In reply to Russell Mains.

Mr. Mains, greetings from a North Carolina LCMS Lutheran. With respect, I must say that many of your statements here reveal wrong assumptions concerning the role of the Christian faith in the public square. Satan’s great lie in our day is the notion that the church has no place in politics, for such thinking leaves this important area of human life exclusively to him.

First, you state that President Harrison “has brought politics into our faith more than any president during my 62 years as a member.”

Perhaps he has. But you are assuming that this is a bad thing. I say it is not (or at least not necessarily). Christianity is inescapably political, for “the government shall be upon [Christ’s] shoulder” (Is. 9:6) and “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [Christ]” (Matt. 28:18). Christ’s rule is complete, and comprehensive, encompassing all human governments, not just the church (again, “all authority” is His). The early church knew this better than we do: while they always sought to be good, productive, helpful citizens of the Roman Empire, they recognized that their belief that “Jesus is Lord” meant that “Caesar is not.” John the Baptist preached against the immorality of the political leaders of his day. Would John have been better to keep out of politics, as you have suggested that President Harrison should? Or is the Bible clear that John was a faithful preacher?

You also said this: “Jesus said, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world.’”

Yes, but in what sense? He tells us in His very next words: “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight” (John 18:36). Jesus is saying here that His Kingdom does not advance by military means, as do worldly kingdoms. He is not saying that His Kingdom has no implications for politics. The politicians of His day understood this better than most Christians today, for those politicians sought, from the time he was born (Herod) to the time He died (Caiaphas) to kill him. Repeatedly, in the book of Acts, Paul gets into trouble with the political authorities. If our unbelieving political leaders do not see us as a similar political threat, what does that say about us?

You wrote, “President Harrison, either pray and fight just as fervently FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LITTLE OR NO HEALTH INSURANCE, or give up your LCMS position, and run for public office.”

First false assumption: that the LCMS/President Harrison must choose between political engagement and caring for the poor. But why can’t he do both? On what Scripture, Mr. Mains, do you base this novel idea? Second false assumption: that President Harrison does not care for the poor, or at least that he does not care for them as much as he cares for political involvement. This is slanderous, unless you can prove otherwise. Or perhaps you are saying that he should put as much effort and prayer into caring for the poor as he does preaching the Word to the political issues of our day. But a separate office was set up, as recorded in the Book of Acts (chapter 6), to handle mercy ministry, in order for the Apostles to preach the word—with all its political implications. So again, you are setting up a false dilemma: the Bible itself says that preachers are not to spend as much time caring for the poor as they do in preaching: “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.”

(Incidentally, by insisting that President Harrison get involved in the health insurance debate, are you not, by your own standards, insisting that he get involved in politics? Or is it only conservative political involvement that you object to?)

You wrote, “There are many poor, sick, and destitute people in in this country who are dying. Many of them would already be dead if it were not for Federal government programs; the same government that you insist is taking our freedoms. Churches and charities cannot take care of everyone.”

Mr. Mains, what is your evidence that Federal poverty programs are actually helping people out of poverty rather than keeping them mired in government dependence, and rewarding those who choose not to work (which, by the way, flatly contradicts Scripture: “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat,” II Thess. 3:10)?

Second, why can’t churches and charities take care of everyone? In God’s Law, it was families and churches who were to provide for the poor—a job we did fairly well until we gave it over to the government, which has no Biblical mandate for doing so. (Side note: if Christians tithed faithfully, our churches would have plenty of money to care for the poor.)

You wrote, “Will you also use your position and voice to speak for the “LEAST OF THESE, MY BROTHERS”, as Christ commands; even if it means agreeing with a DEMOCRAT, who supports those in need who have already been born?”

So we can only care for the poor if we do it the way Democratic politicians say to do it? Democrats (and Republicans) have done nothing but hurt the poor through their disastrous poverty programs. Those who truly care for the poor will open their own hearts and wallets, without fear of force and coercion. Coercion, after all, is ultimately what you are arguing for, since you apparently believe the only way to take care of all the poor is by taking money away from productive citizens by force, at the barrel of a gun. But studies have shown that conservative Red Staters are more generous in charitable giving (i.e., giving that is not prompted by government violence and coercion) than their Blue State neighbors (even when they are themselves far poorer than their liberal counterparts). See the article at this address: http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/08/charitable-giving-red-states-vs-blue-states-2465268.html

And note the conclusion of one columnist: “Of course this doesn’t mean that there aren’t generous philanthropists in New England. It doesn’t mean selfishness is unknown on the right. What it does mean is that where people are encouraged to think that solving society’s ills is primarily a job for government, charity tends to evaporate.”

You wrote, “We live in a society that is primarily composed of TWO political parties; there are Christians who align themselves with BOTH of these parties, whether or not President Harrison believes that.”

It is true that there are both conservatives and liberals in LCMS churches (more’s the pity), but again, you are assuming that this is a good thing. Is it good that some Christians use their liberty to vote for politicians who have vowed to keep the murder of the unborn legal? Further, would it not be better if we obeyed the Apostle’s command to “be of one mind”? (II Cor. 13:11; Phil. 2:2). Does this not apply to politics, one of the most divisive areas of human life? Further, check out President Harrison’s video on the LCMS “Free to be Faithful” page. In that video, he explicitly states what you suggest he denies about Republicans and Democrats in our churches.

You wrote, “He will NOT dictate how LCMS members will vote on civil matters, and is NOT the perfect, supreme judge or ruler over individual interpretation of Holy Scripture by faithful Christians…”

Mr. Mains, I ask you: can you not imagine any political party becoming so evil that a Christian could not in good conscience vote for them? So evil that ministers, for conscience’ sake, would admonish their people to not vote for them? Should Christians consider themselves “free” to vote for Nazis or Communists, or other murderous regimes? Seriously, does the Bible have nothing at all to say to help a Christian understand how to vote? You say we should be willing to agree with Democrats, but you also say that it is a “blessing” to be able to “speak for the unborn.” Can you not “speak for the unborn” in how you vote? How can a Christian, in good conscience, vote for a party committed to the legalized murder of the unborn? Even if you cannot in good conscience vote for Republicans (and I would certainly understand if you cannot), how on earth can a Christian ever vote for politicians who are on record saying that we should continue to keep child murder legal? There are lots of important issues in our day, but can any political issue be more important than the state-sanctioned murder of babies?

Even if you don’t like the idea of President Harrison telling you how to vote, (something, incidentally, he has said he will not do, so your accusation, again, is false), would it be wrong for him, or for local pastors, to say, on the Sunday before an election, “Unborn children are in grave danger in our society. Go out and vote for the unborn”? What would be wrong or unbiblical about that? I say it is an abdication of duty for any pastor who does not say at least so much. For my part, I would welcome President Harrison, or my pastor, to care enough about me and about our country to “tell me how to vote.” I might disagree with what he says, but I would not fault him for saying it.

You wrote, “Perhaps, then the LCMS can elect a leader who will focus on the Kingdom of God, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as he is CALLED to do; rather than the kingdom of the world, and the political machinations of men!”

Another false assumption: that the Kingdom of God does not include the kingdom of this world. But the Revelation contradicts you here: “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever!” (Rev. 11:15). Note that this is not about what happens at the end of the world, for the Revelation explicitly states to its first century readers that the letter is concerning “the things that must soon take place” (Rev. 1:1). And, as quoted above, Jesus Himself said that He had been given “all authority in heaven and on earth.” That’s why we pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in Heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Mr. Mains, do you seriously maintain that God’s Word has nothing to say about “the kingdom of the world, and the political machinations of men”? Seriously? Politicians and government entities are off the hook when it comes to obedience to God? Where on earth do you get this odd, unchristian notion? Certainly not from Psalm 2, I’ll bet.

In conclusion, Mr. Mains, let me say this: I’m sure that you and I would agree that politics is no savior. But I want you to consider that politics does NEED a Savior—and there’s only one of those.