A Conflict of Interest?
Posted by Guest Author in News & Culture
Our guest author today is Lew Ayotte. Lew, originally from Maine, is a husband of five years. He and his wife own two beagles and seven cats. Lew studied at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, where he earned his B.A in Biblical Studies. He and his family are in the process of moving to the Athens, Georgia, area where he currently works as a Systems Administrator. Although he does not use his Bible degree vocationally, he tries to use it pragmatically. One way he does so is at his own blog called The Pursuit.
Lew is a thinker. He often challenges the status quo and conventional thinking in his interaction here at sbc IMPACT! These thoughts are his own. You may or may not agree with him. Whatever the case, we hope that his thoughts and questions will inspire a hearty discussion.
• • •
As you all know, the United States’ government is a Democratic Republic. In very general terms this means that all of the citizens of the U.S. are given the right to vote for a person who will represent their own interests. This allows the chosen representatives to act on issues without the necessity of every citizen’s immediate approval. At the same time, the U.S. government allows and encourages each citizen to vote on certain issues – such as the President of said government.
We know from Scripture that God also sets up and tears down governments (Proverbs 8:16, Daniel 2:21). We can infer from these texts that God played an active role in setting up the U.S. government. Not only did God choose President Bush as the leader of the U.S., but he once chose Bill Clinton as the leader. Who God chooses next will remain to be seen. We also know that God often times uses heathen nations to judge other nations. For instance, He used Babylon to judge Israel. We can also conclude that God could use other nations to judge the U.S. So, by logical necessity, we infer that God setup Babylon, Israel, the U.S., even Nazi Germany – some of these nations He has since tore down by the power of other nations that He set up.
We also find in Scripture a command to submit ourselves to our governments (1 Peter 2:13 and possibly Hebrews 13:17). This extends from driving the posted speed limit to keeping our integrity during tax season and everything below, between, and above those lines. Of course there has always been some measure of interpretation with some “laws,” and thus some leeway given. For instance, if the posted speed limit is 55mph, an officer generally will not pull you over for going 57mph. In this sense, the U.S government can be very forgiving.
With all that said, I find that there is a potential conflict of interest, given how the U.S. government is setup and what Scripture commands. This is what I mean: the U.S. government allows its citizens to petition itself. For instance, if the federal government were to make homosexual marriage legal, the citizens would have the right to petition against this decision. Now, Scripture clearly defines homosexuality as sin, so there are a number of Christians who would definitely be part of a governmental petition to ban homosexual marriage. However, would this be consistent with the command to submit to the government? In one sense, they would be taking part in a right given to them by a government set up by God. In another sense, they would not be submitting to the governments decision, and thus would be disobeying a command in Scripture.
So, I ask you, what should a Christian do in the face of this or a similar dilemma? How else might this potential conflict of interest affect our involvement in government affairs?



Brother Lew,
Good question.
I believe that we are much in the same boat as Daniel. We are in a position, as he, to make decisions that will land us in one of two places, but we must ultimately declare the mercy of God.
Daniel 6:20-22 When he had come near the den to Daniel, he cried out with a troubled voice. The king spoke and said to Daniel, “Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you constantly serve, been able to deliver you from the lions?” (21) Then Daniel spoke to the king, “O king, live forever! (22) “My God sent His angel and shut the lions’ mouths and they have not harmed me, inasmuch as I was found innocent before Him; and also toward you, O king, I have committed no crime.”
It is possible to submit to the Government whether you live or die. I believe that is God’s point. That we should trust him whether we live or die, become free or enslaved, live at peace or in war for the sake of the gospel. We submit to God and the Government while letting God sort out our testimony and legacy. Daniel was actually giving the king a bit of hope….and a view of the other “King”.
I love Daniel’s response from the Lions den… “O king, live forever!” ….but let me tell you…. “God (the King) sent His angel”
Blessings,
Chris
Good post and good questions. As you point out, the petitioning process is part of the normal process by which citizens are allowed to attempt change in policies. Therefore petitioning falls within the submission process. In other words, as long as we stay within the law, we are being duly submissive even as we strive for change.
We have to keep in mind that we do not live in a Theocracy. This nation and government is made up of Christians and non-Christians and must govern and protect the interests (within reason) of Christians and non-Christians. The US may have been founded by (mostly) Christians, but it was not founded for Christians.
Lew,
It seems to me that submission would mean, that when we disagree with our government, and “petition” them or oppose what they have done by “civil disobedience” or such, that would mean submitting to arrest without a fight, and be Christian about it.
Even submitting to death for the name of Jesus Christ.
Tim A. Blankenship
Yes Lew,
I think that far too many people on far too many occasions take biblical principles writen in the context either of OT theocracy or NT Roman empire and try to apply them directly to our situation today with modern representative democracy. It is a complex issue that I would like to see someone deal with intelligently. I’m sure that some have. I know that the original Anabaptists, and Mennonites, etc. today argue in favor of non-participation and concurrent submission to government. I would be interested to know of a book that argues against this position, but without falling into the simplistic errors of directly transferring principles of theocracy and/or living under foreign domination to our context today.
Thoughtful post. It is my belief that some in the Baptist/conservative world have taken submission principles too far. I believe we should be submissive to our government, but our submission is not absolute.
As Peter said, “We must obey God, not men,” when facing the Sanhedrin. Our submission to government ends when our loyalty to the Kingdom demands.
In my church, many have trouble distinguishing between the Kingdom of God and the Ol’ Red, White and Blue.
Anyway, good post to chew on.
Here’s my two cents:
It’s true that the OT and NT models don’t cleanly fit with our modern-day style of government. It’s also clear that God ordains governments and leaders. So we find a paradox present here: God chooses leaders and governments, but so do we. We have a God-given, State-sanctioned right (and responsibility) to participate in our government.
We are given choices as to how we wish our nation to be run, and by whom. It is negligence on our part to abdicate this responsibility. God is ultimately in control, but in our nation we have a choice in who governs us and by which standards we are governed (i.e., laws). God chose George Bush, and Bill Clinton, but so did the American people. (The difference is that God knew what these men would and would not do in office, and we did not).
I do not see this as necessarily a conflict of interest. A paradox – God chooses, and we choose – but not a conflict. The conflict might be if we desire one thing for our nation, while God desires another. If we want prosperity for America and God wants judgment – then that is certainly a conflict.
One thing that I have trouble with is the stance that many Christians take on politics. They reason that since (in the end times) Christians are going to be persecuted, that we ought not seek favor for Christians with our government. This seems, to me, to be arrogant and foolish. One, it puts you and I in the position of saying what will or will not happen (a place that only God ought to be); and two, it may in fact prove a self-fulfilling prophecy, where Christians are marginalized and persecuted (but still does not guarantee that Christ will return any sooner).
With regard to laws allowing what God forbids, we should take an active stance against those, and seek to obey God as Daniel did. It may be that in our country, as in Daniel’s, we may be able to impact our leaders and change the laws.