The long, exhausting, and polarizing presidential campaign that we have each experienced over the past several months all came to an end last night when Donald Trump became elected as the 45th President of the United States. Truly, the story of the 2016 election will go down in history as a distinct one for a variety of reasons, but it—maybe more than any other—has been an election characterized by negative, raw emotion.
This year’s political experience can almost be likened to looking through a ‘kaleidoscope’ of suffering: meaning, everywhere you look, there seems to be brand new expressions of dark hues of hurt, broad strokes of fear, sharp flashes of anger, and dull splotches of bitterness—all popping into view at every turn of perspective.
Based on my Facebook and Twitter feeds, that has certainly been the case. It is clear that the impact of last night’s election has caused nothing short of a social and political tsunami—and in its wake has come a powerful flood of emotion. I don’t know who you are, but you might feel a range or any mixture of emotion…
Embittered. Betrayed. Hopeful. Relieved. Angered. Shocked. Optimistic. Hopeless.
Overall, there’s just a lot of finger-pointing, blame-shifting, and name-calling out there right now. There’s a lot of false narratives. There’s a lot of hasty generalizations. There’s a lot of fallacious bifurcations, false dilemmas, straw mans, red herrings, and more. There’s a lot of hurt and misunderstanding already, but these false narratives and fallacies seem to fuel the fire all the more.
The purpose of this post isn’t to get into every argument, nor to enflame any new ones, but rather, to speak poignantly to both the nonChristian and the Christian about how the Bible speaks to political unity, which is what I believe we need more than ever right now—especially in Christian spheres. As a result, I hope it serves to challenge false narratives, hasty generalizations, and the like that are continuing to flicker and burst in the heat of emotion right now.
The main false narrative in media and in Christian culture that I want to dissect is the idea that a certain political agenda represents a certain religion, and vice versa, that a certain religion represents a certain political agenda.
Biblically speaking, this paradigm simply doesn’t hold any weight—and proof of it all started with Jesus’ own 12 disciples.
2 Political Extremes, 1 Savior
Have you ever read any of the lists of Jesus’ disciples (Matt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3:13-19; Lk. 6:12-16) and noticed anything politically…interesting? Honestly, I’ve never noticed anything until recently; I’ve typically just passed by it without reading into it. Here’s one of the passages:
The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
What’s interesting is that two of Jesus’ disciples (bolded above) had polar opposite political positions.
We might easily skip over this, but to modern readers, the mention of ‘tax collector’ and ‘zealot’ would immediately connect to their own political experience of Roman rule and subjugation. Matthew ‘the tax collector’ essentially meant that he was intensely pro-Rome, and Simon ‘the Zealot’ ultimately meant that he was intensely anti-Rome.
In other words, one guy was about as ‘big-government’ as it gets, and the other guy was about as ‘small-government’ as it gets.
For example, Matthew ‘the tax collector’ believed that complicity with Rome was clearly the political ideal for Israel—and possibly, the religious ideal, too. As a tax collector, it was to his personal gain that Israel stay in submission to Rome because it was the source of his incredibly wealthy vocation, among other reasons.
But Simon ‘the zealot’, however, believed that rebellion against Rome was clearly the political ideal for Israel—and possibly, the religious ideal, too. As a zealot, it was his personal mission to break the Roman shackles from the Jewish state for a variety of reasons.
Matthew ‘the tax collector’ and Simon ‘the zealot’ couldn’t have had more contrasting views of government, economics, and border control.
And yet, against all odds, they were both in the tightly knit community famously known as Jesus’ 12 disciples. I can only imagine the intense conversations that took place between them, and even how Jesus responded to them both.
But isn’t it interesting that the gospel writers, when describing the disciples of Jesus, intentionally indicated the political positions of these two disciples? I don’t think that happened by coincidence. For example, I would never go around naming my friends, “James the Republican, Michael the Democrat” or “Bryan the African American, Chris the Caucasian” or “Andrew the Jew, Luke the Christian.” That would be absurd and quite gratuitous, unless of course, you were trying to make a point about the nature of the community and the unity you shared.
What I love about this list of the 12 disciples is that it declares quite beautifully the notion that Christians can have political differences but should have political unity between themselves and amongst others because the most important thing to them is not the changing, political climate of this temporal world, but the unchanging, cosmic saviorship and lordship of Jesus Christ.
Matthew ‘the tax collector’ and Simon ‘the zealot’ were enabled to become friends and lay aside their political differences (however extreme and contradictory) precisely because they were bonded together spiritually by something that proved much bigger than what kept them apart politically.
What’s interesting is this:
Jesus converted their faith, but never aimed to convert their politics. He called them to himself first, and allowed them the freedom of political affiliation second—whether that looked like a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. It’s important to note that their Christian faith certainly informed their political ideologies, however, it didn’t bring their politics into uniformity, either.
Christianity, therefore, does not call its followers to be united upon a political platform, but upon a Person, who cannot fully be defined by either. This means a Christian’s faith is not validated or invalidated by his/her political position, thereby granting great freedom for the Christian when it comes to politics. So, Christians—let’s stop accusing each other for our different stances as if it were primarily a spiritual issue and not a secondary issue (though there are spiritual dimensions of each political side).
Because of this freedom that Jesus granted to his disciples in politics, Matthew and Simon were not only enabled to maintain unity in primary issues, but they were also empowered to befriend each other in spite of their secondary issues, too.
I wonder if the same could be said of us, right now.
Republican-Christian, do you have any Democratic friends, Christian or otherwise, whom you seek to understand and can enjoy a good relationship with?
Democratic-Christian, do you have any Republican friends, Christian or otherwise, who you seek to understand and can enjoy a good relationship with?
If you do not, I would almost teeter on saying that you are being un-Christian by not engaging in conversation with people who think differently than you. If we are to use Jesus’ community as an example—which I think all Christians would agree is a good place to start—then conversing with people who are different than us is something to not just be tolerated, but to be pursued.
I don’t think Jesus chose Matthew and Simon—two polar opposite political gurus—to be a part of his 12 by chance. I think it was both strategic and necessary in order showcase the full glory of what unity in the gospel looks like in an existence that is inevitably subject to the tension of polarizing politics.
If there’s an operating principle that we should follow as Christians, it should be the memorable phrase first coined by church father, Augustine: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” That was Jesus’ approach to politics, and it should be ours as his followers, too.
Additional Implications
Furthermore, the political picture of Jesus’ 12 disciples tells us several important things that I think are helpful guides as we continue to wade through the muck of this election season.
If Matthew ‘the tax collector’ and Simon ‘the zealot’ had divisively sharp political differences, yet maintained a unity in Christ that overcame their political differences, that also means several things for us:
- A Christian in America shares more in common with a Christian in Syria than he does with a nonChristian in his own American political party. In other words, the gospel creates a unity that transcends all political barriers, and also affirms and critiques all political situations as well.
- If you vote Republican, you don’t represent Christianity. If you vote Democrat, you don’t represent Christianity. This is because each political party cannot and does not relate the essence of Christianity. Sure, each party may affirm different policies of Christianity, but at the same time, each party will reject different policies of Christianity, too. The essence of Christianity cannot be boiled down to a Republican policy or a Democratic policy, nor a conservative policy or a liberal policy, but a Person. Therefore, any political agenda will always fail to adequately represent Christianity.
- No political situation is a ‘win’ for Christianity. A Republican President is not a ‘win’ for Christianity. Nor is a Democrat President a ‘win’ for Christianity, either. This is because Christianity does not ‘win’ or ‘lose’ in accordance with the political situation of the day. It is independent of politics, and at the same time operative within politics. It is not dependent on political environments in order to exist or to thrive, but it always bears upon the political situation. This is because it is inevitably interwoven with politics as a function of worldview. (However, history will tell you that Christianity thrived most not when it was sanctioned by government, but when it was estranged by government.)
- If Christians feel like they need to depend upon a political agenda in order to achieve their own agenda, then they have lost touch with their true citizenship. Even more so, they have indirectly implied that God, too, depends on a political situation to carry out his purposes as well. This is certainly not the case.
- If your ultimate happiness, hope, security, or joy is in a certain political situation, then elections or political climates will put you on a rollercoaster of disappointing lows and disillusioned highs. Political situations, therefore, will be your functional savior. But if your ultimate hope of security, satisfaction, justice, and peace resides in Jesus Christ and the promise of the new kingdom, you will be able to endure any political situation with optimism (in the apparent bad) and realism (in the apparent good)—a balanced perspective—instead of naïve idealism (in the apparent good) or depressive pessimism (in the apparent bad).
- The gospel message impartially addresses all political situations. All people have a common, ultimate problem: sin. All people have a common, ultimate need: reconciliation with God; all people are offered a common, ultimate Savior: Jesus. The blood of Jesus was poured out for all people, Republicans and Democrats, black and white, man and woman, rich and poor. Therefore, Christians are to treat everyone with the same degree of impartiality that Jesus did—which certainly involves politics.
The unity of the church is thriving everywhere—in communist states, in Islamist states, in dictatorships, in democratic states, and in republics. All around the world today, I would not be surprised if a communist Christian held hands with a democratic Christian. A black Christian held hands with a white Christian. A rich Christian held hands with a poor Christian. Why? Because they are Christians first, and everything else second.
Jesus picked his community well. It was rich with the diversity of political affiliation, economic background, and cultural preferences. And the unity in the diversity is what made it so beautiful, compelling, and powerful.
Question is, Christian, is that true of our community?
If not, you might be short-changing your own joy as a Christian.
