I heard a sermon yesterday which supports my view that Southern
Baptists have no biblical political philosophy.
In the introduction our pastor mentioned the “culture war”, his
words not mine, by mentioning the attack on Karen Pence for
teaching at a Christian school that openly believes in the
biblical definition of marriage. Southern Baptists, in general,
and specifically my pastor, take Scripture seriously. I was
immediately interested in what he had to say next.
He made a mistake by saying Karen’s attackers are not our enemy.
They certainly are. This is an important point. In spite of
this error, our response, and my pastor would agree, would be to
obey Christ and “love our enemies”. We must recognize there is
no neutrality in most of what politics forces upon their
citizens. If we believe the Bible we certainly believe the
Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is ultimate sovereign
over everything. This includes politics. Whoever, or whatever,
is ultimate sovereign over a nation’s laws is either the Triune
God or illegitimate (anti-Christ). Politics is not secular. In
fact, it is worship. We must bow our knee to this ultimate
sovereign, or we must accept the civil penalty for breaking the
law.
Our pastor then went on about apologetics, i.e., giving a defense
of what (and perhaps why) we believe the gospel. Perhaps he
knows of the biblical instruction? Maybe not, because it was not
part of his sermon yesterday. There is a confusing, almost
contradictory, passage in Proverbs concerning “apologetics”.
Proverbs 26:4&5 says “Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his
folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” How can both these
statements be logically correct? I think the best answer is to
see how Jesus obeyed this section of the Word of God in his
answer to those fools, and his enemy, the pharisees.
“‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?’
They said to him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How
is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put
your enemies under your feet? If then David calls him Lord,
how is he his son?'”
I have thought about apologetics for years. I believe the best
summary is: respond to questions with another question. Quote
Scripture as applicable. The purpose being to expose the
worldview of our apologetic opponent. A secondary purpose is to
have a conversation. Let them talk about what they truly
believe. A third purpose is to let Scripture bring about faith
to win our opponent.
What I have found, when I’ve asked Southern Baptists about their
biblical political philosophy and are willing to talk about it,
is they believe the conscience, as described in the first few
chapters of Romans, is “separate” from Biblical authority. Those
who attempt to apply this to civil law often call it “the law of
nature and of nature’s God”. The words “religious liberty” are
also used, but in many ways. The biblical meaning is a liberty
to no longer sin but live righteously, i.e., not political. When
applied to politics this expression makes no sense whatsoever.
Whose religious opinion should civil law give the green light
(liberty) to anyway?
The biblical political philosophy, i.e. worldview, of Southern
Baptists is to use your conscience and the Bible, if you believe
it; to form your own opinion. Be sure to vote, but don’t ever
claim someone else’s opinion is wrong.