Hugh_Herbert_Humphrey

Your argument is that we cannot automatically take what Jesus commanded individuals to do and turn it into an obligation of government. I understand the distinction. But I think his argument falls apart when you look at the entirety of Scripture and consider who actually held political power when it was written. More importantly, I think pastors like Howerton give Christians a convenient excuse to practice Christianity on Sunday and abandon it when they vote on Tuesday. They can proclaim their love for Jesus while supporting politicians who promote hostility toward immigrants, disregard the poor, and use fear and division for political gain. Somehow, they convince themselves that these positions are consistent with following Christ. They are not. Consider the world in which Jesus lived. Ordinary people did not vote. They did not elect senators, write legislation, or determine tax policy. Political power belonged to kings, emperors, governors, and religious authorities. When Jesus instructed ordinary people to feed the hungry, welcome strangers, and care for the poor, he was telling them to do what was within their power. Of course those instructions were directed toward individuals. Those individuals had no authority to change government policy. But when Scripture addressed people who actually held power, the obligation to care for the vulnerable did not disappear. It became even more pronounced. Read Jeremiah 22, Psalm 72, Deuteronomy 15, and Daniel 4. God repeatedly holds rulers accountable for their treatment of the poor, the oppressed, the widow, and the foreigner. And it went beyond moral encouragement. The laws of ancient Israel actually required provisions for the poor. Farmers had to leave portions of their fields for the poor and foreigners. Tithes supported widows, orphans, and those without resources. Debts were to be canceled every seventh year. These were not suggestions for private charity. They were laws governing society. Now consider what has changed. In the United States, our Constitution begins with three important words: We the People. The political authority that once rested with kings and emperors now rests, at least in part, with voters and the representatives we elect. That changes the application of Howerton's argument considerably. When Christians have the power to influence public policy, elect representatives, and write laws, they cannot suddenly claim that Christ's teachings are irrelevant to those decisions. A Christian senator does not stop being a Christian when entering the Senate chamber. Even the New Testament addresses people working within government. When tax collectors asked John the Baptist what repentance required, he told them not to collect more than authorized. Soldiers were instructed not to extort money or abuse their authority. Notice that neither was told that their government position somehow exempted them from their moral obligations. Scripture also gives us Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, and Nehemiah governing Judah. Paul even mentions Erastus, a city official. Their public responsibilities were not separate from their faith. Romans 13 describes governing authority as God's servant for the good of the people. That hardly suggests government is exempt from moral responsibility. I also find Howerton's argument particularly inconsistent when compared with the political positions commonly promoted by conservative evangelical pastors. They have no difficulty arguing that Christian beliefs should influence government policy on abortion, marriage, or sexuality. But suddenly, when the subject turns to poverty, immigrants, health care, or the treatment of marginalized people, we are told that Scripture was speaking to individuals, not government. You cannot insist that the Bible should guide a senator's position on abortion while arguing that it has nothing to say about how that same senator treats the poor. Either Christian moral principles matter in public office or they do not. You cannot selectively apply them based on which political positions you already support. And this is hardly some new progressive interpretation of Christianity. Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, in Jesus for President, remind us that declaring Jesus as Lord also meant Caesar was not. Christianity was never intended to be confined to a church building. Claiborne's consistent ethic of life challenges Christians to defend human dignity from the womb to the grave, including the poor, immigrants, prisoners, and those facing execution. Benjamin Cremer has similarly argued that the church's responsibility is not to acquire political power for itself, but to hold those who possess power accountable for how they treat the least among us. Even Tim Keller, hardly someone who can be dismissed as a radical progressive, distinguished between the institutional church and Christians living out their faith in the larger world. In Generous Justice, he emphasized the responsibility of Christians to pursue justice through their work and participation in society. And consider William Wilberforce. After becoming a committed Christian, he considered leaving Parliament for ministry. John Newton encouraged him to remain in public service. Wilberforce ultimately helped lead the effort to abolish the British slave trade in 1807. Imagine someone telling Wilberforce that opposing slavery was a personal Christian obligation, but that he had no responsibility to address it through legislation. Of course, none of this means that every government program is required by Scripture. Christians can reasonably disagree about taxation, health care, immigration policy, and the proper role of government. I have no problem with those disagreements. But there is an enormous difference between debating the best way to help people and arguing that elected officials have no Christian obligation to consider their welfare. Jesus was remarkably clear when asked about the greatest commandment. Love God and love your neighbor. He said all the Law and the Prophets hang on those two commandments. He did not create an exception for politicians. In Matthew 25, Jesus identifies himself with the hungry, the stranger, the sick, and the imprisoned. Whatever we do for the least of these, we do for him. He did not add, "Unless you are voting on legislation." That is what bothers me most about Howerton's argument. It creates a theological distinction that can be used to excuse political behavior that would otherwise be difficult to reconcile with the teachings of Christ. You can oppose a particular immigration bill without hating immigrants. You can disagree about welfare programs without disregarding the poor. You can believe government has limits without abandoning compassion. But you cannot use those disagreements to justify cruelty, dehumanization, or indifference and then pretend Christianity has nothing to say about it. The Great Commission calls Christians to make disciples and teach people to follow what Jesus commanded. And at the center of those commandments is love. That obligation does not end when someone becomes a police officer, a business owner, a judge, or a United States senator. In fact, the greater the authority, the greater the opportunity and responsibility to exercise it with compassion. A single vote in the Senate can affect millions of people, including those who are hungry, sick, poor, or seeking refuge. If anything, that makes the moral responsibility greater, not smaller. Christianity is not something we practice for an hour on Sunday and put away when it becomes politically inconvenient. And love does not stop at the Senate door.