We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
Why do you argue that discipleship and politics are rooted in opposite attitudes?
Question. At a recent conference I heard you argue against the idea that there could ever be a distinctly “Christian” political position by contending that political disputes are premised on a claim to superiority while discipleship is fundamentally rooted in humility. I don’t think I get what you mean. Can you explain this?
Answer: In every political debate, the feuding parties assume that they are wiser and/or morally superior to their opponents. On what other basis could two political parties oppose each other?
For example, if you oppose the Republican or Democratic economic plan, it’s because you believe it is either unwise or unfair – and this, of course, presupposes that you have more insight and/or a greater sense of justice than those who espouse whatever plan you oppose. So it is for every conceivable political dispute you could imagine. Should we have a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq? Should stem cell research be legal? Should all abortion be outlawed? Should laws be passed that aim to reduce the human contribution to global warming (if there is indeed a significant human contribution to global warming)? And so on. Whatever position you assume on divisive questions such as these, you have to assume that those who oppose you are wrong either because they lack your superior insight or because they lack your superior moral sensitivity.
But why should we think that following Jesus gives anyone an advantage in either of these ways? A quick glance at Church history and at the Church today certainly doesn’t suggest Christians have any special wisdom or moral insight into political issues.
Even more fundamentally, how could there ever be a uniquely “Christian” way of claiming intellectual or moral superiority? It seems to me that the New Testament commands followers of Jesus to embrace an opposite attitude. We are to humbly place ourselves under others (Phil. 2:3-5; Eph 4.2) and to regard our own sins as much greater than other people’s sins (Mt. 7:1-5).
Of course, we may have opinions about certain political issues, and undoubtedly we think our opinions are right (why else would we hold them?). But it seems we should take great care to not claim there’s anything distinctly “Christian” about our assumed superiority. For all I know, you may in fact be wiser and more morally developed than all who disagree with you. But that doesn’t make your views “Christian.” It just makes you politically smart and moral.
So by all means go ahead and have your opinions about how to best fix the world. Be wise and moral, and vote accordingly. But don’t ever label your views “Christian.”
Finally, never forget where the hope of the world lies. If anyone could fix the world with his or her superior wisdom and moral sensitivity, the world would be fixed by now. As it is, nothing has broken the world more than people trying to fix it, doing whatever they must to defeat those they assumed had inferior insights and morality. Most of the slaughtering that’s been done throughout history has been done in the name of someone’s intellectual and moral superiority!
The hope of the world certainly doesn’t lie here. It rather lies in that small tribe of people who trust God enough to simply love others like Jesus loved them, obediently placing themselves under others while confessing that they are the worst of sinners (I Tim.1:15-16).
Category: Q&A
Tags: Politics, Q&A, Social Issues
Topics: Ethical, Cultural and Political Issues
Related Reading
Doesn’t Psalm 139:16 refute the open view of the future?
One of the passages most frequently cited in attempts to refute the open view of the future is Psalm 139:16. Here David says that God viewed him while he was being formed in the womb (vs. 15) and then adds: “[Y]our eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in…
How do you respond to Romans 8:29?
“For whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family.” One of the greatest treasures given to believers when they open their hearts to the Lord is the promise that they shall certainly be “conformed to the…
Podcast: How Do We Talk About Politically Charged Topics?
Greg gets charged-up talking about ‘talking about politically charged topics.’ http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0463.mp3
If you really want to defend the poor from Caesar, shouldn’t we use the political means that exist? It’s easy to make your argument when you are in a position of privilege.
Question: I’ve been reading your blogs for a while. I’ve read multiple texts written by you and it’s difficult to listen much longer as someone in poverty. It’s easy to make your argument when you are in a position of privilege. The Church doesn’t have the power and resources to help the poor everywhere. Christians…
What do you think of Thomas Aquinas’ view of God?
Question: You have written (in Trinity and Process) that the relational God of the Bible is the antithesis of the immutable God of Thomas Aquinas. Could you explain this? Answer: Aquinas and much of the classical theological tradition borrowed heavily from Aristotle’s notion of God as an “unmoved mover.” God moves the world but remains…
The Testimony of Life and Death
David Kuo was a friend of ours. He was a passionate voice calling the church away from political division and calling us towards compassionate engagement. He succumbed to brain cancer this last week after a ten year struggle with the disease. Andrew Sullivan attended David’s funeral and reflected on David’s influence in his life. He…