Home » Academics » Lecture Hall

WWJD: How Would Jesus Vote? (Jesus, Politics and the State)

The Sacred and the Secular

Not long ago I watched a political dialogue on national television. During the discussion, a teaching of Jesus was mentioned as support for one person's views. He was immediately chastised: "I am a born again Christian," his opponent said, "and I don't want my Lord Jesus to be dragged into politics!" Regarding political issues, I once heard a preacher announce that "Jesus doesn't take sides, He takes over."

There is something right about these assertions. Clearly, Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and Jesus' agenda for the world is not essentially political. But if we are not careful, we will continue to promote the Achilles Heel of Western Christianity: a secular/sacred dichotomy in which one's religion relates to one's private life and secularism is the proper stance to take when dealing with public issues.

Such a dichotomy was not present in biblical days, nor is it true of contemporary cultures outside the West. Those in biblical days and currently outside the West embrace more of an integrated worldview in which their religious views inform all other aspects of their lives and not just a private "religious" compartment.

Once, while preaching at a large church, I asked the congregation, "Do Jesus and the Bible teach things that are relevant to science and evolution, to assessing secular psychology, to economics and the role of money in life, to history, literature, art and sports?" Heads nodded approvingly around the congregation. I then asked, "Do Jesus and the Bible teach things that are relevant to politics?" A deafening silence ensued. I went on to say that while Jesus is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, there are things He taught about morality, the state, and the church which a believer should factor into his political, social and cultural thinking and practice. So we should ask, "What did Jesus teach that is relevant to a believer's view of politics and the state?"

Guides for the Investigation

Let's remind ourselves that the question, "What would Jesus think or do?" must be approached properly and with great care. Otherwise, we risk creating a Jesus who — surprise — looks just like us. If one approaches Jesus with either a democratic or republican agenda, Jesus will turn out to be just a big Ted Kennedy or Bill Frist in the sky! I once met a man from Dallas who assured me with a straight face that Jesus was a huge Cowboys fan! Without some objective controls, we may approach the question by projecting our own views onto Jesus.

I believe three principles should guide our investigation.

The first principle regards Old Testament teaching. When looking at this issue biblically, I believe one should avoid using commands about what Israel was or was not to do when those biblical commands seem grounded in the theocratic nature of Israel. Why? Because as we read the Bible in today's world, it is not clear whether Israel is to be considered an analogy of the state or of the covenant community — the church.

As a theocracy, Israel is not a good parallel to the church/state relationship as depicted in the New Testament and in which we now live. It is arguably the case that Israel is a parallel to the church, so that, for example, principles of caring for the poor within Israel should be applied to the church and not the state. If one were to remark that my assertion here is highly controversial, then I would respond that this is precisely my point. Because this interpretive issue is so controversial today (namely, whether Israel is best taken as an analogy of the state or the covenant community), we Christians should try to find common ground on which to build our views of the state. We should avoid controversy if at all possible and when it is needless.

Does this mean that Old Testament teaching is irrelevant? Not at all. Old Testament moral teachings that have nothing to do with the special duties that apply only to the covenant community are relevant (e.g., stealing is wrong because it is an act of taking something without permission that does not belong to the thief. The wrongness of stealing applies to all cultures; stealing is not just wrong because it violates the covenantal arrangement of God with Israel).

More importantly, we should focus our attention on the obligations the Old Testament places on pagan nations (cf. Amos 1 and 2). These would apply directly to the United States. If, for example, the Old Testament places an obligation on pagan kings to provide justice for their subjects or to refrain from defrauding widows and orphans who cannot defend themselves from the powerful, then these obligations would apply to all kings, democracies, and so forth. The obligations are part of the natural moral law that all nations should be able to know and to which they are accountable.

The next two principles are less controversial and can be stated fairly quickly: Second, we should look at explicit assertions of Jesus about the state.

Third, for supplemental information we shall turn to the teachings of those who knew Jesus best — His apostles, the authoritative guardians and disseminators of Jesus' thoughts and deeds and the designated authorities over Jesus' community.

Separation of Church and State

I believe that such an approach yields four conclusions, which I offer to you for your enrichment and reflection: First, Jesus held that the church and state had separate callings and spheres of authority. This is a widely held interpretation of Jesus' assertion, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21, NASB). It follows that a believer could do things as a citizen and representative of the state — be a soldier — that he could not do as a representative of the church (the church cannot field an army, but believers can serve the state this way). Conversely, some argue that the church should do certain things that it is not the state's job to do. For example, some argue that showing compassion is the church's job and not the state's.

Second, the state is responsible to subject itself to natural moral law and not to be under what Scripture says about Israel. Natural moral law is objective moral norms and duties revealed by God in creation that can be known by all people with or without a Bible and whether or not they acknowledge God as its source.

If the state were to be under the purview of Scripture, then the state must be a theocracy, and the Bible accepts only one suitable theocracy: Israel.

To illustrate, the prophet Amos chastises a number of pagan nations for failing to do their duty to their people and he always rests his complaints on self-evident moral truths he assumes these nations know without Scripture (Amos 1). But when he turns to criticize the people of Israel, he faults them for violating the Law of the Lord, (i.e., the revealed Mosaic Law). The covenant community submits to God's commands for Israel; the non-theocratic state is under natural moral law. This is why the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self evident" and does not say "to be grounded in the Bible." God has given enough revelation in nature for the state to do its job.

But exactly what is that job? This question brings us to our third observation. To grasp that observation, we need to make a distinction between positive and negative rights.

If Smith has a positive right to X, say to health care, then the state has an obligation to give X to Smith. A positive right is a right to have something given to the right-holder. If Smith has a negative right to X, say to health care, then the state has an obligation to protect Smith from discrimination and being treated unfairly in his attempt to get X on his own. A negative right to X is a right to be protected from harm while one seeks to get X on one's own.

Now, if you very carefully study the Old Testament prophets and their proclamations about pagan nations along with the three central passages in the New Testament on the state (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, 1 Peter 2:11-17), I believe it becomes clear that the state is to protect negative rights and not to provide positive rights. If you disagree with this, I invite you to find evidence in these sources to support your view, and then come discuss them in the Coffee Shop Forum.

Politics and Your Worldview

Finally, the state has the obligation of protecting human life, liberty, private property and the traditional family. This can be seen in three ways:

1. From the three New Testament texts just cited, the state is to preserve order and stability so people can live peaceful lives, without fear of harm. Among other things, this stability and order place a duty on the state to protect the lives of its subjects, to guard various liberties they should have, and to protect them from bodily harm, false accusation, murder and theft. These protections are all essential for preserving social stability and order and for treating subjects as persons with intrinsic value. And, arguably (and I admit I cannot provide details of such argumentation here), preserving the traditional family is in the state's best interests because the traditional family best socializes people to preserve order and stability.¹
2. These duties of the state are peppered throughout the Old Testament prophets as they address pagan nations. By "pagan nations" I mean what the prophets mean, namely, all states besides the one true theocracy — Israel. These prophetically endorsed duties are meant by God to govern all nations and are part of the natural moral law as Amos and other prophets assume.
3. The second half of the Ten Commandments is widely regarded by Christian ethicists as also being part of the natural moral law. As such, it places these obligations on the state. These commands were reiterated in other ancient Near Eastern law codes as one would expect if they are biblical reiterations of the natural moral law.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What do you think of
Dr. Moreland's criteria for deciding how to think about the role of the state?

Join the discussion!

If I am right in all this, then while the Bible does not tell us for whom to vote, it does give us the resources for developing a Christian worldview about the state just like it does regarding evolution, money and so forth. And recognizing this is no small matter in today's world.