Should Christians care about winning the political argument?

Should Christians care about winning the political argument?  Judging from current events, it seems that large numbers of Christians do care about winning the political war.  And they care a great deal.  But is that a Christ-like concern?  In other words, Did Jesus care about winning the political war?

Gathering of people to represent the question: Should Christians care about winning the political argumentSome of you will think I have a political agenda behind writing this.  Sorry – not true.  The reality is the issue of “government, religion and God” crosses all party lines.  Having said that, it’s incredibly easy to write about Republicans since our current President talks so much about being pro-Christian.  On top of that, people who analyze election results generally credit Evangelical Christians for Trump winning the election. 

And then there are so many Christian leaders who either speak in favor of Trump or at least voting Republican.  Add to that the relative silence when Trump says and does things that appear to be so much different from what the New Testament tells us how we should act, as Christians.

Should Christians care about winning the political argument?

I ask that question, because the subject comes word-for-word from something Trump told reporters.  The excerpt below is from an AP article that appeared on msn.com (sorry, the article is no longer available).  It was titled, Trump blasts 4 congresswomen; crowd roars, ‘Send her back!’

Before he left Washington, Trump said he has no regrets about his ongoing spat with the four. Trump told reporters he thinks he’s “winning the political argument” and “winning it by a lot.”

That political argument he’s winning is, of course, the one related to his earlier tweets, as reported in yahoo news, under the title, Trump tells progressive freshman congresswomen to ‘go back’ to their ‘broken and crime infested’ countries.

President Trump, in a Sunday Twitter thread, called out Democratic Congresswomen, saying, “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,” Trump tweeted.

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” his thread continued. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

The nativist rhetoric, “go back to your country,” is often used in racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic attacks, including a recent hate crime in New York City last week in which a Hispanic woman was attacked and told, “You’re here taking jobs from Americans.”

Now, let me repeat my opening paragraph.

Should Christians care about winning the political argument?  Judging from current events, it seems that large numbers of Christians do care about winning the political war.  And they care a great deal.  But is that a Christ-like concern?  In other words, Did Jesus care about winning the political war?

Did Jesus care about winning the political war?

I could pull out the quote, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” – and write about that.  But you know what?  As a Christian, you should be well aware of it.  If you’re still supporting the kind of hate-filled tweets going out today, that’s not going to change your mind.

Truth is, maybe nothing will change your mind.  But I feel like I need to at least try to make you think.  Why?  Because of love.  Because of something Jesus said.

The Greatest Commandment

22:34-40 pp — Mk 12:28-31

Mt 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Mt 22:37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

But that wasn’t enough.  We have issues with who is our neighbor.  We think our neighbors are only the people we like.  And our neighbors especially are not the people we hate.

Jesus knew it wouldn’t be enough.  So He also said,

Love for Enemies

Mt 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Think about that.  If we actually followed what Jesus called “The Greatest Commandment” – that was actually two commandments – we wouldn’t have any enemies.  At least not from our point of view.  But let’s define enemy before we go any further.  We have all sorts of ideas about who the enemy is.  What define’s an enemy.  That’s in today’s world, today’s culture.  And, as Jesus said, we hate our enemy.  Some of us with an extreme passion.

But here’s what the word translated as “enemy” in the passage above meant at the time Jesus said those words.

2190 ἐχθρός [echthros /ech·thros/] adj. From a primary echtho (to hate), hateful (passively, odious, or actively, hostile); TDNT 2:811; TDNTA 285; GK 2398; 32 occurrences; AV translates as “enemy” 30 times, and “foe” twice. 1 hated, odious, hateful. 2 hostile, hating, and opposing another. 2A used of men as at enmity with God by their sin. 2A1 opposing (God) in the mind. 2A2 a man that is hostile. 2A3 a certain enemy. 2A4 the hostile one. 2A5 the devil who is the most bitter enemy of the divine government.  1Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Interesting stuff, isn’t it?  Let’s go through some of those.

hated, odious, hostile and hateful.  

Once again, we are supposed to love everyone.  Therefore, we should not hate anyone.  Ultimately, that means we should also love the people who hate us, consider us odious, and are hostile / hateful towards us.  Ouch.  That’s not easy, is it?  And yet, that’s what Jesus says His true followers should be like.  By the way, just in case you’re not quite sure what odious means, it’s ad adjective that means: deserving or causing hatred; hateful; detestable. highly offensive; repugnant; disgusting.  And yes, we’re to love people like that too.

used of men as at enmity with God by their sin.  opposing (God) in the mind.

Oh no.  There goes the argument that it’s OK to hate people we think are against God.  Since we’re talking politics here, we’re actually talking about the “God” that our political party created in their image. 

However, since that distinction gets lost in the battles, something interesting happens.  Even the most die-hard supporter of their political party’s “God” should end up thinking those words about loving the enemy is coming from that “God”.  The fact that it actually came from the God of the Bible is a distinction that’s totally lost.  Therefore, when the hating continues, they should also realize they are ignoring a command they think comes from their party “God”.

Di you catch that?  Given the inability to tell the difference between the “God” of their party and the God of the Bible, supporters of the “God” created in the image of a political party must believe the words of the Bible came from the “God” their party created.  Even with that false belief, they choose to ignore the command.  They hate their enemy – even though they think their “God” told them not to.

Honestly, it’s kind of a mind-blowing scenario.  When we follow the false “God” of a political party, we think we’re following the true God of the Bible.  We have no idea that we’re way off base.  We believe the Bible supports our views.  And so we follow the portions we “like”.  The ones that created that false political party “God”.  And in the process, therefore, we actively go against the God of the Bible.  Why?  Because we ignore and violate the portions of the Bible that we disagree with.  Those portions that would prove the political party “God” really isn’t the God of the Bible.  Stunning.

It’s a lie that can only be pulled off by Satan.  Oh, BTW, Jesus warned us about things like this.

The Children of the Devil

Jn 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

How does it feel to realize that you may be following the father of lies?  Think it doesn’t apply, because you believe you’re following God?  That passage was Jesus’ response to a group of people who claimed, “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Ultimately, by hating the people in the other party, we end up committing two sins.  Yes – I meant to say sins.  First of all, we disobey the commandment to love everyone.  That’s pretty simple to understand.  At least, it should be.

The second sin is a bit harder to catch.  It seems like no matter what anyone says or does, it’s always a response to something someone else said or did.  It reminds me of when I was a kid.  Whenever mt brother and I got in trouble together, it was always the other one’s fault.  No one acted first.  We both reacted to the other.

But it’s time to grow up.  Someone did act first.  However, even that simple truth doesn’t matter in this case!  It is totally irrelevant if someone says something hateful towards us first.  We are supposed to forgive them!  Remember that?

As a Christian, do you remember the exchange below?

Mt 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”

Mt 18:22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Do you also remember that we’re not supposed to actually count up to seventy-seven times?

You may also be aware that some translations don’t say seventy-seven times but rather they have seventy times seven, which is 490 times.  We’re not supposed to count to 490 and then blast them on the 491st either!

Actually, another, and probably better, translation would be countless sevens, as we can see below:

1441 ἑβδομηκοντάκις [hebdomekontakis /heb·dom·ay·kon·tak·is/] adv. From 1440; TDNT 2:627; TDNTA 249; GK 1574; AV translates as “seventy times” once. 1 seventy times seven times. 1A countless times.  2Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

1574 ἑβδομηκοντάκις (hebdomēkontakis): adv.; ≡ Str 1441; TDNT 2.627—1. LN 60.74 seventy times, in context 77 times (Mt 18:22+), for another interp, see next; 2. LN 60.77 seventy multiples, in context, 70 × 7 = 490; note: either one of these interpretations suggest a figurative extension number of a far greater amount, virtually infinite  Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So while even the literal translation is up for debate, the intent isn’t.  What happens then is that we read, most commonly, seventy-seven.  If we check out older translation, we read 490 times (from 7*70).  But if we hear a sermon on this topic, or happen to read a good commentary on it, we learn that it was actually meant to portray the thought that we forgive for as many times as it happens.  Don’t count.  Just forgive.

Don’t attack back with even more hatred.  Just forgive.

If you’re Christian, don’t let our politicians be your role model.  Be like Jesus.  Just forgive.

Yes, your party might lose the election.  But it might be the very thing that lets you keep your soul.


Image by Augusto Ordonez from Pixabay

 

Footnotes

  • 1
    Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
  • 2
    Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Please leave a comment or ask a question - it's nice to hear from you.

Scroll to Top