Thinking Biblically about Politics [Think Biblically Podcast]

as Christians how can we connect our faith to the political Arena why should politics matter to Christians and what Biblical guidelines does Scripture give us pertaining to political issues these are just a few of the topics we're going to discuss today I'm your host Sean McDowell here with my co-host Dr Scott Ray and this is think biblically there's a lot that can be said about this politics are divisive one thing we're not going to do is tell people in this episode how to vote our goal is to g

o a step below that and ask what does Scripture reveal how should we approach these topics biblically so with that said you've written a ton on this you've spoken on this let's jump in to talk about politics and we start by asking just broadly speaking why does politics matter to Christians who cares well I think we all should care okay I think that's I think for one interest in the political arena is part of being a good citizen which the Bible calls us to the second reason is that politics is

fundamentally a moral Enterprise okay and scripture has a lot to say about the moral dimension of how we order our lives together that's essentially what politics is about economics is actually very similar to that because economics is all about how we share the burdens and benefits of how we order our lives together again fundamentally moral categories but it but more more specifically in the scripture God's a God of Justice he cares about Justice not only individually but structurally for how

societies are ordered particularly for the poor the marginalized and those that are those that are sort of outside the bounds of the the culture at large the the wisdom literature the Psalms they're very they're replete with Biblical teaching on this that God cares about Justice being done at the gate which is a figure of speech for in the political Arena but also in in people's individual lives further God's a god of Shalom who desires communities to flourish and that's fundamentally about what

the political arena is about that's what the political arena is supposed to do is enable communities to flourish so as Christians were called to love our neighbors we're called to care about the moral state of the world and try to contribute to human flourishing so then do we have a responsibility to vote then as Christians now obviously those of us in America would consider should consider this a privilege people in some countries don't have that privilege and that right and clearly it was ver

y different Biblical times but do we have a responsibility to vote which would kind of follow if we don't are we sinning I think we do have a responsibility to vote although I wouldn't I wouldn't go quite so far to say we're in sin if you don't okay um because I think there are times when you when you can just not want to vote for any particular candidate um I think you know I I mean I know a lot of Christians in the last election felt that way and so they've they either voted for some obscure c

andidate or didn't vote at all in the presidential election but I think in general particularly as it comes to local issues you do have an obligation to vote because I think that's a part of making your voice heard and contributing to the flourishing of your community and I think I would I'm not quite sure how far to take this but I do think if you if you don't vote on certain issues you lose some of the right to be critical oh okay interesting that's that's a fascinating way to look at it so as

a whole we have a responsibility to vote barring some issue that overturns it and there might be some I think there could there could be but we should take that very seriously as responsibility as an extension of our faith okay default default position is to vote okay fair enough all right so let's get a little bit more specific in terms of what the Bible gives us for approaching public policy now almost need not be said but the Bible is not a political manual that's obvious any more than it's

a science textbook but it gives us some teachings some examples that should inform the way we think about public policy so what does the bible give us well maybe the best thing to focus on be what it doesn't give us it doesn't give us generally speaking specific policy prescriptions about what is you know what a specific say gun control bill should look like uh or what an immigration bill should look like in its specifics and details instead it gives us I think a way to frame the issues a world

view that helps us approach the political Arena as part of the creation fall Redemption consummation General Narrative of scripture but I think more specifically it gives us the specific moral values on which our public policies ought to be grounded and I think it's if we assume we assume for the most part that our laws have some sort of moral Foundation even even something as simple as driving on the correct side of the road assumes the moral principles of respect for life and property right be

cause if we if we somebody's zooming down the freeway in the wrong direction we assume they have respect for neither of those things and I think in most cases correctly so but it gives us it gives us General moral principles it also I think this is an important distinction it gives us more the ends of a public policy not so much the means by which those are accomplished and I find Even in our polarized culture we have significant agreement on the ends of what our political pop or what our politi

cs should look like but we have huge and volatile differences on them the best means to accomplish those and the means are generally going to be matters of pragmatism and you utilitarian means in the ends I think are going to be more generally those things that are principle oriented and you get a variety of means to accomplish the same ends sure sure is that why you would hold that Christians have some Liberty in how we vote on certain issues and certain candidates as long as obviously we aim t

o follow what is true and these principles align with broader Christian principles we have some Liberty in terms of how we bro I think that's true and it's remember these are broad general principles then I think we can have genuine disagreement about how and where those principles are applicable so I mean I think there's you know there's a lot there's a lot of room for debate and discussion about the details but I think the ends and the general moral principles are things that in terms of Gener

al moral principles I think there's pretty widespread agreement across the culture on those um okay so let's take an example on a practice take something like gun control so I assume you would say uh maybe those who are a little bit more liberal in favor of more gun control see that as the way of limiting say gun violence or school shootings those who are more conservative would say no the more armed we are the better we can take down somebody who's going to cause violence both have the same end

s but different means to get there so that means if that's the case the question is what did the facts actually prove and it seems to me our tendency Christian or not is to move to our tribe and accept facts that are convenient deny those that aren't but as Christians it seems to me we need to be committed to follow those facts and policies that limit gun violence precisely you're you're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts okay and our facts are sometimes colored by our tribe

and sometimes we get a skewed view of what the facts actually are so I think there's I mean there's there's good empirical evidence out there I think that supports but you know both of those different means right now I think we have to we have to weigh costs and benefits which which is more likely to succeed uh because the political arena is goes beyond just having good intentions that's why I love my you know my colleagues at the Acton Institute which is a think tank on connecting religion and

economics you know there I love their their tagline it says connecting good intentions with sound economics and I think that's what that's what we try to do here connecting good intentions with sound policies that actually work and we can and have empirical evidence to support the fact that they work and if they don't we jettisoned them for another means that is actually more workable I think part of the issue is that we we connect means and ends often much too closely when I think we ought to w

e are whole We Hold On To The Ends tightly but the means loosely if the means don't work we try we do something else but often though if the ands and the means are connected then we can't give up our means without also feeling like we're betraying the cause that we stand for fair enough it seems like one of the other issues beneath say something like gun control is yes people want to reduce the amount of school shootings everybody I've talked to on any side of debate nobody's against it you can'

t concede that you're not even coming to the table remotely fairly I don't want you at the table if you can't concede that fair enough but what other beneath the surface are different values that people have that way they weigh differently so we could see this in gun control or something like immigration and this is somewhat of a maybe this is too simplistic but oftentimes a more democratic approach might be motivated by compassion a republican approach might be more motivated by the rule of law

so it's not just that we're differing on the ends there's different principles that we value differently for different reasons yeah we we both we both hold to those fundamental values but we weight them differently okay you know I think immigration is a good example of that where we wait compassion very heavily in some circles we wait you know adherence to civil government and that moral principle from Romans 13 more heavily in other you know in other circles uh and so in invariably and this I

think this is what makes the political Arena so hard for Christians is that the political arena is one that by by by its very nature is one of negotiation and compromise and settling for limited objectives but on these these issues that we think are entailments of Biblical teaching the idea of settling for limited objectives is anathema to people and and that's why I think on both sides they people dig in their heels and they're unwilling to compromise and there's no there's just there's no way

forward except for one group to exert its power over the other I think I think what gets hard for personal conversation is if I approach the issue I have certain values and I assume you share the same values but if I take the time to ask and understand and listen where you're coming from and how you assess those values I still might think you're wrong and think you should vote like I do but it seems to me I could have a much more compassion and kindness in terms of how I engage you now that's ha

rder on some issues than other like pro-life I understand people are bringing different uh kind of values to the table but we're still dealing with uh unborn human precious person right so that's different than maybe some other issues are but nonetheless getting down to that surface and finding out where somebody's values are is going to enable me to be just more charitable towards you and understanding and frankly effective in how I can exactly because I think our goal is to win a person not so

much an argument and what well I want to be sure that I can do say if we disagree on a specific issue I've taken you know sort of my own personal view that I'm not going to critique you until I fully understand your view and the way I know that I've understood your view is that I can repeat your view back to you to your satisfaction then I know I've understood you and it's only then that I'm going to engage in any kind of critique and I would hope that the people who are on different sides of t

he issues on a variety of issues from where you and I would stand together would would give us the same courtesy in our polarized culture though we basically we State our position and then resort to name calling yes we do and that's where it goes you know what's interesting I've had a number of conversations with people on a range of issues so I've simply said I'm curious before I get my answer tell me why you think I hold the view that I hold and almost be ridiculously they're wrong they miss i

t now with fairness if somebody asks me the same question there's probably an awful lot of times I would miss it too but then I'm happy it's helpful to be able to say you know what I could see why you would think I view things this way do you mind if I tell you where I'm coming from and why so at least you understand that's fair yeah and that makes more more progress I think people rarely say no to that uh I don't think I've ever had somebody say no to that that I can I can think of uh so just j

ust a helpful way to engage yeah that's a that's a great exercise to do with people and also I've said to people who say here's why I think you hold this view can I do my best I'm gonna guess you correct me where I'm wrong that's just an interesting civil conversation it's like Clarity is just so helpful in these conversations that doesn't mean we don't debate but let's understand the person first let's get their values first then we can actually debate where the difference is and rather than ju

st talking past each other and getting upset well and that's actually honoring to the person too and and I think you are much more likely to have a genuine conversation partner then just just if you just sort of hurled ad hominem arguments back and forth against each other and never really interact never engaged each other at the same level I think that's right but I've got some more questions for you uh in terms of ideas so help us back to the scripture how do we read the Bible accurately in te

rms of political Insight this is really important I'm glad you asked because we cannot underestimate how different the ancient world is in almost every respect than our culture today where we really see this for example is in the realm of Economics okay I regularly ask my students when we start talking about this to list all of the differences that they can think of between the way economic life was done in the ancient world and the way it's done today and I mean the list just goes on and on and

on and there's there's I mean except for the fact that there was you know they had money in a medium exchange they had to pay taxes that's about it wow most people for example lived in you know subsistence level farming or small trades you were stuck in the socioeconomic standing in which you were born there were no career counseling no you know no you know I think the average person ancient world they came into our career office they think what on Earth is this for no Enneagram or personality

nothing like that so I mean it goes goes on and on sure and so what that helps us do is to recognize that we it's it's really tricky to apply the scripture directly from the ancient world to the Contemporary World those differences often require us to take the Biblical teaching up up a level of abstraction a little bit further to a more General principle that we can apply then to a different set of specifics today you I think you have to view the scripture that way now there's some obviously som

e things that you apply directly today where those differences don't make a difference okay you know love the Lord your God with all your heart obviously sure but most things that have to do with the political arena with moral issues you're making a huge mistake if you don't take those differences into account okay so that's that's a huge thing that we have to do um and then I think we have to be really clear about how we use part of the Old Testament as a public policy guide uh you know the Mos

aic law is actually probably the closest analogy to a national Constitution it was it was a in essence the national Constitution for Israel but it was in a radically different type of government it was a theocracy where it literally means the rule of God where the law of God is the law of the land without you know and there was no there was no democracy in ancient Israel it was the law of God there was no legislature to debate how we're going to apply the law of God it was it was it and so I thi

nk we have to recognize that no Nation today can claim to be a theocracy in the same way that Old Testament Israel did no no country can claim to be exceptional theologically in the same way that Old Testament Israel did so you almost by necessity you have to ask yourself does does this command in Old Testament law is it still applicable today and if so how okay I think there's consider there can be considerable debate about how some of these things might be applicable because all scriptures pro

fitable amen but not all of it is addressed to us Mosaic law is not addressed to us today it's profitable and relevant but we have to go up a level of abstraction in order to make sense of that okay so it's fair to sum it up this way or is this too simplistic if I said okay the challenge with the Old Testament it was written for a theocracy correct the challenge for the New Testament is moral principles are primarily for the church not for a government institution primarily is that the broad cha

llenge that's exception that's broadly correct okay um of course there's some there's some parts of the New Testament that directly relate to our our relationship to government so there's some of that but but less so about how government relates to the people that that government is governing okay so but much less so in that regard okay that's that's that's really helpful to keep that in mind I'm tempted to do that exercise now my suspicion is students wouldn't come up with very many differences

although these are grad students so they're going to see it and that visual list would just really illustrate how radically different it is that's a great that's a great exercise one of the objections you and I both hear in different ways is that Christians are constantly imposing their morality on others who see the world differently how would you respond to that I'll give I'll give you an example this was years ago I was I was I was invited by a Health Care system to debate this was when uh t

he the law was being formed on embryo on the use of embryonic stem cells for research and treatment of diseases okay and this was in in a particular state that was about to pass a law that was going to not only allow it but fund it generously and the the health system that was debating this was being asked to be a significant contributor to the pro side to say that this is this is okay and should be funded and the chairman of the board of this hospital system was a Christian and God bless her sh

e said um you know before we do something like this we ought to kind of do our due diligence and hear both sides of this and it turns out that uh one of our one of our regrets of our philosophy program was on the Pastoral staff of the church this woman attended interesting and so she calls him immediately and says now I'm really stuck here because they said okay that help I got to find somebody who can come in and do this and so I had I'd had this student a bioethics seminar don't make a long st

ory short I got called and it was a wonderful time I actually sat on the airplane in in the middle seat next to two people who both were looking I was going over my notes both looked at my notes and said can I pray for you during this session really something that's cool so I got in there it was all sorts of doctors Physicians administrators and I started making the case and I think I ended up being a little bit more persuasive than most of the people in the in the room had planned on and finall

y one of the doctors got so frustrated he just stood up and said I am so sick of you Christians imposing your morality on the rest of us and he he thought it was this great drop the mic moment yeah and so I respond I responded back as gently as I could but you know he had had a lot of horseradish on his comments I didn't feel too bad about putting a little mustard on mine on the way back so I said first of all let's get rid of the silly notion that it's only religious people who were imposing th

eir morality on other people amen he said all law is the imposition of somebody's morality okay and so please let's get rid of that notion you are imposing a moral judgment on on me by suggesting that we ought to allow the wholesale use of human embryos human persons as a source of biological spare parts now you're telling me that's not a moral imposition I'm actually offended by that okay and then I kind of Let It Go that's great he had gotten the point that's great at that point but I think th

at's I think that's what we need to recognize first of all that we you know it's it's it's everybody imposes their morality on somebody else every time a law has passed and so I think we ought to get get rid of that which I think is is kind of a childish notion that it's only certain people that are imposing morality on somebody else it's basically it's you know if I disagree with you then you're imposing your morality on me right this really functions as an ad hominem argument that's this is su

pposed to be a discussion stopper so I know you well enough to know you didn't stand up at this you know exchange and turn to Genesis 1 or the law in Exodus you didn't make a religious argument his way of dismissing you was taking your secular argument that's right and saying it's just religious so what we increasingly see and we've seen is this move is that people want to say on embryonic stem cell research on especially life issues we hear people saying that's just your religious View and I wo

uld say life is a religious view but it's not merely a religious view I can ground it philosophically apart from my religious views so I think we need to call people on that and not let them get away with it well what I also said to this person was where have I invoked the Bible it's a great question where have I invoked the name of God Only You know I say God bless you that's about it sure but I said I have done nothing to suggest that this is a religiously grounded view now I think to be clear

is consistent with my religious views but it's not dependent on them good so number one this is a reminder for us that when we are engaging the larger public we can bring our faith to the table just like everybody brings their faith or worldview to the table but we're gonna have to make non-biblical arguments in the public Arena through natural law so when somebody says that it doesn't ring true and we're like yep you're right but I also find something ironic is when it comes to issues like say

embryonic stem cell research people will say don't invoke religion but just this past week our governor passed a bill on life and some of the propaganda around this was putting up Billboards in our state for pro-choice appealing to passages in the Bible totally ripped out of context but more than willing to try to use a religious argument when it's convenient so we see this on a range of issues that basically people wanna delegitimize an argument from a Christian when it's inconvenient but use

scripture when it is convenient yeah and I think we need we need to be clear about this that I don't think it's problematic by itself to use a Biblical grounding for a moral position I think it would have been okay for me to defend that with an appeal to scripture what I can't do is appeal to scripture alone okay and pretend that that's that that by itself is going to settle the issue yeah now of course you know God's word never comes back void um and I and I believe that and I think there's I t

hink there are times when it's okay to say look I'm you know I'm going to be unabashedly Christian here and I'm just going to let the chips fall where they will I think that's okay uh but I wouldn't expect that being just unabashedly Christian is going to carry the day in any kind of mixed audience now it might I don't know but I'm not at least I'm prepared to do something more than that should it be necessary fair enough and even outside of just scripture the person of Jesus carries some moral

weight on his views whatever the ethical issue is so that's technically not just a religious argument that's a person of authority who's larger recognized and ethical teacher so oftentimes I'll I'll appeal to Jesus but again got to make sure we do it consistently and fairly that's right on everything Jesus taught so let's shift to this question how do you think someone can honor God in the political Arena and I don't mean somebody who's aiming to be a politician I mean just normal folks in the c

hurch who are saying when it's all said and done I want to honor God as I approach politics what does that look like well I think in in our polarized culture I admit that's a tall order today hmm and one of the things that I fear is that our allegiance to our tribe often trumps our allegiance to the king and the kingdom and that we we not only wrap the cross in the flag but what happens when the cross gets wrapped up in the flag what happened where where does the cross the cross disappears and i

n general when you have you have an inter intermixing of the biblical principles with a specific political platform the biblical principles almost always go missing in action and and it's the specific policies and prescriptions and platforms of your tribe that end up being the thing that has enduring value and I think for a Christian that's a lack of Integrity to let that happen and if you know and if the gospel is being discredited by the way I am engaging on the issues of the day whether I'm i

n whether I'm in the political Arena or not just the way I'm engaging with people the gospel being discredited that's on me okay now in some cases it's the position itself that's going to be offensive like you know same-sex marriage for example holy traditional marriage you can be as Winsome as the day is launched and I'm not sure at the end of the day that that's going to do you much good uh I remember you know hearing Joel Osteen years ago I remember that who's one of he's I mean he's incredib

ly Winsome person in fact I think probably wins them to a fall he's just a nice guy he's just a very nice person defending biblical marriage and he got just in the nicest moment he got absolutely crucified yeah he did for his View and winsomeness didn't didn't matter now I think those are exceptions to the general rule I think winsomeness does matter but I think it to do this I think we have to engage this in ways that our characters by respect by listening by understanding and most importantly

by kindness in the way we do this because if if the gospel is being discredited then we've lost and we've been we've lost everything because I I got news for the troops here it's maybe somewhat controversial but the kingdom of God does not is not dependent on the flourishing of any particular Nation for its advance to continue going forward you know Jesus said on this rock I will build my church The Gates of Hell will not Prevail against it uh and we we do not need a kingdom of God does not need

any specific Nation to flourish in order for the kingdom to keep advancing forward I mean God's kingdom is going to come in its fullness regardless of what happens to any particular country and so that's why I think that to making sure we have our allegiances straight is also a critical part of doing this well those are the big questions we often miss that when politics becomes a higher Legions than the gospel politics can become an idol in many ways in fact politics can become a savior I think

we can see this in the church on either side of the political aisle there's almost this Messianic status of various figures again all over the political map that in some ways can start to really cross a line of where our hope and our confidence should ultimately rest well and this is where I think we need to assess the platforms of our tribe our various tribes honestly and say in a fallen world they're all going to be mixed bags okay no political platform is going to be biblically pure and the

reason for that is because none of them were written with that as their goal in mind I mean no platform maybe except for the theonomous there is a you know they're a minuscule group no political platform was written with Biblical Fidelity in mind it was written in order to do what the tribe and the party thinks is best for the country and if that so happens to be something consistent with some biblical moral principles then I they would say so much the better but that's not the goal I think this

is a good caution to push back on and again this is obvious to me and people who know you're not relativizing how we vote or how we think about different policies asking the bigger questions that often get left out of the fold that's really important for how we we approach politics I I appreciate that Nuance well and I think we yeah and I think this this may be somewhat controversial but I think that there are there are parts of both Democratic and Republican platforms that I think ought to app

eal to any believing bible-believing Christian and so I just take myself for an example okay impassionately pro-life uh I'm passionate about religious freedom okay I think that market market economies are easily the best way for the poor to lift themselves out of poverty okay what I also believe are immigration policy is hopelessly broken I think it's immoral to separate children from their families at the border especially since we are so we claim to be so family oriented uh I think there's the

re's a Biblical stewardship that we have for the environment that we have to we have to take seriously and those those you know where do those put me in terms of a tribe I mean I I feel somewhat politically homeless because there's you know there's parts of both of both that I think have biblical Merit to them or at least have consistency with scripture now I won't I won't reveal to which side I lean that's fine but but I've I've there's I'm not I'm not comfortable giving sort of unqualified all

egiance to either of the primary tribes today because I think I think I think their platforms are mixed you know they have things that I wish they didn't on both sides so to people right now who are watching this who are thinking wait a minute this is not okay you've got to land in party a or party B what's the matter with you you're a compromiser want to enter into this political debate let me presume to say that you're not saying these debates are not important we need to have them this is not

the place but you would say what are our higher allegiances and why do we default into those kind of responses as if our faith rests on a particular political party is that fair tell me yeah I think that's that's a good summary our you know the the progress of the kingdom of God does not stand or fall with any political agenda it's bigger than that you know Jesus what else could he have met when he said my kingdom is ultimately not of this world I think that means it's yeah that we will have we

will have an Earthly manifestation to it but It ultimately is not is not something that's tied to the current social order and current political arrangements okay all right all right I hope that part is not particularly controversial well I suspect it is to some people that you don't land in a political party whichever political party that is yeah that's a different conversation and to vote a certain way and you have your reasons for it here you're just trying to make a larger point about Alleg

iance political idolatry where ultimately we should care about the church we should care about the gospel itself that's our primary Allegiance not a political party yeah and it's not to say that you know if somebody finds more comfort in one political party than another that that's necessarily A Bad Thing um because I not I don't not everybody has to be politically homeless right that's where that's where I sense myself at the moment um so you know that may be the best place to leave it okay fai

r enough we could come back to it that'd be an interesting conversation to to pursue at some point two more questions for you uh as we wrap up just give us a quick Insight of how the founding fathers understand the separation of church and state this this I find really interesting and something that I I never learned in government in civics you know in Western Civ you know any any of my high school or college classes on the subject listen to what some of the founding fathers said about the gener

al value of religion for a free and virtuous Society this is Ben Franklin the deist Ben Franklin right right who didn't believe hardly anything about Christian faith said Frank the necessity of a public religion the great Mass have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from Vice support their virtue and retain them in the practice of it until it becomes habitual and sort of underlying that is the view that without virtue and restraint democracy is doomed [Music] okay Thomas Jefferson

who was who was attributed to the phrase of separation of church and state actually that phrase was penned 100 years before by the Baptist Minister Roger Williams and his point was that the the point of that wall of separation was to keep the state out of the matters of the church not vice versa Jefferson put it religion should be regarded as the Alpha and Omega of the moral law and a supplement to law in the government of men and women wow that's a pretty strong statement about the general valu

e George Washington in his in his farewell address religion and morality are indispensable supports to political Prosperity wow reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can Prevail in exclusion of religious principle that sound that sounds moderately prophetic today and finally this is in the government document that was for the that was the for the Northwest Ordinance that settled the Pacific Northwest James Madison put it religion morality and knowledge being neces

sary to good government and the happiness of mankind shall forever be encouraged wow the Scott the scholar on this James reichley a Brookings institution which is no real friend of religious freedom said the first amendment is no more neutral on the general value of religion than it is on the general value of the free exchange of ideas or the general value of an independent press all in the same package so I think what the founding fathers had in mind was no State religion where government could

impose matters of conscience but to say that they favored a separation of religion and morality or religion in government or religion and culture I think is a serious misreading of what their intentions are those are great quotes Franklin Washington Jefferson it's pretty pretty solid stuff are hard to beat last question for us uh what what encouragement would you give to Christians as they go to vote just practically prayerfully what are maybe some principles to keep in mind as they approach th

e voting box voting I'd say for one you go prayerfully okay right for one you go recognizing where your ultimate Allegiance is okay and you go to vote as a resp as a responsible citizen fulfilling a civic duty that I think is a Biblical one uh and you you vote I think with you know because I think it's him well you vote with the general principle of which person which policy which initiative is going to be best for the common good is going to contribute best to the flourishing of my community an

d which which is best going to protect the least Among Us the most vulnerable Among Us I think those those I think are some of the really important moral values that ought to govern the way we vote great advice I I found one of the key biblical principles is to vote for the flourishing of society not just what personally benefits me now do I perfectly practice that easier said than done but that seems to be a Christian principle that if we're going to care about religious liberty for Christians

we better for Jews but for Muslims and be consistent in that regard Scott as always thoughtful and very helpful way to approach politics and again appreciate that your goal was not to convince me and our viewers to vote a certain way we could have that conversation maybe sometime you and I will go there in due time this is to take a step back and say how do we think biblically about politics how do we honor God with politics what principles apply let's do some of that work rather than just jumpi

ng into a tribe which it's so tempting to do I think this is really really helpful thanks for joining us this is brought to you by University is part of the think biblically podcast so if you're listening to this make sure you hit subscribe consider sharing it with a friend and if you are watching this from the Biola Channel hit subscribe or on my own YouTube channel would be honored if you subscribed as well we'll see you next time and remember think biblically about everything [Music]