue of the established church here in the UK. Here in the UK, we have a church (the Church of England) that is closely linked with the state. So let’s look at what that entails, and how we should view the various aspects of the arrangement.

The Queen as the Head of the Church

Under the constitution, the Queen has two distinct roles – head of the state and head of the church. In both cases, however, she is pretty much a figurehead. The business of government is carried out by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, Parliament, and the courts. And, although her Majesty theoretically has power of veto over any law, in practice her only influence is as potential advisor to the Prime Minister. The business of the Church of England is carried out by the bishops, the clergy, and the churches – with decisions also made by General Synod, and synods in the dioceses. The monarch has the purely theoretical power of veto over these decisions as well.

The most practical implications of the monarch’s dual status is the role the church plays in coronations and royal weddings. And there the links are entirely ceremonial, rather than something that would confuse the two spheres.

Bishops in the House of Lords

The House of Lords is part of the UK Parliament, and its members are not elected, although that’s not the issue we’re looking at today. Amongst its members are twenty six senior Bishops. The house is a revising chamber – it looks at legislation that has been passed by the elected House of Commons, and scrutinises it to improve the bits that are badly written. It can delay, but not veto, legislation that it feels it cannot pass.

The impact of having Bishops in the house is, in practice, incredibly small. The last time I checked, I couldn’t find any relatively recent piece of legislation where their votes were decisive in the passage of legislation. Most of the time, they are too busy being Bishops to attend the chamber. So their presence is something that is basically symbolic, and which appears to be there to balance out the other side of establishment. It violates the principle of separation of church and state in theory, but makes no practical difference.

Appointment of Bishops

The appointment process for Archbishops and Diocesan Bishops (but not Suffragan Bishops – who serve under a Diocesan Bishop) is that a commission from the church looks at possible candidates and picks two possible candidates. These names are forwarded to the Prime Minister, when then selects one of the names to recommend to the monarch, who then forwards the name back to a church body which formally elects the bishop. Whilst it is extremely rare for the PM to choose the commission’s second-choice candidate, it has been known to happen. Therefore, this process is a clear-cut case of government interfering in the internal affairs of the church, and not Biblical.

General Synod

General Synod is the body that makes Church of England policy. It consists of three houses – the house of Bishops, the house of Clergy, and the house of Laity, all of which are elected by local synods across the nation, and it meets annually. Before its decisions can be put into practice, they have to be debated and approved by Parliament (though Parliament can only veto, not amend). Again, this is a clear cut example of the two spheres not being properly separated.

Miscellaneous Issues

There are a couple of other issues that are affected by this link.

The first is that some local church decisions are restricted in a way that doesn’t affect other churches. For example, the division of the nation into parishes, each with its own distinct CofE Church is set by law. I don’t know what the process is to change the boundaries to merge two churches, or to let a new church plant have parish boundaries of its own. But I do know that it cannot be changed by decisions made within the church. Which is, again, the state interfering in the internal affairs of the church.

The second is the issue of worship in schools. Whilst this is not, strictly speaking, anything to do with establishment, it’s a related issue. The law requires that all state schools have a daily act of worship, which must be of a broadly Christian character. In practice, this law is widely flouted (particularly in secondary schools) – acts of worship either don’t happen, or are presented as something akin to a secularised thought for the day. However, the fact that the law does exist is a clear-cut case of government jumping into the realm of the church. Furthermore, because the vast majority of teachers do not have a genuine Christian faith, when the acts of worship do take place, they often have the effect of giving kids a wrong impression of Christianity. Seeing teachers who don’t believe in Christ leading a supposedly Christian act of worship teaches them that Christianity equals hypocrisy.

Conclusions

My conclusion is that the current established status of the Church of England gives government excessive power over the internal affairs of the church, whilst giving the church some fairly nominal power over government in return. This arrangement is not in tune with Biblical teaching on the issue, so I am in favour of disestablishment.

Bookmark to:

What are freedom and liberty?

Grudem uses the terms freedom and liberty fairly interchangeably, but doesn’t define them. Which is unfortunate, because this is a concept that means radically different things to different people. Fidel Castro and George W Bush both see themselves as men who have fought for freedom, but both men would consider the other man’s government to be tyrannical. So what does Grudem mean by the concept, and is his view coherent?

The first thing to notice is that Grudem appears to view liberty and freedom as an absolute concept, rather than a situational one. Or, to put it more simply, he thinks of freedom as a thing in itself. It isn’t just a collection of things you can do (freedom of speech) and/or a collection of things that can’t be done to you (freedom from persecution). It is, instead, the ability to choose for yourself what you do with every second of your time, every cent of your money, and every possession that you own (and that he implies that the proceeds of taxation rightfully belong to the taxpayer, rather than to the government).

The main problem I have with this approach to the idea of freedom is that individual freedoms are, in practice, often incompatible with each other. If my next-door neighbour exercises his freedom to have a wild party, then I may not be able to exercise my freedom to have a quiet night in. These freedoms cannot both be exercised at the same time, and Grudem’s treatment of the subject shows no awareness of that.

The Biblical Case

Grudem’s Biblical case begins with pointing out some Bible passages that oppose the idea of slavery, and celebrate freedom from oppression. He also cites Leviticus 25:10, which contains a proclamation of liberty for the year of jubilee. However, he omits to mention that the following verse (Leviticus 25:11) bans the Israelites from agricultural work during that year. In context, the verse is not talking about absolute liberty to do anything you like.

And that’s a real problem with the whole argument. Grudem interprets any verse that talks about a specific freedom to be supporting liberty in general. But freedom from (or for) one thing does not necessarily imply freedom from (or for) something else. If I endorse the freedom to hold whatever religious beliefs you like, that doesn’t necessarily imply that I also endorse the freedom to put all of those beliefs into practice, let alone the freedom to do something that is unrelated to those beliefs. And yet that’s exactly the kind of implication that Grudem draws from these passages.

Grudem’s other Biblical argument is to cite a number of verses that encourage individual choice. However, all of the verses he cites are encouraging people to choose to follow God, and therefore of very limited relevance to the question of the purpose of government. And one of them (Joshua 24:15) goes on to talk about the choices made by a household, suggesting that it is about a corporate choice, rather than an individual one (and there’s a case to be made that Deuteronomy 30:19, which he also cites is also talking about corporate choices).

Furthermore, Grudem ignores the Biblical arguments for restricting choice. A dozen pages earlier, he was arguing (as we covered on Monday) that anarchy was bad because a lack of government meant that “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (i.e. choosing for themselves). He also doesn’t mention something else that we covered on Monday, that every human being being is a sinner. From a Christian/Biblical worldview, human nature is naturally inclined to make morally wrong choices. This doesn’t mean that every choice we make is morally wrong, merely that there is a human tendency towards doing the wrong thing.

In Grudem’s favour, yes, there are plenty Bible passages that speak positively of human beings having freedom to choose things for ourselves. But it certainly isn’t the big emphasis that he makes it out to be in this section and elsewhere in the book.

The Practical Case

Grudem does point out that there are a whole range of things that are good for a society that come from giving people freedom to make their own choices about a range of issues although, again, he doesn’t point out the other side of the coin. Whilst freedom allows some people to donate their time and resources to noble and charitable causes, it allows others to donate them to ignoble and destructive pursuits.

The other thing that Grudem ignores in his practical case is that – in a democratic society – the actions of government are (at least in theory) a result of the people exercising their freedom. Often a restriction on one particular freedom or liberty is done because the people value another more highly (for example, restrictions on car manufacturers may increase the freedom to breathe clean air). At other times, a democratic decision to restrict a freedom may not bring another freedom, but may instead be a collective decision to abstain from using the freedom in question.

Is regulation anti-liberty?

Grudem finishes this section by acknowledging that some restriction of human liberty is necessary, but claims that it should be restricted to the minimum amount necessary, and that it should not be used to restrict things that are morally neutral or morally good. He also argues that government regulation necessarily removes human liberty. Let’s look at that claim through using Grudem’s first example of this, a ban on shops providing customers with plastic bags:

it would force me to use paper bags. This deprives me of my liberty to choose which kind of bag I want. But I cannot carry nearly as many paper bags as plastic bags from the car to the house, because the paper bags break and tear more easily. Therefore, every trip to the grocery store will now require some additional trips between the car and the house, an incremental loss of human liberty for every citizen. The paper bags also take more storage room and don’t work as well for certain other tasks, so there is another small loss of liberty. Perhaps some people think this insignificant, and perhaps others think that there is an environmental benefit that comes from avoiding plastic bags, and that is worth the price of depriving the citizens a small amount of liberty in this way. I do not. But my point is simply to notice that my freedom to use my time as I wish has been eroded a bit, and no one seems to notice that this has happened.

The first thing to note is that this law would not, in fact, force you to use paper bags for your shopping. You would still be free to use bags made of plastic, cotton, hemp, or any other material, just as you were before. The specific example that Grudem refers to (the ban in San Francisco ) allows shops to offer recyclable paper bags, compostable plastic bags and reusable bags, and you would still have the option of using any other bags that you happen to own. The direct impact of this law would actually be to remove the freedom to let the shop (rather than you) make a particular decision about what bags you use.

The second thing to note is that such a law would gain you additional freedoms from its indirect effects. You would, for example, gain freedom from having plastic bags littering the local streets, If you lived near a wast incinerator, you would also gain freedom from breathing in the harmful particles that are emitted when plastic bags are burned. And that’s in addition to the environmental benefits that might come from reducing the number of disposable plastic bags being made.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that Grudem seems unaware that some regulations can actually have the sole effect of increasing the amount of absolute freedom that individuals enjoy. For example, a regulation could increase the number of holiday/vacation days that employers have to give their employees. As an employee is under no obligation to use up all of their holiday, employees lose no freedoms, and would have an increased amount of time where they can make their own choices. Unless the increase in holiday days is very large, its impact on businesses would not cause a noticeable impact on the business’s customers, or a large one to its bottom line. In fact, an extra day’s rest might make employees work better, harder, and more productively, thus benefiting everybody.

—

So, to sum up, I’m not convinced of Grudem’s claim that protecting absolute freedom and liberty to choose everything we can for ourselves should be a main purpose of government (it certainly wasn’t a main purpose of the Roman Empire in which the New Testament was written). But that’s not to say that I don’t think government should promote individual freedoms and liberties wherever possible. One of the purposes of government that we’ve already covered is to promote the common good. And there’s plenty of reason to think that the vast majority of freedoms are good for society.

I also agree with Grudem that you need a good reason in order to justify restricting peoples’ liberties. The difference between us is that I don’t place such a high value on the freedom to do whatever I want, whenever I want, that a small personal inconvenience can override the common good.

Bookmark to:

Punishing evil and rewarding good

Grudem begins by saying that God instituted the concept of human society punishing criminals in Genesis 9:5-6, and that justice is not just about punishing crimes, but also about defending the weak and needy (he cites Psalm 82:2-4), and that punishment should be swift in order to be a deterrent (he cites Ecclesiastes 8:11), although he doesn’t mention the necessity of due process in order to ensure that the correct verdict is reached.

He then goes on into New Testament passages which talk about the same principles, bringing in two Bible passages he relies on repeatedly throughout the book (Romans 13:1-7) and 1 Peter 2:13-14). He points out that, whilst governments are there to punish evil and reward good, not everything that they do is good. He also argues that punishment by government is an instrument of God’s wrath as well being a method of preventing wrogndoing. He also says that the view some Christians (I don’t know who) apparently hold that Matthew 5:39 (turn the other cheek) means that government shouldn’t have a police, judicial, or penal system is wrong, because the passage applies only to personal behaviour.

Whilst the details of Grudem’s argument on Matthew 5:39 feel a little on the weak side (does the passage really rule out a corporate application?), I think he’s got it pretty much right on this issue, even though the way he talks about the state delivering justice makes me feel a little bit uneasy – my instinct is towards a more liberal judicial system which focuses on rehabilitation (an issue which we’ll cover when we get to Grudem’s views on the death penalty).

Anarchy is not an option

As a minor point in establishing the above point, Grudem addresses the question of whether we need government (which really should have been covered earlier). He cites a number of verses from Judges 18-25, which tell some of the most horrific stories in the Bible, and comment that it was because “in those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Concluding, rightly, that anarchy is not something a Christian should welcome. He also says that, even if there was no sin in the world (and hence no need for a judicial system), there would still be a need for government in order to promote things that are for the common good.

Governments are there to serve the people, not the rulers

Grudem points out that rulers abusing their power to enrich themselves, their family, and friends is repeatedly condemned in the Old Testament, and suggests that preventing this requires that rulers have more checks and balances, and are held accountable to the people. Again, this is something that should be self-evident in a democratic society, although even there you don’t have to look too far to see plenty of examples where politicians have violated this principle.

Civil Disobedience

On this issue, Grudem goes back to Romans 13:1-2 and 1 Peter 2:13-14, saying that Christians should, as a matter of course, obey the law of the land. On the other hand, he says that there are clearly cases when we should disobey the law – citing an incident in Acts 4:18-5:20 where the Apostles refused to stop preaching the gospel when commanded not to by the Jewish authorities, and Shadrach Meshach and Abednego being thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to worship an idol in Daniel 3:13-17. He also cites the Egyptian midwives refusing to murder newborn Hebrew boys in Exodus 1:17-21, and a couple of other Biblical examples. His principle is that it is right to disobey the government when obeying them would mean directly disobeying God. This definition is wide enough to allow for things like the Seeds of Hope Ploughshares action, but wouldn’t allow for disregarding laws that happen to be stupid, rather than morally wrong.

He then moves on to the question of whether it can ever be right to overthrow the government. The way this section is written is back-to-front, as Grudem argues that the American Revolution was justified, before looking at the reasons overthrowing a government might be justifiable. He portrays the revolution as an act to defend the people of the thirteen colonies against the tyranny of George III. His account of history comes across as a very one-sided view of that historical era (what I’ve read on the period suggests that George III wasn’t particularly tyrannical, particularly when compared to the standards of the time – and, in any case, Parliament made most of the decisions). I can’t help wondering whether Grudem takes the charges in the Declaration of Independence to be objective fact, rather than the propaganda they were clearly written as.

It’s only after this argument that Grudem points out that there are plenty of examples in the Bible of it being OK to change a government, but doesn’t really say much more on the subject. By the end of this section, I’m left wondering what criteria Grudem thinks sufficient to justify violent overthrow of a government, but judging by his defence of the American Revolution, I get the impression that the bar is set fairly low.

Separation of Powers

After this Grudem argues that, because all humans are sinful (which is a basic Christian belief), we should ensure that there is a strong and clear separation of powers at every level of government, to ensure that no one person or group has too much power to abuse. He points to a number of Bible passages that show abuses of power, the principle in the Old Testament that kings had no authority over priests and prophets, and that the New Testament Church ensured that decisions were made by groups of leaders, rather than a single leader.

Whilst I completely agree that separation of powers within government is a very good idea, the examples Grudem chooses are pretty weak – separation of powers is a way of checking abuse of power, but not the only one ever devised (elections – especially when there’s a recall option – are one alternative), the second example could be considered to be separation of church and state (even though Israel was theoretically a theocracy), and the third is an example from within the church, rather than the government. Which leave us with a fairly weak case for claiming separation of powers to be, in itself, a Biblical principle. At best, it’s one way of limiting the damage caused by human sin.

Rule of Law

Finally (excepting the bits I’ve saved for later), Grudem points out that the rule of law must apply to the rulers of a nation. He cites Deuteronomy 17:18-20 and 2 Samuel 12 as examples of the Bible insisting that even kings (who, in those days, had unchecked power over their kingdoms) had to obey the law and be subject to it in the same way that everybody else is.

—-

So there we have it, the majority of Grudem’s theology of what government is supposed to be there for. There’s not really much I can say as commentary on this, it’s all pretty sound from a theological point of view (mostly because I’ve taken out the controversial bits for a more in-depth look), although the bit on civil disobedience could do with a bit more depth.

Bookmark to:

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, judgemental, 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.

Now, at this point there’s a possibility that some of my non-Christian readers might (mis)interpret that to imply that Grudem wants to set up a theocracy. That is, after all, how a lot of people view the agenda of the Religious Right in the USA – the political tradition which Grudem belongs. However, this definition works just as well for those of us who could be considered the Religious Left.

So, in order to clarify the intent for these readers, I’m going to retitle the viewpoint “Significant Christian Involvement in Politics” (after all, this approach doesn’t guarantee even the smallest amount of influence). And draft a more concise definition as follows:

Christians should be actively involved in political activity, drawing their political principles from their Christian faith – as defined by the teachings of the Bible – and doing so in an attitude of Christian love, rather than being angry, hateful, and judgemental. Christians should ensure that the way we do politics protects freedom of religion and the right to disagree, but does not compromise any aspect of our Christian beliefs.

In explaining what this means in practice, Grudem begins by defending the idea that there is a right interpretation of the Bible, as well as areas where Christians disagree on the issues. He then objects to theologically liberal interpretations of the Bible. However, his target in this section is really the secular commentator who insists that Christians who are consistent should follow the Law of Moses, without considering the way that the New Testament interprets those laws. Grudem then gives a number of Biblical and historical examples of the kind of influence he is talking about, from Daniel through to Martin Luther King.

Can we enforce moral standards?

And it’s at this point that Grudem goes into the first issue in the book where I think that he is completely and unambiguously wrong. He says that some people raise the issue of prohibition as an example of how you can’t legislate morality (true). His response to this is to say that it means that you can’t (successfully) enforce moral standards on a population where those standards are stricter than the standards of the Bible.

The problem with Grudem’s argument here is that the Bible itself shows that you can’t successfully enforce its moral standards on the population. This is proved time and time again in the Old Testament, when the nation of Israel fails to even come close to meeting the standards of the law of Moses. And then New Testament books like Romans and Galatians make it crystal clear that for somebody who is not a Christian to come close to keeping those moral standards is impossible. The correct lesson to draw from prohibition is surely that you cannot impose moral standards on a population where those standards are significantly higher/stricter than the population is willing to accept. It is certainly not that you can successfully impose moral standards as long as the standards are Biblical.

Should a candidate’s religion affect our vote?

Grudem then goes on to state that Christians should vote based on a candidate’s polices, rather than whether they are a Christian or not, citing God’s use of various pagan kings throughout the BIble, and citing his own support for Mormon candidates in the past. He’s completely right on this one, a Christian standing for office could easily be incapable of doing the job he or she is standing for, or have political views which are wrong, or even dangerous.

Personally speaking, I would only consider a candidate’s religious views to be a major issue if it directly affected their policies, if it directly affected their ability to do the job, or if the only other substantial differences between candidates were ones that I didn’t care about. Of course, in the first two cases it’s not the religious beliefs themselves that are the issue.

Where do we get our moral compass?

Grudem then goes on to make the contentious claim that, “without Christian influence, governments will have no clear moral compass.” Now, I see the point that he’s making – that governments and political parties need consistent moral principles, and that Christians should consider Christianity to be the best place to get those principles. But the way he states it feels rather misleading.

There are plenty of other religions and philosophies that can provide politicians with a clear moral compass, whether that be Islam, Marxism, or Humanism. As a Christian, I believe these moralities to have significant flaws. But in most cases it would be untrue to portray their moral principles as not being clear.

Furthermore, in practice, all Western democracies exist in a pluralist society. And, as such, if our democracies are acting as they are supposed to, elected politicians will have a wide variety of religious and philosophical beliefs. Which means that government should (again, if the system is genuinely democratic) reflect those philosophies to some degree.

Preaching on politics

He then says that church leaders have a responsibility to teach on political issues. This is something that should be a no-brainer. The Bible speaks to a massive range of issues, some of which are political – of course churches should preach on those issues. He does, however, sound a note of caution by pointing out that preachers should be cautious about issues where there is more room for disagreement about what the Bible teaches, and not preach on issues where the Bible is silent.

He also says that church leaders need to avoid placing too much emphasis on politics – after all, not everything the Bible says is directly political. He also says that preaching on political issues does not equate to endorsing a particular party or candidate. All of which is pretty much unarguable except, perhaps, for the details of where you draw the line.

Do we have democratic obligations?

Finally, Grudem says something about the obligations all Christians (as opposed to those with a particular calling to politics) living in a democracy should feel bound by. He starts by saying that we should all be informed and vote, citing the principle of stewardship (that God expects us to make responsible and fruitful use of everything He has given us – in this case democratic rights).

He also challenges Christians to consider whether each of us has a “higher obligation than merely voting”. He bases this on the question of whether it is “morally right to receive great benefits from a nation but to give nothing in return.” (emphasis his). Whether you’re a Christian or not, if you’ve never thought about that question, it’s definitely worth pondering.

Bookmark to:

In this chapter, Grudem critiques five wrong views about this question, he’ll go on to outline what he believes to be the correct view in chapter two (which we’ll look at on Wednesday). The five wrong views are:

* Government should compel religion
* Government should exclude religion
* All government is evil and demonic
* Do evangelism, not politics
* Do politics, not evangelism

Lets look at each of these views in turn:

Government should compel religion

Grudem starts by pointing out that this is a view that is not held by any significant Christian group today, and points out that it is clearly ruled out by Jesus in Matthew 22:20-21, alongside several other passages. He also draws out the principle that Christian faith cannot be forced upon somebody.

Grudem then draws out some implications from this – the biggest being that Christians should be staunchly in favour of freedom of religion. The other main implication is that there is no Biblical warrant for having an established church with formal and financial links to the state, and that he believes that it does more harm to the church in question than good, although he sees no problem with religious organisations having exemptions from taxes, as long as such things are open to all religions.

Government should exclude religion

This view is that religion should be completely excluded from government functions and property, and from all political or governmental decision-making processes. Grudem attributes this view to a number of secular organisations in the US (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State). Whilst I don’t know whether this is an accurate representation of their views, I have certainly come across atheists who think along these lines.

Grudem’s arguments against such a view begin with those from general principles. He points out that such a system would not be democratic and would violate the principles of both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. He then brings in a number of Biblical examples that show Jews or Christians having an influence over a variety of pagan rulers, before concluding that such a viewpoint is clearly at odds with a genuinely Christian worldview.

All Government is evil and demonic

Grudem goes into some depth on this one, quoting Greg Boyd’s book The Myth of a Christian Nation, which, in Grudem’s analysis (I haven’t read the book, so can’t comment on whether this is an accurate representation), hinges on a misinterpretation of Luke 4:6 to say that all government is ultimately in the hands of the Devil. Grudem also points out that Boyd’s argument ignores numerous Bible passages that place God, rather than the Devil, as the one ultimately in charge of human history and the many Bible passages that speak positively of government. He also goes off on a tangent in critiquing Boyd’s particular version of pacifism – an argument which would have been better placed in the chapter dealing with national defence (and I’ll critique Grudem’s arguments on the issue when I get there).

Do evangelism, not politics

This view says that the only way Christians can change society for the better is to preach the gospel message and so change peoples’ hearts. Grudem’s response is to say that the gospel message, if preached fully, includes both transformation of society and doing good for others. He also points out that the Bible portrays both evangelism and politics as means to restrain evil (citing 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Romans 13:1-3), before pointing out a number of examples of Christianity having a positive influence on governments, from outlawing cruel practises in the Roman Empire through to the Civil Rights Movement.

Grudem then briefly deals with two arguments used in favour of this approach. The first is based on the idea that there’s no point given that some Bible passages predict persecution of Christianity in the end times. Grudem’s response is simple: if previous generations of Christians had taken that approach, the good things he’s listed wouldn’t have happened. The second is that politics is a distraction from the main task of preaching the gospel. Grudem, however, points out that Christians are called to different ministries (citing 1 Corinthians 12). And also that Christian involvement in politics will be done primarily by those Christians whom God has called to a political ministry, in the same way as some Christians might be called particularly to social action, childrens’ ministry, or working the church’s sound system.

Do politics, not evangelism

This was the view of the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Grudem claims that such a view is a straw man when applied to Christian groups today, although all the groups he cites are Evangelical ones. I expect that there are plenty in the liberal wing of Christianity (which, by and large, doesn’t do evangelism) who hold to this kind of view, at least in practice. Grudem then says that changing a society to one that is in harmony with a Christian worldview requires both evangelism and political action, as well as Christians teaching the whole Bible and thinking through the implications of Christianity.

Reading through that, there’s very little that I would consider controversial (the pacifism bit is the only one), but it all needs to be established before we can meaningfully discuss what a Christian/Biblical approach to politics looks like.

Bookmark to:

What struck me was that he was basically talking in political language, talking about how he hopes everybody in the city can get along with each other. There wasn’t really a hint in what he said or how he said it that he was talking to an audience of Christians. It reminded me of a talk I heard by Stephen Timms, a noted Christian politician, and then a minister, at the conference of a Christian debt counselling organization. Again, the speech was almost entirely a political one, with little religious content or context.

On both occasions, what was said left me somewhat uninspired and hoping for something which was explicitly Christian. They are also somewhat in contrast to how I approached specifically religious questions when I was doing hustings during the election. When asked, at a hustings hosted by a Catholic church, what inspiration I drew from the person of Jesus I basically talked about my own faith, and how the godly desire to speak up for the weak and the poor was a key factor in my decision to get into politics. And giving that answer was, in fact, my favourite moment of the campaign.

If my political involvement ultimately leads to me speaking to Christian audiences, I hope that both my content and my style are more like my answer to that hustings question than they are to what I heard from those other politicians. It seems strange to me that, even in a specifically Christian context, Christian politicians are often reluctant to put their faith to the forefront. If we are truly obeying the Biblical call to follow Christ, we should not be shy in talking about it, or in bringing specifically Christian perspectives when talking to other believers.

And whilst it’s right in a multi-cultural society that our faith should not be centre-stage when debating policy issues (as we would then never convince those of other faiths or none of our point of view), it should surely be a good idea to talk about it when engaging, as politicians, with communities from other faiths. Whilst there are clear differences between Christianity and other religions, there are certainly perspectives that we hold in common with other faiths that are not shared by those with no faith. And talking about those perspectives would surely enable our message to be heard more effectively.

Bookmark to:

Of the six national parties with enough support to obtain Euro MPs, there are two that I consider to be particularly in conflict with Christian values. The first is the BNP – who are both racist and fascist. Their whole ethos is direct conflict with the core of the gospel. The second is UKIP. Whilst their central policy is an issue which is morally neutral, the party seems to be dominated by those with a “little Englander” mentality.

Of the remaining four parties, the Green Party’s values seem to me to match Biblical values a bit more than the other parties. They also match my political instincts, which may well colour my judgement.

So what are the values which attracted me to the Green Party?

Ecological Wisdom

The first, and most distinctive, of these values is the party’s commitment to the environment. Whilst Labour and the Tories talk about this issue a lot and the Lib Dems have a few good environmental policies, the Greens are the only party which considers how we treat the Earth as an issue of first importance. This is particularly important as we live in an era where climate change is one of the biggest dangers to the future of human civilisation.

This commitment to the environment is very close to the Bible’s teaching about how we are to relate to the rest of creation – we are to be good stewards of it, and practise what is increasingly being called “creation care”.

Social Justice

The Greens are strongly committed to the cause of the poor, both in this country, and globally. Unlike Labour, whose current leadership has downplayed its socialist roots (which, incidentally, largely lie in Christian Socialism), the Greens still put the welfare of the poor as a matter of high priority.

This commitment is, of course, a major theme of the Bible. If you don’t think that God hates injustice and oppression of the poor, then you either haven’t read the Bible or haven’t understood it.

Long-Term Perspective

The Greens are the only major UK party whose policies plan for the long term. The big three parties are particularly guilty of not doing this. Their policies, when they actually have any, seem to be driven primarily by short-term factors – being geared towards the next election, or making a splash in the press. The Greens may not take as long-term a perspective as God does, but they certainly aren’t as short-sighted as the other parties.

Nonviolence

The Green Party is committed to non-violent solutions to conflicts. Whilst I believe that some wars (such as World War 2) are a necessary evil, I believe that this approach to conflict fits far better with what Jesus taught (turn the other cheek, bless those who curse you, etc.) than the pro-war stances that Labour, the Tories and, to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems have taken over the last couple of decades.

Grassroots Democracy

Unlike the big three parties, the Greens are run from the bottom up. There isn’t central vetting of the activities or decisions of local parties, which means there are more opportunities to get involved at a practical level, and that local candidates actually have roots in the communities they seek to represent. It also means that the leaders aren’t behaving like the rulers that Jesus condemned in Luke 22:25, and imposing their leadership on the membership.

Focus on Community

The Greens are big on the value of community when it comes to economics. The major parties all agree that particular economic indicators (particularly economic growth) are the main measure of a successful country. The Greens, however, take a wider view, considering non-economic factors to be equally important. Society is viewed from a holistic viewpoint and not primarily in terms of how much money it produces.

Overall Values

Whilst there are certainly factions within each of the big three parties that tend towards most of these values (the Compassionate Conservatives in the Tory Party, the grassroots socialists in the Labour Party, and the Social Democratic wing of the Lib Dems), I believe that the Green Party reflects the Biblical view the most. There are areas where Greens tend not to be as much inline with Biblical values, and other areas where they don’t particularly stand out. However, in the 21st Century Western world, it is my belief that the values I have outlined are particularly important. The major challenges of our era demand this kind of approach to politics in order to find solutions. And that’s why I chose to join the Green Party rather than any of the others.

Bookmark to:

So how should Christians approach politics?

Christians should be “salt and light”

Jesus said that Christians are to be salt and light in society (Matthew 5:13-16). Back in the first century, salt was used mostly to stop things from going off. Light is, of course, what enables us to see things. What Jesus meant by these two metaphors is to say that Christians should, by the way we live, stop things from going corrupt and make it easier for people to see God through our actions and lifestyles.

For those of us involved in politics, that means that we should be beyond reproach in our conduct and serve as good examples to others. If there had been more MPs who had taken a biblical approach to the use of money and who were clearly seen to do so by other MPs, then would there have been the same culture of entitlement that caused the recent scandal about MPs expenses? Perhaps so, but at least it would have been less severe.

Such an approach should apply to money, campaign tactics, the way Christians in elected office serve their constituents, the way we relate to others within our party, and pretty much every aspect of political life. We are to demonstrate the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control) in all that we do.

Christians should not aim to create a Theocracy

Whilst the Bible is clear that Jesus will, ultimately, directly rule over the whole Earth, it is also clear that, whilst God is still sovereign, this will not happen until He returns. Therefore, Christians should not try to preempt Him by trying to use the force of law to enforce Christianity (or, rather, the outward appearance of Christian behaviour) onto the kind of pluralistic society that exists in the Western world.

What I mean by this is not that Christians should not use the political process to fight against injustice or to help support institutions like the family. What I do mean is that politics should not be our first resort. In a representative democracy, politics tends to follow the culture (except, perhaps, when there are large sums of money involved) rather than lead it.

Unless we first win over public opinion to our point of view on an issue, any attempt to change things through our involvement in the political process is doomed to failure. An attempt to ban a sinful activity is likely to simply drive it underground (as happened in the US during the era of prohibition) unless people are convinced to abandon it. An attempt to stamp out an injustice needs enough public support to create the necessary political will in order to succeed, and that may take years or decades to create.

In short, Christians should be strategic in the way we engage with politics. If we wish to be salt and light, then we must pick the political battles we can realistically win and seek other strategies on those we cannot.

Christianity must not be equated with a political agenda

Whilst there are certainly political positions that are incompatible with Christianity (e.g. support for apartheid), and others that clearly arise from it (e.g. the campaign to abolish slavery), there is no one political party, election platform, or policy agenda that can properly be described as Christian. There are many issues, particularly in a 21st Century context, where God is silent, and there are others where a wide range of positions are compatible with what He has said.

Yes, our political views should ultimately come from the moral values we get from our faith. However, we must avoid portraying our personal politics as being the only political platform that is compatible with Christianity. That doesn’t mean that we can’t allow others to see the association between our faith and our politics. Terms such as “Christian Socialist” “Christian Democrat”, or even “Green Christian” make it clear that, whilst our politics are shaped by our faith, there are other political positions that Christians can legitimately take.

Ultimately, we must make it clear that our politics are not the core of our faith. Jesus, and particularly His death and resurrection, are.

Bookmark to:

In today’s world there are many different takes on how faith and politics should interact. At one extreme, some within America’s Religious Right or in the Liberation Theology camp have been known to treat their faith as, essentially, a political ideology. At the other, there are some Christians who believe that politics is too worldly to pursue and some atheists who think that religion should be kept away from politics at all costs.

I would suggest that neither extreme is healthy or helpful. Christians, and those from other faiths, should be free to bring our faith into the political sphere without being criticised for doing so. But equally we must recognise that there are ways of doing so that are unhelpful and counterproductive, and seek to avoid those.

Before looking at the question of how Christians should do politics, however, we should first look at the reasons why Christians should do politics. I believe that there are three things that are key to any Christian understanding of politics.

The Bible neither commands nor forbids individual Christians to be involved in politics.

The New Testament doesn’t explicitly teach about Christian involvement in politics. However, it does provide us with clear evidence that there were Christians who were both involved in politics (the proconsul of Cyprus in Acts 13) and that many Christians were from social groups whose only method of political involvement would have been rioting (1 Corinthians 1:26). In the New Testament, politics was neither commanded for believers nor was it forbidden.

Sometimes our faith demands political action

Jesus summarised the law of Moses in two commandments. Firstly, we are to love God with our entire being. Secondly, we are to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. Jesus then defined “neighbour” so wide that it includes groups of people that we hate (Luke 10:25-37). If we are to genuinely attempt to fulfil the second of these commands, then we will eventually end up getting involved in politics.

If, for example, a church runs a homeless shelter and discovers that a particular law is causing people to lose their homes, how can they say they love the people they serve unless they campaign for the law to be changed? The only circumstance in which they could justify staying out of politics is if there is no chance that the law in question could be repealed or if there was a strong chance that the campaign would actually make things worse.

We should, of course, remember that one person or one church cannot do everything, and focus our efforts to love others on the specific things we believe God has called us to. But to deny ourselves the option of going into politics is to admit that our love for others is only skin-deep.

Our Christian faith should shape our political views

Christianity is not a faith that can be compartmentalised. The Bible contains teaching on every aspect of life. The two great commandments clearly touch on every aspect of the way we live our lives. Therefore Christians cannot engage in politics in a way that leaves our faith behind. Equally, politics without a firm foundation of moral values (such as the ones that religious faith provides) becomes short-term opportunism and a desperate grasping for power.

Religion and politics cannot be separated without diminishing both.

Bookmark to: