On God and Government

Anyone endeavoring to learn the purpose and proper role of government in any society should, logically, begin by consulting the inventor of the institution.  Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 are appropriate starting points.

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.  Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.  For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.  Do you want to have no fear of authority?  Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good.  But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.  Therefore, it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’s sake.  For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.  Render to all what is due them:  tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7, emphasis mine).

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.  For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.  Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.  Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17, emphasis mine).

According to Scripture, government’s ultimate function is to serve as a “minister,” an “avenger” of evil, and a “servant of God” that punishes those who do evil and praises those who do good (cf. Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2:14).

Evildoers are those who would violate the intrinsic, inalienable (i.e., God-given, not government-issued) human rights of others.  Inalienable (or “unalienable,” as it is sometimes spelled) rights are sometimes referred to as “negative” rights, because they cannot be taken or given away by virtue of their being an integral and inextricable part of human nature.  These rights come into being the moment a human life comes into being.  (Specifically, that would be the moment at which fertilization occurs or, more to the point, when a male sperm unites with a female ovum to form a genetically distinct, 100% human, complete living person called, in scientific jargon, a “zygote.”)  Examples of inalienable rights include the right to life (the first and most fundamental human right, which makes all other rights possible), the right to religious freedom, the right to obey one’s conscience, the right to free speech, and the right to one’s own property (i.e., property created, purchased, earned, or otherwise legally acquired by the owner).

The opposite of inalienable/negative rights are so-called “positive” or “conventional” rights, which would include the alleged rights to welfare benefits, health care, housing, minimum wage, education, etc.  These man-made rights are things the government supposedly “owes” people and ought to create and secure for them, even though no one has to earn any of these goods.  The problem is, there is no biblical or constitutional justification for government entitlements — all of which, by the way, are paid for by taxpaying citizens.

“What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.  In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:  You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and 4th President of the United States, Federalist Paper #51

Clearly, the inherent depravity or fallenness of human nature (an empirical axiom that America’s Founders never needed to question or debate) is government’s raison d’être.  After all, as Madison astutely noted, if men (i.e., humans) were angelic beings, then perhaps our cherubic nature would obviate the need for law and order.  In other words, if every person always did the right thing, then our behavior would never need to be regulated.

Unfortunately, human beings are not “basically good,” as many in our present culture fancy.  On the contrary, we have an innate propensity for evil; and we act on this propensity often.  (Any honest parent will tell you that his/her child never had to be taught how to misbehave.  Rather, they came by it “naturally.”)  Due to the rebellious decision of the first man (Adam) and woman (Eve), this is our genetic inheritance as a fallen race.  (Study the third chapter of the book of Genesis so you may learn what theologians commonly refer to as the doctrine of Original Sin.  The biblical account of man’s fall into sin explains why you and I desire to do the bad things we regularly do.)

“The doctrine of original sin is the only philosophy empirically validated by thirty-five centuries of recorded human history.” – attributed to G.K. Chesterton

Because humans are conceived with a natural inclination toward unrighteousness, in addition to the fact that we also routinely act on that rebellious inclination, we surely cannot trust one another to police ourselves or to respect one another’s rights or property.  We also cannot be trusted with too much power.  Lord Acton, the 19th-century English historian, was right when he famously said, “Power has a tendency to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  This is why it is imperative for societies (i.e., communities comprised of fallen people) to be governed by God-fearing, principled political representatives (i.e., fallen people who must themselves be held accountable by a separation of powers and a system of internal and external checks & balances) who enforce just laws (i.e., laws that comply with the moral will of God, as revealed through natural and special revelation, or through conscience and divinely inspired Scripture, respectively).

In order for any nation to survive, to be free, and to flourish, its laws must be just; and its people, virtuous.  Thus, a nation’s laws must conform to “natural law,” which is the holy will and character of God — that is, the supreme Moral Lawgiver, who Himself is the transcendent, eternal, unchanging, absolute standard of Truth and morality.  Civil laws, therefore, are enacted by government for three principal reasons:  (1) to restrain the sinful proclivities of citizens; (2) to deter or punish behavior that would infringe upon or else threaten to contravene the inalienable rights of individual persons; and (3) to encourage the citizenry to live virtuous, respectable, and peaceable lives.

Simply put, faith (i.e., ongoing trust in and dependence upon the one true God, who grants and secures human “rights” and to whom all people are morally accountable), freedom (i.e., not the right to live one’s life however one desires — that would be license — but genuine liberty of the soul that carries with it the enormous privilege and responsibility of living one’s life in accordance with the perfect design of an all-wise and loving Creator, who alone can liberate mankind from our natural bondage to sin/vice and from both physical and spiritual death), and virtue (i.e., the integrity to do what is right, no matter what the costs — an inner strength and character that springs from one’s relationship with and allegiance to God) are inseparable absolutes, which is to say that you cannot have one without the other two and still have a just and truly free civilization.  No society, including America’s constitutional republic, can survive, much less thrive, if this essential, tripartite foundation is subverted.

“So, if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

“Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore, keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. . . . For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (Galatians 5:1, 13).

“Act as free men and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God” (1 Peter 2:16).

“That is the foundation of all national freedom.  It is historically true that where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has gone — where the Spirit of the Lord has gone — freedom has followed.  Where men’s hearts have been set free by the Gospel, it has not been long before their nations have become free; and free governments have replaced tyrannies.  We have seen this wherever the purity of the Gospel has gone in this world.  And those nations that are free today are free because of the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Dr. D. James Kennedy

Source: Ray Harker

America’s Founding Fathers — that is, those men who made significant intellectual contributions to the U.S. Constitution and its precursors, the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence — deemed this immense truth to be a paramount principle of republican government, often reiterating and emphasizing its essentiality both in public discourse and in private correspondence.  Were they all regenerate, Bible-obeying followers of the Lord Jesus Christ?  Probably not, but many of them certainly appear to have been.  The certainty of their individual spiritual conditions notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that America’s Founders, following in the footsteps of the undeniably Christian colonists and Pilgrim missionaries who first settled this great land, operated according to a biblical or Judeo-Christian view of total reality that rightly recognized the one Creator God as the Source of human rights and freedom, even if some did so merely for pragmatic reasons (for example, for the great practical wisdom and social efficacy of promoting a Christian code of ethics among the citizenry).

Consider the following quotes (emphasis mine):

“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 labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens.  The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.  A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity.  Let it simply be asked:  Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?  And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure — reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National Morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington, First President of the United States, as spoken in his Farewell Address (September 19, 1796)

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or licentiousness, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams, Second President of the United States, from a letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (October 11, 1798)

“Who composed that Army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes?  There were among them, Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and ‘Protestans qui ne croyent rien [Protestants who believe nothing].’  Very few, however, of several of these Species.  Nevertheless, all educated in the general Principles of Christianity:  and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.  The general Principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young gentlemen could unite; and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer.  And what were these general Principles?  I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united:  And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.  Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” – John Adams, Second President of the United States, from a letter to Thomas Jefferson (June 28th, 1813)

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States. . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” – Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States, from the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776, emphasis mine)

“God, who gave us life, gave us liberty.  And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?  That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?  Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States, from Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18 (1781)

“No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and their people [the corrupt citizens of Rome] were so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control. . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government:  Their minds [are] to be informed by education [in] what is right and what [is] wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments proportioned, indeed, but irremissible [i.e., binding]; in all cases, to follow truth as the only safe guide, and to eschew error . . .” – Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to John Adams (December 10, 1819, ME 15:234)

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it.  We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity . . . to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison, Fourth President of the United States and “Father of the Constitution,” as spoken to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia (1778)

“But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom.  Is there no virtue among us?  If there be not, we are in a wretched situation.  No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure.  To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.  If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” – James Madison, as spoken at the Virginia Ratifying Convention (June 20, 1788)

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin, from a letter to Messrs, the Abbes Chalut, and Arnaud (April 17, 1787)

“I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. . . . We neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.  By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” – Benjamin Rush, Pennsylvania Representative at the First Continental Congress, from a letter written in defense of teaching the Bible in all American schools (1790s)

“To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.” – Jedediah Morse, Congregational Minister and Geographer, from a sermon titled “Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America” (1799)

“Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.  Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous.  Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, from a letter addressed to Pennsylvania Representative John Murray (October 12, 1816)

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” – Noah Webster, one of America’s Founders and author of Webster’s Dictionary, from the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)

[Note:  Surely, such views could not have originated from the minds of staunch secularists who sought to establish a nation free from all religious influence and/or a society in which such clearly immoral behaviors as abortion on demand, sodomy, and same-sex unions would be considered constitutional rights!  Nothing could be further from the truth.]

Governments, furthermore, are limited in both scope and power.  Contrary to progressive ideology, no earthly government has the authority to act as a provider, caretaker, statist, charity, parent, nanny, educator, or deity.  When the State assumes such roles, it has overstepped its boundaries and has usurped and undermined functions and prerogatives that belong either to God Himself or to the other two social institutions God established and to which He has also graciously delegated some of His authority:  the Church and Marriage & Family.

[Note:  The three social institutions — Marriage & Family, Church, and Government — were set in place by God to restrain or mitigate evil in this world until Christ returns and ultimately puts all things to right.  Accordingly, whenever any of these institutions is weakened or altered to function in a way contrary to God’s intention, evil will inevitably proliferate.]

To recap in the simplest terms, the chief end of government is to promote justice, restrain evil, and maintain order in a society by enforcing laws that protect the God-given (or “inalienable”) rights of the individuals who make up that society.

Generally speaking, God commands all people to submit to and comply with governing authorities as an act of obedience to Him (Romans 13:1; Mark 12:17).  However, when a government implements policies or passes legislation that would force citizens to transgress the higher laws of God or violate their conscience, civil disobedience then becomes mandatory.  Like the apostles, Christians must be prepared to make our stand and boldly declare, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).  Put another way, our allegiance to Christ — who is sovereign over all earthly kingdoms and authorities (Psalm 103:19) — must always take precedence over our allegiance to the State or to any political party.

All that said, when I evaluate political candidates, I measure how closely their worldview (i.e., system of beliefs by which one views the whole of reality) aligns with biblical Christianity — the only correct view of reality.  [Disagree with that last point?  If so, I challenge you to read, in its entirety, the accessible, systematic argument that Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek present in their excellent book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.  Once you’ve done that, I’d be happy to discuss it with you if you have any questions.]  Consequently, I am obligated by the Word of God (i.e., the ultimate authority on all matters of life), as well as my conscience, to endorse only those candidates and policies that purpose to protect the sanctity and dignity of every human life, irrespective of age, size, level of development, environment (inside/outside of the womb), degree of dependency, sex, appearance, health, ability, or perceived usefulness to society.

I am also equally bound by Scripture and conscience to support only those candidates and/or policies that aim to preserve religious freedom (see the First Amendment) and that protect and promote the foundational social linchpin of natural marriage — that is, the millennia-old conjugal union of one man and one woman that, by divine design (see Matthew 19:4-6) or “natural order” if you like, serves as the indispensable bedrock of civilization and provides the optimal setting for the successful raising of children.  It is the latter fact that constitutes government’s sole interest in marriage.

History does not lie:  As the family goes, so goes society.  It is for that reason that public policy should be geared toward strengthening and promoting the only kind of social unit capable of forming and furthering healthy societies; that is, the divinely engineered family structure consisting of one man and one woman legally wed together in a life-long, committed, monogamous relationship, as well as any children their sacred union may produce.

“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth . . .'” (Genesis 1:27-28).

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Bear in mind that sound public policies (i.e., just laws) are based on the rule (i.e., what is usually or generally the case), not on exceptions.  That said, heterosexual marriage can bring tremendous benefits to society because, as a rule, the natural sexual union of one man and one woman brings forth the next generation of citizens and, as a rule, permanent one-man, one-woman marriage unions provide the most stable and robust social environment for raising principled, well-balanced, holistically healthy, productive citizens who make possible the perpetuation and general welfare of communities and nations.  Without question, in principle, natural marriage, as common sense, experience, history, and reputable sociological studies repeatedly confirm, provides the safest and healthiest context for a child’s upbringing.  Accordingly, as far as the government is concerned, marriage is principally about meeting the needs of children, as opposed to accommodating the (selfish) desires or feelings of adults.

When the State recognizes, privileges, and promotes natural marriage as the ideal social institution for proper child rearing — and when the government tightens divorce laws (read:  “No-fault” divorce laws must be done away with!) and discourages married couples from dissolving their union for virtually any reason or for no reason at all, as present law permits — it thereby encourages men and women to commit to each other for the long haul and to take responsibility for their children.

Since opposite-sex or heterosexual couples compose the only sexual unions biologically capable of reproducing the next generation of citizens needed to sustain and stabilize civilization; and since all children need the unique contributions of both their biological mother and their father (neither parent is dispensable, as personal experience and empirical data routinely corroborate), there is no legitimate reason for governments even to contemplate extending expensive (to society) marriage benefits to same-sex couples, who, by nature, cannot reproduce and whose unions, by definition, will always deprive any children they may adopt of either a mother or a father, 100 percent of the time.  Indeed, same-sex/homosexual unions (i.e., homosexual behavior and not the people who engage in that behavior) will never be equal in essence or function to opposite-sex/heterosexual unions, no matter what laws are passed or what language is redefined.  Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason, explains:

“Governments privilege heterosexual marriages in ways denied other couples for good reason:  They are not equal.  Heterosexual unions have a unique role in sustaining civilization.  Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny.  Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks.  Insurance policies reflect the relationship between a wage earner and his natural dependents.  These circumstances, inherent to basic family units, are not intrinsic to other relationships, particularly same-sex unions.  Government has no obligation to give every human coupling the same entitlements.  The unique benefits afforded conjugal marriage fit its unique purpose (emphasis mine).”

Same-sex couples are not the only couples who are justifiably excluded from government-sponsored marriage benefits, by the way.  The State also has zero interest in legalizing or dispensing entitlements to bigamous, polygamous, polyamorous, polyandrous, incestuous, pedophiliac, or zoophilic marital unions, all for the same reason:  None of these relationships would be safe for children or beneficial in any way to society.  In point of fact, I think it stands to reason that any contrived “family arrangement” that deviates from the Creator’s fundamental recipe — one man (husband), one woman (wife), and their children — can bring nothing but harm to any community.  Perhaps that is why, until recently, no nation has ever tinkered with the biblical, natural formula for marriage/family in all the years of recorded human history.  We would do well to heed G.K. Chesterton’s sage advice and leave this “fence” alone:

“Before you pull any fence down, always pause long enough to find out why it was put there in the first place.” – G.K. Chesterton

Related Resources:  For more, see my article, “Government’s Interest in Marriage.”  Additionally, Dr. Frank Turek wrote a book called Correct, Not Politically Correct:  How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, which features powerful secular (i.e., non-“religious”) arguments in support of natural marriage and against the legalization of so-called same-sex “marriage” (SSM).  Turek appeals to a number of peer-reviewed sources to demonstrate the deleterious effects of SSM on children, civil society, businesses, public health, religious freedom, and the First Amendment rights of everyone who objects to SSM and the practice of homosexuality in general.  A prolific blogger named Wintery Knight also published a concise, but cogent, three-point secular argument against SSM here that also relies on peer-reviewed sources.  For a more scholarly defense of natural marriage, I recommend Ryan T. Anderson’s “Marriage:  What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It” and the more thoroughgoing 43-page academic paper “What Is Marriage?” which Anderson co-authored with Sherif Girgis and Dr. Robert P. George.  For additional evidence of the negative consequences of SSM, particularly its menacing threat to religious liberties and conscience rights, see Brian Camenker’s alarming article “What Same-Sex Marriage Has Done to Massachusetts” and the shocking seven-part documentary “Speechless,” which begins here.

Having said all of that, I would also like to make it perfectly clear that I do not pledge blind loyalty to any political party.  Although I am a registered Republican, I do not always agree with Republican candidates.  Ergo, to keep things simple, I identify myself as a biblical conservative who votes for candidates who are committed to defending the original intent of the Constitution and who are 100% pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-religious freedom, pro-parental rights, and pro-individual responsibility.  Far too many modern Republicans (a.k.a. “RINOs” or “Neo-Cons”) only masquerade as conservatives — a scourge that is equal parts lamentable and maddening.  Nevertheless, the GOP’s core ideological platform is a noble one; and a baby should never be tossed out with the proverbial bath water.

Keeping that idea in mind, as a Bible-obeying Christian, I cannot support any candidate who belongs to the modern Democrat Party.  Unlike the Grand Old Party, which I readily admit is in need of considerable renovation, the Democrat platform is not merely misrepresented by some of its party members, nor is it simply in need of a few improvements here and there.  No, the entire Democrat platform itself is fatally flawed, because it advances an agenda that is antithetical at virtually every point to the holy character and expressed will of Jesus Christ.  Accordingly, unless this party formally repents of and renounces its longstanding, steadfast commitment to abortion (i.e., the unjustifiable killing of innocent human life), as well as its campaign to normalize sexual immorality/perversion (LGBTQ+), redefine marriage, and in other ways undermine the fundamental social institution of one-man, one-woman marriage and the nuclear family, among a plethora of other ungodly ideas (e.g., secularism, statism, socialism, privatization of religion, affirmative action/race-based preferences, radical feminism, radical environmentalism, sexual “freedom,” legal positivism, and moral relativism, to name but a few), I will continue to oppose Democrat candidates in the voting booth as a matter of moral obligation and fidelity to Christ.

“The Democratic Party has made the sins of Romans 1 their agenda.  What God condemns, they affirm.  What God punishes, they exalt.  Shocking, really.  The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party; the sin-promoting party.” – Dr. John MacArthur, a highly respected expository preacher whom many would label as “apolitical,” meaning that he rarely addresses “politics”

[Note:  In the following section, I will use the umbrella term “Leftism” to encapsulate the philosophical worldview of the Democrat Party.  In actuality, the ideas that influence liberal thought are eclectic and complex.  Hence, to gain a better understanding of the worldviews undergirding the modern Democrat Party, I recommend studying, at a minimum, the following ideologies:  Neo-Darwinism, Marxism, Leninism, Progressivism, and especially, Secular Humanism.

The historical development of political labels is intriguing, if not confusing.  The term “liberal” used to represent the same ideals that many libertarians, conservatives, and “Tea Partiers” champion today (e.g., individual rights, the rule of law, limited government, private property, and laissez-faire economics).  Technically, contemporary liberals (as opposed to classical liberals of the 19th and early to mid-20th centuries) are really “leftists.”  So, why do they still call themselves “liberals”?  Well, basically, in the 1960s, the heavily socialist, Karl Marx-inspired “New Left” hijacked the post-WWII Democrat Party and seized control of the term “liberal” from its more centrist-minded, Constitution-respecting forebears and, through years of deceitful rhetoric and the invaluable aid of the media and academia in propagating it, gradually succeeded in redefining that once respectable label so that it has come to represent values and socio-political objectives that are antipodal to its original meaning.

As socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas once said:  “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism.  But under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

I believe that day has arrived.  For a fascinating exploration of the etymological and ideological transitions within American Liberalism, see the following Web page:  “Defining and Understanding the Left.”]

Leftism — the basic philosophy underlying the Democrat Party — is a hopelessly myopic, imprudent, and logically and morally bankrupt worldview that is fundamentally at odds with biblical Christianity.  In effect, this worldview deifies government (really, humanity) and is predicated on a false view of anthropology — namely, the profound misconception that human beings are essentially good and simply need to be “set free” from the “reactionary” and “repressive” influences of Christianity and traditional Judeo-Christian precepts, ethics, and ideas.  [Note:  Research Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Romanticism and the concept of the “Noble Savage” to get an idea of what I’m talking about.  Also look into the deeply humanistic and wildly influential psychological and sociological teachings of Freud, Skinner, and Rogers.]  This is a polarizing contrast to the scriptural teaching that humanity is intrinsically depraved and in dire need of spiritual and moral transformation, which only Christ can engender in a person’s life.

Moreover, because they hold to an anthropocentric (i.e., man-centered), Darwinian view of reality, leftists and progressives fancy that humans can ultimately perfect ourselves and achieve social unity and global peace (i.e., the Marxist chimera of “Utopia”), but only if we relinquish our adherence to the “antiquated” religious traditions, “narrow-minded” truth claims, and “judgmental” moral absolutes that “impede” our social evolution.

[Note:  John Lennon’s famous song “Imagine,” although hauntingly beautiful and melodically pleasing to the ear, lyrically summarizes the ethos of leftists and secularists.  Indeed, it could well serve as the musical anthem for secular humanism.]

In short, despite using spiritual-sounding language on occasion, leftists put their faith/trust not in the sovereign God (cf. Psalm 103:19), but in the faux sovereignty of government (humanity) to solve the world’s problems.  [To be fair here, a whole lot of folks are guilty of such misplaced faith, including Independents, Libertarians, Republicans, et al., in addition to Christians of all stripes.  Nevertheless, what I’m trying to underscore here is that trusting man or the State rather than God is an integral component of the humanistic underpinning of the leftist/secular-progressive worldview.]

However, by rejecting God’s view of mankind (i.e., not only the truth that we are sinful beings in need of divine redemption but also that we are created in God’s image [cf. Genesis 1:26 & Genesis 9:6] and are endowed with inestimable worth and transcendent rights, meaning that all people are equal in essence and dignity but unequal or different in abilities, roles, circumstances, etc.) and jettisoning God’s view of the universe He created (e.g., by embracing Neo-Darwinism and philosophical naturalism, or pagan New Age or Eastern cosmological beliefs, as many on the Left do), the leftist worldview effectively denies Reality’s God and, by logical consequence, Reality itself.

[Note:  To clarify, I am not suggesting that every member of the Democrat Party or everyone who votes for a Democrat politician would agree with all the positions mentioned above.  What I am saying, however, is that the people who properly understand the philosophies that gave rise to the modern Democrat Party and who consistently apply those ideas will hold these positions if they are intellectually honest.  Unfortunately, most individuals don’t take the time to think carefully through these critical issues.  As a result, the average person is unable to articulate what she believes or why she believes it.  Tragically, she then winds up voting for really rotten candidates out of ignorance and/or blind partisan devotion to her parents’ political party.]

Economically speaking, I am also a fiscal conservative.  Although an imperfect economic system (as all political policies in a fallen world are), the fundamental principles of free-enterprise capitalism are woven throughout the Scriptures.  For example, two of the Ten Commandments (8 and 10) prohibit stealing and coveting things that belong to others, which presupposes an individual’s right to private property.  In addition, in a letter to his disciple Timothy, the Apostle Paul states bluntly, “If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”  (I don’t detect a hint of tolerance for America’s dehumanizing welfare state in Paul’s writings!)

Accordingly, it is precisely because I am a Christian that I support free enterprise and limited government involvement in the private sector.  Private business owners should be free to operate without onerous tax burdens and crushing government regulations (e.g., price/wage controls) that restrict their entrepreneurial ability to create more wealth and, by extension, more job opportunities for the unemployed and poor.

Neither socialism nor communism is compatible with biblical Christianity, as both systems beget entitlement societies, which in turn robs individuals of their God-given rights (namely, property, dignity, and in many cases, life); crushes their work ethic and spirit of ambition; gives rise to avarice, covetousness, irresponsibility, slothfulness, despair, and crime; and forces people into demeaning, slavish dependency on the government — “wards of the State,” as it were.

Furthermore, since God created government solely to promote justice by protecting each individual’s God-given (not government-issued) rights, the State has no authority (either biblically or constitutionally, for that matter) to eliminate poverty or other social or economic ills.  This is a classic example of government overreach.  Jesus commands the Church (i.e., individual Christians/the private sector), not the government, to take care of the needy and sick (Matthew 25:34-40; Luke 10:37).

When the government coercively takes (i.e., robs) taxpayers of their hard-earned money and spends (read:  squanders) it on causes and programs that government officials judge to be worthy of funding (and which may, and often do, violate the conscience of the taxpayers, as subsidized abortions certainly do), private citizens are then cheated out of their right to practice charity (i.e., a voluntary action that, by definition, cannot be coerced) and live out their religious beliefs as God instructs — namely, to love our neighbors as ourselves.  (Remember, when Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbor?”  He responded by telling the parable of the “Good Samaritan,” not the “Good Government” or the “Good Bureaucrat”!  [See Luke 10:30-37])  This is wrong.  Plain and simple.

While much, much more could be said, I will leave it at that for now.  If you would like to know more about my political or theological views or need clarification on anything I’ve written above, feel free to contact me.  Thanks!

Recommended Reading

Statement of Biblical Worldview – Patrick Henry College

[Note:  See, especially, the section titled “Civil Government.”]