“Christians Shouldn’t Hold to a Political Party”


“Christians shouldn’t hold to a political party.  After all the kingdom of God transcends political parties, and it’s not like one party is God’s party.”  How many times I have heard statements like this in recent years would be impossible to number.  What I find interesting about the times these statements have been made to me, is that they are usually the result of someone not liking the fact that I have stronger allegiance with one party over another.  It’s almost as if it is a last ditch effort to get me to follow their allegiances which inevitably line up with a party other than the one I find the strongest. 


It is true that the kingdom of God transcends political parties and that no party is inerrant, but that doesn’t mean that a Christian is breaking some kind of moral law if they join the ranks of a party in order to accomplish something greater as a group than they would be able to do on there own.


Will there have to be some compromise in certain areas?  Of course there will, there is not a human organization that we could be apart of that doesn’t involve some compromise.  If the criterion for Christians to support or participate in an organization is infallibility, then we should withdraw from all associations, even Christian ones.


Christians should be wise in their efforts to promote the good and restrain evil.  William Wilberforce was one such man.  He joined ranks and became part of parliament not because parliament was God’s organization, or because somehow parliament epitomized the kingdom of God, instead he saw it as an opportunity to create positive change to promote the kingdom of God.  Because of his work, slavery was abolished and we made a giant leap in promoting justice in this world, and justice certainly is an aspect of the kingdom of God.


The hope of this world is found in Jesus Christ, not political parties, but a Christian has been called to love his neighbor and being a neighbor implies being part of community, or society, and also includes a state, a country, and even the world.  If we think that the policies that govern these communities have nothing to do with loving our neighbor because “the hope of the world isn’t found in politics”, it would be like saying, “I love you but the unjust policies which govern your life, I will not work to change because that’s politics and the kingdom of God transcends that.  Besides, if I happen to choose a side there is probably a political party that holds strongly to those issues and then where would I be?  I would be one of those Christians who thinks that God actually has a position on these issues and that he might actually agree with one party more than another.  Crazy, I know… Good luck with your oppression or any other problems you may be facing because of public policies.  ‘Be warmed and be filled.’”


Doug Eaton

5 thoughts on ““Christians Shouldn’t Hold to a Political Party”

  1. No you are wrong. Christians need to speak out.
    Have you not heard? The only thing for evil to prevail is for a good man to do nothing.


  2. If we are supposed to capture every thought and make it obedient to Christ (1 Cor. 10.5), and if some of those “thoughts” are within the sphere of political discourse — we ought to CAPTURE them! This is not about stumping for a candidate, a party, or a position. It is about proclaiming revealed truth and, dare I say it, being obedient when promoting clearly expressed truth.

    No King but Christ!


  3. I think one can also accomplish good by being a conscientious non-voter for particular offices (albeit, they could still make immediate by voting for local, state, & federal referendums and amendments). I certainly wouldn’t push my conscience in this regard onto everyone else, but I think those who decide to vote must be careful not to bind others’ consciences on the matter. BTW, Doug, I’m not saying that you are, I just thought this comment could mildly relate to the post.




  4. My position is that adhering to a political party when both are evil is not a Christian thing to do, but rather is conforming to this world. Choose between the lesser of two evils and A) you are still supporting evil and B) evil still wins. Did the early persecuted church take any interest or play any role in the courtly intrigues and military maneuvers that determined who got to be Caesar? While some Caesars treated Christians better than others, the early church knew that it was completely out of their hands and acted accordingly.

    The notion that Christians can and should play a major role in state affairs did not come about until the formation of “Christendom”, the church – state (with the “church” in particular being the Roman Catholic Church) where it got to the nonsense where the pope was crowning emperors and influencing succession. How many papal bulls were issued declaring separation between church and state to be evil?

    We also need to remember that both our system of government and economics were neither handed down by Moses on Sinai or Jesus Christ on the sermon of the mount, but instead are very recent inventions, and moreover they were invented by rationalist, deist, and unitarian philosophers during the the Enlightenment. These things were not even developed by Christian thinkers, but by scoffers and rejecters of Christianity. But as they were adopted by the culture, sure enough within less than 100 years they were fully embraced by our theology books and preached by our pulpits to the point where many conservative evangelicals think that free market capitalism, representative democracy, and constitutional republics are part of God’s revelation to mankind. Seriously, listen to Christian talk radio show hosts (not talk radio show hosts that are Christian, but talk radio show hosts whose shows are carried by Christian radio stations) like Janet Parshall, and this is honestly what they believe.

    It honestly is a different gospel. That is the only explanation why the very same evangelicals who spent the last 8 years denouncing McCain, especially when he opposed George W. Bush, are now fully on board. It is also the only explanation why so many of these people think that just because Sarah Palin has 5 kids (as if 5 is more holy than 3 but less holy than 7), likes to hunt (which is more holy than windsurfing and ESPECIALLY more holy than playing basketball with inner city street kids), and didn’t have an abortion (which LOTS of women, including those that support abortion, make) that she is qualified to be vice president and lead the very same sham religious right movement that hasn’t given Christians squat in the last 30 years but a bunch of federal and state judges that support abortion and gay marriage. That is right: Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush all put judges on the bench that support no fault divorce, gay marriage, and abortion. This “movement” has also led to political ecumenism with Rome (how many evangelicals were cheering when Bush put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court … the very same ones who love Pentecostal Sarah Palin HATED Pentecostal Harriet Miers!) and to having to endorse dual covenant theology in order to remain in league with conservative Jews (Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson publicly stated on national television that Jews have their own path to heaven, and Coulter claimed that Jerry Falwell endorsed the same, and when she did Falwell’s family did not object).

    Besides, what consistent standard is there? Do you realize that there are TONS of Christians, particularly black Christians, who vote Democrat because of their conviction that the Republicans represent the greater of two evils? I am not talking about Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton religious liberals, but instead black evangelical Christians, many of whom have the very same religious and cultural views as white evangelicals and differ only in their political beliefs. These Christians – and they are not all black and Hispanic, but those are just the best examples – look at the war, how the economy treats the underclass, and how this nation has treated minorities and Native Americans in the past and honestly believe that CONSERVATIVES represent the greater of two evils, and that LIBERALS represent the lesser. Since great evils are represented by both Republicans (which by the way tons are pro – homosexual and pro – abortion … remember Rudy Giuliani … you guys want to pretend that the GOP is the socially conservative party, but the truth is that only a little bit over half of GOPers are pro – life and less than half oppose homosexuality) and Democrats, who is to say that they are wrong? When both are evil, saying that one is greater than the other is a matter of opinion, and those opinions are going to be based on experiences. If you are a third generation high income suburbanite, then I suppose that the party that supports high taxes, a weak national defense, abortion, and gay marriage will represent the greatest of evils. But if your grandparents experienced Jim Crow, your parents experienced job discrimination and being harassed by the police, and you live in the crumbling inner cities with bad schools and no jobs that those same high income suburbanites left behind during “white flight” in order to evade federal public school desegregation orders (not that any of them admit it!) then you are going to see the party who claims that tax cuts and reduced regulations for wealthy individuals and corporations as evil. One side can turn to Leviticus in the Bible where it says “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman” and say that the Democrats are evil. The other side can turn to James in the Bible where it says that it is a sin to favor the rich over the poor, or for that matter apply the “thou shalt not murder” to the war in Iraq (nearly 1 million innocent civilians dead with no weapons of mass destruction or any other evidence that Saddam ever had the capability or desire to carry out an “imminent” attack, and how imminent was this attack since we spent ALMOST TWO YEARS preparing the invasion!?!?!) and say “right back at you.”

    Oh yes, both parties support the confusion of illegal immigration. Not only did McCain do his best to pass the McCain – Kennedy immigration bill, but that bill was supported by Bush and was an extension of the policy originated by Ronald Reagan at the behest of the Vatican. Speaking of the Vatican, both parties are committed globalists. You don’t have to believe in dispensational eschatology to see the great evil in that, especially when one considers that the first group to embrace globalism brought about by human efforts was Alexander the Great’s Greeks, the second was the Romans, and the third was – and is – the Roman Catholic Church.

    Also, take a long look at so many of these organizations that get evangelicals motivated to get out to vote for the GOP. “Focus on the Family.” “Family Values Coalition.” “Values Voter Coalition.” Pardon me, but whatever happened to JESUS CHRIST? Don’t practicing Muslims have good family values? What about Mormons? Orthodox Jews? The family and social structure of Japan is much stronger and better than our own, where even evangelical conservative pro – family hero Palin has a daughter carrying an illegitimate child, with the father whom they all SWEAR will marry the girl (when is the wedding? yes it does matter!) posting on his public website that he hates kids! And what is the percentage of Christians in Japan? So many of the people that lead these political groups aren’t even clergy. James Dobson? Psychologist. Listen to that fellow and you can’t tell the humanistic Freudianism from the Bible. Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition? Political science degree. Speaking of Dobson, less than a year ago he was promoting Newt Gingrich, who discards wives as well as does any Hollywood celebrity, for president and claiming that he would sit the election out rather than vote for McCain.

    If these are the leaders of this movement, how can any righteousness come from it? How can it advance the kingdom of heaven? All those evangelicals went out and voted, volunteered, and contributed to get George W. Bush in office and what does he do? Make the first high level appointment to an open homosexual. Be the first president to pray in a Muslim mosque. Be the first president since the time of the deists and unitarians who actually did found this country (Thomas Jefferson stripped out everything in the New Testament that spoke of Jesus Christ’s deity or of miracles to come up with what he said was a rational manual of ethics and philosophy; Ben Franklin denounced those who believed in the virgin birth and the resurrection using the same harsh language as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris does today, and that is just the tip of the iceberg) to declare first that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, and ultimately that all religions worship the same God. Had Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other liberal Democrat done those things, and the religious right/evangelical leaders would have declared that the anti – Christ was in the White House. But since it was “one of their guys”, they totally ignored it. Just like they will spent 4 – 8 years ignoring whatever McCain and Palin do and say when they get into office. The best (or worst) part is not only do you have to swear allegiance to “values” or “culture” in this movement to be accepted, but you don’t even have to practice what you preach.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s