Americans are already voting. Election day, November 5, 2024, is 15 days away. Temperatures are rising. The television, podcast, and radio commercials are non-stop. Rhetoric is reaching a fever pitch. To be sure, the country is facing serious economic, social, and political problems. In the most visible political race, that for the presidency, Americans will choose between two improbable candidates. It is an election about which historians will write for years to come. In the heat of the season there are some prominent Christians who are seeking to turn the visible church into a political action committee.
Church And Christians
Eric Metaxas is one such prominent Christian. He is a broadly evangelical, culturally conservative media figure known for his many children’s books, his much-criticized biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and his advocacy for Donald Trump.1
In recent weeks he has been advocating on social media and in speeches that the visible church (as an organization) and her ministers must take a partisan political position in the pulpit. He has written,
American pastors have a duty before God to warn their flocks that we are on the verge of losing ALL our liberties. If YOUR pastor is silent in the face of evil, take your tithe and leave tomorrow. Or be complicit in that evil yourselves. God is a judge.” (Eric Metaxas, Oct 19, 2024)
It’s baffling why so many believers insist Christians should not be political. It’s as silly as saying Christians shouldn’t be athletic. I mean, scripture is silent on whether Jesus ever played Little League, so we should let unbelievers dominate baseball, right?” (Eric Metaxas, Oct 12, 2014).
If your pastor doesn’t INSIST you vote in his next sermon, he may as well preach on the blessings of abortion. It’s the same thing. And if you attend a church like that, you share in the guilt. It’s almost past time that the American church repent & turn from its wicked ways.” (Eric Metaxas, October 10. 2024)
In two of these quotations, which are organized chronologically, I understand him to be speaking not to individual Christians or even to Christians organized into groups for cultural-political activism. Rather, it seems that he is intentionally speaking to the visible, institutional church and to her ministers. Most of what follows largely depends on this premise. In the second of the three quotations he seems to be speaking more to individual Christians than to the visible church.
Of the three quotations above the second is the least problematic. Without a doubt, Christians as individuals and in association with other Christians, indeed other American citizens are not only free to participate in the political process, they ought, if possible, to get involved. No one should mistake my criticism of Metaxas as a call to be politically or culturally passive. In fact, I am interrupting my series on how Christians should engage culture and politics, in order to address his call to the visible, institutional church to get directly involved in politics. Not everything that Christians do belongs to the visible, institutional church. Christians are free to organize in a variety of ways to accomplish social ends but Christ, the Lord of the Church, has given the visible, institutional church a very specific mandate and becoming a political action committee is not part of the church’s portfolio.
Metaxas and many other Christians, however, are not satisfied with Christians as individuals and in associations being involved in cultural engagement and politics. They demand that the visible church become directly involved. Of course, there are wings of the American church that have beaten Metaxas to the punch. There are congregations and denominations on both sides of the political and cultural aisle that have been directly engaged in politics for many years.
Metaxas’ rhetoric, thus, provides us with a good opportunity to re-examine our Lord’s words to Pilate and to contrast our Lord’s vision of the church with that of Metaxas.
Christ And Kingdom
Let us take a look at Jesus’ encounter with Pontius Pilate in John 18: 28–38 because in it we find Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, asking Jesus if he was indeed establishing a political action committee or even a rival kingdom to Caesar’s.
Scripture says:
Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. So Pilate went outside to them and said, “What charge do you bring against this man?” They answered and said to him, “If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.” Pilate said to them, “You take him and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to kill anyone.” This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die. So Pilate entered the praetorium again and summoned Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replied, “Do you say this on your own, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. Were my kingdom were of this world, my servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. (John 18:28–38).2
What the Jews wanted was to kill Jesus (John 5:18; 7:1). The Jewish leadership had been seeking to murder him almost from the moment they learned about him. They and the masses wanted a political messiah to deliver them from Roman oppression but Jesus did not bring that sort of kingdom.
Pilate, whose main job was to keep a lid on things in a far away, backwater province, was concerned that Jesus of Nazareth might be another Jewish revolutionary.3 That is why he asked whether Jesus was a king. What he was really asking is, “Are you setting up a rival political organization? Am I going to have to put down a revolt against the empire and write a report for headquarters?”
Jesus assured him immediately that, though he is a king, he is not that kind of king and his kingdom is not that kind of kingdom. His followers, Peter’s assault on Malchus excepted (John 18:10–11), were not taking up swords and they were not fighting to gain secular power. Remember, Jesus miraculously healed Malchus’ ear (Luke 22:51).
Jesus’ kingdom, represented chiefly by the visible, institutional church and by her officers, e.g., ministers, elders, and deacons, is chiefly a spiritual entity with a spiritual message and mission: to preach the gospel, to make disciples, and to administer the holy sacraments (Matt 28:18–20). Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth and with that authority he deliberately restricted the scope of the visible church. There is simply no warrant in the New Testament for any Christian to consider the visible church a political action committee. Indeed, when the Apostles asked whether Jesus was going to “restore the kingdom to Israel,” He told them that it was none of their business (Acts 1:6–7)
Were the church a political action committee, Jesus’ servants would have been agitating for the overthrow of Pilate and the moral reformation of society but neither Jesus nor his apostles did any such thing.4 Abortion is a great evil to which our Lord and his apostles were implicitly opposed. After all, it was God the Son who gave us the moral law. The early Christians worked out the implications of the moral law on this question and spoke unequivocally against abortion (Didache 2:2) but nowhere did our Lord and his apostles do so. They failed Metaxas’ test for faithfulness, which is a necessary but disturbing conclusion because it means that Metaxas has set a bad test for and issued a wrongheaded call to Christ’s church.
The visible institutional church is not a political action committee but it is the embassy of a heavenly (eschatological) kingdom (Acts 14:22). The Kingdom of God is present now, in the church, and manifested in her ministry of Word, sacrament, and discipline, but now is not the consummation. Paul was very pointed about this distinction when he said, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil 3:20). Does this theology meet Metaxas’ test or is it too otherworldly? It was too otherworldly, too eschatological for the Jews who shouted for Bar-Abbas (Matt 27:21–23).
The power of the kingdom, according to Paul, is not cultural influence or political power (as the self-described super apostles thought; 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11) but in “righteous, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). The kingdom of God is not inherited by flesh and blood (1 Cor 15:50). The saints who lived under the types and shadows were not looking for an earthly city.
If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city (Heb 11:15–16; ESV).
They were not thinking of gaining secular power or real estate or anything else like it. They were aiming for the heavenly city. The church is the embassy of the heavenly city, not of the earthly city.
Contesting for justice and participating in secular political and cultural life is a good thing and American Christians need to relearn how to practice citizenship, how to engage with their neighbors. They need to re-learn the practice of praying for the civil magistrate and how to organize, persuade, legislate, and litigate. It is a good thing for Christian citizens to vote according to their conscience, informed by God’s Word and Christian doctrine, but it is entirely inappropriate to turn the visible church into a political action committee for any political party.
To paraphrase our Lord’s words in Mark 8:36, what will it profit the church if she gains the whole world but loses her soul?
notes
- Clifford Green’s review highlights some of the issues.
- My translation.
- E.g., Simon the Zealot (Matt 10:4) was likely a convert from the Zealot Party, that sought to foment revolution. In AD 66 the revolutionaries would bring down the wrath of the Empire.
- If Metaxas has a problem with this argument from silence then he should take it up with Jesus, whose response to Pilate was to say what he and his disciples were not doing.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Resources On Christian Nationalism
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Scott,
You did a good job exposing Metaxas the hypocrite. His interest in evangelical Christianity is his way of finding fame and fortune. Just look at the authors he quotes and writes about: CS Lewis, Bonhoeffer, Luther, etc. He wants to sell those books to “evangelicals.” He is a violent man; if you disagree with him he will punch you (if he could) or he will call you names (as he did to Russell Moore, Tim Keller, etc). He is morally sick, and sickening for him to argue Trump won the 2020 election–even when the Republican Party and the court system have accepted Biden had won.
Tom,
I don’t know about him being hypocrite. I did not say that. I don’t like his approach to history and obviously, I think he is wrong in this instance.
I appreciate this balanced commentary on the upcoming elections and Dr. Clark pointing out where Eric Metaxas is in error. I love having freedom of conscience when it comes to politics and whether or not I choose to vote for a certain candidate. In Missouri we have a proposed state constitution amendment for abortion (all 9 months). My pastor recently preached on why abortion is wrong according to God’s Word and why Christians should oppose the proposed amendment. For me, that is different than a pastor telling his congregation to vote for a specific candidate, which I would be opposed to him doing.
Thank you Angela. I agree entirely.
Interesting discussion here. I’m not suggesting how anyone should vote though it seems like a little bit of common sense would be the guide in the forthcoming election. It has been said that that “nature abhors a vacuum,” regarding various mechanical configurations and physics in general. I’d add that the same thing applies to politics: WW2 Germany was proof enough of that following the failed Treaty of Versailles. So, when situations occur such as the one facing our country this election year such a “vacuum” could easily be filled by someone seeking power and control vs. fair and decent governing – and that could apply to either party.
https://x.com/ericmetaxas/status/1848873255475843106?s=46&t=7IXSQjnqbM2pUQVczDPTCw
[I need to search on the site! 😅]
I’m surprised we haven’t seen an argument in this form, “Jesus didn’t say, ‘go, therefore and make a nation of disciples’…”
I continue to hear usage of “sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool”. (Especially in 1 Cor 15:25-27)
My constant question to the seemingly misapplication of the text is, “what enemies?”.
We should be able to see them as sin, Satan, and death. Since Christ defeated sin and Satan by His righteous obedient life and atonement on the cross, and the defeat of death by His resurrection, how else can those enemies be put under His feet? Now we wait for the final sentencing of the enemies, and we (the body) continue to subdue the sin nature of the flesh in our individual lives (including within the body of Christ), only by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who defeats His enemies.
I think all this rearing of the ugly head of Sub-Christian Nationalism and a desire to “rise up” (in a worldly manner) is liking to the end of “Network” (1976): everyone is mad and aren’t “going to take this anymore”. Which is a good reminder to “measure” those fruits of the Spirit, especially the “third and fourth” in the list.
Check out
https://heidelblog.net/christian-nationalism
Of course, brother! I’ve made a Spotify playlist of your CN, SubCn, and FedV episodes… I’ve been trying to go over all the docs from the “court” proceedings as well, to try to figure out the main issue (which I know is the Gospel: salvation/justification).
Thanks for the work and the reference!
Is it defensible for a Christian to conscientiously abstain from voting for president because neither candidate ‘wins’ the Christian’s vote, or must we choose between ‘the lesser of two evils’ ?
Paul,
Yes, I think civil engagement is a matter of Christian liberty. I would like to see more Christians engaged in civil life, actively exercising their citizenship. Well informed Christians would be a benefit to society but whether to participate actively (e.g., voting) is a matter of liberty, a matter between the believer, his conscience, the Lord. I think eating meat offered to idols is a fair analogy.
I feel like I did ‘engage’ when I filled my ballot out the way that I did this afternoon. I chose, quite deliberately to not support either of these two horror-shows. To me, this feels quite different than the prospect of a person who is completely apathetic about the whole thing. Maybe this isn’t the right way to see it though…
Paul,
You made a conscious choice. It sounds like you voted down ballot, if so, you exercised your citizenship.
We have 2 weeks yet to pray about this election, as my pastor does from the pulpit every Sunday.
I suggest we all as Christians, “Let our petitions be made known to God”.
Neil,
Amen!
There is a reason the British referred to our war of Revolution (circa 1770’s-80’s) as the Presbyterian war…so there is that.
Postscript: As one who has been politically active since at least 1962, I think the Heritage Foundation Project 2025 is one instance of a long and voluminous history of reports from think tanks across the political spectrum. For example, I look for analysis to e.g. Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, Jack Kemp, and a number of entities whose experts have deeper insight than I can gain from the media. Therefore, I see Project 2025 as No Big Deal, and its use to motivate political action as agitprop and disinformation.
No one who knows me could say I am lethargic about political involvement. For example, the sanctity of human life is, for me, a hill to die on and has been for 50 years. However, I believe the Word teaches, with great clarity and authority, that I am to serve the LORD as a Christian individual by exercising my privileges and duties as a citizen of the United States, under the guidance of the Word. I look to the church to preach the Word faithfully, that I may exercise those privileges and duties faithfully and to the glory of God. The visible church has the duty of preaching and teaching the Word for the edification of believers, and the believers have the duty of living out the Word. The church, as a visible church, may exhort and pray that believers will seek wisdom and act with grace and humility. The church may not, must not as the visible church, tell me how to vote, whom to support, whom to reject, what political agenda to resist. But the church may, indeed must, act as a means of grace in my growth in godliness, with faithful and true presentation of the Word. The Bible does indeed speak to current issues. The creeds and catechisms represent the efforts of application to current issues, to political personalities, and to appropriate, permissible activities for engagement with the world. We do have the means to serve God and neighbor, and we are not hopeless.
I do, indeed, understand D’s intensity and fervor. Instead of his path of active political engagement of the visible church with current politics, I look to the sovereign faithfulness of the triune LORD, whose Word will not return to him void. And then I, as an individual believer, act.
When you say Christians “should” get involved, do you mean ” it wise for them to get involved” or do you mean something stronger? I am understanding you to use the word “should” here as something very wise to do, but not saying individual Christians “must” be involved politically, which would be reflective of a command of God.
Frank,
As I argued here I think Christians who are able ought to get involved. Take a look at that essay.
I think you have misrepresented his positions. Eric is not advocating for overthrowing the government. I do not thick he is advocating for political party banners in the church or promoting a particular party from the pulpit. He is for clarifying moral issues. In point 1 he is not stating to establish a theocracy on earth. He is stating it is unwise to not use the freedoms we have to defend or values. He is not asking for pastors to support or promote a political party. He is calling the church to present biblical positions on current issues from the pulpit. The church should teach the evils of transgenderism, child mutilation through sex change surgeries, the use of taxes on killing the unborn, the suppression of free speech, etc. We have been given the ability to vote on government spending policy, use it. It is a dereliction of duty by the clergy to remain silent and to present biblical the positions to the flock. Present the facts.
In point 2 he is simply stating to vote. Apathy or indifference to evil is a sin. If the church has done the teaching of current cultural issues in point one, then not voting is a sin of omission. They had the chance to nullify a vote for demonic policies.
David,
The quotes I’ve provided are merely representative of the types of things that Metaxas is saying but they are all to the effect that it is the visible church’s job to compel people to vote Republican or else (e.g., they are as evil as Hitler).
I don’t think I claimed that he’s calling for the overthrow of the government.
You’ve understated his claims. Had he only written and said in speeches that to vote is wise, I wouldn’t have responded. I agree that it is wise to vote (and to be otherwise involved) and have argued that myself in articles to which I have provided links.
As to opposing demonic policies, again, where does our Lord or where do his apostles call the visible church (e.g., ministers) to oppose Rome’s demonic policies? Where does the NT even mention Rome’s demonic polices?
The Bonhoeffer family has released a letter denouncing Eric Mextaxes and Christian nationalists for distorting and twisting
Bonhoeffer’s writings to serve the cause of Christian nationalism. The family’s letter calls out Mextaxes for his distortions.
The International Bonhoeffer Society released a separate letter denouncing Christian nationalism, specifically mentioning Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.
Gary,
The Bonhoeffer family has a case re Metaxas’ mis-reading of Bonhoeffer’s theology. I don’t understand the panic over the Heritage Foundation’s report, which they do regularly. I’ve been reading HF stuff for years. They aren’t revolutionaries. As Reed DePace said on X, their comment re the HF report seems like the very sort of partisan point they’re alleging against Metaxas.