If You Consider Yourself a Christian and Also a Republican, This Book Is for You

From the book “Republican Does Not Mean Christian – Where Politics Gets Mistaken For Faith”

__________ 

One of the greatest sources of confusion in political arguments about Christianity is surprisingly simple: Christianity must be defined by Christianity itself, not by every person who claims to represent it. A politician can call himself a Christian. A pastor can call himself a Christian. A Republican, conservative, celebrity, president, or ordinary voter can call himself a Christian. That declaration does not give that person the authority to redefine Christianity. Christians can lie, commit adultery, act arrogantly, become greedy, treat people unjustly, hate their enemies, and violate the very teachings they profess to believe. When they do, their failure does not change the standard. It demonstrates that they have failed to live according to it.

This distinction becomes especially important when people ask questions such as, “How can this person call himself a Christian when he lies?” or “How can Christians support someone who appears to violate the Ten Commandments?” Those are legitimate questions about conduct, character, consistency, and even political judgment, but they are not the same question as whether Christianity teaches the behavior being criticized. If a president lies, Christianity still condemns lying. If a politician commits adultery, Christianity does not suddenly approve of adultery. If someone behaves arrogantly, cruelly, dishonestly, or unjustly while identifying as Christian, Scripture remains capable of condemning that behavior regardless of the person’s political importance.

The Bible itself makes this distinction unavoidable because it does not present its own followers as morally flawless. David committed terrible sins. Peter denied Christ. Moses disobeyed God. Abraham failed morally. Paul openly described his own struggle with sin. Christianity never teaches that becoming a Christian makes someone incapable of wrongdoing. Scripture says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and 1 John warns that if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves. Christianity therefore contains within itself the standard by which Christians can be shown to be acting contrary to Christianity.

That does not provide an excuse for hypocrisy. Political usefulness does not create a moral exemption, and supporting a politician does not require Christians to pretend that everything the politician says or does is morally acceptable. A Christian may make a political judgment that an imperfect candidate is preferable because of policies, appointments, alternatives, or other considerations. Another Christian may reach a different political judgment. What neither person should do is change the meaning of Christianity to make the candidate’s wrongdoing disappear. There is an important difference between choosing an imperfect political leader and declaring that the leader’s imperfections are no longer morally significant.

There is also an important limit to how far we should take these judgments. Saying, “This behavior contradicts Christianity” is different from saying, “Therefore I know this person is not a Christian.” We can compare observable conduct with Scripture because Scripture gives us a standard by which conduct can be evaluated. Determining the ultimate condition of another person’s relationship with God is a different matter. Christianity calls people to repentance precisely because Christians themselves continue to need correction, forgiveness, and transformation.

Isn’t Christianity Suppose To Be About Love?

One of the most common objections raised in political discussions is that Christianity is supposed to be about love. That is correct. Jesus placed love of God and love of neighbor at the center of His teaching in Matthew 22:37–40, and the New Testament repeatedly emphasizes love as essential to Christian life. But the word love cannot be removed from the rest of Scripture and then filled with whatever political or cultural meaning we prefer. Jesus taught love alongside truth, repentance, forgiveness, obedience, mercy, judgment, holiness, and the reality of sin. Biblical love cannot be used to eliminate those teachings any more than biblical truth can be used as an excuse for cruelty.

This becomes particularly important when biblical principles are applied to modern political questions. “Love your neighbor” does not by itself establish a particular immigration system, welfare program, healthcare policy, or tax rate. The biblical command to treat the foreigner justly does not tell Congress exactly how many people should legally enter the United States each year. Scripture’s concern for the poor does not establish one particular government program, just as its teachings about work and personal responsibility do not establish that the same program must be eliminated. These may all be important political questions, and biblical principles can legitimately influence how Christians think about them, but the human reasoning that connects a biblical principle to a particular modern policy should not automatically be given the authority of Scripture itself.

That distinction allows Christians to speak much more carefully. Instead of saying, “God commands this particular policy,” it may sometimes be more accurate to say, “I believe this policy is the wisest way to apply these biblical principles.” The first statement claims divine authority for the policy itself. The second acknowledges that Scripture establishes the principle while human beings are reasoning about its application. Sometimes Scripture establishes a clear moral boundary. At other times it gives us principles requiring wisdom. Confusing those categories is one of the easiest ways politics gets mistaken for faith.

One Verse Does Not Automatically Make Something Christian

Almost any political argument can be made to sound Christian if someone is allowed to select one Bible verse and attach it to a modern policy. The verse itself may even be quoted correctly while its political application is poorly supported. Before declaring something “the Christian position,” we should ask what the passage actually means, whether the principle appears consistently elsewhere in Scripture, whether other passages qualify its application, who the original instruction was directed toward, and how many human assumptions have been inserted between the biblical text and the political conclusion.

A command for individual Christians to give generously, for example, does not establish an exact federal tax rate. Scripture’s recognition of civil authority does not mean that every government action is righteous. Commands concerning the treatment of strangers do not establish an immigration quota. Concern for the poor does not establish one welfare system, just as teachings about work and responsibility do not establish one economic system. Human reasoning may produce thoughtful answers to all of these questions, but thoughtful human reasoning is still not the same thing as Scripture.

There are, of course, areas where Scripture speaks far more directly. False witness, adultery, theft, hatred, injustice, sexual immorality, and idolatry are not merely modern political policy questions. Scripture repeatedly addresses them as moral matters. In the same way, Christians are repeatedly commanded to practice love, forgiveness, generosity, truthfulness, justice, mercy, and faithfulness. The important distinction is between what Scripture actually establishes and what human beings subsequently attach to it.

When Christians Misrepresent Christianity

This distinction matters because some people have rejected Christianity not primarily because of what Christ taught, but because of what they have encountered under the name of Christianity. They have seen hypocrisy, political tribalism, dishonesty, cruelty, self-righteousness, misinformation, or human political opinions presented as though they came directly from God. Those experiences should not simply be dismissed. Christians who behave contrary to what they profess can seriously damage the credibility of their witness.

But fairness requires one additional question. When someone calling himself a Christian lies, behaves immorally, acts cruelly, becomes greedy, treats others unjustly, or excuses wrongdoing because it benefits his political side, we should ask not only, “Did a Christian do this?” but also, “Did Christianity teach him to do it?” If Christianity itself condemns the behavior, then the person’s failure is evidence that he violated Christianity, not evidence that Christianity teaches the failure.

The same fairness should operate in the opposite direction. Before accusing someone of being unchristian because he does not support a particular government program, immigration policy, economic proposal, or other political solution, we should first establish that Christianity actually requires that solution. A verse containing words such as poor, foreigner, justice, authority, nation, work, family, or love does not automatically settle a twenty-first-century policy debate. If additional human assumptions are required to move from the biblical command to the political policy, we should acknowledge them rather than presenting our own conclusion as though God wrote it Himself.

This distinction could remove a great deal of unnecessary hostility from discussions about Christianity and politics. More importantly, it could prevent people from rejecting Christianity because of doctrines Christianity never taught or behavior Christianity itself condemns. Before deciding that Christianity is hypocritical, hateful, political, or inconsistent because of something done by a person carrying its name, compare that person’s words and actions with the teachings of Christ. You may discover that the very Christianity you thought the person represented is the standard by which his behavior should have been challenged in the first place.

Judge Christianity By Christ

Christianity should ultimately be judged by its source, not by the behavior of every person who claims its name. The central Christian questions concern who Jesus was, what He taught, whether He was crucified, whether He rose from the dead, and whether the Scriptures that testify about Him are trustworthy. The conduct of a modern politician cannot make those historical claims true, and the misconduct of a modern politician cannot make them false.

The same principle should govern Christians when they enter politics. We should not begin with the position we already want—Republican, conservative, compassionate, patriotic, traditional, progressive, or otherwise—and then search Scripture for a verse capable of defending it. We should begin with Scripture, understand its teachings in context and alongside the rest of Scripture, distinguish clear commands from broad principles and human judgments, and only then ask how those teachings should affect our politics. Sometimes that process will produce certainty. Sometimes it will require humility. Sometimes the most biblically responsible answer may simply be that Scripture does not prescribe the exact political solution being debated.

That is not a weakness in Christianity. It is a recognition of the limits of our own authority. Christianity does not need to answer every question Congress debates in order to provide a moral foundation for the Christian life. What it does require is that Christians never give their political judgments the authority that belongs to God, and that critics of Christianity distinguish between what Christ actually taught and what imperfect Christians have done in His name.