Back in the days of Ronald Reagan, when I was a liberal and (by my own current estimation) a heathen, I was convinced that he was the anti-Christ. After all, he had six letters in each of his names. He was dismantling FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. He was causing the deaths of innocent children by cutting their mothers’ food stamps. He was building an arsenal that would destroy the earth.
I campaigned for Jimmy Carter at age 12 and later at 16, then responded to his defeat by Ronald Reagan with a vengeance. It’s hard to lose quietly.
I marched in peace rallies, attempted to unionize a workplace, began a chapter of Young Democrats on my campus, went door to door for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and chaired the Mondale/Ferraro presidential campaign at my undergraduate college. I was passionate about civil rights, organizing educational sessions on integration and race relations for my college peers, and soon made matters personal, joining black interest organizations and being sure, for political purposes, to share my next apartment with an African-American friend.
It was during one of these political exercises that I unexpectedly became a Christian. I attended a traditionally black church because one of the preachers there sounded like Martin Luther King Jr. That day, the pastor preached on sin and salvation. I left the church softer—gleeful even—but my political worldview felt unmoved.
I was surprised, then, to see how rapidly some of my political convictions changed as time went on. Some beliefs changed slowly, grating against my will. Still others didn’t change at all.
What did change was my attitude. I’d battled most authorities I knew throughout my life. Parents, teachers, principals, presidents. I tried hard to hang onto pieces of my former identity, arguing with decreasing volume that Jesus was the ultimate rebel, defying the rulers and customs of his day. Then along came St. Paul one morning during devotion, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (Romans 13:1-2)
I'd always been so vocal, so sure I was right. I knew now that I'd been wrong on at least a few things. I wondered how many more would be added to the list. Abandoning the role of soldier in battle, I felt stuck in the middle, politically, on the sidelines and inactive. I asked God for wisdom on every issue, digging into His Word, and the more I studied, the quieter I got. Then, one day, I just went silent.
I got married. Then I had five children.
I wanted them to develop godly, well-informed, unbiased perspectives, not the programmed beliefs I was now being forced to reexamine, which even conservative-leaning Christian schools seemed unable to avoid. So I opted for home schooling. I traded my radical rallying for “causes” for the opportunity to raise my children.
Suddenly, I found myself in the midst of one of the most conservative subcultures in the country, and I didn’t fit in. I’d always been a debater; now, when political issues came up in conversation, I listened. Sometimes I agreed. When I didn’t, I asked questions, and then stopped. I didn’t believe my former manner of debate would win anyone anyway; after all, Jesus usually met his fiercest opposition with questions.
Then Barack Obama ran for president of the United States. My memories of past campaigns once again became crisp. The thought of sitting on the sidelines of the electoral battle brought me to tears. I remembered campaigning for Jesse Jackson in 1988, knowing he could not win, but still determined to be part of bringing racial equity to the United States.
But in 2008, 20 years later, with this man, it could really happen. I got on the campaign mailing list, followed his speeches, and taught the children about the historical meaning of his possible win. I prayed daily with the children for his safety. I thanked God for the fact that his viable candidacy meant our country really had changed.
But I stopped short of joining the rallies, knocking on doors, or making phone calls. I couldn’t forget that there were real issues that made my full support impossible, and where he seemed clearly to go against God’s Word. I prayed that God would make clear to him what was required of a Christian in public life.
I’d like to think I’m not alone in my evangelical Christian subculture. Surely we can all pray for our leaders, even those we don’t support. My email inbox suggests differently. Many will know what I’m talking about: the dreaded email forwards informing you about the latest frightening revelation about the president, from dishonesty to criminal behavior. A few had legitimate backup, but most were outlandish.
If only we’d had the Internet in the 1980s! A simple click on “forward,” and we could have done irrevocable damage to a political reputation, replacing weeks of concerted effort and planning. Petition drives, mailings, and rallies wouldn’t have been necessary.
The real issue for Christian political conduct runs deeper than all of this. St. Paul is adamant when he says, in Titus 3:1-2, “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy to all people.”
Paul’s admonition came at a time when the Israelites were struggling with whether their call to the kingdom of God negated their obligation to the state authorities, who were at odds with them politically and religiously. He leaves no doubt about the role Christians should play when it comes to respecting their leaders.
What does Paul’s counsel mean for us? Vote. Have faith when you lose. Challenge ideas, but be respectful. Do not slander. Do your homework before hitting “send.”
This is not to say we shouldn’t do everything possible to promote godly leaders. John the Baptist called Herod to account for his adultery and lost his head for it. Jesus called the spiritual authorities of the day “vipers,” and was marched to the cross for it, for our salvation. We are called to stand against evil without fear of what it may cost us.
Christians today believe they are doing that—involving themselves in a worthy, even holy, cause. But there is good cause for caution. II Timothy 2:23-26 says, “Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant, controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
That some of the most prominent political voices on our airwaves are guilty of the offenses Timothy describes is widely acknowledged. When judging the worth of a political message, we’d do well to remember Jesus’ admonition, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). Are these political commentators doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12)?
Are they following Jesus’ admonition to love their enemies (Luke 6:27)? Profession to agree with scriptural principles does not negate one’s spreading “foolish, ignorant controversies” and encouraging others to do the same. Matthew 12:36-37 cautions us, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
That should frighten all of us. What are we saying? What are we forwarding? After being careful to salt the earth and support Godly leadership, what is our call? Is it to blindly follow messages we have not investigated? Is it to reiterate the slanderous accusations on the airways and Internet?
The stories of Christians, led by pastors, praying for the president’s death, has only had the consequence of more and more disdain for the church. It is disturbing to read secular opinions of Christians. Their assessments use adjectives such as “psychopaths,” “nitwits,” “pathetic,” and “so-called Christians.” Jesus endured some of those taunts, but without cause.
When Ronald Reagan died, I watched the funeral on television. I cried with the rest of the nation, but not just because we had lost a great president. I was grieved over my participation in a campaign to undermine his leadership and character. Even though I disagreed with some of his policies, I knew there was a right way and a wrong way to go about disagreeing as a Christian.
Donna Trimm Calk holds a Master's degree in Social Work from Columbia University and spent five years working with inner city children hospitalized for HIV and Cancer treatment.
Comments:
Widely acknowledged by whom? The people who have never watched Fox news but mindlessly chant "Fox Lies!" at the drop of a hat? Or perhaps by those who are sure that talk radio is the tool of the devil? Too bad the author didn't bother to name names nor to cite specific examples, other than the clearly egregious actions of the pastor calling for imprecatory prayers against Obama. For the rest I wonder who she has in mind for us to picture, to what conclusion she wishes us to jump?
When Paul wrote to Christians about being subject to authorities, they were not involved in nations which, at least in theory, are run by the people themselves as the United States of America is supposed to be. If we are not involved in self-governance, in voting and in speaking out, then we are failing to fulfill our duties as the authorities we are, the authorities God has appointed us to be.
When we allow those elected to represent us to begin to act like "rulers" rather than as servants to their constituents, we not only have the right but the responsibility to address these grievances; to rally people into action; to call the errant public servants to accountability and to remove them from office lawfully if they will not change or submit and limit themselves to the constitution.
For now we have a president and a majority in congresses who act as a law unto themselves, who express resentment and open contempt for the constitution which shapes our nation. The way they act and govern shows that they are the ones who have a rebellious and revolutionary spirit; those who oppose them in order to protect the nation as it was founded have a just cause.
I have many disagreements with the current administration, but Ms. Calk makes an excellent point that one should express discontent in a respectful and non-slanderous fashion. Even though many leaders may support values that are clearly contrary to Christian morals, we are subject to their authority and therefore owe basic respect and honor.
All in all, a timely and refreshing article.
"The stories of Christians, led by pastors, praying for the president’s death, has only had the consequence of more and more disdain for the church."
I'm amazed that this kind of thing has happened. I'm certainly not calling you a liar, but just saying that I haven't heard any news of it. (It's entirely possible that I'm living under a rock, I'll grant you!) Do you have any news stories related to this? I'd be curious to know.
Just as dangerous as a Christian viciously attacking a politician for partisan reasons is the opposite reaction: Putting him/her up on an inappropriate pedestal, even giving him/her a sort of demigod status. It happened with FDR, JFK (to the point that some referred to his murder as a sort of crucifixion), Reagan, and our present president. It's so easy for Christians to slip into either error, and so we must be vigilant.
Thanks again for the article.
so paul's words are just a confirmation of that for me. conduct yourselves according to lawful, human authorities as would be best for you as an *individual.* as that is how you can best adhere and promote God's law, always realizing that God's kingdom is kept separate and obviously superior to man's. this is just wisdom.
but if there is no authority (i.e., no Law). then, to me, it is obvious that, it is my duty to do everything in your power to reestablish that lawful, authority or as near as possible to it. that is the best way to help your fellow man and follow God's law. the most perfect authority ever created on earth, based on God's law, is of course the Constitution.
the current administration is clearly lawless (as opposed the the romans who excelled best at human law) and thus paul would certainly not include them) and should be opposed and replaced, morally, by all who believe in God. thus for me it is easy to pray for obama. i pray that he turns from lawlessness back to the law.
In fact.......the greatest single chapter AIS ever wrote was called......"the Ascent".
Psalm 125
A song of ascents.
1 Those who trust in the LORD are like Mount Zion,
which cannot be shaken but endures forever.
2 As the mountains surround Jerusalem,
so the LORD surrounds his people
both now and forevermore.
3 The scepter of the wicked will not remain
over the land allotted to the righteous,
for then the righteous might use
their hands to do evil.
4 LORD, do good to those who are good,
to those who are upright in heart.
5 But those who turn to crooked ways
the LORD will banish with the evildoers.
Peace be on Israel.
"Perhaps one should do a bit more research before declaring someone to have an open contempt for the Constitution."
Mark, I share your distaste for accusations that lack specifics. Mrs. Calk exhorted us to do our homework.
Accordingly:
"(The President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." (U.S. Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 3). Is President Obama "faithfully execut(ing)" the Defense of Marriage Act by trying to cut off its head?
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..." (Art. 4 Sec. 4)
Does ex-Republic Arizona have a legitimate Constitutional complaint against all three branches of the Federal Government?
Does ex-Republic California have a complaint against a Federal judge for nullifying her lawfully voted amendment to its constitution after the California Supreme Court had agreed to its inclusion on the ballot?
And does my ex-Republic Michigan have a complaint, because her anti-abortion statutes are still on the books but are unenforceable, thanks to Roe v. Wade, that "exercise of raw judicial power" (from Byron White's dissent)?
That society has changed and does change (and I think for the better) as a byproduct of the spiritual change of allying oneself and devoting oneself to the Kingdom of God is an excellent thing. But to retroactively apply our ideas of social progress back on the gospel, as if making good governments were Jesus' main point - or even one of his main points - is a dangerous stretch. You can only get there by making unacknowledged assumptions.
The British called our revolution the Presbyterian War, and all but one of Washington's colonels at Yorktown was a Presbyterian elder (Google search if you doubt me). The blessings of our Constitutional Republic were purchased and maintained with much blood, some by men living out their Christian convictions.
Aren't some Christians called to be rulers and attorneys, just as others are called to the medical or teaching professions, each to hopefully leave the world a better place by applying the Kingdom of God to their vocations?
I see little excuse if We the People allow evildoers to trample on our constitutional liberties and thereby forfeit those blessings in the name of Christian virtue.
I wonder if Ms. Calk voted for Barack Obama in 2008.



But her experience is too superficial and limited to be the standard bearer for this issue.
Since she brought up Ronald Reagan, I will allude to an amazing and profound interaction between three men.
Search out Ronald Reagan and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Search out Ronald Reagan and Armando Valladares.
AS and AV both barely survived with their skins and Reagan brought their cases to bear on world opinion.
Solzhenitsyn, in particular, is not quite as sanguine on accepting totalitarianism as our author.
But if you want a viewpoint to round out this discussion........check out the two men mentioned with Reagan and their histories together.