Astronomy and Politics Through the Lens of Epistemology
How do We Know What We Know?
What is Our Method of Evaluating Truth?

I well remember this supposed truthful expression as a child.  Everyone seemed to use it to keep the peace in potentially discordant discussions.  But, no, neither Moses or any other biblical character ever uttered this admonition!  The word politics has also become associated in the eyes of many Christians as if it were a corrupt gangster activity in government.  Yet if we want to labor in the arena of supporting Israel or saving the lives of unborn children through either regulations or laws, there is no possible way to do that short of entering the world of public discourse and/or the forbidden word "politics.

To other believers like myself, politics is merely a natural dynamic that plays out resulting from opposing philosophies of government. To get over the adverse reaction some have to the secular buzz-word “politics”, replace it with the phrase "to influence government".  Preventing the mixture of government and politics has also become the primary quest of many secularists who object to religious people injecting their religious values into government policy.  Some mis-construe this as genuine biblically authoritative government which we should be submissive to.  But even if it were, (and it’s not), what is our ultimate authority?  Even though we are commanded to submit to governmental authority, the ultimate authority of Christians is the Kingdom of God, not the governments of man.  The biblical concept of obeying the greater authority was reflected in Acts 5:29 "But Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men."

​

Yet there are Christian teachers and theologians today who approach influencing government as a prohibition.  They argue that we should not preoccupy ourselves with influencing government or forming movements or other organized efforts to defend the freedoms of all religious faiths.  John MacArthur puts it this way:

​

"During the past twenty-five years, well-meaning Christians have founded a number of evangelical activist organizations and sunk millions of dollars into them in an effort to use the apparatus of politics—lobbying, legislation, demonstration, and boycott—to counteract the moral decline of American culture. They pour their energy and other resources into efforts to drum up a "Christian" political movement that will fight back against the prevailing anti-Christian culture.  But is that a proper perspective?  I believe not. America's moral decline is a spiritual problem, not a political one, and its solution is the gospel, not partisan politics."

[Link to MacArthur 4 part series]

​

 Then in the rest of his series, we are reminded again and again that government action can never bring about the transformation of the Gospel as if current Christian activists in government did not know that!!  Next, MacArthur and others close their argument by exclusively focusing on the Great Commission and advocating that any time spent on outside government activities will detract from the spread of the Gospel.  The implication there is that any activity outside the Great Commission is evidence that Christian government activists are losing their way as did the liberal "social gospel churches" in the last century.

The problem with this exclusive approach on the great commission is that there is no other biblical responsibilities given to Christians beside the great commission.  MacArthur is flawlessly correct that government cannot reverse the moral decline of our nation.  Any Christian activist who thought it through based on the whole of the word of God should already know that prior to studying the biblical purpose for government.  The great commission is the sole responsibility of the church and should NEVER be confused with the purpose of Christian involvement in government in the first place.  When one looks at the whole of the Word of God, the UNDENIABLE FACT of scripture is that the Church is given more than one such commanding admonition though their rank in priority is secondary. 

 

Note: Just because I have cited what I believe is a false doctrine that John MacArthur and many other Christians have taught, that should not infer in any way that they are in some way heretics, false teachers or men whose teaching we should avoid.  In fact, I am a member of a Messianic congregation whose elders admire MacArthur greatly.  To better bridge the chasm, I take note of good exchanges of the Jewish and Christian faiths.  The best video evidence of that that I know of is an exchange between MacArthur and Ben Shapiro (a conservative Jewish activist).  Since the dawn of 2nd century, I would guess that there were few if any Christians who were “perfect” and 100% free of false doctrine.  I will paste this link both here and at the end of this blog to make sure this point is not lost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-ofKxfYqGw
 
The Role of Works in Government
The first secondary responsibility we are given requires some background in biblical analysis, especially with evangelicals. One good thing evangelicals have done is to disassociate salvation from any requirement of good works. That is because salvation should in principle produce good works, but the presence of a large enough quantity of good works will never produce salvation.  Just think about that. God looks directly at the heart. Therefore, He does not need an itemized list of works to evaluate our position before Him or our promise of eternal life.  Works are therefore a way for us to recognize genuine believers. However, because evangelicals have been so successful a witness to our GIFT of salvation, many of their number see good works as an optional responsibility before Him, if and only if we have time!

 

The answer to that twist of scripture's priorities, just consider these passages on the secondary role of good works for believers.

 

Mt 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven”.

 

Ro 2:10 ...”but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”.

 

Eph 2:10  “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

 

Now if those passages are not enough to establish a convincing role for us in good works, see also Ac 9:36, 26:20,    1Co 16:16, 1Ti 2:10, 1Ti 5:10, 1Ti 5:25, 1Ti 6:18, Tit 3:8, Tit 3:14, Heb 10:24, Tit 2:14, 1Pe 2:12, Re 2:5, Re 2:19 (NKJV search)  The fact that works does not impact salvation does not mean that works are not part of our calling.

Now, imagine a Christian who becomes involved in government and helps in some way to pass an ordinance or law which results in just one single life from being aborted like Tim Tivo.  Now, based on the many biblical passages above,  is there any evangelical, charismatic Christian, or messianic Jew who would deny that this was a "good work"?

 

The Role of SALT
We also have to include another secondary even tertiary responsibility of the Church that was given earlier in Christ's ministry, which John MacArthur appears to omit or at least deemphasize.

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.” You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. (Mat 5:13,14 NKJV)
Now what does it mean for the church to be SALT?  In Christ’s society, salt was a preservative.  So how are we to act as a preservative agent in our society as believers?  The first way is when others see admiral qualities in us they desire.  A second way is Jesus' words "blessed are the peacemakers".  There are several avenues to being salt in our society.  One would be to keep members from killing each other long enough so that receptivity to the Gospel can develop. That cannot not be done by individual members effectively unless we had significantly more believers in Christ in good enough physical shape and skill to resist violence.  Therefore, Keeping the peace must be done by government as was recognized in Romans 13: 1-7.  The key phrase in that respect would be to help maintain order and tranquility.   In that regard, we have only to read a call to prayer “...for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.  (1 Tim 2:1-2).

 

Have all the "political abstinence" advocates forgotten that the police do a far more effective job of peacemaking than we as individual peacemakers could ever dream of doing!  Yet it is governmental leaders that hire the police and those that make police policy.  If one intends to influence police policy, then one will have to "dirty one's hands” with voting and the debate on who would be best for the job.  So since when does activity on the governmental level compromise the spread of the Gospel.  On the contrary, keeping the peace therefore prepares the ground for the Gospel better than many things because its spread is severely curtailed amidst social chaos.  John MacArthur appears to omit this value in aiding those who carry out the Great commission.

In light of our society’s lack of unified moral values, society must be preserved in a tranquil manner so that the Gospel can have a chance to spread. Being SALT in a society in moral decline is, I agree, far less important calling than the Great Commission, but that does not make it unimportant.  Being salt is still critically important as an agent to deter evil in the meantime, thus preparing the ground for the Gospel's reception which McAurthor appears to neglect. 

Furthermore, evil and sin destroy lives far beyond the danger of violence. Any limit of evil and sin by government can temporarily prepare society for eventual reception of the Gospel and its teaching.  Yet deterring evil is the very role of government described in Romans 13:1-7 and 1st Peter 2:13-17.  By acknowledging the details of those passages, we recognize that the government is "God's minister to you for good" (Rom 13:3,4 NKJV) and we should further understand that our behavior should be guided by the principle that we should, "honor all people. Love the brotherhood.  Fear God.  Honor the King."  All of this is part of being SALT in the world around us which MacArthur neglects in his argument about a sole focus on the Great Commission.

​

 In that since,  our government can be a preservative in society and was for many years of our history.   Government cannot reverse our moral decline, but it can biblically slow the decline by resisting evil.  Particularly in this culture, the government and its constitution can effect a resistance to Moral Relativism and the popularity of changing morality from one day to the next.  Despite much damage to that role in recent years, Government can continue to fulfill its role as a preservative if we act as salt in influencing our government.  Giving our influence over to the wicked in government  will only accelerate the deterioration of our society. As believers, who in our numbers could have near control of our government, our most powerful way to be SALT is for believers to get to get together and openly debate the candidates and vote.  What the rest of the everyone in the church is doing is not our Biblical responsibility.  We have scripture and a holy spirit driven conscience – and that is all that matters!  In the case where there are differences within the church on issues or candidates, then openly give respect to those differences.

​

But even after presenting all the above biblical information, there are still objectors.  There are those who insist that if God wanted Church to influence government in their effort to be SALT in their society, then He would have inspired the writer of Mathew to explicitly say that.  Without such an explicit statement, they say the position I have taken here is an argument from biblical silence despite all the other passages I have listed here that link Salt with our ability to influence government. After all, it is also just as much a statement of biblical silence to say, as political abstinence advocates do, that that influencing government is forbidden! 

​

Yet, if one thinks about it, an explicit command to influence government in scripture, is an unrealistic expectation of New Testament revelation.  When the NT was written, the was no way to influence government without a serious risk death if not beheading.  The NT writers would have had to communicate on a level that no Apostle had any knowledge of.  But let’s just hypothetically theorize the idea that God did reveal a prophetic Word on the matter of salt and revealed an explicit statement advising people to influence their government.  That would have unnecessarily risked the lives of a countless number of individuals for roughly 1700 years until it first became legal in the US to vote.  Now despite individuals like Paul who God led to be martyrs, how practical would it have been for God to inspire such a writing in Mathew and needlessly endanger countless believers for centuries?

Furthermore, if one does accept that a major calling of the Church is to be SALT in the society around us, why would one avoid such a powerful means as government to resist evil in any society.  What is most irritating to me is the objection that if we participate in government, our motive must be that we are trusting in government to solve what the church should be doing.  Anyone trusting in government for anything is foolish.  This accusation does not give any room to believers who participate in government out of a biblical conviction!  Why would one need to trust in government in order to exert influence on it?

​

Next we again have the common objection that if Christians take time to influence government, the they are automatically TRUSTING IN GOVERNMENT.  Yet there is another blatantly obvious reason why trusting in government is NOT workable in the first place!!  In a presidential election, for example, you only get the benefit for any candidate is only 4 years.  How would one TRUST in government when the chosen candidate is that temporary?  In the next election, he or she can be gone.  Anything that temporary falls under the biblical admonition of something we dare not TRUST IN. 

 

2Co 4:18 “while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen [are] temporary, but the things which are not seen [are] eternal”. 

​

The eternal is the promise of the gospel & the great commission.  Both everyday life and government are the temporal.  For that reason, the criticism that you cannot participate in government without Trusting in Government is biblically foundation-less from a hermeneutic perspective of the “whole of the Word of God”.

​

Now, if my biblical approach so far is correct, you would think that there would be some evidence of one of the apostles attempting to influence his government at the extreme risk of his own life.  Is there any such example of anyone attempting to alter the direction of his own government at the extreme risk of his own life?  This will shock many, but the answer is an emphatic YES!

​

Of course, scripture never says to vote or try to impact the Legislative or Executive branches of the Roman government because those rights, responsibilities and governmental divisions did not exist at that time!  However, the Judicial branch of the Roman government did exist, albeit in a crude form, but it was there.  So, note in that regard, when the Apostle Paul was falsely accused of a crime in Acts 22, he appealed to the earthly government of which he was a citizen when he responded to the Roman centurion.

​

“And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, 'Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?' "

(Ac 22:25 NKJV). 

​

Paul here is using the rules of his own government to influence the authorities to give deference to the preaching of the Gospel.  This is very similar to how Paul takes advantage of the same Roman Law in Acts 16. 

 

From then on to the end of the book of Acts is a story of the events of a trip, paid for by the Roman government to influence Caesar by defending Paul's rights as a Roman citizen and the rights of his faith.  He went up through every layer of the Roman government.  He begins with this centurion, up to his commander, higher officials in the Roman government, eventually including Kings subordinate to the Roman emperor and finally to Caesar himself.  This whole time, what he said to the centurion was his legal defense and the basis of the Roman voyage.  Furthermore, what he said to the centurion was his legal defense as he was challenging the authorities in Judea as well as during his trip to Rome and ultimately to Caesar. 

​

Now, some might ask how do we know Paul was making this defense and this trip to Rome to both preach the Gospel as well as influencing his government so as to be a model of how to be SALT.   I believe the answer is in this remark by King Agrippa.

​

Then Agrippa said to Festus, "This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar."  Ac 26:32 NKJV

​

Note: Paul could have settled his case before King Agrippa, allowing both himself and fellow Christians to preach the Gospel in that province of Rome. Why go all the way to Rome to make his defense? He could have just settled the matter right there and just let the Gospel bubble up naturally to the government of Caesar (which it would have). Then he and his fellow believers could have then preached the Gospel without interference from the authorities in Judea. The anti-Christian Jews would have hated it, but too bad!  Instead, Paul goes for the throat in his defense and right to the central government of Caesar in the city of Rome. 

 

We also know that God led him to do this from numerous accounts earlier in Acts & 1st Corinthians, which is why I believe God is leading us to do the same.  From history, we know that it took many such challenges to the Roman government until the year 313 A.D. when the “Edict of Milan” was issued which stopped the persecution of Christians and literally “set the captives free”.

​

From when Paul was first accused and throughout his trip to Rome, it is not a question of Paul either preaching the Gospel on one hand, or influencing his government on the other hand, because he is doing both at once!

WHY SHOULD WE NOT BE DOING BOTH AT ONCE TODAY?  That is my whole point here! 

 

During this entire time, it is not a question of Paul either preaching the Gospel on one hand, or influencing his government on the other hand, because he is doing both at once!

​

WHY SHOULD WE NOT BE DOING BOTH AT ONCE TODAY?  What is all this I hear from evangelicals teachers and preachers that government or politics are not our primary calling. Of course, the Great Commission is our undisputed TOP priority.  But does a very secondary or tertiary priority for Christian political involvement mean that they are compromising or diluting the Gospel?  Paul certainly did not see it that way!

Do Christians who INSIST on abstaining from government involvement think Paul sinned in this regard, OR that we should only influence our government through the courts only?  Think about it, our government gives us the task TODAY of choosing our representatives in the Legislative and Executive branches of our government, who then in turn choose our judges in the courts.  Will these advocates of "political abstinence" openly rebel against Paul’s example above and his admonition to, “Imitate me, just as I also [imitate] Christ“ 1 Cor 11:1, (see also 2 Thes. 3:7-9, 1 Cor 4:16 NKJV).  For this reason among others, Christian involvement in government is totally consistent with the governmental subjection Paul referenced in Romans 13. Paul said,

 

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves”. (Rom 13:1, 2 NKJV). 

 

In this country, we are given the authority to choose our leaders, that is - if we are subject to our laws and constitution.

​​

The most common theological objection to this biblical reasoning is the fear that some might falsely conclude that government involvement is just as important or even more important than the Great Commission.  Is it possible for someone to confuse their calling to the Great Commission with their responsibility to impact their government?  Absolutely, and some will make such a mistake. Of course, if we fail to teach scripture because someone might misunderstand, we should not preach ANYTHING because of the same reason.

 

A Testimony of History

(documentation on this history will be added shortly)

​

Anyone who a uses bad experience in history to change their interpretation of scripture often assumes there is something wrong with God’s Word.  I would never suggest that.   However, a testimony in history can alert us to mistakes in biblical interpretations in Christian actions in the past.  If one is still skeptical of the teaching I have just given in this blog, then look to the mistakes of the church in the past and let that inspire you to study this issue further in the scriptures.

​

The most evil book I ever read in High School was Mein Kompf by Adolph Hitler written in 1926.  I found out later that the Christian Church did painfully little not only because government was not their calling but also because fear was a major factor in that society at the time.  That silence continued until 1932 when the Nazi party first took power.  Think about that.  Hitler writes the most evil plan devised in history, and the Church chose to do nothing even though they witnessed the transformation of public thought in that nation!  Even if the church had mounted a major opposition and failed, there would have been a record of that and a good Christian witness for today.

​

Yet German Christians did nothing until after the Nazi party came to power in 1932-33 and Hitler came to power in 1934.  By waiting till after the years after Hitler, the Church was powerless to stop the Nazi march across Germany.  Yet from 1926-33 the church abused to the evil, considering affairs of state, not part of their calling or concern.  That attitude isolated the government from the Gospel.

​

What was the result – the extermination 10 million people including 6 million Jews.  That was the most catastrophic “bad witness” in all of Christian history and would discourage the faiths of millions, especially Jews.

 

The difference today is that many evangelicals like McArthur have created a theology which dismisses affairs of state as not part of their calling.  Whether or not conservative German Christians had a theology to back-up their excuse that state affairs were not a part of their calling, they still concluded that in the direct presence of massive evil.  The net effect is that the German state, at least 6 years before the Nazis came to power, was completely isolated from the salty influence of the true Gospel.  The distinction today is that the theology of evangelical leaders like John McArthur would have the church VOLUNTARILY stay out state affairs or any attempt to influence it (with the exception of certain state government individuals).  If we isolate the state from the true Gospel in this way, man's evil nature will quickly overwhelm the church.

​

We tolerate this silence today, because we are too afraid to explain “why we believe, what we believe”.  Thus, fear of dissension in the Church paralyzes us into inaction.  We would rather let 60 million infants go to their deaths than risk any disunity in the church!!  In other words, we are too afraid to explain the origins of our biblical philosophy in areas of public discourse.  The result is that we freak-out and avoid any such discussion and use the unbiblical teaching of McArthur to cover our cowardice!

​

If you want to see a verse by verse study on many issues of this nature, then study my extended treatment of the Donald Trump phenomenon from a Biblical viewpoint.  There, I connect the dots between the God’s Word and a good number of governmental issues of our day @ [this link].

Also don't forget the John MacArthur/Ben Shapiro link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-ofKxfYqGw