In recent days, we’ve seen both Maxine Waters and Jeff Sessions claim to be following Biblical principles in their political tactics. We’ve seen articles claim that Republicans in particular, and conservatives more generally are guilty of the most egregious sins because they are not willing to help those in need.
Of course, Mrs. Waters and the left-wing media seem to have no interest in Christianity when it comes to questions of protecting the unborn. So is this a case of each side selectively and cynically using the Bible to protect their pet positions, or is there anything we can learn from the Bible about politics? Is either side on solid ground here?
I think the left wing often fails to understand the proper place of charity in the Christian mindset. The impulse that leads to social programs of any kind is a concern for providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. This impulse, in and of itself, is a very Christian one. Along with that is the theoretical seeking of equality. Paul sets the original guideline against racism, sexism and classism in Galatians 3:28.
We can agree that the goals set out by the left are laudable and even Christian. But one of the things about Christianity that is relevant is that Christian morality is not consequential, it is principled. By this I mean, the ends do not justify the means. Finite humans cannot possibly know how things will ultimately turn out. We have no idea how something as far reaching as, say, Social Security, will play out over a hundred years, let alone in perpetuity. We cannot possibly measure the effects that such a program has already had on society. There are very crediblearguments to be made that the welfare state in general has led to the dissolution of American society, and that makes sense.
Think about it. Prior to things like social security, it was necessary for people to raise children to take care of them in their old age, to maintain ties to community in case they were ever disabled and needed help, to have connections with others and treat each other well because we relied on each other for survival when we were in need. When our needs suddenly are provided for by a faceless government that doesn’t care if we’re a good person or a terrible person, the reasons to treat each other with respect and love tend to dissolve. (Add that to the rapid de-churching of American society and there ought to be no surprise that our communities are disappearing.)
This is just one (debatable) effect of trying to accomplish something that is, on its face, a laudable goal. This is why we cannot rely on a consequentialist view of morality and why we must do good now, according to our principles and let God handle how it turns out. We cannot betray our principles because we believe we know what the outcomes will be.
This raises the question: What are the relevant principles? Well giving to the poor is a Biblical command, but it is a command to individual charity. You and I ought to give of our own resources to those in need. But there is nothing moral about voting to compel one man to give to another. In fact that is condemned in the verse linked above. Charity is a private matter. With no laws in place whatsoever, there is nothing stopping you from giving to the poor. When you vote for the government to give to the poor, what you are really doing is voting for other people to be forced to give to the poor. And it’s even more insidious than that. You’re giving the power to the government to provide for whatever causes it deems worthy, whether that’s the poor, the disabled, corporate interests, or $7500 tax credits for millionaires to buy Teslas.
Charity by government action may have arisen from Christian impulses, but it far from a virtuous action to perpetuate it.
On the other hand, the rule of law is a Biblical principle. In Romans 13, it makes it abundantly clear that the authorities are obligated to arrest those who break the law. We are obligated to avoid breaking the law. Jeff Sessions is being accused of cruelly using the Bible to justify barbarism, but he’s absolutely right in saying that his responsibility is to enforce the law as written, and the illegal border crossers are not only in moral violation of Romans 13 by breaking the law, but must submit to punishment when they are caught.
I feel sympathy for those who desperately want to enter America to get a better life, but we cannot abrogate the rule of law in order to accomplish what we view as good ends. The Obama era catch and release program has set up a clear incentive for people to smuggle children over the border, putting these children, in many cases, in more danger than that which they are fleeing. By not enforcing the law we are actually creating an extremely dangerous situation.
Franklin Graham is wrong on this. These are not Nazi concentration camps to be fought by every moral person in the country. This is a crisis manufactured by the previous administration’s refusal to follow the law as written. As Christians, we feel sympathy for those in need, but we cannot allow that sympathy to override clear Biblical teaching on the rule of law. It is not the Department of Justice’s place to show mercy. Individually we show mercy, but the government is literally there to enforce the law. We have the pardon power to show mercy, and perhaps that’s an avenue Trump could consider.
But we must always remember when we are trying to understand what Christians should think about political situations, that the ends do not justify the means.