What Do I Want From Our Government?

Politics is a subject I don’t often want to talk about, especially in the context of faith. It can easily derail the conversation because there is just so much heat and so many people with different perspectives. But here we are, USA in 2016. Politics is everywhere, and the way we respond as Christians matters. Someone recently asked me “What do you want from the election?” and I thought it was a very good question with a very important answer. Because what I want from the election is dictated by what I want from our government, and there’s much disagreement about what that should be.

All but the fringe in our country agree we need a government but we cannot seem to agree on what our government should do. Some believe the government needs to enforce a degree of morality. Some think the government needs to solve social problems. Some just want the government out of it all together. And it’s easy for us to have laudable goals for the government that backfire and harm us all.

I’m not good on detailed policy. A lot of these discussions are very complex, and it’s hard to know who to listen to is speaking the truth. For example, a social liberal will say that we should raise the minimum wage because no one should have to work and not be able to survive. A libertarian would say there should be no minimum wage because we harm people by limiting their opportunities. And there are perspectives in the middle. I’m not here to debate the specifics, only to admit that I don’t know the answers (though I do have an opinion on this particular one, but it’s an example, not the point of the post). I’m not an economist, and either side of an issue can look good and right if you don’t come in with knowledge or bias (which are not the same things, but often the latter masquerades as the former).

So it’s hard to say “I want xyz policy”. But I do have two main objectives for the government, driven by my faith. The first objective that is I believe government should be as limited as possible in order for the individual to take responsibility for him or herself. I see Christianity as a personal faith, that no one can “convert” another. We must all make the choice about what we will serve in this life, and that choice can only be made without coercion. Morality is not the responsibility of the government, but rather the individual. Our government should give us the freedom to follow faith, values, or any personal system of belief, or the freedom to deny these things. This is why I do not understand much of contemporary “conservatism”, which seeks to control the behavior of others. I can find someone else’s behavior terrible, but still believe that person should have the freedom to do it. When that person chooses to walk away from that behavior, then it shows real faith. Forced behavior by the government isn’t something that is good for anyone.

The second objective I have for the government is that it should handle our common goals. Sometimes these things are obvious, such as roads or public utilities. Sometimes they are less obvious- public education, for example, creates an educated population which is beneficial to all (even if you are not the recipient of public education, your are a recipient of living among a people who are educated). But beyond that, I believe a common goal we have is to ensure everyone in our country is given his or her “due” as a human being. We should not be content with a country in which parts of our community live in more fear than others, or where people are unable to survive regardless of how hard they work. I understand some don’t see this as a shared responsibility, but I do. I believe the Bible teaches this by example when Israel was commanded to do the work of justice for the weak and vulnerable. This doesn’t mean equalizing outcomes, but it does mean there are certain basic needs that we are responsible to meet for every individual.


These objectives can create a tension, and it’s easy for us to spiral out of control one way or the other. What begins as a laudable way to help the impoverished can end up in a government power play, and a desire to grant freedom to individuals can end up with oppression that denies basic human dignity. But this tension is where we need to work: we can learn and grow as we struggle through these issues and do our best to find the godly way forward.

In our current climate, we do not try resolve tension by working through these questions together. Instead we resort to rhetoric and polarization that does not resolve, but rather gives and takes power. We don’t see our government as a journey we are all on together, but a tug-of-war that we places on sides and in opposition. So much of what I hear on a daily basis is an attempt to paint someone else’s position as so abhorrent that it can be summarily dismissed. This is easy, as it means we don’t have to think or talk to one another. But thinking and talking is how we resolve the tension and get to a government that can provide both freedom and work toward common goals.

I will bring up one example with some trepidation, but I feel I must move to something concrete and not only present my thoughts in the abstract. Abortion in the US is a high-tension topic. People are quickly labeled as women haters or baby killers, and that language forces all conversation to cease. After all, who is required to break bread with a “baby killer”? But they are unjust labels that do not resolve the tension; rather they divide and obscure the truth. Because truth is, very, very few people in this conversation actually want to kill babies. And very, very few people in this conversation want to control women’s bodies.

Those accused of being “baby killers” don’t actually hate babies, and labeling them as such an outright falsehood about their motives and a smear against their character. Yes, it makes the conversation easier because you can write off what they have to say, but it doesn’t make it better. If anyone actually thinks that pro-choice advocates look at a baby and think “I really want to kill this baby”, it’s news to me. The reality is that pro-choice advocates are very concerned about the health and well being of women, and that is a laudable goal. Can we not learn from their compassion and love for the weak and vulnerable women who are pregnant and believe that an abortion is the best option?

On the other hand, those accused of wanting to control women’s bodies aren’t usually driven by a conviction about the woman’s personal choices regarding her body, but rather the value of the unborn. This is the only case in which they will suggest a woman be prevented from taking an action with her own body, and this case is unique because another life is involved. Again, ignoring that this is a special scenario may make the conversation easier, but it doesn’t make it better. To summarily label pro-life views of women based on this singular, very complex situation is unfair and unhelpful.

The way that this conflict over abortion is waged is telling: we deal with it in the political realm. We want to pass laws so that others must conform to our point of view. We constrain our votes on all other issues by this one issue. It’s understandable why this happens: when one side sees abortion as equivalent to murder, it’s sensible to bring the force of law in to protect those they see as victims. However, it’s not that straightforward, since not everyone agrees upon the value of the life of the unborn. The reason that laws against murder work is because we all agree that murder is bad. And for whatever reason, this same perspective isn’t agreed upon when it comes to abortion. But the goal shouldn’t be policy anyway. The goal should be less abortions, and despite all the vitriol surrounding this topic, I’d wager that most people would probably agree. I suspect the general population of the US would view a lower abortion rate as a strong indication of our health as a nation. That could be a common goal, but we never go there because we’d rather stand on political ideology.

Again, this is an example. I don’t want to resolve abortion in this post. I just want to point out where our instance on resolving tension through rhetoric and polarization prevents us from working together toward real results that matter. If we can unify rather than separate, we can be powerful drivers of change. We can work together and wrestle with the tension to find the right ways to achieve liberty while meeting our common goals. Alone, I’m not capable of knowing the answers on every topic. I’m not smart enough or able to see all the angles. But together I think we could do it if we would wrestle together in the middle rather than hurling rocks from the sides.

This election cycle, a lot of ugly stuff has been exposed. I believe this exposure has given us an opportunity to reject the old ways of rhetoric and polarization and try something new. And that, as a Christian, is what I want.

About Jeff S

Programmer, musician, father, and lover of Jesus. I have a strong passion to see people free from abuse and religion misused so that they can find the ultimate empowered life in Jesus.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to What Do I Want From Our Government?

  1. joepote01 says:

    I like how you think, Jeff.

    Thanks for sharing!


  2. Jamie Quinlan says:

    Jeff, I like your approach to politics in the sense that you are trying to find a common ground. However, I think that is the problem with government–there is no common ground. Even looking at the two things you want out of government, you have contrasting desires. You say that the government should be limited so that people are responsible for themselves…but then you say that people are “due” a certain amount, and this is the responsibility of others. What are people owed by the government, and what are people owed by society (what you claim is the responsibility of Christians)?

    You argue that public education is an example of a common goal….when many in the US would disagree with this. For many, they do not want public education and therefore do not want to pay taxes for public education, but they are forced to do so. On the other hand, you have people who want the same quality of education for everyone, which is essentially the goal of public education. In the current state, public education is the common ground, and there are so many horrible flaws with the system because the quality of the school is comparable to the quality of the life where the school is located. What is your view here? That the government would not be restricted and continue to put money into the public education system in the failing attempt to rectify problems that arise from children who are being brought up in poverty, in broken homes, in an environment of drugs and violence? That wealthier citizens pay more money to poorer areas for a free public education? Just wondering what the libertarian view on this is as well.

    Lastly, on the note of abortion, I don’t necessarily agree with what you are saying. I have done a lot of research on abortion and the legal history of it, and the issue with abortion has nothing to do with the propaganda regarding a woman’s choice. It has nothing to do with whether someone really needs an abortion or if they are a bad person for wanting an abortion. It has nothing to do with our opinions of the people getting abortions. Honestly, even mentioning these things is giving strength to the agenda of the liberal media, pitting people against each other for disagreeing with other people’s decisions. The issue is that when a fetus is recognized as a human life, they are granted civil rights, and abortion is thereby murder. As a Christian, there should be no question in the value of the fetus’ life. But as a human being, science has yet to prove when a fetus “becomes a human life”. That is why the Supreme Court has applied unalienable rights to a human at the 26-week-mark. As a voter, yes you can morally disagree with abortion, yet understand why women want or feel like they need to abort their babies. But that’s where a “common ground” is ambiguous. Because people will value their life over the life of their child even if science proves that life begins at conception. If you want to talk about abortion, feel free to bring it up with me at any time! I am super passionate about informing people of the FACTS regarding abortion, not OPINIONS or FEELINGS.

    I apologize for rambling, but I feel like you’re trying to create this clear dichotomy in politics, as if there actually is a solution. All government is corrupt because people are sinful, and I believe there are evil powers at play that will eventually bring our world into the times described in Revelation. In my opinion, it’s not our responsibility to figure out everything in the world. Our responsibility is to find the things or people that press on our hearts and advocate for them. So instead of trying to find broad solutions, maybe focus on a few policy issues that you are unfamiliar with (but affect you, your kids, your family, those close to God’s heart) and really dig deep! Would love to actually have these convos in real life, not just over the internet 😉


    • Jeff S says:

      Education is a common goal, whether people want it or not. We all benefit from having an educated population. I don’t agree that everyone should have the same education, but basic education providing for an educated populace strengthens everyone.

      Regarding abortion, the common ground is very real, that we can reduce abortions despite the legal status, and there there are many on both sides of the isle who would agree with the steps we can take to do this. Not prohibition, but providing a community around women that is supportive and enabling for them to choose life. Choosing to expend energy on legal battles in spite of these other steps indicates more of a desire to be right than love for women or the unborn.

      I don’t understand why you believe the value of a fetus life is a Christian/Non Christian issue. The idea of life beginning at conception is a recent one, not historical within the church, and quite frankly, not easily supportable from scripture. Scripture actually implies that the process of becoming human takes place in the womb, not before the womb, but it does so in a poetic fashion and the point of that psalm is not to pinpoint the moment life begins. But if it were used in that way, it would decidedly suggest life begins at some point after conception. If you believe life begins at conception, that is reasonable, but I don’t see how you can cite it as a Christian belief. If life begins at conception and that life is the same value as person who is born, then protecting that life becomes a Christian issue, but life at conception has very little scriptural evidence.

      You may not believe that abortion has anything to do with a woman’s choice, but in fact it does. You cannot simply write it off as propaganda. It’s a big deal when you force a woman to do something, or not do something, with her own body. I’m aware that what I said angers pro-life advocates. You might be surprised to find I get no love from pro-choice either. And that is what frustrates me- everyone is so dug into their own position they don’t even listen. You are convinced there is no “choice” issue regarding abortion. Well, there is. It’s violating for someone to tell you what you must do with your own body. You cannot just decide that that issue is unimportant. Just like someone who is pro choice cannot decide the value of the unborn life is unimportant. Saying this is not propagating a liberal agenda. It’s listening and empathizing with another persons valuable point of view. We cannot be so fearful of other perspectives that we write them off as “agenda”.

      And I’ll state it again- there are loads of things that you and someone who is pro choice can agree on, can work toward, that would result in less abortions, but they don’t happen because you’d rather wage the legal battle you won’t win. I don’t see the upside to this. If you really believe that all pro-choice advocate just love murdering babies, then you have a very limited view of other people’s perspectives. They don’t want that. No one likes the idea of murdering babies, and saying they do just stops any common ground from happening.

      Regarding broad solutions, I’m not looking for those. I actually do look to dive deep- but there’s little opportunity for diving deep when people form sides and fail to look to the value that can be found in one another.


    • Jeff S says:

      On further clarification- I do not identify as a Libertarian, so many of my views do not align with Libertarians.


  3. Jeff S says:

    “You say that the government should be limited so that people are responsible for themselves…but then you say that people are “due” a certain amount, and this is the responsibility of others. What are people owed by the government, and what are people owed by society (what you claim is the responsibility of Christians)?”

    Sorry, meant to answer this. People are “due” things required for basic human dignity. The right to not starve. The right to have human connection. This concept is all over scripture (the responsibility to do “justice”, which means punishing the wicked and elevating the weak by giving them their “due” as human beings with dignity, is listed over 100 times in the Old Testament). Quite frankly, I don’t see how any Christian would deny this is a common responsibility we have in a society of people created in the image of God.


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