How Would Jesus Vote?

Do Your Political Views Really Align With The Bible?

Darrell L Bock

• Publisher: Howard Books
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781439195215
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Historia del cristianismo

This eye-opening, non-partisan, and comprehensive look at what Jesus and the Bible can teach us about many of the hot-button topics of today's political landscape "does not simply call us to think outside the box, but to think outside our bias" (Chip Ingram, author of Culture Shock ). During every election year, we hear politicians on both sides of the aisle as well as religious leaders of every stripe claim to know—with absolute certainty—where Jesus and Christianity stand on their favorite issues. Jesus, of course, would vote exactly as they do. But would he?Examining some of the most contentious political topics of our time in light of Scripture and the teachings of Jesus, the end goal of this book is not to promote a particular point of view but to objectively portray what the Bible says on political and cultural topics. Darrell Bock intends to provoke a different kind of conversation—one where differences are heard and respect is shared, a conversation where we can disagree passionately yet dialogue peacefully.

OF ALL the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

—GEORGE WASHINGTON, FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FAREWELL ADDRESS, SEPTEMBER 19, 1796

1

---

How It All Began

The Principles That Built America

OUR FOUNDING Father George Washington did what good fathers often do—he passed on fatherly words of wisdom to the children he cared for, our nation’s citizens. As he refused a third term as president, George Washington gave a farewell address to his beloved country and urged them to continue on the path he had started them on.

REASON AND HUMBLE FAITH

The bulk of this book will deal with some of the most polarizing political issues that face our nation. But before we launch into that discussion, we must lay some essential groundwork. Michael Novak, in On Two Wings, documents how the Founding Fathers launched this nation into flight on two wings, reason and humble faith—a humble faith rooted in Judeo-Christian revelation.¹ Here, “humble faith” means a faith that believes and trusts in God, but also a faith that recognizes the value of others—as they may help me see things I have missed. Humble faith also means that I don’t rely on my instincts, which can be selfish, but that I be open to challenge that pushes me toward a sense of duty to others.

Michael Novak shows, through a series of citations, that many of our Founding Fathers held to the concepts of reason and humble faith in one form or another. He argues persuasively that much of recent history has forgotten the wing of humble faith, leaving our understanding of history and ourselves out of balance. After all, who can fly with only one wing? This unbalanced approach focuses on the influence of the Enlightenment and reason while ignoring religion, or faith—thus marginalizing the role of religion and treating it as irrelevant. As Novak puts it, revelation and reason have been and can be allies. Religious concern, properly modulated, can help us gain balance in the contentious debates over how we treat one another.

But if religion, morality, and virtue inform how a people function together in a healthy way, how do we avoid the historical misuse of religion and the conflict it brings? It was this very misuse in Europe that led to the Thirty Years’ War and the Hundred Years’ War. The abuse of religion is the reason the pilgrims came to America to launch an important social experiment, namely setting up a state that lacked a state religion and that had religious liberty—a new idea for a new world.² Religious liberty was created with the intent of having not freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The public square was meant to encourage reflection and even religious discourse. People were free to worship or not worship. It was a society that was designed to be diverse, function together, and yet pursue virtue and the common good.

Our founders included orthodox believers, like John Witherspoon, as well as Unitarians who did not believe in miracles, like Thomas Jefferson. An array of leaders, diverse in their beliefs, worked together to form a more perfect union and seek a public common good. This dissimilar group of leaders led to a diversity that worked—even though opposing beliefs were hotly debated. John Witherspoon and Thomas Jefferson were able to sit at a table and design a government that could work for each of them, as different as they were. Have we lost that ability? They preserved public space for each side and called that space religious liberty as part of a representative government with shared power and checks and balances. This preserved space juxtaposed those who believed in providence with those concerned about excessive religious influence. Both could make their case and negotiate in public space without threat of reprisal. Steven Smith called this working cohesion around religious liberty “the American Settlement.” Both sides learned how to coexist and did so effectively until legal decisions of the 1950s and ’60s broke the détente that had previously existed, leading us straight into the culture wars.³

How did our Founding Fathers do it? In part, they were able to work together because they understood that a healthy society must not only elevate freedom but also pursue virtue, or moral excellence. They also understood that a state that tries to control a person’s conscience pulls in the direction of tyranny and despotism. And they understood that divided power was the best kind of power and that it provided protection from abuse by the power people, and especially by a majority of people.

The essential components of virtue, freedom, power, and conscience live in tension with one another. Life is messy and so is governing the mixed bag of minds and souls that populate our world. In such a mix of views, how can we live well together? How can we heed Washington’s advice that political prosperity requires religion and morality? How can we work together when we think so differently from our neighbor?

SCRIPTURE AND THE ORIGINS OF THE UNITED STATES

At the time our Constitution was written, the goal for government was relatively modest. It was written at a time of competing views across a spectrum—from orthodox Christians to deists, from those who held to states’ rights to those who wanted centralized federal power. How could a nation function in such diversity? The goal was to form a “more perfect union.” A failed Articles of Confederation led to a redo of the core document of the nation. Out of failure came a success.

The new document began with this sentence, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Bill of Rights made it clear that the nation was not created to be a strict theocracy. Separation of church and state was a reaction against theocracy, an Enlightenment protection against the kind of religious war that had wracked Europe. Justice, peace, defense, general welfare, and the pursuit of liberty were the reasons for forming a government.

Statements in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution that referred to the Creator and divinely provided rights also indicated the intention of preserving a place—protected from state encroachment—for religion, spirituality, informed public policy, and corporate virtue. The Declaration said people “are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights” and appealed to the “Supreme Judge of the world” to examine the “rectitude of our intentions,” as it listed its reasons to declare America independent from England. To this was added the crucial Bill of Rights—including separation of church and state. It was the Federalist answer to anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution, protecting individual rights from the possibility of a return to an overwhelming government, even a possibility for a government without a king. The Bill of Rights secured passage of that new and revolutionary Constitution. In elevating the individual and his or her rights, conscience was king, but God was also invoked.⁴ Government policy would be negotiated, but freedoms would be protected from a government that could overwhelm.

SCRIPTURE DOES NOT INFORM GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES

As we think about our government in relationship to Scripture, we need to address two biblical structures that do not dictate our government’s structure.

First, we consider Israel. Israel was created to be a theocracy. There was only one Israel, and there’s no indication in Scripture that earthly governments are to be modeled after Israel. Even as we apply biblical values to our country, Scripture does not tell us to apply the structures of ancient Israel to the structures of the United States.

Second, the biblical structure of the church does not dictate a Christian’s place in public space that is America. In fact, the presence of the church complicates this relationship. The church is not even a nation, as Israel was. It is a commonwealth of heaven existing among and across the nations, interpenetrating a variety of political nations with a community dedicated to honoring and serving God.

The church is sacred space present within and distinct from the public space of a nation. Those who attach themselves to the church choose to enter into that sacred space alongside their presence in public space. They do so in part because people who enter sacred space choose to live differently than people in public space.

What is more, the American government chose a route that placed a limit on what religion can do in government. That choice helped to set up the difference between public space and sacred space. Religious values could inform discussion, but religious structures would not be mandated. So reflecting on biblical values does not inform or underwrite our specific governmental structure. Rather, Scripture informs our interpersonal and community values and asks how they attach to the issues at hand. State versus federal rights, as well as many other issues of the specific logistics of policy, are not directly addressed in Scripture. So when we look through a biblical lens, discussion of structures does not inform the intersection of policy and values.

SCRIPTURE DOES INFORM HOW WE LIVE TOGETHER

As we look at scriptural teachings on getting along, we will understand why the Bible has had such a profound influence on Western culture. If we really desire to know what Jesus wants for our country, we will look at what Scripture says about mutual regard and accountability to a reality greater than ourselves. Jesus exhorts us to relate to one another out of commandments that call us to love God and our neighbor.

Those who know God in the context of forgiveness have the capacity to forgive others in a way that is distinct from the normal way the world works. In Matthew 5:43–47 and Luke 6:27–38, Jesus calls those who respond to him to love their enemies and live in a way that is distinct from how those in the world often react. This capability changes how the church should respond to political realities. It also pictures a fresh way for how people relate to one another.

Scripture paints a realistic picture of human failure as well as hope for a more perfect world. It points to a way through human limitations, a way supplied by a humble regard of God’s grace, by a concern to live with a virtue that honors God and others, and by a desire to serve the community we are in so people of diverse backgrounds can flourish.

Serve Whatever Community You Are In

A wonderful example of this core value of serving whatever community we are in is found in Jeremiah 29:7. This verse is part of a letter the prophet wrote as people from Israel were being exiled to Babylon. These Israelites were headed into life as a minority. They were headed to live in a place full of evil. Still the prophet urged them to pursue their normal lives. The key verse gives a somewhat surprising instruction for how to survive as a minority in an environment that might also prove to be hostile to its values: “Seek the welfare of the city I have deported you to. Pray to the LORD on its behalf, for when it has prosperity you will prosper.” (HCSB) Similar to the call in Genesis 1 for humanity to reflect God and care well for the creation, so here Jeremiah calls on the faithful to be faithful in seeking and laboring for the benefit of the city where they exist as exiles. The previous verses had them building homes, planting gardens, and creating new marriages and families. They were called upon to multiply in their new home and to contribute to the community there. This verse sets forth that even when one is a stranger in a foreign land, even a hostile land, the best policy is to contribute to the welfare of the place you live.

Effective versus Ineffective Living

So how do we examine the values that Jesus and Scripture ask us to consider? Scripture portrays success and failure in terms of effective and ineffective living before God and others. It challenges our imagination and heart with a call to moral excellence, or virtue, and with examples of success and failure in its application. It shows a world in pain and projects a world of potential. By precept, priorities, and practice, it calls us to live and relate the present and conflicting elements of life in a fallen, imperfect world in a way that leads to a life lived in conformity to God’s character. It examines the interaction between love, justice, peace, wisdom, foolishness, allegiance, idolatry, service, selfishness, accountability, responsibility, productiveness, poverty, wealth, power, impotence, and waste, just to name a few of the values it describes and examines.

Built for Relationship

Scripture says that from the beginning, our world was built for relationships. As a trinity, God himself is a self-related being; and by making us in his image, he designed us not only as stewards of the creation but as beings called to relate well to one another. As God-believers, our faith absolutely must inform how we relate to one another—specifically, when we disagree with one another’s politics.

None of this may make sense to a secularist, but this ethic inherently connects us to our fellow humans with a mutual concern and responsibility for one another. Our selfish choices and imbalanced allegiances are disruptive to wholesome relationships. We all fail at relationships, but the goal is to reach for the world as it could be.

Much of Scripture discusses the to and fro of relationship tensions and conflicts. The account of Jesus calls us to sacrifice rather than play for power. His personal sacrifice bore ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Introduction: Beyond Gridlock
• 1. How It All Began: The Principles That Built America
• 2. Starting Points: Loving Your Neighbor
• 3. Starting Points: Big Government or Small?
• 4. Economics and Poverty: Personal Wealth or Shared Resources?
• 5. Health Care: Comprehensive Coverage or Choice?
• 6. Immigration: The Character of a Society
• 7. Gun Control: Self-Defense or Restraint
• 8. Foreign Policy and Globalization: National Interest or Common Good?
• 9. War and Peace: “Just War” or Pacifism?
• 10. Race: Equality, Violence, and Justice
• 11. Education: Relating to a Globalized World
• 12. The Family: Sexuality and Individual Rights
• 13. Abortion and Embryos: Right to Life or Right to Choose?
• Conclusion: Engagement, Respect, and Loving Your Neighbor
• About Darrell L. Bock
• Notes
• Copyright