The  "Christian"  Politician ?

As another Fourth of July celebration comes and goes, I find myself reflecting once again upon my relationship with my country and those who govern her.  Because of the peace we enjoy and the absence of any significant persecution as Christians, I am always thankful to God that I live in America rather than some other place. I can usually submit myself to the authorities without reservation, because my contact with them mostly involves matters of a mundane nature, such as paying taxes, or obtaining a current driver's license and registration. So I have little difficulty fulfilling the requirements of Jer. 29:7  "seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."  The "exile" part may not at first glance apply to American citizens, but perhaps I may replace it with "pilgrim and sojourner". The Fourth of July is also one of the celebrations that we can share with our secular neighbors, because although we call it a holiday, it does not really qualify as a Holy Day!

But another thought occur to me each Independence Day, and this year is no different. It is the constant problem of the dynamic tension between enjoying the benefits of our society as a "citizen" of this fine land and at the same time maintaining that separation required because of my superior "citizenship" is in heaven.  

More and more I am concerned about the increased political activity of the Christian community, and especially from the superstars of so called evangelism. It seems sometimes that the "Church" thinks it has a duty to save "Christian" America from the clutches of the heathen overlords. The amazing thing is that in order to accomplish this "salvation", the Christians are too often willing to join forces with those who clearly are not approved of God. More often than not of course this political salvation that is held out as a carrot is nothing more than a myth. When we examine most of the crusades upon which most of these Christian activists are seeking we find that it is not salvation after all, but simply to gain a reversal of the degradation and immorality that has become the image of America. This desire to legislate righteousness is understandable enough when approached from the Christian worldview, but it is also an objective that is nowhere suggested in the Bible as a worthy goal for God's people. Instead of striving to be Light in the darkness, we see our brothers and sisters begging the children of darkness to settle for a little gray area! Some are willing to make league with those who are not seeking the glory of God. 

There are so many "enemies" to fight, that Christians sometimes forget that when the odds against us are overwhelming, we must declare with young David that “the battle is the Lord's”, I Sam. 17:47 and they then begin to feel that it is necessary to enlist the help of anyone who seems to be on our side of that particular issue. Fear of the "New World Order" and "One World Government" can make us believe that we simply must join forces with the anti-United Nations movement. The smut explosion calls for an anti-pornography campaign, and seems to justify our association with questionable groups that agree with this part of our battle plan.  Maybe the issue is an abortion blockade, or any one of a host of other such causes. 

I was watching the debate on CSPAN concerning a piece of legislation that the sponsors say will guarantee religious freedom, prayer in schools and public religious expression in general. Many individuals and almost all religious groups are backing some sort of legislation under the ambiguous category of "religious freedom". The constitution of the United States already guarantees religious liberty, and it was written by Christian men, and with the Christian’s ideology in mind when they produced it. Some folks, who cannot make the bill of rights work in their favor, think that a "Religious Freedom Amendment" will change everything. But stop and think how modern politicians compromise on every piece of legislation. It does not take a genius to visualize the watered down composite document that would result. It would, in effect, make the first amendment now in place of no further value, because it would be superseded by the new amendment. Talk about multiculturalism and political correctness, this amendment would need to be acceptable to every so called “religion” in America, from Aztec to Zulu, including all the cults in between. Your child could be required to listen to the prayers and to hear the readings of all the other quacks. Come on, you know I am right. If we cannot defend our "rights" by appealing to the Bill of Rights, written from an admitted "Christian" perspective, by "Christian" men, who believed in the "Christian" lifestyle, what chance will there be that something better will come from that bunch in Washington today?

Another current issue that should concern us is the "Litmus" test controversy. This is the declaration that in politics we should not reject any candidate based upon a single viewpoint that they hold. They do not want you to have a "litmus" test item that you feel so strongly about that unless the candidate changes their position, you will not vote for them. It clearly sets forth the problem of political activity for the Christian.  There are a multitude of examples that could be offered, but just take the Governor (Governess?) of our state, Christy Todd Whitman (At the time of writing). She is a pro-abortion woman, even refusing to condemn partial birth abortions in which the child is allowed to come to full term, and when the head clears the mother's body, but with the rest of the child still inside, the "doctor" stabs the child in the back of the head with a scissors like instrument, expands the hole, and then sucking out the brains, thus terminating the child's life. Christians are challenged to make abortion a litmus test for a candidate. Should Republicans who are also Christians refuse to vote for Christy on the bases of one difference of opinion?  Do they refrain from voting for her simply because she believes in "the final solution" for children and thereby in effect give a vote for her opponent? Or do they vote for her anyway because she is less liberal than someone else, and forego the business of saving babies. These are serious matters that must be dealt with before you decide to participate in politics.

II Chronicles chapter 25 relates an event during the reign of Amaziah, king of Judah when he was about to go up against the Edomites, and thought he needed the help of someone other than God.  He decided to invite (for hire) one hundred thousand soldiers from the Northern Kingdom of Israel.  The Lord then sends a man of God to bring Amaziah to his senses saying: O king, these troops from Israel must not march with you, for the LORD is not with Israel--not with any of the people of Ephraim. I do not suppose that this word would have had the desired affect on Amaziah if the man of God had stopped with this pronouncement.  And I do not suppose it does any good to tell the Church that many of her confederations are destined to failure, and even worse, namely a dilution of the testimony of the People of God. But the Lord knew Amaziah, and so he added a word that escapes many of my dear Christian friends who want to join forces with the ungodly today.  He says: Even if you go and fight courageously in battle, God will overthrow you before the enemy, for God has the power to help or to overthrow.  (II Chron. 25:7,8) 

Happily, Amaziah listened and learned from the threat. He sent the mercenaries home and won the victory without them. But an additional price was paid beyond the money for the king's folly. Anger at being dismissed incited these rejected mercenaries to attack Judah. The soldiers of the army which Amaziah sent back, because they were not to go with him to battle, fell upon the cities of Judah, from Samaria even unto Bethhoron, and smote three thousand of them, and took much spoil.  (II Chron 25:13).

I would like to direct your attention to Phil. 3:20 (NIV) which says:  But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Greek word translated "citizenship" ("conversation" in the KJV) is POLITEUMA, (Strong's # 4175), from which we get our English word "politics". This word in turn comes from the verb form which means "To act like a citizen". I do not like to use the word "Christian" as an adjective. There are lawyers, doctors and politicians who are Christians, and as long as they can function in their chosen field without compromising their "heavenly citizenship" all is well. But I personally refrain from referring to them as   "Christian lawyers", unless they are defending the law of Christ. Nor should we speak of   "Christian doctors", unless they are practicing divine healing. And we do not have "Christian politicians" unless they are representing the Kingdom of heaven.  (I am sure that most of you would agree with this principle where “Christian Science” adherents are concerned)

The conclusion of the matter is this, let us be good citizens in this fair land, appreciating all the blessings that God has granted to us. But more importantly, let us be good citizens of heaven and seek  first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness! (Matthew 6:33)