THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2008

• First of all, there is no question that the sentiment of the American people is that they are looking for two conflicting qualities in the next president—change and stability.  Change has been the defining theme of Barack Obama.  But it is imperative that, should he be elected president, as now seems likely, he cannot interpret his election as a mandate for shifting America to the left!  As I have argued in several other editions of Issues, America remains fundamentally a conservative nation.  The election of Barack Obama is not a mandate for embracing an ideological shift to the left!  Fear dominates the American psyche right now and Americans also want reassurance that Obama, for all his talk about change, will not pursue a radical, leftwing agenda.  Americans have made it clear that they also want stability.  So, how the next president balances the desire for change with the strong need for stability will be quite a balancing act!  But, assuming Obama wins, this is his assignment.  It is for this reason that I offer the following prayer, originally written by Charles Stanley, but which I have modified:

Pray that the next president will:

1. Recognize his personal sinfulness and daily need for cleansing.
2. Recognize his personal inadequacy and need for utter dependence on God.
3. Reject all counsel from his advisors that violates God’s clear ethical and moral law.
4. Resist all pressure to violate his personal conscience.
5. Forsake all personal ambition and pride and foster a servant spirit in his life and in those who serve with him.
6. Rely on prayer and God’s Word as his source for strength and wisdom as he makes decisions.
7. Restore dignity, honor and trustworthiness to the office of President and to the nation. 
8. Seek to be a good role model in his conduct and in his personal life.
9. Be reminded daily that he is accountable to Almighty God for all that he does.

• Second, it is important to review the public sentiment and emotional attachment to Barack Obama.  It is almost messianic!  Among the crowds he draws, there is something close to religious veneration evident in the rallies.  He rejects such sentiments, but he is obviously doing nothing to end such fervent devotion.  This fervor will probably get him elected.  However, as columnist Michael Gerson asks, “Is he—as some liberals quietly hope and many conservatives loudly accuse—a closet radical?  Or is he a more subtle and moderate political figure who embraced, then discarded, the leftism of south Chicago in pursuit of a restless ambition?  There is evidence for both views.”  For example, when he was in the Illinois Legislature, he was conventionally liberal on crime and spending, and radical on abortion.  During his tenure at Harvard Law School, he combined progressive political views with instincts for reconciliation.  He has never evidenced any commitment to an anti-religious culture war of secular liberalism.  He projects the image of an analyst, not an ideologue.  Yet, he has endorsed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research despite humane and promising alternatives.  He proposed controversial government regulations on faith-based charities that accept federal funds.  He has attacked Justice Clarence Thomas as unqualified and defended his vote against the confirmation of widely admired Chief Justice John Roberts.  For many, the “theoretical Obama”, as Michael Gerson labels him, “the Obama of hope and unity, is intriguing, even appealing.  But this opinion is not likely to improve upon closer inspection of his policy views.  Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him.”  And this is the frustration for me personally.  The more I study his views and the more I reflect on him, the more difficult the conclusion.  I like his reasoned approach to things and his desire to build meaningful coalitions.  But his views on questions of immense importance to God—when life begins, questions about human sexuality, the role of the state in our lives—are profoundly bothersome, to say the least.  Barack Obama remains an enigma.  Is he a dangerous enigma?  I cannot answer that but I believe we are about to find out.  For that reason, as we exercise our right to vote, we do so with the strong confidence in God’s providence and His sovereignty so clearly taught in Scripture (e.g., Romans 13:1-7 and Daniel 4:17,25). 

• Finally, however we decide to vote this election year, there are several key thoughts that should govern our decision-making in this area.  Increasing involvement in politics and government has grave dangers for the Christian.  For the maximum impact for righteousness in government, a proper, balanced perspective is needed.  This necessitates ridding ourselves of what Chuck Colson calls a “starry-eyed view of political power.”  Some Christians think that by marshaling a Christian voting bloc we can establish Christ’s kingdom on earth.  We dare not confuse the external and limited good that political power can achieve with the internal and infinite good that God’s grace produces.  Further, we cannot buy what Colson calls the “political illusion,” the notion that all human problems can be solved by political institutions.  It is idolatrous to believe that, for the Bible declares that the root problem of society is spiritual.  What the Christian seeks through government is justice, not power.  Our goal is, therefore, to move the culture towards the righteousness of God’s revelation.  The job of total spiritual transformation is the role of the church, not the state.

How then does the Christian decide what to support and what to reject in politics?  How does one decide whom to support in elections?  For what kinds of laws should the believer work and fight?  Robert Dugan, former director of the National Association of Evangelicals, suggests five major principles to guide the Christian in assessing potential candidates and laws:

• The pre-eminence of religious liberty.  Any candidate or legislation that restricts the practice of religious faith should be resisted.
• The protection of life as sacred.  Candidates or legislation that treat life frivolously or that seek to destroy it (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, infanticide) should be resisted and defeated.
• Provision of justice for all.  Candidates and legislation must reflect God’s concern for justice and equity.  Reading the biblical book of Amos is convincing evidence that God desires that government promote laws that protect the poor and disadvantaged from exploitation and oppression.
• Preservation of the traditional family.  One of the clear teachings of the Bible is that the family is a critical institution to God.  Legislation that negatively impacts the family should be rejected.  For example, tax legislation that promotes single parent families or penalizes a father for living with his family is counterproductive.  The promotion of same-sex marriages runs counter to God’s revelation and should be rejected.
• The promotion of Judeo-Christian values in education and legislation.  For example, values of honesty, integrity, personal responsibility, accountability can be easily undermined by a leader who wantonly lies and shows disrespect for the law.  Fraud, bribery and corruption undermine public trust and confidence and are terribly destructive.  Education must reinforce the values of parents and not undermine their authority (see Deuteronomy 6:1-10).

 
Christians, then, as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16), should seek to effect righteous change in the culture through the political process, not because the kingdom comes from Washington, but because He expects us to be “serving and waiting” (see 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

Should the church as a local body of believers function as a political caucus?  Should a local church become a part of a political coalition?  The laws of the United States are clear that local churches cannot engage in direct political activities.  To do so would violate the non-profit status of these organizations and possibly result in loss of that status with the Internal Revenue Service.  The Bible gives no mandate or even logical inference for local church political activity.  There is no evidence of the early church involvement, as a body, in politics.  Furthermore, the local church often lacks the necessary expertise for reasoned political involvement and can even find its witness severely harmed in the cesspool of politics.  The local church is a principled body, rooted in God’s revelation, not a political programming body.  Christians, individually and through other organizations, should be involved in the political arena but the local church will do so to its peril.  The two spheres of the Christian’s life--the church and the state--must be kept in balance.  Each has a divine job to do; neither should encroach upon the responsibility of the other.

See Michael Gerson in the Washington Post (18 August and 22 October 2008) and James P. Eckman, Biblical Ethics, pp. 54-59.

Print