Politics According to the Bible (4): A
Biblical Worldview
Before moving forward in his
investigation of “politics according the Bible,” Grudem spends a short chapter
reviewing the basics tenets of the Christian Worldview. To most
thoughtful Christians, his six points will be familiar. Nevertheless, it
is helpful to see the worldview that the Bible gives us, so that in all
ethical, legal, and political decisions we are working with a biblical
framework and not one of our personal development. Our politics must be
informed by the Bible, not vice versa.
A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW
(1) God Created Everything
Grudem refers to the explicit
teaching of Genesis 1-2, Revelation 4:11, Psalm 19:1, and Romans 1:20, among
others to assert the Biblical view that the God who made the world and
everything in it, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. While
this view has been contested and even excluded from public education in America
for decades, it is the clear biblical position. Amalgamations of this
view where Christian try to reconcile the Bible with evolution continue to be
concocted (e.g. theistic evolution); however, such a marriage of faith and reason
produces sterile offspring. Scripture is clear: God made all things, and
thus has creator rights over everything. Biblically, man is not at
liberty to govern apart from recognizing the creator. Many attempts have
been made to erect governments that deny deity, but God’s wisdom proves true,
such disconnection from God will not sustain ethical living, and society
suffers.
(2) The One True God Reveals Himself
and His Moral Standards Clearly in the Bible
The God of creation is the God who
reveals his character to his people. In the Bible, God’s standard is seen
in Genesis 2:17, when he warns Adam and Eve that disobedience results in death.
Likewise, as Grudem points out, God the creator is God the judge of all
people. He writes, “The moral standards that God reveals in the Bible are
not simply moral standards for one particular church or one particular
religion, but are the moral standards for which the one true God… will hold
every single person accountable at the last judgment” (118). To support
his point, Grudem cites 1 Peter 4:4-5 and Acts 17:24, 30-31 which teach
that the risen Christ has been given the scepter of God to rule and judge over
all the earth (cf Psalm 2).
This truth impacts the way we think
about politics in that the standard for any official in government is not the
cultural norm or the majority view, it is the character of God and the truth of
God’s Word.
(3) The Original Creation was ‘Very
Good’
Not only is God’s character revealed
in creation (cf. Rom 1:20) and in his word (Exodus 20:1-17), but in creation
itself, the goodness of God is perceived. In Genesis 1:31 God judges his
world and declares the verdict: “It is very good.” Moreover, God tells
the man to cultivate and keep the garden and to extend its borders to fill the
earth with its cultivated beauty. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, the people
of God would have proliferated, spreading the glory of God over the whole earth
(cf. Hab 2:14), exercising dominion and subduing all things as they were
created to do. Thus, in a perfect world government would have existed to
promote the general welfare of God’s people (82). As we think about
politics in our day, it is helpful to remember the enterprise is not
intrinsically evil and anarchy and malevolent governors are a result of sin.
(4) Because Adam and Eve Sinned,
There is Moral Evil (‘Sin’) in the Heart of Every Human Being
We live in a moral universe, where
good and evil exist and compete. This is true within the church, and it
is true in government; and how one interprets the nature of humanity will
determine how one does politics. It is not too much to say that this
singular point is the continental divide between liberals and conservatives;
the former believes in the intrinsic goodness of man, while the latter
recognizes the limitations and inherent evil in the heart of every human being.
Grudem writes, “This one idea, that human beings are viewed as sinful
before the absolute moral standards of the one true God, has immense implications
for numerous policy differences between Republicans and Democrats (as will be
seen in the chapters that follow)” (119).
Thus, the Bible’s worldview
concerning humanity, sin, and the evil of society, as well as the possibility
for good, will significantly shape our view of politics. As Grudem points out
This biblical principle means that
evil does not come merely from the influence of society on a person, and those
who do evil are not merely victims of external influences that they have
experienced. Certainly there are evil influences on people, and society should
try to remove those influences where possible. Nevertheless, doing evil things
is still a result of a person’s evil choices, and people therefore should be
held accountable for the evil they do.
By contrast to this viewpoint, a
secular perspective would tend to believe that human beings are basically good
and therefore when they do wrong the primary reason be because something in
society has harmed them and has caused them to act in wrong ways. Thus, some
part of society will be mostly blamed for the wrong, and wrongdoer himself will
more likely be viewed primarily as a “victim,” not a wrongdoer. This difference
accounts for many political differences regarding responses to crime and to the
threat of international terrorism (121).
How one understands the depravity of
man effects the nature of the gospel message and also the nature of government.
(5) Because Adam and Eve Sinned, God
Place a Curse on the Entire Natural World
Just as our view of humanity impacts
the way we approach politics, so does our view of the entire world.
Understanding that the entire created realm–people, animals, and
creation–are under God’s curse (cf. Gen 3:14-19) delimits the kind of
improvements men are capable of making in this world (e.g. it urges caution
when any leader promises utopian change). Simultaneously, it recognizes
that we living in a world filled with “thorns and thistles” will require that
much of the governments work to promote the good, is to help citizens overcome
the dangers and difficulties faced in our environment. All the while,
this kind of legislation cannot subject men to the creation, for man was
created to rule the earth, not be ruled by it. This leads to Grudem’s sixth
point.
(6) God Wants Human Beings to
Develop the Earth’s Resources and to Use Them Wisely and Joyfully
Mankind was put on earth to
cultivate it and to keep it. Genesis 1:28 commands Adam and Eve to
subdue, rule, and have dominion. This is often misunderstood and easily
mishandled. Grudem explains, “these commands to subdue the earth and have
dominion over it do not mean that we should use the earth in a wasteful or
destructive way or intentionally treat animals with cruelty (Prov 12:10;
cf. Deut 20:19-20; Matt 22:39)… We should use the resources of the earth
wisely, as good stewards, not wastefully or abusively” (123). Thus
humanity is encouraged by Scripture to “beautiful homes, automobiles,
airplanes, computers, and millions of other consumer goods” (123), and
governments should aid in the process.
This kind of biblical mandate leads
to discussions of the environment and economics, something Grudem will tackle
in the ensuing chapters.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Though this chapter is brief, it is
a helpful antiseptic to the views that subjugate humanity to the environment or
that offer more good than can be effected through humanitarian efforts.
Though Grudem doesn’t spell it out here, the biblical worldview
ultimately points us to a new age, with a new governor, and a new created
order. Only the Kingdom of Christ can satisfy all of our political
longings. Until his second advent, any political improvement is at best
incomplete and temporary. This should not deter us from working for the
common good, but it should temper our utopian enthusiasm and/or our apocalyptic
despair.
Despite all outward appearances, God
is ruling over all the nations. Whatever the state of the union,
the state of the universe is in good hands (Psalm 115:3; 135:6).
God is using good and bad people, events, and governments to
accomplish his intended purposes (Gen 50:20; Isa 46:9-11). While we see
brokeness in the world, God sees how all those pieces will be brought together
in Christ (Eph 1:10); his blood will ultimately reconcile all things (Col
1:20).
We must remind ourselves of that if
we are going to maintain a biblical worldview. Otherwise, we will be
tempted to put all our hopes in the next political election and candidate for
change. Political interest for the Christian is a “both-and’ kind of
engagement. We seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Matt
6:33) and we pray, vote, and speak in order to promote peaceful and quiet lives
(1 Tim 2:1-4).
Still it must be asked: Why do
we promote such an environment? Is it for us and for our children?
In part it is, but even more we pray and plead for justice from our
governing officials so that the gospel may have freedom to deliver men and
women from the dominion of darkness and bring them into the kingdom of the
beloved Son (Col. 1:13). To that we must endeavor relentlessly.
Soli Deo Gloria, dss
Politics According to the Bible (1): Five Wrong Views
[This is the first in a series of posts on Wayne Grudem’s
Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture].
Wayne Grudem begins his discussion of politics and the Bible by
outlining five wrong views. These include: (1) Government Should Compel
Religion, (2) Government Should Exclude Religion, (3) All Government Is
Evil And Demonic, (4) Do Evangelism, Not Politics, and (5) Do Politics,
Not Evangelism. Lets look at each of these unbiblical approaches.
Government Should Compel Religion
First, Grudem appeals to the State Church’s that have arisen in
Christendom where citizenship and religious affiliation are coterminous.
He relates these to the similar models of government found in Islamic
nations today. He shows that these are not Scriptural as he points to
Jesus making significant distinction between the sphere of Caesar’s
kingdom and the sphere of God’s kingdom (Matt 22:20-21). He argues that
this view is not tenable according to the Bible, nor does it result in
the kind of faith and repentance, that Christ requires.
Government Should Exclude Religion
Second, he argues against the kind of secular government that denies
any place to faith. This is the kind of government promoted by the ACLU
and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. In the United
States, this view is often grounded on the misunderstood statement
about separation of church and state made by Thomas Jefferson in his
letter to the Danbury Baptist Church (Danbury, CT). It demands religion
to be voiceless in the public sector and it “changes freedom of
religion to freedom from religion.” Yet, this was not Jefferson’s
intention in 1802, nor is it compatible with the Bible which features
numerous examples of God’s people influencing kings and rulers (Joseph,
Daniel, John the Baptist, and Paul, to name a few). This kind of regime
is also seen in other countries that have persecuted Christians. It is
clearly unbiblical.
All Government Is Evil and Demonic
Third, the view that demonizes government does so from a misreading
of Luke 4:6 which quotes Satan as saying, “To you I will give all this
authority and their glory,
for it has been delivered to me…”
Proponents of this view include Gregory Boyd, who argues that every form
and function of government is evil. However, as Grudem points out,
Boyd and his ilk, fail to consider the whole counsel of Scripture. For
explicitly in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, Paul and Peter instruct
Christians to submit to governing authorities who are discharging God’s
‘ministry’ of government. Moreover, Grudem points out that this view
depends on the reliability of Satan’s description of his own authority
in Luke 4:6, which is a highly speculative reality based on the
deceitful character of Satan (cf. John 8:44).
In the end, Grudem points out that this view fails to recognize the
difference between good and evil systems of government, and by extension
it calls good evil and evil good. Thus, it leaves citizens paralyzed
and unable to resist or reform governmental structures for the good. It
results in an insipid pacifism that is not what the Bible requires.
Do Evangelism, Not Politics
Fourth, Grudem challenges evangelicals who distance themselves from
political engagement due to the ‘hopeless’ enterprise that it is. He
suggests that those who advocate evangelism over against politics
“narrow an understanding of ‘the Gospel’ and the kingdom of God” (45).
He warns that those who take this approach undervalue the effect that
political involvement has for the gospel. He provides a helpful
illustration of the difference between heavily evangelized South Korea
and repressive North Korea, and the resulting effect this has had in
their respective countries. He writes,
Governments can allow churches to meet
freely and evangelize or they can prevent these things by force of law
(as in Saudi Arabia and North Korea). They can hinder or promote
literacy (the latter enabling people to read a Bible). They can stop
murderers and thieves and drunk drivers and child predators or allow
them to terrorize society and destroy lives. They can promote and
protect marriages or hinder and even destroy them. Governments do make a
significant difference for the work of God in the world, and we are to
pray and work for good governments around the world (46).
While agreeing with his main objection, I think Grudem shows
uncharacteristic imprecision on this point. He argues that “the whole
Gospel includes a transformation of society” (47). I am not convinced
this is “necessarily” true. For instance, in countries where
Christianity is outlawed, societal transformation may not come to
fruition, because Christians may be martyred before they are ever able
to transform their nation. Even in situations where the blood of the
martyrs brings change in time, it may take generations, so that to say
the gospel “includes a transformation” is a little misleading.
On this point, he continues, “Forgiveness of sins is not the only
message of the Gospel” (47). But is that biblically the best way to say
it? If Grudem had said, “Forgiveness of sins is not the only message
of the Bible,” or “Forgiveness of sins is not the only ministry of the
church,” I would agree. The Bible certainly teaches Christians how to
love their families, serve their employers, and fight for justice.
Likewise, the ministry of the church does include caring for orphans,
widows, and the unborn. So then, in these ways, the Bible says more
than “Believe on Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” However, when the
gospel is defined as “forgiveness”
and “societal transformation,” it enlarges the gospel in unbiblical ways.
In fact, Mark Dever preached against this very thing in his 2008
Together For the Gospel
message, “Improving the Gospel: Exercises in Unbiblical Theology,” when
he warned of making the gospel more than the salvation of sinners (see
his chapter in
Proclaiming a Cross-Centered Theology,
pp. 106-109). Grudem seems to make the gospel message coterminous with
the whole counsel of Scripture, and by implication he includes gospel
entailments within the message of the gospel.
I think Grudem, when he argues against the “Do evangelism, Not
politics” view, but his treatment of the gospel in this section needs
more attention. (For more on the central tenets of the gospel, see Greg
Gilbert,
What is the Gospel?)
Within this section, however, Grudem does present some other helpful
points, namely that God has intended the church and the government to
work in tandem to effect positive change against the evil that is
resident in our society.
Another point worth pondering in this section is the way that church
history has demonstrated countless ways that Christians have influenced
government for good. He cites from Alvin Schmidt’s book
How Christianity Changed the World,
and lists dozens of social improvements from the discontinuation of the
Roman gladiatorial games to the prohibition of burning widows alive in
India. Then Grudem names a number of Christians who have effected
social justice in the world to show how has positively shaped our
country (50).
Still, it would be helpful at this point to make a distinction that
not all these “Christians” were orthodox, gospel-believing brothers in
Christ. No doubt, Martin Luther King, Jr. was used by God to bring
about civil rights throughout the United States, but it must be asked,
“Was Dr. King’s doctrine orthodox and evangelical?” Grudem doesn’t
make that distinction, which is an unfortunate lacuna.
Do Politics, Not Evangelism
Finally, his fifth wrong view is the one that says “Do Politics, Not
Evangelism.” According to Grudem, few respected evangelicals hold this
Social Gospel view (53), however pastors Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are
two influential proponents of a sub-standard gospel message who are
advocating political and social change. Their popular books and
speaking tours are infecting many with a “New Kind of Christianity” that
aims to advance the kingdom of God through social and political
involvement and that denudes the gospel of its saving message.
Overall, Grudem’s first chapter is a helpful taxonomy of wrong views
of government and politics. It sets the stage for chapter 2, where he
will develop “a better solution,” one that urges “significant Christian
influence on government” (54). Preparing for this view, he closes his
first chapter with a balanced statement on politics according to the
Bible.
Genuine, long-term change in a nation
will only happen (1) if people’s hearts change so that they seek to do
good, not evil; (2) if people’s minds change so that their moral
convictions align more closely with God’s moral standards in the Bible;
and (3) if a nation’s laws change so that they more full encourage good
conduct and punish wrong conduct. Item 1 comes about through personal
evangelism and the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Item 2 takes
place through personal conversation and teaching and through public
discussion and debate. Item 3 comes about through Christian political
involvement. All three are necessary (54).
Soli Deo Gloria, dss
(Photo: Screengrab/Fox News)
(Photo: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)
(Photo: Reuters/onathan Ernst)
