How to start thinking theologically about politics

Commentary

By Dr. James Spencer – Special to Higher Ground - Tuesday, August 13, 2024

OPINION:

While reading a recent article on Christians and politics, a well-known author expressed concerns about the evangelical church’s leftward “lurch.” In the piece, the primary issue under discussion was abortion, which was consistently referred to in terms of child sacrifice. The implication was that siding with leftist politics is not an option for Christians because Democrats tend to support less regulation of abortion than “conservatives” or Republicans.

I am pro-life. As a Christian, I believe in life’s sanctity and believe that life begins at conception. My concern with the author’s perspective was not his pro-life position, but the mischaracterization of the “conservative” or Republican position. To clarify, it appears to me that the Democrat position on life’s sanctity seeks to make abortion maximally accessible, whereas the Republican position seeks to limit (though not eliminate) the practice. While it may be tempting to valorize the Republican position as “better” than the Democrat position, Christians do need to recognize that the Republican position only appears to affirm life’s sanctity in comparison to the more radical Democrat position.

Subscribe to have The Washington Times’ Higher Ground delivered to your inbox every Sunday.

For instance, the 2024 Republican Platform notes only that the Republican party “will oppose Late Term Abortion.” And all God’s people said, “Amen”?

I think not.

Because Christians believe life begins at conception, that life is as sacred in the early term as it is in later terms. If Christian convictions concerning life’s sanctity serve as a litmus test for which candidates or party we support (whether they should or not), it would seem that Christians can’t support either of the major political parties in the United States. Both parties are willing to de-prioritize life’s sanctity (presumably) to accommodate the views of a wider swath of voters.

Some may argue that the Republican platform is the “lesser of two evils.” From a certain perspective, I would tend to agree. At the same time, it isn’t clear how voting for the lesser evil reflects serious theological discernment and proclamation on the part of the church. The “lesser of the two evils” argument tends to neglect the church’s option to stand apart from political institutions. There is, in my estimation, something compelling about an uncompromising church willing to obey even when obedience may run counter to social and cultural expectations regarding political participation in the United States.

What does all this mean for Christians trying to decide how to participate in U.S. politics?

First, Christians need to separate the issues from the politics. When Christians address issues from within the “political game,” they will ultimately be constrained by the rules of that game. There are, for instance, a limited number of strategies you can employ when playing a board game like Monopoly. You can try to buy all the railroads or hold out for Boardwalk and Park Place, but beyond such choices, you still need to bankrupt the rest of the players to win the game. Because the political is immersed within and subject to the theological (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:13-17), Christians have been freed to “play” a theological “game” unhindered by the limitations of the political realm.

Second, once Christians commit to playing a theological game based on theological rules, we will realize that we have options beyond the political realm. It is not that the political realm is trivial. The political has a God-given role. Political participation can contribute to the building up of God’s kingdom. Still, Christians must recognize that the political realm is immersed or “nested” within discipleship. As I note in “Serpents and Doves,” “The Church’s political participation must emerge as an extension of its basic task of pointing to and glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ.”

If we compromise our theological convictions for political “wins,” we miss opportunities to point to and glorify God.

While it is tempting to suggest that the church needs to be creative or “innovative” in the way it addresses contemporary culture or “plays its theological game,” that simply isn’t the case. The body of Christ has the relatively straightforward task of discipleship, which, as Kevin Vanhoozer suggests, involves “knowing how to follow Jesus in any situation.”

We don’t need to get creative…we just need to learn to live under the authority of Christ and teach others to do the same (Matthew 28:16-20). When we do so, we will better understand how to use political action to serve the kingdom. As Peter Leithart notes, “A church obedient to Christ’s command to teach all of His commandments will, however, have a significant effect on political views of its members.”

When we “play the theological game” rather than the political game God will open opportunities for us to build the kingdom beyond anything we could ask or think.

Finally, Christians need to be careful about making assertions about what God is doing in the political realm. A Republican win is not necessarily a Christian victory any more than a Democratic win is a Christian loss. Christ’s victory does not require ongoing supplementation, nor is it diminished by wins and losses in the political realm. As such, Christians must avoid the perception that one political party or candidate represent hope while the other represents despair.

It seems unlikely that Christians will be apolitical. Still, we should not assume that we must choose between one political party or another. Neither the “left” nor the “right” align with Christian theological convictions.

Thankfully, we are not cogs in the political machine. We represent God’s kingdom in a unique way. To limit our witness to our support for a particular party or candidate is to surrender opportunities for God’s people to point to and glorify the Triune God. In the end, our nation (and the world) needs a particular political candidate far less than it needs to hear and see the gospel embodied by a people who proclaim, “Jesus is Lord.”

–

James Spencer earned his Ph.D. in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He believes discipleship will open up opportunities beyond anything God’s people could accomplish through their own wit and wisdom. As such, his writing aims at helping believers look with eyes that see and listen with ears that hear as they consider, question, and revise the social, cultural, and political assumptions hindering Christians from conforming more closely to the image of Christ. James has published multiple works, including his most recent book “Serpents and Doves: Christians, Politics, and the Art of Bearing Witness,” “Christian Resistance: Learning to Defy the World and Follow Christ,” “Useful to God: Eight Lessons from the Life of D. L. Moody,” “Thinking Christian: Essays on Testimony,” “Accountability, and the Christian Mind,’ and“Trajectories: A Gospel-Centered Introduction to Old Testament Theology.” In addition to serving as the president of the D. L. Moody Center, James is the host of “Useful to God” a weekly radio broadcast and podcast, a member of the faculty at Right On Mission, and an adjunct instructor with the Wheaton College Graduate School.