This text is a part of the The Crossway Podcast collection.
Don’t Neglect These Essential Rules earlier than You Vote
How ought to my Christian beliefs influence how I vote? Is it okay to vote for the lesser of two evils? Or is it higher to not vote in any respect? On this episode, Jonathan Leeman presents his ideas on all of those questions and extra.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | RSS
Subjects Addressed in This Interview:
Matt Tully
Jonathan, thanks a lot for becoming a member of me at present on The Crossway Podcast.
Jonathan Leeman
Matt, it’s good to speak to you once more.
Matt Tully
Jonathan, you’re a pastor, and also you’re the pastor of a church positioned proper exterior of Washington, DC, and also you have been beforehand at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which is actually only a few blocks from the US Capitol constructing. So simply to get us began right here at present earlier than we soar into a few of the political questions and points that we wrestle with as Christians, inform us just a little bit about your self. What first introduced you to the Washington DC metro space?
Jonathan Leeman
Yeah, certain. Thanks, Matt. What introduced me was a long-time curiosity in politics. As a excessive schooler, I liked studying about politics, each what was happening within the newspaper and in addition the books about politics and historical past and so forth. In faculty, I studied political science, did two or three internships in faculty in varied political our bodies around the globe, together with for my very own congressman. I did a grasp’s in political principle proper after my undergraduate diploma, after which moved to DC, pondering I wished to get plugged in someway within the political enviornment, at the same time as I ready to do extra examine in political philosophy. In order that’s what bought me to DC. Wait, did I reply your query? Did I cowl it?
Matt Tully
Yeah. What was it about political science that was so interesting to you? Clearly, at present in our tradition within the broader dialog, we appear to like politics. We get into it. We wish to speak about it. We wish to hearken to stuff about it. And but we additionally all will say we hate politics. We hate the division. We don’t belief the politicians. So what was it about politics, as an adolescent and even going into graduate college, that led you to essentially wish to focus your examine on this complete space?
Jonathan Leeman
Two issues have all the time me. Primary, buildings of authority and energy and the way these influence folks’s lives. They’re essential. And quantity two, questions of justice. What’s politics? In some ways, it’s a society’s try to implement justice. And so it has these society-wide establishments (i.e. authorities) whose duty is to implement, I might say, a restricted type of protectionist justice. So if you happen to’re an individual who’s concerned with justice, you’re going to be an individual who’s inevitably concerned with politics, as a result of one serves the opposite. I believe the extra unfavourable interpretation—a nation turns into extra concerned with politics generally when a nation loses perception in God. Increasingly more they appear to those earthly authorities to supply, to guard, to save lots of, after they’re not trying to their maker. And one signal, I believe, of a tradition in decline is a preoccupation with politics. Now, possibly you’re preoccupied as a result of sure occasions are happening. Individuals have been fairly preoccupied in 1859 for comprehensible causes, as the difficulty of slavery was rising in its depth and in disagreements over that. So I’m not saying there aren’t good causes to be concerned in politics. There are. Nonetheless, I believe it’s value protecting in thoughts our preoccupation with politics at present in the US could also be an indication of non secular decline.
Matt Tully
You’ll discover sure strains of Christian pondering in Christian denominations and sure church buildings which may have that emphasis much more, the place they’re simply suspicious of politics on the whole. And they’d nearly wish to generally put that up in opposition to true religion in God and even our true calling as Christians to like each other, to pursue justice and mercy, however to do this in a extra direct means. And they’d see political engagement because the corruption of the Christian calling to do these issues. What do you concentrate on that? Is there validity in that critique or that suspicion?
Jonathan Leeman
There’s some validity. So let me begin by providing an empathetic phrase, or sympathetic phrase, to that specific impulse. How a lot does the New Testomony speak about politics?
Matt Tully
Not a lot.
Jonathan Leeman
Not a lot. Paul, Peter, John, Jesus—they need Jesus to speak about politics, however he simply doesn’t. Not in the identical means. Not in the best way they need them to he doesn’t speak about it. He does, however in a special type of means, and so forth within the Epistles. So the New Testomony’s overriding concern is making disciples. That’s the tip of my sympathetic phrase. Right here’s my extra essential phrase. A part of making disciples is educating folks to obey all the things that Jesus instructions. And a part of obeying all the things that Jesus instructions is studying to like our neighbor as ourselves. It’s studying to do justice. As we love our neighbors, partially, by caring about whether or not or not a superb authorities is implementing justice pretty and rightly. And so insofar as I’ve a vote and insofar as I’ve been given alternative to foyer or legislate or regardless of the case could also be, loving my neighbor requires me to step in and fulfill no matter stewardship I’ve been given. So folks generally take politics and so they separate it out from below the umbrella of our discipleship. And I wish to say no, we have to put it again below that umbrella. It’s one a part of our discipleship to Christ. And for that cause, I believe church buildings and pastors have a duty to assist folks to discover ways to suppose politically, a minimum of to some restricted, throughout the bounds of Scripture extent. If I’m speaking to Christians in China or North Korea or Madagascar or Brazil, it’s going to be just a little completely different based mostly on the place they’re coming from and what governments are over them and the way they’re on this matter than speaking to People. Now, People on the entire, and I believe Christian People even, since earlier than 1776 have all been extraordinarily concerned with politics. And so there is perhaps the necessity with an American viewers to lean just a little bit extra into the primary skeptical phrase that I provided. Hey People, how a lot consideration does the Bible give to this? Whereas with different folks around the globe, possibly there’s just a little bit extra of a have to lean into the extra constructive, affirming phrase. So to some extent, I believe we have to take inventory of ourselves and our historical past and the way a lot consideration we give to this matter earlier than we determine how a lot curiosity is an excessive amount of curiosity.
Matt Tully
That’s a superb phrase as a result of all of us have to assess even for ourselves in our personal hearts, as we take into consideration this upcoming election and we take into consideration all of the media that we’re consuming, how am I desirous about politics? What phrase do I would like to listen to? Do I would like to listen to the warning to to not put an excessive amount of inventory in what’s occurring in Washington, DC (your metropolis)? Or do I have to maybe be extra engaged and take into consideration how that is one solution to train my Christian discipleship below the Lordship of Christ. I would like us to think about that I’m possibly a youthful member of your congregation—you’re a pastor of a church, as we already stated—who’s coming to you, once more, dwelling within the midst of this extremely political enviornment the place you reside and work—the Washington DC space. I do know that you’ve individuals who work in authorities in your church, so I’m certain you get plenty of questions and also you get approached by folks like this on a regular basis. I’m wondering if you happen to can reply a few of these questions that we’d have out of your perspective as a pastor, somebody who does care about these folks and desires to assist information them into making sensible, biblical selections. First query, and also you’ve already hit on this maybe just a little bit, however if you happen to have been to sit down down with any person, what could be the primary foundational precept or concept that you’d wish to have a younger Christian perceive when they consider Christians and political engagement?
Jonathan Leeman
I believe the primary precept must be that God instituted governments—that is type of a component A and half B, if I may—and that governments, due to this fact, are below him. That’s to say they’re topic to his judgment. And the truth that governments are instituted by God and are due to this fact topic to his judgment (below him) implies that all of our political engagement needs to be geared in direction of the tip of working to make sure that authorities does what God asks it to do. I believe the foundational verse for presidency and the authority of presidency is again earlier than even the decision to Abraham, when God continues to be placing the civilizational fundamentals in place. It comes from Genesis 9:6 the place it says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” What’s the bottom of that? The bottom of that’s, “for God made man in his personal picture.” Which is to say the essential authority for implementing justice comes from the truth that we’re made in God’s picture as a theological basis. Or if I have been to again up into verse 5, 3 times in verse 5 God says, “I’ll require a reckoning for whoever sheds the blood of man.” If somebody harms man, “I’ll require it.” He says it 3 times: “I’ll require . . . I’ll require . . . I’ll require.” The place does the authority of presidency come from? It comes from God’s requirement. It doesn’t come from the consent of the ruled. If I may each affirm my love for the Declaration of Independence whereas disagreeing with that one little sentence, the place Jefferson says governments derive their simply energy from the consent of the ruled, which is to say any energy derived not from the consent of the ruled is unjust. That’s not true.
Matt Tully
And that begins to sound such as you’re then disagreeing with possibly a foundational precept of democracy.
Jonathan Leeman
Effectively, no, that’s not solely the best way Jefferson would construe it. No. Should you ask me, “Hey, Jonathan, decide a type of authorities you most need.” I might say, “I most need one which derives its energy from the consent of the ruled.” As a matter of prudence, as a matter of knowledge, sure. However lastly, the ethical authority of any authorities—monarchy, aristocracy, democracy—comes from God’s requirement. And in order that’s why in Romans 13, Paul says no matter authorities there may be, God instituted it. Again to the younger Christian, I’m saying you must perceive that God’s judgment later (the tip of historical past) means he guidelines now. So no matter you do whenever you go to vote, no matter you do if you happen to’re engaged on town council or on the varsity PTA, no matter you’re doing within the public sq. by any means, you’re doing it to meet what God requires of humanity. And due to this fact, you’re below the judgment of God. And due to this fact, it’s God’s regulation in some kind. We’ve to specify what we imply by regulation, but it surely’s God’s regulation, lastly, that Christians needs to be concerned with pursuing. That’s the very first thing I might say.
Matt Tully
That’s an fascinating solution to formulate it as a result of I believe some folks may hear you say that and possibly assume that you simply imply the purpose of all Christian political engagement needs to be to create some type of “Christian nation.” We’re all attempting to implement God’s full regulation—everything of what God says and instructs within the Bible—attempting to make that the precise regulation of the land. Is that what you’re saying, or is there extra nuance to this that will be useful to attract out?
Jonathan Leeman
I’m so glad you requested that query, as a result of that brings me to the second factor I might say to the younger Christian who’s asking about this. I’d say, primary, God instituted it and it’s below God. However quantity two, I might say he’s given authorities a restricted jurisdiction. “Render to Caesar what’s Caesar’s.” Don’t render to Caesar all the things that’s God, simply render to Caesar what God has given Caesar. It’s a restricted lane. It’s a restricted jurisdiction. And see it says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his personal picture.” It doesn’t say whoever blasphemes God, whoever harms God, whoever sheds God’s blood. It says whoever sheds the blood of man. So we’ve a restricted, horizontal, not vertical (although there’s a vertical basis) jurisdiction. So the analogy I typically use, Matt, is that of a babysitter. Evaluate a mum or dad’s authority over a baby to a babysitter’s authority over a baby. A mum or dad has fairly broad authority over a baby. Educating them to stroll, eat, play good along with his sister, worship, marry. All the pieces. It’s a broad authority, a broad jurisdiction {that a} mum or dad possesses. For a babysitter, nonetheless, it’s a a lot narrower jurisdiction. Simply maintain the children out of visitors, don’t allow them to battle, feed them to dinner, get them to mattress on time. That’s it. It’s a restricted jurisdiction. Now, that babysitter ought to know that mother and pa are coming dwelling. And if the babysitter decides to allow them to play in visitors and the neighbor lets the mother and father know, then that babysitter goes to be in hassle for defying what the mother and father had stated. So it’s below the jurisdiction of the mum or dad. Nonetheless, it’s a restricted, slim jurisdiction. Simply maintain them alive. That’s what we wish. Preserve them alive. So the federal government, level one, is below God; however level two, it has a restricted keep-people-safe-and-alive-and-protected jurisdiction.
Matt Tully
That’s actually useful. That’s a useful solution to body it. We perceive that there are particular issues that the federal government, by God’s design, has authority over us with, however then there are issues that God has not given the federal government authority over. And so we have to distinguish between these two issues as we take into consideration pursuing God’s will. So possibly a couple of different questions right here. So on this specific election that’s arising, however I believe that is in all probability true for many elections in historical past, you’ll generally hear folks discuss in regards to the want to decide on between the lesser of two evils. That’s a means of getting at the truth that possibly we’ve actually severe theological and moral issues with each of the candidates, or the entire candidates (nonetheless many there is perhaps). However I’m wondering, is {that a} legitimate mind-set, in your thoughts, that Christians have permission to decide on the lesser of two evils?
Jonathan Leeman
Type of. I perceive what folks imply after they’re getting at that. However essentially, you’re not going to vote for an individual if you happen to suppose all they’re going to do is evil. Individual A does this a lot evil. Individual B does that a lot evil. And neither of them do any good. Effectively, in that case, what are we doing? So the presumption is sure, there’s a lesser of two evils, however there’s additionally the presumption that there’s good being carried out. So in that sense, I’d wish to qualify it takes greater than you not being horrible to earn my vote. I have to know that you simply’re going to do some good with it. That’s the very first thing I’d say. The explanation I’m sympathetic with the general intuition to go for whichever candidate is much less dangerous is, primary, it’s a practical concession to the truth that we stay in a fallen world and we’re coping with imperfect decisions earlier than us. And once we’re within the public sq., we’re coping with sinners who none of them are Jesus. So it’s an acceptable concession to that. It’s additionally an acceptable concession to the truth that whereas there are a number of rocks on the size, I’ll generally say, a number of points that qualify you for my vote, some rocks are heavier than others. The rock of abortion is only a complete lot heavier than the rock of healthcare coverage or schooling coverage. I’m concerned with what it’s a must to say on healthcare and schooling, however I’m way more concerned with what it’s a must to say about abortion. So it’s not unfair to say, “Effectively, there’s a number of points that we have to rely.” Effectively, that’s true. Once more, a number of rocks on the size, however some rocks are heavier than others. And in relation to these massive, heavy rocks, the massive points which might be all about preserving the civilizational fundamentals that God intends for presidency to guard (comparable to life and household and so forth), these ought to weigh extra, and there’s a sense by which even when neither candidate is ideal, I’m going to lean in direction of the lesser of two evils.
Matt Tully
That does elevate the entire query of voting itself, although. I’m wondering if this may very well be useful: How would you describe what’s occurring whenever you vote? What are you saying whenever you vote for this candidate and never for an additional candidate? What’s your philosophy of voting, so to talk?
Jonathan Leeman
I wrote an article that you will discover on the 9 Marks web site if you happen to simply Google “Jonathan Lehman, Ethics of Voting.” I believe that’s the subtitle: “Ethics of voting” However if you happen to Google it, you’ll discover it. I’m evaluating what precisely makes a vote ethical or immoral, which is one other means of claiming, “What are we doing?” We’re handing the form of state to a candidate to implement what we perceive to be justice. A simply set of legal guidelines, a simply set of insurance policies, and so forth. If I’m selecting between Senatorial Candidate Jack and the Senatorial Candidate Jill, I’ve to select Jack or Jill (or I may write in) at hand Jack or Jill the sword of state to implement what they inform me they’re going to implement. I then develop into morally liable for that act by advantage of the precept of causation. I’m handing them the sword of state, they then take the sword of state from my vote (if a majority of us vote), after which they implement it. As such, I develop into, at some stage and indirectly, morally culpable for what they are saying they’re going to do with the sword of state. I believe that’s voting in its most simple kind. Now, there are methods of strategically voting, such that I’m not simply desirous about this specific alternative in entrance of me—Jack versus Jill—however I’m additionally desirous about the observe up election. If I vote for Jack this time, it’s going to have this impact on the general social gathering. And what that’s going to imply for the subsequent election is that Jack’s going to immediately discover himself with a fair worse Jill, or one thing like that. Or I would take into consideration how Jack versus Jill impacts different races happening concurrently. So all of those chess-playing calculations then enter into the general means folks vote. And in relation to the ethics of voting—what makes a vote proper or fallacious—I believe we have to make some allowance—some, not a ton, however just a little little bit of allowance—for these sorts of chess-playing strikes. Is it fallacious to lose my bishop in a sport of chess? Effectively, if I do know I’m going to realize the queen because of this. Okay, I perceive why you’ll select to lose your bishop. That’s what makes ethical analysis of this stuff, in some methods, so exhausting.
Matt Tully
And a few Christians may hear all of this and so they may simply instinctively really feel like that is what makes this so unappealing is are we actually known as to be these strategic gamers on this sport? That’s what it begins to really feel like. And their response to all this is perhaps,—and we haven’t even talked about this, however I believe it’s maybe extra related on this election than in lots of earlier elections—the choice of simply not voting in any respect. So what would you say to the Christian who says, “I reject the concept that I’ve to decide on between the lesser of two evils. Each candidates are simply dangerous sufficient that I don’t suppose it’d be proper for me to vote for both of them”? Is {that a} legitimate choice for Christians to only sit out and simply say, “I’m not going to take part”?
Jonathan Leeman
Yeah, I do. Or to jot down in. Maybe I might say it’s possibly barely higher to jot down in or decide up a smaller social gathering candidate. Once you ask me in regards to the lesser of two evils, that’s not me saying that whereas I believe that’s a sound cause to go for A as an alternative of B, I’m not saying you’re constrained to A or B. And if you happen to determine to jot down in C or simply not vote, I believe you’re free to do this. Why don’t I believe voting is an ethical should? As a result of the Bible doesn’t say it’s. What the Bible says is that we should love our neighbors ourselves and search to do justice, sure, however I believe there’s some measure of Christian freedom that we’ve to find out how God would have me, in my station of life and with my stewardships and so forth, try this finest. And I can’t are available and say, “Effectively, which means you should train the facility to vote.” I believe I can say you need to love your neighbor and you need to do justice, however I’m going to go away just a little little bit of freedom for a way you’re employed that out. That’s the very first thing I’m going to say. The second factor I might say is I truly do suppose a write in registers a political assertion each bit as a lot as your vote for candidate A versus candidate B, for Jack as an alternative of Jill, or Jill as an alternative of Jack. In case your conscience says to you, I can’t vote for both of those candidates, then I believe so that you can vote for both of these candidates, which works in opposition to your conscience, may very well be sin. I’m not saying it’s sin. I’m simply saying from the standpoint of Romans 14, the place it says the brother with a weaker conscience, if he’s like, “That is sin!” (and it might not be, Paul says) however then so that you can do it, it’s sin if you happen to go in opposition to conscience. So the underside line, mates, is if you happen to don’t suppose you may vote for Jack or Jill, don’t.
Matt Tully
You’ve already talked about a few of the calculus that we’ve to do in relation to evaluating a few of the completely different points which might be typically on the poll represented by a sure candidate or one other. These are sure issues like abortion, which you’ve talked about, there’s tax coverage, there’s immigration coverage, there are questions round sexuality and gender and the economic system. All of these items can appear so essential and we will generally marvel as Christians how we must always let this stuff stack up in opposition to one another. All of them appear to be they’ve moral dimensions to them. All of them have penalties for folks’s lives. And as you stated, even when we’re pondering by way of the lens of loving my neighbor, it may be exhausting as Christians to understand how essential we must always rank every of this stuff. So what ideas may you supply for the Christian who’s attempting to get straight what a very powerful points are in relation to their vote?
Jonathan Leeman
Yeah. Nice. Thanks. A number of issues. Precept primary is trying to the essential explanation why God established authorities. What’s the job that God has given authorities to do most explicitly? Most clearly? Christian listeners, I believe, ought to perceive the precept that the issues which might be extra clear in Scripture, we will put extra confidence in; and the issues which might be much less clear, though they is perhaps true, however we are likely to put much less doctrinal confidence in them. By that very same token, issues that the Bible clearly assigns to authorities as a part of its job, let’s put extra confidence in, and fewer, much less. Much less clear, much less confidence. What’s most clear then? Effectively, let’s return to “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” There’s verse 6 of Genesis 9. What’s tremendous, tremendous clear is that authorities is required to guard life. We’re out of the backyard now. We’re not within the secure area of the backyard. And so God, lest the Cains maintain killing the Ables and to protect historical past, God establishes this primary justice mechanism to guard life. After which the best way the Mosaic Covenant, or Mosaic Regulation, expands on that—not that it’s immediately binding on us (I don’t suppose it’s), but it surely illustrates for us what one nation did—is it makes it relevant even to livelihood. So one verse says, and I’m paraphrasing, that to take an individual’s animal, one should restore that animal. After which it says “life for all times.” In different phrases, an implication of life for all times is you may’t take issues from me which might be essential to my livelihood. So most clear is authorities exists to guard our lives and our livelihoods. A second factor that I wish to take from that’s have a look at the place verse 6 is true in between verses 1 and seven. The paragraph is verses 1 to 7. Verse 1, “be fruitful and multiply.” Verse 7, “be fruitful and multiply.” Verse 6, proper within the center, “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” What does that inform you hermeneutically? Effectively, it tells you in verse 6, the facility of presidency, serves to facilitate verses 1 and seven, “be fruitful and multiply.” It serves the needs of dominion. So what’s additionally fairly clear is marriage exists to guard life and household. Women and men having infants and constructing households and going to work. So what will we make of a authorities that, let’s say, deconstructs women and men and decides to redefine marriage? And decides to harm infants? And decides to say authority over mum or dad authority? Effectively, that that’s a authorities that’s working, to some measure, in opposition to the very civilizational foundations for which authorities exists to guard.
Matt Tully
One of many tough issues might be that generally we’d really feel like the 2 events that is perhaps in view possibly do serve this elementary objective of presidency—defending human life, defending human flourishing—they each are doing that and dealing in opposition to that in numerous methods. Clearly, there’s one social gathering that will be fairly pro-abortion and one other social gathering that, a minimum of traditionally, has been fairly in opposition to abortion. And so if that was the one situation, it might sound fairly apparent which social gathering could be supporting human flourishing and life. However then you definately begin to combine different points, whether or not it’s financial points that relate to households and their potential to feed their youngsters, and there are housing points that relate to that—so how ought to we, once more, maintain all these issues balanced when it may possibly appear to be completely different events examine sure bins after which don’t examine different bins? It will possibly really feel just a little bit complicated.
Jonathan Leeman
Yeah, and they’re extra difficult. Right here’s the unsatisfying a part of my reply to your query. Scripture may be very clear that the prosecuting of presidency’s justice requires knowledge. So Solomon is standing in entrance of two prostitutes, each saying, “This child’s mine.” “No, this child’s mine.” After which Solomon’s like, “Okay, I do know what to do. Let’s convey a sword and minimize the newborn in half.” And the true mother’s like, “No! No! she will have it.” After which the narrator summarizes by saying, “The folks have been amazed that God had given knowledge to Solomon to do justice.” That will have been a tricky scenario. Whose child is that this? The Bible doesn’t say. It doesn’t give us a complete bunch of case regulation that claims, “Okay, whenever you’re confronted by two prostitutes in these conditions, then do that.” No, you want knowledge. And so certain sufficient, Proverbs 8 summarizes the purpose in verses 14, 15, and 16. Knowledge is talking, and knowledge says, “By me princes reign and rulers decree what’s simply.” So we want knowledge. Let’s return to the size then, a number of rocks on the size. What you’re asking is, or what you’re asserting is, “There are quite a lot of rocks on the size. Jonathan, doesn’t well being care and immigration coverage and honest housing—doesn’t that influence livelihood?” Yeah, it does. Undoubtedly. “Okay, nicely, is that not, due to this fact, probably simply as heavy as abortion?” Effectively, to some extent. It’s like, “Lord, give us knowledge in order that we will do justice and determine which of those rocks is most heavy.” I bear in mind sitting subsequent to a Christian educational at one event, and she or he stated to me, “Effectively, I found out that the Republicans have been pro-life on abortion; that’s good. However the Democrats have been pro-life on capital punishment by being against it. So I simply figured these two points canceled one another out (just like the rocks have been each equally heavy) and I used to be free to vote on completely different points.” I used to be curious, so I went dwelling and I Googled how many individuals have been put to loss of life by capital punishment because the Supreme Court docket restored it in 1976. The reply: round 1,500 folks. How many individuals have been put to loss of life by Roe v. Wade? Reply: about 60 million folks. Let’s suppose for a second that each one of these criminals who have been put to loss of life by capital punishment in the US since 1976 have been harmless. Let’s assume they weren’t criminals. Let’s simply assume they have been harmless. Fifteen hundred versus 60 million. These, to me, don’t really feel like equally heavy rocks. However that’s an adjudication of judgment. That’s an adjudication of knowledge on my half saying, look, I simply suppose this rock is a complete lot heavier than the opposite rock. Sixty million versus 1,500. So, no, I don’t suppose they cancel one another out. So once more, how do you identify which rocks are heaviest? Once more, I’m going to go to the readability of the difficulty in Scripture, after which I’m going to enchantment to we simply have to make good judgments.
Matt Tully
In relation to this matter of knowledge and making judgments, so typically in different sides of our lives we instinctively perceive the worth of different Christians, of dialog with different Christians, the place we ask for recommendation, we get their enter, we ask them to possibly present us the place our blind spots are. However it may possibly appear that generally on the difficulty of politics, which you’ve simply type of made the case that knowledge—the sensible software of biblical ideas—is so foundational for all that we’re doing on this enviornment. Typically we will really feel like we will’t actually discuss to different Christians. We’ve this mindset that politics is that this non-public, private factor, and we don’t actually wish to speak about it as a result of we don’t wish to have there be battle or it simply looks like a 3rd rail type of situation. Do you’re feeling that pressure? Does it really feel completely different for you and your church as you concentrate on your congregation?
Jonathan Leeman
Yeah, I perform a little bit. What occurs is, insofar as we fail to speak about it domestically, there’s solely too many social media voices which might be completely satisfied to fill the void. So that you started by, in considered one of your questions earlier, by saying to faux you have been speaking to an adolescent in my church. Effectively, the actual fact of the matter is I’m going to talk just a little in another way to the younger particular person I’m in my church. And admittedly, I’m going to talk just a little bit extra fulsome than I might right here on this social media, podcast setting. The issue is that too many individuals are solely too completely satisfied to say no matter they suppose publicly, whereas I do suppose these are discipleship coronary heart issues and justice issues, which require extra mature Christians and, to some extent, pastors giving consideration to it of their flocks.
Matt Tully
Some pastors, although, can suppose that faithfulness for them, particularly in a political season like this, is to only preach the Bible. They’re going to rise up to the pulpit, and so they’re going to evangelise the Bible, and if somebody asks them a query, they’re simply going to say, “Hey, my job is to not be a politician. My job is to not provide you with voting recommendation. My job is to show you what the Bible says.” How is that completely different than possibly the way you’re desirous about this?
Jonathan Leeman
Effectively, I might agree with that in precept, however I might simply say don’t give me an excessive—all one or all the opposite. On the one hand, don’t take me all the best way into the lane of pastors have to rise up and act as mainly promoters of a sure social gathering and a sure candidate and like lobbyists. Alternatively, don’t say, “Nothing in any respect. That is soiled enterprise. Let’s be like Jonah and head to Tarshish and keep out of that soiled Nineveh.” These questions—and I’m not accusing you; you’re precisely representing how folks discuss and take into consideration this stuff—they have an inclination to go to 1 excessive or the opposite, and I’m on the lookout for one thing within the center. I’m trying to say, sure, the politics and the way I believe as a Christian about politics is below the umbrella of discipleship, and due to this fact pastors ought to handle it from the Bible and what’s clear by good and crucial consequence from the Bible (To borrow from the Westminster Confession). Which suggests serving to the younger Christian take into consideration this stuff, which I’ve been attempting to do, as an example, on this dialog. However it additionally means I’m going to step again from going too far and binding the conscience the place I don’t suppose the Bible clearly binds the conscience. So one thing I’ve written about is the excellence between straight line and jagged line points. Straight line points—that is clear. It’s a straight line from the Bible to this coverage software. It’s clear. “You shall not homicide.” Don’t kill infants. Versus a jagged line. “You shall not homicide.” Okay, nicely, what does that imply for well being care? There’s a backwards and forwards, zigzag, I’ve bought to suppose by way of all these completely different circumstances and so forth and qualities of care and the way a lot it prices the society and what different issues are being given up and so forth. That’s a jagged line. The extra a problem is a straight line situation, the extra I believe that, from the Bible, a pastor can converse to it. The extra it’s a complete church, conscience-binding situation. The extra it’s a straight line situation—not clear—the extra it is a Christian freedom factor, and pastors have to step again and watch out from talking.
Matt Tully
And that’s one factor that—
Jonathan Leeman
So don’t push me into all or nothing.
Matt Tully
So possibly a remaining query. What’s it like dwelling and dealing round Washington, DC in an election 12 months like this 12 months?
Jonathan Leeman
I’m certain the reply to that’s completely different in numerous church buildings. I bear in mind once I was an elder at Capitol Hill, issues generally would get quiet as a result of probably the most political folks would typically be off on the marketing campaign path. These folks could be again within the Congressman’s district campaigning. Right here in DC, issues truly would get just a little quiet—even in church buildings. Now, I don’t know that many individuals are going to be on the marketing campaign path. Most individuals are sticking round. We’ve some lobbyists and a few Hill staffers, but it surely’s humorous. At my church, I believe persons are at work all day speaking about these items. They arrive to church not wanting to speak about it.
Matt Tully
There generally is a little exhaustion.
Jonathan Leeman
yeah, it’s exhausting. In order that they’re truly on the lookout for refuge from the conversations. I assume there’s in all probability different church buildings the place that’s not the case, within the DC space, however that’s the case at mine. Simply give us the Bible. We’ve been listening to about these items all week.
Matt Tully
We’re all going to be prepared for just a little detox after this election right here, I’m certain. Jonathan, thanks a lot for taking the time to speak with us and provides us, once more, some primary ideas and a few methods of desirous about this upcoming election as Christians and the way we might be engaged, however be engaged as Christians. We recognize it.
Jonathan Leeman
Yeah, no downside.
