Simply put, the best way of Christ doesn’t call us to select and select who’s worthy of mercy. He expects us to walk in the identical motion and attitude as he does, not within the minimums of Christian rhetoric. His Word is obvious: our role is whole-hearted sacrifice reflecting an eager and deep devotion to the One who sacrificed himself for us. In truth, that is Gospel 101, verified by more biblical passages than one could possibly fit into such a brief space.
But aren’t we permitted to have political views unrelated to our obedience and devotion to Christ? Biblically, the reply may sound surprising in our current climate: it’s a transparent “no.” We should be glad about and good stewards of our civic freedoms and duties, but our devotion to political viewpoints must pale compared to our devotion to the biblical ways of Christ, and people ways are unambiguous in terms of our attitudes toward people like immigrants and refugees. “He upholds the reason for the oppressed and provides food to the hungry. The Lord sets prisoners free, the Lord gives sight to the blind, the Lord lifts up those that are bowed down… the Lord watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow.”[1] Even more shocking, God says, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were smug, overfed and unconcerned; they didn’t help the poor and needy.”[2]
Furthermore, no political party or figure who simply, maybe even convincingly, claims to be rushing to the defense of Christ or his ways exempts us from being faithful to weigh their attitudes and actions against those very ways, just as we might do with anyone we follow who also claims to be following Christ. In fact, if those that claim to represent Jesus sound nothing like him, avoid or refuse to do the identical works he does— or dare I say it, proudly display a disposition oppositional to Jesus’s —then we should always not abide of their teachings or leadership. Does such a press release delay biblically? The Apostle John opined: “Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.”[3] There are few terms as broad as “whoever”—there’s little wiggle room to reinterpret such language. If living as Jesus did shouldn’t be our full-throated, full-hearted intention, then the simple answer is just not to say we live in him—that’s, that we immolate and take our marching orders from him.
The Apostle Paul could be accused of being the “tone police” if he were to write down in the current day what he penned to the Philippians some two thousand years ago: “You should have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.”[4] In other words, we will’t claim that policies completely eclipse attitudes within the eyes of God. We can claim certain attitudes as politically expedient, but when those in political power don’t even try to think, act, or treat the poor as Christ did (and does), we shouldn’t proclaim their attitudes or actions as being of the Christian persuasion. Each of us must reconcile ourselves to the politics we elect, but we should always rest assured that the God we serve won’t ever reconcile his Kingdom to the politics of lesser kings. There will likely be just one King. Such statements shouldn’t anger us; they need to invigorate us, reminding us of the Source of our true life! This is the nice a part of the Good News. After all, in Christ’s Kingdom, we are the foreigners and refugees for whom he cares so well (Ephesians 2:19)!
A well-liked sentiment exists today: “I’m not electing a pastor. I’m electing a president (or senator, governor, etc.).” Truer words have never been spoken, but in the event that they’re true, we should always stop ascribing pastoral traits (or worse) to the people we’re electing (i.e.,“He alone is God’s man for the job,” “God needs him to save lots of our country,” etc) Just let the elected officials be our flesh pressers, a noble career. But if in addition they claim to be religious leaders (or we proclaim them to be), then they need to be judged by the identical scriptural standards we use to evaluate our elders and church leaders, and rightly so.
Once our attitude and actions, governmental or otherwise, have been placed into the category of “Christian,” they need to reflect the merciful approach of Christ. This is the irrefutable litmus test. We can speak or sing words of praise all we would like, but as Martin Luther observed, “God desires to be praised through works of mercy.”[5] Again, if there aren’t any works of mercy to be found, call it whatever you wish—even support it, in the event you feel you should. Just don’t call it “Christian.” Dallas Willard points out these clear and divine demarcations: “Now reflect: Has your heart gone out in generous blessing to someone who has insulted or humiliated you? Can you’re employed without considered gain for the well-being of somebody who openly despises you, perhaps has told you to drop dead? Are you enthusiastically pulling for the success of somebody competing with you for favor, position, or financial gain? That is what those possessed and permeated by God’s sort of love find themselves doing.”[6]
Yes, I realize this shouldn’t be the favored refrain among the many populist movement that’s, at times, driving nearly all of Christian sentiment in America today. But the Bible implores us to: “Speak up for individuals who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who’re destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”[7] Again, attempt to fathom the breadth of “all who’re destitute.” We have work to do—and it’s the correct sort of work. Such a posture means we have to be more concerned with righteous living before the Lord than predictable accusations of “wokeness.” The low-hanging indictment of wokeness is a vague, indefinable distraction, while God’s call to the merciful treatment of those in need couldn’t be clearer. We are to indiscriminately serve those in need, echoing John Wesley’s passion to: “Do all the nice you possibly can, by all of the means you possibly can, in all of the ways you possibly can.”[8]
