What’s a Christian To Do?
This is an edited
version of the sermon I preached before the 2008 election. Since many people
have asked me to address this issue, I thought I would post it for the 2012
election.
Proverbs 31:1-9 (NIV)1The sayings of King Lemuel—an oracle his mother taught him: 2“O my son, O son of my womb, O son of my vows, 3do not spend your strength on women, your vigor on those who ruin kings. 4It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, 5lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. 6Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; 7let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. 8Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. 9Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
1. You have a responsibility to be diligent
These instructions come to us from King Lemuel and were given to him by his mother. No one knows who Lemuel was, but most scholars believe that he was not an Israelite. Yet, here we have in Holy Scripture some advice he received from his mom. At first glance, it is just some simple homespun wisdom from a mother to a son about what it means to be king, about what it means to have power.
The reason we are
reading these verses is because, in a democracy or a republic, “We, the people”
have power. In our governmental structure, we have been given a great measure
of power. So, the instructions to the kings of old would have direct
application to those of us who live in a democracy. The question is, how are we
going to use the power that has been given to us?
What we see in Lemuel’s mother’s instructions is a
contrast between the worldly use of power and the redemptive use of power.
In verse 4, she tells her son not to drink wine and crave
beer. Now, this is not a prohibition against drinking. If you were to read it
as that, then you would have to read verse 6 as an encouragement for the poor
and oppressed to drown their sorrows in drunkenness. Certainly, the Bible does
not encourage that.
Instead, what these verses say is that rather than using
your power to create your own life of luxury, to be concerned about your own
comfort, your own personal peace and affluence, you are to use your power
redemptively. God has given you power and with this power comes responsibility.
So, take your responsibility to govern seriously. Think soberly about your
responsibility. You need to be diligent in dispensing justice.
Specifically, you need to work hard to see that rights are
protected. You cannot be passive about this. You need to speak up for those who
cannot speak for themselves and defend the rights of the poor and needy.
What does this mean for us? This is a democracy. That
means that “We the people” sit in the place of the king. God has given you
power in the governing process. With that power, comes responsibility.
Millions of people will be impacted by how you engage or
fail to engage in the political process. What you do or don’t do will determine
who will make decisions about healthcare, social security, the economy, the war
on terror, energy, the Supreme Court, and on and on. That means your involvement
in the political process will indirectly affect who lives, who dies, who gets
financial help, who does not. It is a big deal and you must accept it as a big
deal.
You might say, “I don’t care for any of the candidates.
So, I don’t want to vote for someone who does not share all of my views. John
Piper says this:
“There is no escape from responsibility by pointing out
the imperfections of leaders. That is the only kind of leaders there will ever
be. Our calling in this world is not to wait for the arrival of the perfect,
but to pick our way through the thicket of flaws. We would be arrogant to put
ourselves above this fray and say, "A curse on both your houses."”
If you have the right to vote, then you cannot lay aside
the responsibility because you don’t like the options. That would be a neglect
of your power and dereliction of duty.
2. You have a responsibility to act justly
We live in a pluralistic society. That is, in our country,
there no longer is a shared consensus of morals, ethics, and values. So, the
question is, is it proper for Christians to bring their biblical teaching to
bear on public life? Does religion have any place in the public square?
This issue came up a few years ago in regards to embryonic
stem cell research. President Bush said the following:
“…scientists believe further research using stem cells
offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from
many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's
to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain,
they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.”
He goes on to say that while stem cells can be derived
from sources other than embryos, “most scientists, at least today, believe that
research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells
have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.”[i]
Yet, even though embryonic stem cell research seems to
hold such great promise, President Bush was opposed to it. Why? He opposes it,
not on scientific grounds, but on moral grounds. In order to harvest stem cells
from embryos, you must kill the embryo. If you believe that an embryo is a
human being, then to destroy that human life—even for something as noble as
finding a cure for terrible diseases—is still morally wrong. It is morally
wrong to kill human beings for the purpose of scientific research.
The President’s policy sparked a firestorm. At the center
of this firestorm was Christopher Reeve. Christopher Reeve is the actor most
famous for playing Superman, who died due to complications from a spinal
injury. Reeve, along with many others, had hoped that embryonic stem cell
research might hold the cure to his injury. In commenting on the President’s
policy, Reeve said: "It is my
belief that when matters of public policy are being debated, no religion should
have a seat at the table,"[ii]
However, it is impossible to separate one’s religious
beliefs from one’s beliefs about public policy because all of us have values
and those values must come from someplace. Everyone believes that we should
have values and be governed by those values. But the question is, how do we
arrive at values?
For example, without referring to God, why should we find
a cure for spinal injuries or Parkinson’s disease as Christopher Reeve and
Michael J. Fox suggest? One might say that we
should do so because human life is valuable. But, how do you know it is
valuable? Science does not tell you that human life is valuable. If you want to
go with a pure Darwinian view of life, then it is survival of the fittest.
There is no place in such a worldview for compassion and mercy and caring for
the weak.
If there is no God, how do you determine values? How do
you know what is good and what is evil?
Most people take the Jiminy Cricket view of ethics. That is, they say,
“Let your conscience be your guide.” But whose conscience? Hitler’s or Mother
Teresa’s?
Some ethicists today say that society agrees upon its
values. That raises the question, whose society? When societies disagree about
values, who is to say which is right? Was the North right to impose its values
on the South during the Civil War? In
some cultures, it is acceptable to have Aunt Betty over for dinner in other
cultures it is acceptable to have Aunt Betty for dinner. Are those two cultures
equal?[iii]
In Afghanistan
If you take God out of the equation, then values are
merely social constructs, which means, values are the means by which one group
imposes its will on another. Values and morals then become nothing more than
power plays. If you think I am carrying this to the extreme, I assure you that
I am not. This is the view of many contemporary philosophers and ethicists who
deny God. They believe and are teaching our children that morals are social
constructs that those in power impose on those who are without power as a means
of oppression.
Ultimately, that means that no one can say that one
person’s values are better than anyone else’s. There is no basis for making any
important decisions because there is no compass. Was invading Iraq
Everyone—without exception—brings their values into the
voting booth. No one derives his values from neutral, scientific observation. The
difference is, the Christian seeks to anchor his values—not in his own personal
preference—but in the character of God the Creator.
However, even here, we must be careful as Christians. We
must use our political influence for the sake of justice, but we should not be
confused into thinking that we can bring about revival through political power.
We do not live in a Christian culture. Rather, we are living in a
post-Christian culture. There no longer is a shared consensus. We are living in
an age that is very similar to the Jews who lived in exile in Babylon and the
Christians living in the pagan Roman Empire of the early church.
I do not see
any model in the New Testament where Christians were called to reform the moral
character of the Roman Empire by grabbing the
levers of power. Christians did not march in protest against the Emperor Cult
or the temple prostitutes of Corinth
Leslie Newbigin, a missionary to India kingdom of God
Jesus ushers in His kingdom, not on a warrior’s horse, but
on an executioner’s cross. The reason is, it is only through His suffering,
only through His death, that He can bring about the kingdom of God
As a church, our mission is not to promote any political
agenda. Our mission is to make disciples. In making disciples, we want to
encourage our people to live out their faith in every area of life including
the home, work, leisure, school, money, and politics. At the same time, the Session,
which is the governing body of the church, has made it very clear, that it will
not permit the distribution of campaign literature. Only in very rare cases, will
the church endorse any particular legislation.
In fact, as Presbyterians, our Confession of Faith—which
all of our elders and deacons have taken a vow to uphold—states very clearly
that the church is not to “intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the
commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by
way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by
the civil magistrate.” [WCF. 31-4].
So, there is a difference between what Christians as
responsible citizens should do and what the church as an institution should do.
3. You have a responsibility to care for the weak
8Speak up for those who cannot speak
for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. 9Speak up
and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
It is natural for those who have power to see it as a
means to increase their own comfort, to use it for their own personal gain.
Because of that, it would be easy to go into an election and think, what will I
get out this? Which candidate would be better for me and for my family? Who
will give me the best tax cut or the most government benefits? But, those are
not the right questions. Here, in the climax of her instructions to her son,
the queen mother reminds Lemuel that he is to use his power to give justice to
the poor.
God’s Word is clear that those who are in positions of
power must use their power to defend the powerless. We are to be the defenders
of those who cannot speak for themselves. Certainly, this would include the
unborn. They literally have no voice. They are completely powerless. If we do
not stand up for them, who will? It is our royal duty to protect the weak and
powerless. A failure to come to the aid of these—the most powerless people in
our culture—is clearly negligence.
Yet, the unborn are not the only ones. Minorities—simply
because they are in the minority—do not have the same access to power as those
in the majority. If we are only looking out for our personal interests, then
democracy devolves into a tyranny of the majority.
In this passage, the people that God mentions explicitly
are the poor and needy. We see this same emphasis in the giving of the law in
the Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, as well as in the Old Testament
prophets. This should not be a side issue for Christians, but should be front
and center. The reason is, it is front and center with God. Here, God commands
the king specifically to defend the poor and needy, which is a clear sign that
this is a critical role of government.
One of the things that has upset younger evangelicals is
the way we who are older have cherry-picked the issues of social justice that
concern us. We preach with great passion against the sins of our culture, but
give very little priority in our thinking to this issue. Yet, there are far
more commands and instructions in Scripture in regard to justice for the poor
than there are on issues of sexual morality.
God is
concerned about the poor and the powerless. Here, the king is commanded to
ensure he provides justice for them. Because God is concerned about this issue,
it should be front and center for us as well.
Proverbs 29:7 7 The righteous care about justice
for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.
In Ezekiel, we read why God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
Ezekiel 16:49 49 "'Now this was the sin of
your sister Sodom
Now, we might reasonably differ on what is the best way to
defend the rights of the poor and to see that they are cared for. You can have
two people who care about the poor and yet have radically different views on
which program cares for them best. Government handouts and socialized medicine
are not always the best thing in caring for the poor and oppressed. Just look
at Communism. It did not work very well. On the other hand, a totally free
market economy doesn’t exactly have the best track record, either. To see that,
all one has to do is look at the oppression of the worker during the Industrial
Revolution or visit some of the emerging economies around the globe today. Yet,
even though we might reasonably differ on how we should approach this issue, we
should agree that this is a priority for the Christian. It is not a secondary
issue.
[Note: There are a
number of good books that can help Christians think about how best to
care for the poor. One is Marvin Olasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion.
Another is Brian Fikkert’s When Helping Hurts. I would argue that
promoting charity does far more to care for the poor than does taxation and
government programs, but that is the topic for another post].
The point is, we must see our power as voters, not merely
as a means to make our own lives better, or even to improve the lot of people
like us, but to promote a just and equitable society, with particular concern
for those who have no voice or power themselves.
Many of you have heard of William Wilberforce. He was the
subject of a movie a couple of years ago called “Amazing Grace.” Wilberforce
was a member of Parliament. He spent forty years in Parliament fighting against
both the slave trade and slavery in England England England England and Wales England
So, as you step into the voting booth, the Christian
should not be thinking about which candidate or amendment will simply give you
lower taxes or greater government benefits. Rather, which candidate or policy
will promote justice? If you are speaking for those who cannot speak for
themselves, what should you say? What should you do?
No king in Israel
However, hundreds of years later, a King was born who
would sit upon David’s throne. Isaiah prophesied of his birth saying,
Isaiah 11:3-5 3 and he will delight in the fear
of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what
he hears with his ears; 4 but
with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions
for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
Isaiah, of course, is writing about Jesus. Jesus did not
use His power and position for his own comfort. Rather, He sacrificed His
comfort for us. As Paul writes in Philippians
Philippians 2:6-8 6
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to
be grasped, 7 but made
himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human
likeness. 8 And being found
in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even
death on a cross!
Then, in 2 Corinthians, we read:
2 Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet
for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become
rich.
Jesus did not do this just for the deserving poor. Rather,
Romans 5:8 8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners,
Christ died for us.
Throughout history, kings have called upon their people to
die for them. Jesus is different. Jesus is the King who died for His people. It
is through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that we have forgiveness
of sins—including the sin of abusing our power and failing to care for the weak.
It is also through Jesus death that we have been redeemed out of our former way
of life—a life of selfishness—and brought into the kingdom of His light.
A Note About Cherry-Picking
Issues
In 2006, the
General Assembly of the PCUSA (, not our denomination but the mainline
Presbyterians), did two noteworthy things. 1) They voted to allow the
ordination of openly homosexual men and women as pastors, and 2) they voted to
allow for some redefinition of the Trinity. Here is a quote from a USA Today
article on this: “The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit"
— could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock,
Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an
action Monday by the church's national assembly.” What amazes me is that people seem to be more
upset that there will now be gay pastors than they are that the doctrine of the
Trinity was been distorted. Which is the more egregious error?
We even are
selective in what sexual sins outrage us. I know that I personally would be
more upset if my child had a gay teacher than I would be if she had a teacher
who was living with her boyfriend. Why? Both are sins and, for most children in
our churches, the likelihood of them falling prey to sexual temptation with a
member of the opposite sex is far greater than them falling prey to sexual
temptation with the same sex. Which is the more dangerous model, a gay teacher,
or the teacher living in adultery? If that is the case, why do we choose to get
more upset about homosexuality than we do other forms of sexual immorality?
If a kid goes
off to school to study theatre, she will get dozens of warnings about the
liberal agenda of those in the arts. If a kid goes to get her MBA so that she
can work on Wall Street, no one says, “Watch out. Greed will kill you.” Yet, greed
and covetousness are destroying exponentially more families than homosexuality.
Yet, we do not get nearly as agitated about them because they are culturally
acceptable sins.
[i] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html,
Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research , The Bush Ranch, Crawford , Texas
[iii] I
heard Ravi Zacharias make this point. I am not sure where.
No comments:
Post a Comment