Divorce and Remarriage

 

Divorce and Remarriage—Position Paper

How can a pastor possibly justify officiating in the wedding ceremony of someone who has been divorced? After all, Jesus was very clear, was he not, that divorce and remarriage are equivalent to adultery! This is a topic on which godly, Evangelical scholars and pastors disagree. This essay is my personal position on the issue of divorce and remarriage.[1]

              The united voice of the biblical writers is that God opposes divorce. Malachi goes so far as to say that God hates divorce. Jesus insisted that no one should separate what God has joined (Mark 10:9). Paul also insisted that people should not divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10). God’s intention was one man and one woman together until death.[2]

              On the other hand, according to Moses and the prophets, because of the hardness of people’s hearts, God Himself allowed divorce (Mt 19:8; Mk 10:5). When Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce, he was referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-3.[3] This passage forbids a man from remarrying his former wife after she had been remarried to another. The fact that divorce and remarriage were allowed was assumed and not even questioned.[4] Jesus—clarifying the true intent of the Law—says this allowance for divorce was made because of the hardness of people’s hearts. In other words, because some people are so wicked, so violent, so cruel or so utterly perverse, God sometimes allowed divorce.[5]

The real question is whether Jesus overturned the Father’s allowance for divorce. After all, Jesus overturned dietary laws (Mark 7:19)—did he overturn the allowance for divorce as well?

The answer to that question is not entirely clear. My position is that Jesus did not overturn the allowance for divorce. In other words, God still allows divorce for the hardness of people’s hearts. In the immediate context of Jesus’ prohibition of divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5 (in the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the Law and Prophets (our Old Testament) and that not even the smallest part would disappear until all was fulfilled.

Although the New Covenant fulfilled and overturned the Old Covenant (the sacrificial system. See Hebrews 8-9), I see no reason to believe that Jesus had somehow fulfilled or overturned God’s allowance for divorce. People’s hearts are still just as hard now as they ever were. When Jesus said that not the smallest part of the Law would pass away, I am inclined to think that the Mosaic Law’s allowance for divorce did not pass away either.

When Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of people’s hearts, many people read that as if Jesus was correcting Moses to say that there should never have been an allowance for divorce (except maybe for sexual immorality). I propose that Jesus was not correcting Moses at all. Moses was, after all, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! Jesus was correcting the way Moses had been twisted into allowing divorce for any reason!

More specifically, I believe Jesus’ was reacting to at least two historical issues. One was the position of those like Rabbi Hillel who taught that men should be able to divorce their wives for any reason. In the Sermon on the Mount, which contains one of Jesus’ prohibitions against divorce, Jesus was teaching the true intent of the Law. In the case of marriage, the true intent of the Law was that marriage be until death. In Mark 10:10-12 Jesus goes back to the creation account saying that God made them male and female and that no one should separate what God has joined. Jesus was clear that even in the Old Testament, the allowance for divorce was never intended as an “easy-out” whenever someone became dissatisfied with their marriage or found someone else they wanted more. Jesus was clarifying the Law regarding divorce, not overturning the Law’s allowance for divorce.

A second historical consideration is a more specific application of the first. In Jesus’ time Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, had gone to Rome to discuss affairs of state with Sejanus, the Emperor’s right-hand man. While in Rome, Antipas had an affair with Herodias, the wife of his half-brother, Philip. Antipas and Herodias agreed to divorce their spouses so they could marry each other. That way they could make their adultery “legal.” John the Baptist preached against this affair[6] which was apparently public knowledge. This was, I believe, the historical background behind Jesus’ prohibitions against divorce in Matthew 5:32, 19:7-9; Mark 10:2-12, and Luke 16:18. Jesus was insisting that to divorce your spouse so you could marry another—like Antipas and Herodias were doing—is still just as much adultery in God’s eyes as if you hadn’t bothered to go through the motions. In my view, Jesus was not even addressing a scenario in which a wife, for example, divorces her husband because of cruelty or other evil (the hardness of man’s heart) and then later marries someone else.

But many would object that this is simply not what these passages say! They would argue that Jesus was clearly overturning Moses’ allowance for divorce, for example, in Mark 10:10-12 which says, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” That simply does not allow for divorce due to the hardness of man’s heart.

My response is that Jesus was known for his use of hyperbole or overstatement! It is something that made his teaching so provocative, powerful and memorable. So for example, in the Sermon on the Mount which contains one of the prohibitions against divorce and remarriage, Jesus also says, “Anyone who says, “you fool” will be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). Yet Jesus was apparently speaking hyperbolically since he himself called people fools in Matthew 23:17. In the same context Jesus also talks about plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand if it might cause you to fall into adultery (Matthew 5:27-30). But Jesus was clearly speaking hyperbolically since even if you literally plucked out your eye, you’d still have another one to lust with. In the same passage, Jesus also commands his followers not to take oaths (Matthew 5:33-37). Apparently not even Paul interpreted Jesus literally since Paul took oaths (e.g. Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23)! Most Evangelicals seem to have no problem swearing “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God,” which is clearly an oath. They understand that Jesus was using hyperbole.

Similarly, very few Evangelicals would say that Jesus’ commands to “turn the other cheek” or not to “resist an evil person” in Matthew 5:38-39 should prohibit all Christians from joining the military, serving as police, or protecting their family. We understand that Jesus is speaking hyperbolically. In Matthew 6:19-21 Jesus specifically says not to lay up treasures on earth, and yet how many evangelicals have savings accounts and 401k's?  We understand that Jesus regularly uses hyperbole to make his points.[7]

Yet right in the middle of all this hyperbolic instruction is Jesus’ teaching not to divorce except for sexual immorality (Matthew 5:31-32), and many Evangelical pastors insist that this could not possibly be hyperbole but must be taken literally with no other possible exceptions. This seems a bit selective and inconsistent.

It is certainly true that in Jesus’ prohibitions against divorce there is either no exception given, or only one exception, i.e. for sexual immorality. But the Bible was not written like modern American law books in which every exception is specifically spelled out in the immediate context or in legal cross references and footnotes. In the Bible, we are expected to compare Scripture with Scripture.

For example, in First Peter 2:13-17, Peter commands believers to submit to the government. He mentions no exceptions. And yet Peter himself defied his government saying, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The idea that God always comes first is assumed in First Peter 2 as it is in Romans 13:1-6, even though no exceptions to the command to obey government are mentioned in those letters.

Why would we think there might be exceptions to the prohibition against divorce? The evidence is admittedly slim. In Mark 10:10-12 Jesus taught, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” This passage allows no exceptions. The same is true of Luke 16:18. So if all we had to go on was the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke, we would conclude that Jesus allowed absolutely no exceptions to his prohibition against divorce—and we would be wrong! In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 Jesus says there is an exception for sexual immorality.[8] Matthew apparently knew there was more to Jesus’ teaching on this subject than Mark takes time to summarize. Surprisingly, in First Corinthians 7:15-16, Paul teaches that desertion is yet another valid allowance for divorce—and not only for divorce, but also for remarriage![9] How dare Paul add an exception to Jesus’ prohibition against divorce! Apparently, Paul either disagreed with what Jesus’ taught, or was ignorant of what Jesus taught, or (my view) Paul knew that there were more exceptions to Jesus’ teaching on divorce than the Gospel writers would later take time to summarize.[10]

Another possibility is the very disputed passage in Matthew 19:4-12 in which Jesus says that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Jesus’ disciples respond saying that it is better, then, not get married at all, and Jesus tells them, “Not everyone can accept this word.” In his discussion of this passage, Biblical scholar, R.T. France concludes, “In the end any of these options comes to much the same result that Jesus will here be conceding that not everyone is able to maintain God’s high standard for the permanence of marriage—in other words, that divorce (other than as a result of pornea) may in some cases be permissible after all”[11] (“Pornea” is the Greek word for sexual immorality). Like France, I would interpret Matthew 19:4-12 as saying, if you divorce in order to marry someone else you have committed adultery. For others who find divorce necessary because of the hardness of a spouse’s heart, it is preferable that they remain unmarried, but not every divorced person is able to remain unmarried, and in remarrying, they have not necessarily sinned (I think, is one of Paul’s points in I Corinthians 7).

Two other considerations affect my thinking on this issue. First, according to Jesus, the second most important command in all of Scripture is the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. In Galatians 5:14 Paul says that “the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command.” Certainly there are no “neighbors” closer than one’s children. If the only way to protect those children[12] from an abusive or dangerous spouse is by divorce, then, I believe Jesus would say that following the second greatest commandment by protecting those children, would take priority over the prohibition against divorce.[13]

A second consideration is admittedly even more subjective. Imagine two scenarios. In the first scenario, a woman whose military spouse was stationed overseas for a year, had a brief affair in a time of weakness. She quickly ended the affair and sincerely repented of her sin. In a second scenario, a husband regularly gets drunk, beats his wife and burns his children with cigarette butts. He absolutely refuses to seek help or to even acknowledge that he has a problem. I simply find it impossible to believe that if we could sit across the table from Jesus today, he would say that the first scenario is valid grounds for divorce but not the second scenario.

It is important to recognize that our decision on this issue may have serious pastoral consequences. Pastors who insist that Jesus prohibited divorce for any reason—or only for immorality—are often condemning people to live with malicious, evil and violent spouses who put them and their children in danger. One very prominent conservative, systematic theologian recently changed his view on this issue. After many years of teaching and writing, he now agrees with my conclusion. I’m glad for that, but one wonders how many lives he ruined over the years by telling the wives of abusive husbands that  they must never leave those husbands. The pastoral consequences of this issue are serious and sometimes have life-and-death ramifications.

My conclusion is that Jesus affirmed and strengthened the Old Testament teaching that marriage was intended as the union of one man and one woman until death. Divorce should never be considered just because two people “fall out of love,” become dissatisfied, or are “incompatible.” Marriage is a life-long commitment that can sometimes be lonely and painful—but God never promises a pain-free life, and following Jesus often leads to suffering! In such cases, pastoral or professional counseling may be helpful. Sometimes medication or temporary separation may be necessary. But the ultimate goal should be restoration of the marriage (1 Cor. 7:10-16). If someone is looking for excuses to get out of the marriage, they have already missed Jesus’ point.

Nevertheless, in cases when a spouse is exceptionally hard-hearted and all efforts at reconciliation fail, God allowed divorce. I do not believe Jesus overturned that allowance. That being the case, Paul’s admonition to widows and widowers that it is “better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:9) would also seem to apply to those who are unmarried due to the hardness of their former spouses’ heart.

 

---

[1] My position on divorce and remarriage has remained unchanged since I wrote a research paper on it in seminary over 30 years ago.

[2] Although God allowed polygamy, polygamy was not God’s ideal and every case of polygamy in the Bible was a disaster.

[3] That God allowed divorce, however, is also implied in the prophets like Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, which depict God as divorcing Israel because of Israel's persistent unfaithfulness to the covenant. If divorce was practically the unforgivable sin that some pastors portray it to be, it seems odd that God would use an illustration in which he would depict himself as committing that sin by divorcing his people, Israel! That God allowed divorce is much clearer in Ezra where Jews were commanded to divorce their foreign, idolatrous wives, and this was said to be according to the will of God (Ezra 10:11). Everyone agrees that in the Old Testament, God reluctantly allowed divorce.

[4] The reason for the law was presumably to keep people from using the divorce allowance as legalized adultery, i.e. divorce your wife so you can legally marry and have sex with another. Then divorce your new wife and marry your previous wife again—assuming she was financially bad enough off to have you (Historically, this has actually happened in some Islamic countries)!

[5] It does not mean that every time a divorce occurs it was because both spouses’ hearts were hard, as some pastors have erroneously taught! For example, I once heard of a case in which a woman’s husband divorced her because she got saved and would no longer go out and get drunk with him. Her husband even acknowledged that she was a good wife—he just wanted someone to party with. In this case, the woman’s divorce was due to her commitment to Christ, not from any hardness on her part.

[6] Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-19; Luke 3:19-20.

[7] A more graphic example is in John 6 where Jesus tells people they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved!

[8] It is worth noting that Jesus’ stepfather, Joseph, was characterized as a “just” or “righteous” man even when he intended to divorce Mary from their betrothal commitment (Matthew 1:19).

[9] In First Corinthians 7:10, Paul said that a woman is not to leave her husband, but if she does…. Paul’s command not to leave her husband appears to be an ideal but not an absolute. In other words, she has not necessarily sinned by doing so. She is not to leave her husband but if she does, she is to remain unmarried. But Paul also says it is better to marry than to burn with passion, which leads me to believe that his command to remain unmarried is also an ideal and not an absolute.

[10] Paul, of course, was not referring to the Gospels themselves, since most, if not all, of the Gospels were written after Paul’s letters. But Paul was certainly aware of Jesus’ teachings.

[11] R.T. France. 2007. The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 723.

[12] Jesus was particularly protective of children as seen in Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2.

[13] Unfortunately, this argument could easily be abused and turned in to an excuse to find a “biblical” reason for divorce. A vegetarian spouse, for example could argue that divorce is necessary to prevent the children from the “abuse” of being allowed to eat meat! That, however, would violate the point of Jesus’ prohibition against divorce. If someone is looking for an excuse to get divorced, they have already violated the intent of Jesus’ teaching.

Christians and Politics

Christians and Politics--Sermon (June 28, 2020)

As you know I almost never do topical sermons and I have no intention of changing that, but since this Saturday is the Fourth of July and since this is an election year, I thought I’d make an exception and go where angels fear to tread. I’ll be talking about “Christians and politics” this morning. Before we start,

LET’S PRAY

              So let’s cut right to the chase. Should Christians be involved in politics? Some Christians say, “Absolutely not!” Our job is to preach the Gospel and show love to others. We will only change society by changing people’s hearts—not through politics. Getting involved in political issues will not only offend people, it will put up unnecessary roadblocks to their acceptance of the Gospel.

Other Christians say we must be politically active to preserve our religious freedom and our country. They would say Jesus calls us to be salt and light in the world. Salt was a preservative and one way to preserve or slow our cultural decline is to be involved in politics. Christian advocates of political action would also point out that even the Bible contains politics.

For example, when the prophet Nathan confronted King David about his immorality, that was every bit as political as when Bill Clinton or Donald Trump were confronted about their immorality.

In Isaiah 22 when Isaiah denounced the leaders of Jerusalem for tearing down peoples’ homes to strengthen the city wall, that was a political issue, an issue of property rights and national security.

When Jeremiah warned his country to surrender to Babylon that was a political issue. In fact, Jeremiah was almost executed for treason!

When Ezekiel condemned the leaders of Israel, in chapter 34, for not taking care of those who were unable to care for themselves, that was a poverty and health-care issue, every bit as political as it is today.

In Matthew 17 when Jesus told Peter to pay the Temple tax, that was a political issue since there was no separation of Temple and state, and many regarded the Temple leadership as corrupt.

When Jesus told the people to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are God’s, that was also a political issue since some thought that giving money to Caesar was treason against God.

When Jesus called Herod, “that fox” it wasn’t because Herod was sexy! It was because Herod was devious and corrupt. Jesus was giving a public political condemnation.

When Paul appealed to Caesar, he was using an established political remedy for injustice.

Finally, when Jesus and New Testament writers insisted that our allegiance to Jesus comes even before our allegiance to government, that was not only a political issue, the Romans may have considered it to be treason!

In my opinion, however, this issue is not quite as simple as to say either, “Yes, Christians should be involved in politics,” or “No they shouldn’t.” Pastors, for example, need to be careful about politics. Pastors should make sure that politics doesn’t become a hobby horse they ride every Sunday. Those who do that are not preaching the whole council of God.

Pastors should also avoid preaching on non-biblical issues from the pulpit. For example, if the Randolph City Council wanted to change the speed limit on main street from 35 to 25, I may have a personal opinion on that, but it would be inappropriate for me to take sides and preach on it from the pulpit. It is not a biblical issue.

But there are some political issues that are also biblical matters. Abortion is one. Gay marriage is another. Shutting down churches is another. When politics crosses over into the biblical arena, pastors have every right and even an obligation, to preach on these issues.

As American citizens, however, all Christians have a right to voice our opinion on political issues even if those issues are not biblically related. Theoretically, the United States is governed by “We the people” and all citizens, including Christians, have the privilege of making our voices heard and the responsibility of voting intelligently.

I suspect that when many people say Christians should stay out of politics, what they really mean is that Christians should stay out of politics that disagree with their political views.

How involved you personally get in politics is something you have to decide for yourself. The body of Christ is made up of many members which have different functions. God calls people into a variety of ministries and occupations, and some Christians feel called to work in politics and law. Most people don’t realize how little religious freedom we would have left in America if not for the ministries of Christian organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom.

So how do we decide what issues or candidates to support? This is a case in which we need to put everything in a broader context. If we just focus on individual issues first, we will miss the forest for the trees. In other words, those on the political Left may focus on things like immigration and poverty, which are both biblical issues; while those on the political Right may focus on things like abortion or same sex marriage, which are both biblical issues. And we end up in a stalemate. But there are bigger ideological and theological issues involved.

One of those bigger issues is the fundamental divide between the political Left and the political Right. These are obviously broad terms since there are degrees of “Right” and degrees of “Left,” and not everyone on the Left or Right agree with everyone else in their camp on particular issues. For example, most people on the Left are pro-abortion but there are a few on the Left who are pro-life. So when I talk about Left and Right in this sermon, understand that there are often many exceptions, but I think the broad categories are still valid. With that in mind, let’s look at some of the differences.

First, regarding basic human nature: As a broad generalization, people on the Left, and even many on the Right, tend to think human nature is basically good. The implication is that if someone is not good, something else is responsible—Maybe their parents, or poverty, or racism, or sexism, or homophobia, or environment, or lack of education —anything but human nature. The way to fix these problems is bigger government, more and more regulations, and more and more control.

By contrast, the farther Right you go, the more likely you are to encounter people who believe that human nature is not basically good. For example, our founding forefathers were very skeptical of human nature which is why they created checks and balances, and a Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

 For many on the Right, if someone is not good, a person’s environment may certainly be a significant factor, but the problem is ultimately human nature which means that the individual is responsible for their actions.

This divide on human nature even extends to cultures. Many on the Left tend to think that all cultures are basically good and that no culture is superior to another. One implication of this thinking is the idea that war is never the answer, because if we just negotiated long enough, we would eventually address legitimate grievances and come to a solution—because all people and cultures are basically good.

The Right, on the other hand, thinks some cultures are morally superior to, for example, cultures that oppress women and children. The Right, therefore, believes that war is sometimes necessary because some cultures and tyrants are just plain evil, making compromise impossible.

This divide on basic human nature also extends to government leadership. People on the Right tend to believe the cliché that ”power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” so the Political Right thinks government should be limited, both in size and in power to ensure that it does not become tyrannical. As I said, this is why our founding forefathers put checks and balances in our Constitution.

Those on the Left see government as the solution, not the problem. The larger and more powerful the government, the more able the government is to enact socialist ideals of righting wrongs, correcting inequities, enforcing equality, and creating a more perfect society.

So the issue of basic human nature affects much of the way we see the world—and this is a biblical issue. Jeremiah writes that “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked….” John says that anyone who says he is without sin is a liar. Paul says that “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” and that “there is none righteous, no not one.” Paul says we are dead in trespasses and sins and that the god of this world—Satan—has blinded the minds of those who do not believe. Jesus, Peter, John, Paul and the Old Testament prophets called everyone to repentance—implying that all people need to repent of their sinfulness.

Theologians call this “total depravity.” That doesn’t mean people are as bad as they could be or that they never do good things. It means, among other things, that apart from Christ, people tend to be self-centered rather than God-centered, and even when they do good things it is often from selfish or less than pure motives.

By the way, I’m not suggesting that Right-wing politicians go around thinking about total depravity. Most of them probably don’t even know what it means. But Right-wing politicians inherited the idea of the sinfulness of man from our country’s deeply Christian roots, coming especially from men like Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley. There is a rapidly increasing number on the Left who strongly reject these Christian roots and truly despise Right wing Christians who still hold to these values.

Anyway, where you stand on human nature can affect a wide variety of political issues. Those on the Right who believe in the basic depravity or sinfulness of human beings are on much more solid biblical ground than those who believe human nature is basically good.

Second, the Left and Right tend to disagree on the whole issue of morality and ethics. Generally speaking, many on the Left believe that evil is relative to the individual or determined by society. By contrast, those on the Right tend to believe that good and evil is determined largely by Judeo-Christian values passed down in the Bible.

So when applied to the family, for example, the Left insists that gender is a social construct and that the family can be any loving group of people. The Right insists on the Judeo-Christian teaching that the ideal family consists of children raised by one man and one woman who are married and faithful to each other. Both sides agree that there are other family arrangements, of course, like single-parent families, or extended families, or couples without children, but the Left would expand this to include unbiblical ideas of same sex families, or transgender families, or polyamorous arrangements in which multiple men and women live and have sex together.

Another implication of the Left’s relativism in morality is seen in their view that the value of an unborn child is determined by the mother. If the mother wants the child, it is a baby. If the mother does not want it, it is simply a blob of tissue that can be cut out like a tumor and discarded. To the Right, that life growing in the womb is biologically human and should be afforded all the rights and protections given to any other innocent human life.

Since the Left sees morality as relative, they tend to see government as the source of human rights. Left-wing government determines what rights people are entitled to. By contrast, those on the Right, following our forefathers, believe that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights—whether government agrees or not.

The Left generally approaches morality and ethics as if God did not exist. The Right tends to see morality and ethics through a Judeo-Christian lens, even if they don’t always live up to that standard. With regard to morality and ethics, therefore, the Right is on much more solid biblical ground than the Left.

Third, regarding world affairs: For those on the Left, the international ideal tends to be globalism—a world governed by an organization like the United Nations in which no one country is superior. This fits with their view that all cultures are basically equal and good. The Left, therefore, welcomes illegal immigrants, generally believing that national borders are an obsolete relic of the past to be abolished in order to form a more perfect global union.

For those on the Right, the survival of independent nations or “nationalism”—is essential to prevent any one nation from ruling all others in global tyranny. The Right, therefore, welcomes legal immigrants but insists that the borders be controlled to keep out criminals, drug cartels and terrorists.

Christians on the Left point out that the Bible demanded that foreigners or immigrants, be treated with justice, fairness and love. Many on the Right agree but do not believe this precludes nations from establishing immigration laws. In fact, the Right would argue that to allow criminals, drug runners and terrorists into our country is not compassionate, but evil.

These disagreements on international affairs are actually just another implication of the human nature debate. Since the Left sees human nature and cultures as basically good, the solution to humanity’s problems is to unite under one global government that can enforce social justice and equality.

              The Right’s concern about human nature leads it to be skeptical about the possibility of one big happy global family and is concerned that a one world government will turn tyrannical. Since it will be global, there will be no nations left to resist.

              As we saw, the Bible teaches that human nature is not fundamentally good. Those on the Right are on much more solid biblical ground on this issue.

Fourth: Regarding society: The Right tends to think of society’s most important divisions in terms of good and evil. The Left, following Marxism, divides humanity in terms of classes, like rich and poor, workers and managers, oppressor and oppressed, white people and people of color.

Following Marxism and socialism, the Left generally believes that the way to create a better society is to abolish inequality. One of the primary roles of the state, therefore, is to create and enforce equality—as determined by the state, of course. The Right believes that the way to create a better society is to develop moral character, promote freedom, and to create opportunities for everyone to prosper.

Marxism is an atheist philosophy and the Right thinks it is naive at best and dangerous at worst. It simply never works in real life. Once prosperous countries like mineral-rich Venezuela are destroyed by this philosophy and Christians are almost always persecuted under it.

Regarding rich and poor, the Left believes that government has the responsibility for taking care of people through welfare, food stamps, and various aid programs. The Right believes in helping people who can’t help themselves but tends to believe, with Paul, that those who will not work, should not eat—or at least should not be supported with taxes from those who do work.

With regard to race, the Left believes that one’s race is highly significant, and that racism is one of the main problems facing African-American communities. The Right believes that one’s race or skin color should be no more significant than the color of someone’s hair, and that the breakdown of the family and lack of fathers in the home is the primary problem facing African-American communities.

The Left tends to see “Nature” as being of equal or even greater value than humans. Some on the far left even see human beings as parasites on the planet. The Right tends to see nature as created for the good of human beings. On each of these issues, the Right is on much firmer biblical ground than the Left.

Finally, people on the Right are generally conservative, that is, they want to conserve the Judeo-Christian values that historically undergird Western Civilization. More and more people on the Left think that Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian values are evil and want to completely rebuild America from the foundation up.

On all of these broad issues, I would argue that those on the Right are on much more solid biblical ground than those on the Left. Having said that, let me talk about several specific issues that are core issues for me when I am considering a candidate.

The first one, in no particular order, is religious liberty. This comes from the idea that our ultimate allegiance belongs to God alone, and not to any government or political party. The people of God must be free to worship God and practice our faith. We see this when the prophets, and Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and the Apostles stand up to and even defy their governments. As Peter said, “We must obey God rather than man.” Christians must be free to practice and share our faith and we must oppose candidates who would restrict that freedom, for example, by limiting it to “freedom of worship.”

Having said that, the current Democrat party platform says, “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate” (p. 17). What that means in practice is that Democratic National Committee does not believe that Christian schools, colleges, charities, missions or churches should have the right or freedom to exclude people who reject biblical behavior or beliefs. But Christian organizations cannot survive as Christian, if they are forced to include people who, by their beliefs and behavior, undermine the organization. For example, how can you have a Christian school or college in which the teachers and leaders are openly immoral?

Chai Feldblom, the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Obama, said that when religious liberty conflicted with sexual liberty, she couldn’t think of any case in which religious liberty should win. Unfortunately, her position is not a fringe position in the Democrat party.

By the way, my position on Religious Liberty also means I will support politicians who believe the Constitution should be interpreted as originally intended and not as a “living breathing document” subject to reinterpretation depending on current culture. When the Constitution can be reinterpreted to fit contemporary culture, our First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion can easily be perverted into what Democrats call, a “progressive vision of religious freedom” in which religious freedom is restricted and Christians are actually discriminated against.

A second issue is abortion. It is an undeniable scientific fact that the fetus growing in a mother’s body is human life. That human life is not part of the mother. A mother simply does not have two sets of DNA, two brains, and two hearts. That little infant in the womb is a separate and innocent human life and the Bible absolutely prohibits the killing of innocent human beings—especially just for the convenience of the parents.

By the way, this is a public policy issue and a biblical issue—It is not an attack on women who have had an abortion. God is a merciful and forgiving God and he will forgive all those who repent.

My third issue has to do with Israel and antisemitism. Genesis 12:3 and Numbers 24:9 teach that God will bless those who bless Israel and will curse those who curse Israel. That blessing was handed down from Abraham through Isaac to Jacob aka Israel. Many theologians believe that blessing applies to the church, and that is true, but it also still applies to ethnic Jews.

In Romans 11:1 Paul rhetorically asked, “Did God reject his people,” Paul answers, “By no means!” In Romans 11:2 Paul couldn’t possibly be more clear when he exclaims, “God did not reject his people” and the context is abundantly clear that Paul is not talking about Christians, but about his fellow Jews who still reject Christ!

So if we are going to be biblical, our foreign policy should include support for the Jewish state of Israel. This does not mean Israel right or wrong. Paul, Jesus, the prophets and Moses were all critical of Israel when Israel sinned. But it does mean we support Israel’s right to exist and help defend her.

God’s blessing on the Jews also means we should strongly oppose antisemitism which, unfortunately, has been growing significantly on the Left. I would not support any politician who is anti-Israel or antisemitic. And by the way, I would not support any politician who I thought was a white or black supremacist either.

The fourth issue has to do with crime and justice. Leviticus 19:15 says “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great…” Social justice, however, is the idea that you put your thumb on the scales of justice to favor historically oppressed groups. So for example, some thought that O.J. Simpson should be given special consideration since he was part of a historically oppressed race. But that’s not justice and it is not biblical!

Regarding crime, First Peter 2 and Romans 13 insist that governments have the God-given authority to punish criminals—even to the point of death. I support politicians who believe in and will enforce law and order. I oppose politicians who would allow people to loot, destroy property or even “peacefully” shut down freeways.

Fifth, regarding the issues of poverty and government assistance, I agree with Paul that those who will not work should not eat. The Government should not be enabling people who are lazy—and that is what we have done. I have no doubt that Lyndon Johnson had good intentions with his “Great Society” program, but the unintended consequences was to produce a whole generation of people who feel entitled to government handouts. Ultimately, that program was destructive, not compassionate.

On the other hand, in Ezekiel 34 God strongly condemns the leaders of Israel for not taking care of those who could not care for themselves. The United States is not Israel, of course, but I think the principle applies. Governments should help to care for those who cannot care for themselves—including the mentally and physically disabled and children.

My ultimate allegiance is to Jesus Christ above all else—not to any political party. There are corrupt and anti-Christian politicians in both parties. Almost all Democrats, however, are firmly on the Left, and even many Republicans lean Left on numerous issues. I am convinced that generally speaking, the political Right is on much more solid biblical ground that those on the Left.

LET’S PRAY