Well said, Shrode

Don't want to start argument or even a frivolous debate but I would interested in your opinion of the Abolitionist movement in the 1850s and beyond and other such social and human justice issues (for example Sudanese slavery). Does the pastor ever assume the voice of the prophet in American society? It is evidently clear that many of the Biblical figures (especially OT) were involved in the political circles of the day.

Hey Shrode:

You probably expect this, but I'm about to unload on you.

Do you really think the Bible is silent-- on anything? Now, obviously the Bible doesn't speak directly on many areas. It doesn't say for us to vote Republican or how to implement a licensing scheme for plumbers. But doesn't it at least speak by implication on everything? I think you go down a road that you're not going to be happy with if you start asserting that there are areas of life over which God's word has no dominion. Inescapably, you are left with zones of moral neutrality-- cease-fire zones in the cosmic struggle between Christ and the evil one. I can't imagine anything more foreign to the Bible.

You say that you approach politics as a matter of opinion. Really? Like you like heavy metal and I like the blues? That doesn't sound like what I remember to be your conviction of the importance of politics.

I think you're right to separate out your roles on this subject. It's wise when you haven't been entrusted by the church to speak for it that you make it clear you speak as a citizen, not as a pastor. But aren't there subjects-- even political ones-- that are within your purview as a pastor? And when you speak as a citizen, aren't you voicing conviction informed by the Bible, not (I hope) mere opinion?

So Jesus's kingdom is not of this world. That's great, but what does it mean? From the context I see, it doesn't say what people usually assume it means (my kingdom is located in a spiritual realm). If that's the case, then why would John the Baptist say that the kingdom of heaven is at hand? Why would Jesus say that if he's casting out demons, the kingdom of God has arrived? Why would Daniel describe God's kingdom as overtaking and supplanting all others? There are a thousand dimensions to it; there's no kingdom of God = X, butwhat Jesus appears to be pointing to here is more along the lines of tactics. It's here, but it's located within the people of God, not some particular leader or headquarters, and not vulnerable to the warfare of this world.

And the Caesar thing-- again, you can't possibly mean that the political realm belongs to Caesar, as opposed to God. I think the context (which argument I'm sure you're acquainted with) indicates that Jesus is rather chastising the the Jews for submitting to Caesar, using their relationships with his administrators for their own manipulative power purposes, and then turning around and questioning his taxes. Pure hypocrisy. But surely everything that belongs to Caesar is only his by delegation-- remember your citation of Romans 13. Caesar is God's minister-- his servant. If he doesn't kiss the Son, then he'll get barbecued in God's time and according to his good pleasure.

So as to your example: the poor. Contrary to what many think, we are to not show partiality to the poor in judgment. The proverbs tell us not to take necessities of life as collateral for loans and to use honest weights and measures in dealing with the poor (so, i.e., government inflationary policies that purposely favor those who get the money first, e.g. banks, and disfavor those who get it last, e.g. wageearners, are immoral). Paul tells us (the church) to demand of a poor man that he work in order to eat and tells us (the church) to care for the widows and orphans-- but to place responsibility for widows first on any remaining family members. That's just the tip of the iceberg. So the Bible is hardly silent on this issue, and moreover speaks specifically to where the responsibility lies.

So while I'll agree God is not on the side of any particular party, isn't that more because both are in rebellion against him, and not because politics is somehow outside of his turf?

As for preaching on politics, I could see two angles. One might be to have us informed and persuaded by Christian political groups. Another way I think plausible is that you ought to preach on politics-- but with a view towards defining what the Bible requires of leaders-- their character to qualify and their deeds in office once elected-- and what it requires of citizens.

Alan,
That wasn't so bad. You did unload, as I expected. We're actually fairly close to each other, I just don't express myself as well as you. Plus theres the idea of semantics. By "preaching politics" I meant supporting one political party or another or commenting on these latest overtime labor rules the Bush administration is unveiling. Of course, some of the reason for not commenting is because some areas (such as the economics of trade), I'm quite ignorant on, so I should keep my mouth shut.

Do you really think the Bible is silent-- on anything? Now, obviously the Bible doesn't speak directly on many areas. It doesn't say for us to vote Republican or how to implement a licensing scheme for plumbers. But doesn't it at least speak by implication on everything?

The Bible is silent on much, and you give two good examples. I do hear of preachers who preach from the pulpit that you should vote for Republicans and that you should be for this or that economic policy. Does it speak by implication on everything? Not sure about how to answer this. It gives us Biblical principles by which to govern our lives and implications by which we can make decisions. But I think we have freedom to make those decisions. (e.g. Which shirt should I wear? Which movie should I watch? Should I vote for or against this latest school board proposal?) But there are certainly some Biblical principles that govern each of those decisions I just listed, but within that framework, I think we have some freedom to choose. So in a way the Bible is silent about the school board proposal, providing neither choice violates a Biblical principle. But I think it wise for the Christian voter to use Biblical principles in making a decision. But it's possible for a fellow believer to make a different decision, and I think we should allow them that.

I think you go down a road that you're not going to be happy with if you start asserting that there are areas of life over which God's word has no dominion. Inescapably, you are left with zones of moral neutrality-- cease-fire zones in the cosmic struggle between Christ and the evil one.

I agree, I don't like the road you describe. And I'm not planning on going there. God's word has dominion over everything, including politics and politicians. My point is that there are some areas where the Bible gives Christians the freedom to make the best Biblically informed decisions it can, by its silence.

Are there cease-fire zones between Christ and Satan? No. But there are areas where either choice is morally correct. Should I be a lawyer or a doctor? Should I live on Street A or B? Should I vote for city councilperson smith or jones? Now in any of those areas I mentioned, moral and Biblical issues are possible. In that case, the choice is clear. But provided that neither choice violates a clear or implied Biblical principle, I think we are (morally) free to choose.

Alan writes: So Jesus's kingdom is not of this world. That's great, but what does it mean? There are a thousand dimensions to it; there's no kingdom of God = X, but what Jesus appears to be pointing to here is more along the lines of tactics. It's here, but it's located within the people of God, not some particular leader or headquarters, and not vulnerable to the warfare of this world.

I agree. It's about people, not governments or political parties. But that certainly doesn't mean that Governments and political parties are exempt from God's laws or that they operate in "morally neutral territory".

And the Caesar thing-- again, you can't possibly mean that the political realm belongs to Caesar, as opposed to God. But surely everything that belongs to Caesar is only his by delegation-- remember your citation of Romans 13. Caesar is God's minister-- his servant.

Again, we agree!

So as to your example: the poor. Contrary to what many think, we are to not show partiality to the poor in judgment.

No, but we are not to be partial to the rich in judgment either. And I think we are supposed to be partial to the poor in treatment in the sense that the rich do not need us to provide food for them, but the poor do. Or to put it another way. There are special provisions the Bible makes that make it so that the poor are able to provide for their families without being unfairly discriminated against. We should do the same.

So the Bible is hardly silent on this issue, and moreover speaks specifically to where the responsibility lies.

Here I also agree with you. But there are Christians who (like you) say that the Gov't is governed by the same Biblical laws that govern individuals, and therefore, the Gov't is obligated to care for the poor as well. I disagree. But I respect someone who came to this conclusion based on their study of the Bible, and would probably not preach against it from the pulpit. But I do preach personal responsiblity, and preach those things you mentioned, because the Bible is far from silent about it.

So while I'll agree God is not on the side of any particular party, isn't that more because both are in rebellion against him, and not because politics is somehow outside of his turf?

Yes. And if I implied or said that politics is outside of God's turf than I did a poor job of expressing myself.

As for preaching on politics, I could see two angles. One might be to have us informed and persuaded by Christian political groups. Another way I think plausible is that you ought to preach on politics-- but with a view towards defining what the Bible requires of leaders-- their character to qualify and their deeds in office once elected-- and what it requires of citizens.

I, with you, choose the latter. Preachers should preach (and I endeavor to) about what the Bible requires of leaders and citizens.

God does govern every aspect of our lives, and the preacher should equip Christians to see that, and apply God's word to every aspect, including politics. My point is that the preacher shouldn't "take sides" where the Bible doesn't. But as a citizen I've taken sides, based on what I believe the Bible says, but I am prepared to switch if the side I'm on ceases to be the most Biblically correct. No political party is "God's". But there are people who certainly are "God's" and those who are not.

My goal as a preacher is to convince my hearers to act as though they belong to God because they do.

Shrode:

I think you are correct that we are in agreement about much of this. But I don't want to allow those who would rebel against God through anti-biblical poltics the comfort of believing they are okay.

And so let me take a look at a few more of the examples you describe in order to distinguish various ways in which you take the Bible to be silent.

The Bible doesn't say to vote Republican. But at some level of generality, the Bible tells us the permissible bounds and directions of conduct. You could also say the Bible does not say to whom you should get married. But it describes the sort of love that ought to characterize marriage. It commands you to rejoice in your wife. It describes what a good wife is, and instructs you to grab her when you find her. So the Bible didn't tell you to marry Melissa. But it did tell you that once you find a virtuous woman with whom you share what the Bible (as opposed to the world) describes as love, you ought to marry her. The Bible provided you with a framework, and you made the application. The Bible was not silent as to whom you should marry-- stated at an appropriate level of generality.

You profess some degree of ignorance on trade economics, and so another way you describe the Bible as being silent is that you are not able to bring the content knowledge within that field necessary to make the connection between a policy and biblical exegesis. That's fine. I think that's probably more a matter for Christians within particular fields and not pastors, but there, the Bible is not silent, you as the pastor are silent for prudential reasons.

However, we have to be careful here. Part of the reason we take the Bible to be silent in such areas is that politics seems always to revolve around expert views of consequences, and therefore we are told we are always on the same side-- of more jobs, of better education, etc.-- the question is just how to get there, which it is assumed is a morally neutral question. But the Bible doesn't go that way. It tells us right and wrong (up to a particular level of generality) and then God takes care of the consequences.

The schoolboard proposal issue may implicate some of either of the former principles, depending on its content. Ot it might go a different direction-- that is, I think it's possible that a political system is so divorced from what the Bible commands that a particular set of choices is not really intelligibly distinguished on any biblical basis. I'm thinking here of educational policies, for example, that differ only on minutiae of which godless bureacrats control the process and which humanistic gurus have designed the curriculum.

Another thing you call the Bible being silent is the notion that believers ought to have freedom to choose one of a set of alternatives chosen based upon the Bible. I agree with that principle, but I don't call that the Bible being silent. An anabaptist pacifist reads scripture to say all war is forbidden, and you and I read something different. From this I conclude not that the Bible is silent, but that Christendom is not hearing the Bible in unity. This may have many explanations-- sin, errors in exegesis, etc. I don't see anything wrong with preaching for or against, e.g. the war in Iraq, as long as it's done via exegesis and-- the critical thing-- that in cases where the state of exegesis within Christendom is such that we have not achieved anything approaching unity-- we ought to engage those of contrary opinion and emphasize that although there is a right and wrong, reasonable minds within Christendom disagree on these things. A lot of what we now call the silence of scripture is nothing more than the unwillingness of Christendom to engage in the sort of sustained, serious discourse necessary to produce unity (which unwillingness is complemented nicely by our structural disunity).

Another sense of the Bible's silence, which you develop a little better here, is that the Bible does not choose sides among vipers and whitewashed sepulchres, between Sadducees and Pharisees. I think that is an idea dormant in your original post and worthy of some more development. I think there is a lot of room for saying that, although there may be good biblical reasons for voting e.g. Republican, the Bible does not place its stamp of approval on the Republican party, and that a vote for the Republican party is not a vote for the kingdom of God, but more along the lines of a tactical choice based upon a biblical judgment that the vote advances the kingdom of God in some way.

Last, it's interesting the question of slavery is raised. That's an area where I find your response fascinating because it seems to me that much of your reaction has more to do with the modern ethos regarding slavery than it does exegesis. That is, Paul didn't seem all out of sorts about slavery in the way that abolitionists were. And in order to (lest there be any doubt, rightly) condemn southern slavery, you have to get into nitty gritty issues of exegesis that you seem to be shy about up above (like on those who approve of argue for the civil government to shoulder the load of caring for the poor). After all, the South was the Christian land, with more than its share of defenders willing to use the Bible to prop up their system. It is one of the great examples of God's irony that he used a war incited by Unitarian rabble-rousers and taxation issues to lay low a society that, top to bottom, professed its allegiance to God and took the Bible seriously enough to twist it.

Engage the Culture: Open Fire!
My sister emailed me this morning about a guy at her church who thinks Christians shouldn’t vote, because after all we are citizens of the kingdom of heaven, and who cares about the kingdoms of men. There is also a...