Biola UniversityHow should we approach the political arena as Christians? What exactly does the Bible give us when it comes to politics? How can we make sure that our conversations about politics are civil and respectful? Sean and Scott will answer these questions and more as they discuss the connection between Christian faith and politics.
Episode Transcript
Sean: How should Christians approach faith and politics? How can we live out our faith in this politically-charged moment? Now, if you're looking for a podcast to tell you how to vote, you are in the wrong place. But if you want some biblical reflections on how to approach politics, which can hopefully apply to the way you vote and love your neighbor, you're in the right place. Now, today, we don't have a third guest with us. This is going to be a conversation between Scott and me on politics and faith. So with that said, I'm your host, Sean McDowell.
Scott: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.
Sean: This is Think Biblically from Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, we've had this conversation before, but given our moment, there's certain things we need to re-emphasize and just remind ourselves of how to honor God and the Scriptures in this moment we find ourselves in.
Scott: Well, we do keep having to have this discussion repeatedly.
Sean: [laughs] We do. And this is probably not the last.
Scott: This is a garden that needs weeding constantly.
Sean: Now, why does it matter so much that we apply biblical principles to politics?
Scott: Well, for one, I think it's widely misunderstood. Politics is not a morally neutral area. Politics is fundamentally a moral enterprise, because it's about how we order our life together in community. And it has all sorts of moral overtones. And economics is really similar to that. And the political arena encompasses a lot of economic issues, because economics is simply how we distribute the burdens and benefits of how we order our life together in community. But beyond that, the Bible has a lot to say about injustice, and about the structures of the society in the ancient world and how that contributed to injustice. Because in numerous places in the Scripture, the prophets call out the leaders, those who set the policies and who enforced the Mosaic covenant. They called them out for their allowing for injustice and allowing for that to seep into the structure of the culture as a whole. And so some of the admonitions about seeking justice apply specifically to the kings, to the elders, to the discussions at the city gates, which was a paradigm for the ruling authorities of a community. So it affects not just our own individual ways in which we vote, but it also impacts the way our society is structured so that injustices can't reign supreme.
Sean: Now, right away people are thinking, "Okay, these are Old Testament commands. Does that still apply today?" We'll come back to that, because that's really important.
Scott: Yeah. I'm gonna say “yes, but.”
Sean: Okay.
Scott: So we'll come back to that.
Sean: [laughs] Okay, fair enough. Got it.
Scott: But that's where we're headed with that.
Sean: And, certainly, the larger command to love God and love our neighbor…politics is one way we need to live that principle out. And so there are New Testament applications, in fact, that we will get into. What does the Bible give us when it comes to politics, either explicitly or implicitly?
Scott: Maybe the best way to think about this, Sean, would be to think about what the Bible doesn't give us when it comes to politics. It does not give us a well-developed political philosophy, okay? Any more than it gives us a well-developed systematic theology or a well-developed moral philosophy, right? It's mostly written in narrative form, or poetic. Now, there's some exceptions to that, but for the most part, it's written in a form that's not really conducive to systematizing. So it doesn't give us a well-established, well-developed political philosophy from which we can draw. It doesn't give us specific policy prescriptions. It doesn't, for the most part, address the means of public policy as much as the ends. It gives us the ends. That's true. But there are various means by which those ends can be accomplished. And most of the time, not always, but most of the time, the Scripture doesn't speak to those specific means because those are culture-bound, in terms of what means would have been effective to accomplish that end in the first century or in Old Testament times. What it does give us is, I think, two things. It gives us a worldview framework in which to view politics and public policy. And it gives us general theological principles that can be applied to specific policy areas. So it gives us general principles about how to treat migrants coming into your country. Does it give us a well-developed policy of what immigration policy should look like? No. But it gives us some guiding principles that should govern how we frame and how we view the immigration debate.
Sean: And a lot of that is because of the nature of the kind of book that the Bible is. So it's not a science book, but there are principles, arguably, that intersect with science. It's not a history book, but there are claims about history that are meant to be taken as objective fact that we can garner from the Scriptures. And the same is true with politics. It's not a political manifesto, but it's also not just a spiritual book that has to do with our soul that doesn't play itself out with governments and individuals.
Scott: I'd put it this way, that in both the Old and New Testament, Judaic and Christian faith have an intrinsic public dimension to them. Our faith was never intended to be as simply in the private sphere. It always had a public dimension, not only how individuals interacted in the public sphere, but how the public sphere operated, what kinds of structures were set up. For example, in the Old Testament law—and we'll get to more Old Testament law in a bit—had some pretty significant guidelines and commands that addressed how real estate was transacted in the ancient world. And that was really important, because that was the primary economic asset in the ancient world, since most people survived on subsistence level agriculture. Some small trades, but most of it, you grew what you could grow on your own land. And so when somebody fell into hard times and had to sell their land, they were in deep trouble. It's not like somebody who falls into bankruptcy has to sell their house today, because you still have a job, you still have income. None of that was true in the ancient world. If you sold your land, you were bereft. And you had charity to look forward to, or to become an indentured servant to someone. And so the Mosaic law had really specific laws to protect the opportunity for somebody to make a living even if they fell on hard times, the law of redemption, for example. So, if I owned a piece of property, I fell on hard times, and I had to sell it to you to get out of my rough time, my next of kin was obligated, under the law, to buy it back from you and to restore it to me, obviously with adequate supervision, so this wouldn't be repeated over and over again. But that was a moral obligation, a legal one under the law. The Year of Jubilee functioned the same way, that every 50 years, all then reverted back to its original owners so that nobody was forever without the opportunity to make a living. Now, that structured the way real estate was priced, that specifically, because in the law, the proximity to the Year of Jubilee determined the price of the property that you were selling or leasing, because all you could lease were the productive years that you had left in your ownership. So the closer to the Jubilee, the cheaper the price of land. So I guess the point is that the law was designed not just to regulate individual behavior, but to also structure the way institutions worked and the way that the general economic structures in the society worked as well. Is that clear as mud?
Sean: [laughs] Okay, so let's come back to the “but,” B-U-T, that we mentioned earlier, because these are all Old Testament examples, and somebody could clearly say, "Okay, Scott, this was a theocracy in which the government was tied to the church, so to speak." Like, we might see it in certain modern-day Islamic countries, but now we have the church that is separate from the government. Not that principles shouldn't influence the government and haven't, but they're separate institutions. So are these just principles from the Old Testament we apply, or how do you go from Old Testament to politics today?
Scott: Well, I think some of it depends on the differences between the ancient world and today, because for the areas that have more in common, I think we can have a little bit more direct application. But in general, the one big difference is that in the New Testament era and beyond, there was no longer a place for a theocracy. And all the theocracy was was that the law of God was the law of the land. End of story.
Sean: Good way to put it.
Scott: No debate, no dissent, no voting. That was it. And that's not true today, because Paul was very clear that we are—in Romans 7 and other parts of the New Testament—not under the law today. So we're not under the ceremonial law as a means of redemption and salvation. We're not under the civil law as a rule of life for normal life in society. We are still, I think, under the moral law, because those are timeless, universal principles. But in general, the Mosaic law was not, I would say, addressed to us in the church age today, but it's relevant for us. All Scripture is relevant. But relevant how? I think relevant in terms of much more general principles that we can draw, but not necessarily policy prescriptions, where we might work it out in the same way that they worked it out in the ancient world.
Sean: So I tend to look at certain commandments in the Old Testament. Like, if people were poor, if you owned a field, you're supposed to leave a certain amount there that people could come by and get. And that was required within the Mosaic law. And then people say, okay, that prescription applies to today, or that commandment does, and give a specific that the government today is supposed to do the same thing. I go, wait, time out. This is for 3,400 years ago, whatever the dating was, completely different governments, completely different context, and contract with God. I think this shows the heart of God for the poor. And we see those kind of commandments in the New Testament. We see in Acts, we see the heart of Jesus that's there. But to take that principle and say we should have some government policy because of the way it was carried out in Israel, that strikes me as going from A to G without going B, C, D, E, and F. Do you agree or disagree?
Scott: I think the principle…I'd say that's an example of where the end is clear, but the means is up for debate. I wouldn't say that government taking some of our tax money and providing a safety net for the poor is necessarily inconsistent with that. But it's not the only means that's acceptable there. So I think the way that might be applicable today would be to say, you know, to say a percentage of your giving today…obviously you give to your local church, to other charities. But make sure that some of your giving is designated to help some of the least among us. Specifically, to help take care of the poor. Because I think the Scripture is just overwhelming in its emphasis on the obligations that we have to care for the poor and the vulnerable among us. And that, largely, I think even in the Old Testament, that was not predominantly a government thing. That was mostly at the level of individual charity.
Sean: Right.
Scott: And I think that'd be the primary means, but I don't think the application of that rules out other means that have government involved.
Sean: So to say it's not inconsistent with that is also not to say the Bible necessarily mandates that or says it's the best position that we should take.
Scott: I'd say not necessarily. I'd say that's all context dependent.
Sean: So we see God's heart for the poor. We see that He judges individuals and He judges nations. Now it gets down to, okay, both the left and the right as a whole care about poverty and have different means to get there. It's less chapter and verse to me as it is to oppose what actually, really works in a society to do this. That's where we should go apart from our individual responsibility that we have.
Scott: Yeah, this is why I love the byword for the Acton Institute that I've been involved with for a long time. It's just, “Where good intentions meet sound economics.”
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: And I thought, that's exactly right. You know, good intentions are not enough. They have to be coupled with things that actually work in the real world. And this is an area where I think some of our brothers and sisters have a difficult time distinguishing between the church and the political arena. Because the political arena, by definition and necessity, is one of compromise, negotiation, and limited objectives. Pure purists—I think maybe it’s a little strong, but I'm inclined to say purists need not apply to run for office because making policy in a fallen world invariably involves times where you have to settle for limited objectives. Because generally, in the political arena, if the means that you're employing are trying to have it all, you're not going to get anything. And so accomplishing something in the political arena is better than accomplishing nothing. Even though it falls short of the ideal that you would like to accomplish. Now, once you accomplish that, you keep pressing toward the ideal. You know, that's not the end point. But recognizing that, you know, the ideal shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
Sean: And that's a political philosophy that you hold, which I agree with. And when it comes to issues like life, sometimes people will differ over candidates and policies because of whether or not they want to lessen the amount of abortions, or not compromise and completely get rid of it. Now, we're not debating that issue right now, but that's why it's important to understand conflict and differences with people often are because of underlying philosophies and biblical interpretations they bring to the table.
Scott: Correct. And I think sometimes it's also due to the fact that we're mistaking the church for the political arena. And they're two fundamentally different types of things.
Sean: Well said. Okay. So let me ask you this one. What are some ways you've seen the Bible misused in political discussions? Can you think of any examples on the left, middle, right, any specific ones?
Scott: Yeah, I think one on the right and one on the left.
Sean: Okay.
Scott: Typically, I think one of the things you hear at almost every presidential or community prayer breakfast—you know where I'm going with this—is, quote, “according to 2 Chronicles 7:14,” which basically I'm paraphrasing. If my people repent and pray and come back to the Lord, I will heal your land. And you will prosper again. Now, that text was originally given to the nation of Israel under the Mosaic covenant.
Sean: That's right.
Scott: And the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force. And the Mosaic covenant was really clear that if the people were obedient to God's commands and faithful to Him, then He would bless them with agricultural prosperity and national security, which you could expect to trickle down to the average person. That's not a prosperity gospel because it was national, not individual. Now, once we get into the New Testament era and beyond, then things that were addressed to Israel are no longer addressed to the church. The Mosaic law is not addressed to the church. It's relevant for it now. And I think 2 Chronicles 7:14 is relevant, but not on a covenantal, contractual basis. No country has a covenant with God today in the same way that Old Testament Israel did. In fact, if it were any country but the United States or maybe the UK a couple hundred years ago, we would think that to be kind of an odd claim. You know, Denmark doesn't claim to be God's chosen people or carrying on God's covenant. Sweden, Norway, they don't claim that. And we would think it odd if they did. And that's true for any country today. That's not to say that the United States didn't have distinctly Christian roots, but to call it a Christian nation in the same way that Old Testament Israel was in terms of God's covenant with them, I think is theologically misinformed. So I think there's probably an application of that text to say, you know, yes, God's people are always called to pray for their nation. That's a New Testament passage, by the way. And to pray for the healing of the nation, for the moral repentance in the nation, I think is all very appropriate. But to take the other half of that contractual relation, that God is contractually obligated to heal our land if we do those things, is no longer in effect today. Okay, so that'd be one. Comment on that?
Sean: Well, I would just say, I don't hear politicians making that kind of claim. I would hear pastors making that claim.
Scott: I hear pastors making that claim.
Sean: And other Christian leaders making that kind of claim, which is more of a theological misunderstanding about politics rather than politicians using the Bible in a way that they shouldn't. So I think there's two ways to look at that.
Scott: I think it's pastors misusing the Bible.
Sean: I agree.
Scott: If it's in a covenant context.
Sean: Yeah, that's fair.
Scott: On the left, I think there's some passages that have to do with immigration in the Mosaic law. For example, in Leviticus 19, it speaks about the obligation of Israel to welcome the immigrant as you would welcome your native born, and to treat them as such. And I think on the left, that has been misapplied to basically say that we are obligated to take as many immigrants as we can possibly handle. Not really an open border policy, but pretty close to it. And that regardless of whether people are in the country legally or not, we have an obligation to care for them. And that's often considered the trump card, no pun intended, for immigration policy, what that should be. Now again, that was for Old Testament Israel. And what it doesn't distinguish is the difference between the kind of person who was assimilated and integrated into Israel's society and those who are not. And the Bible's got two different words for the immigrant based on that distinction. So I think that's a misuse of that part of Leviticus 19.
Sean: I'm just leery in general when somebody has a policy and they appeal to the Scriptures to back it up when they're speaking to Christians, left or the right, because both sides will often do it selectively. Like the left, you know, in this example, use it for immigration because it fits what they want to argue. But maybe when it comes to the nature of marriage, we will leave those out. So the right can do the same thing. They can select and they can twist. And that's where we should just, as thoughtful Christians watching any political position say, I don't want to be played. I don't want to be manipulated. Let's be fair how we use the Scriptures, and not just support the Scripture that is in favor of the policy we want and against those that we don't. But what does the Scripture actually say?
Scott: Here's another place where I think it's misused, is it's used to defend positions that it actually has nothing to say about. So, for example, you can see these voting scorecards that have a number of issues and who supports what. And it's assumed there that the Bible has something to say about all those positions. So one of them is on a strong national defense. I'm not convinced the Bible has much to say about that. Israel had defended themselves. But, you know, there's virtually nothing in the New Testament that has anything to say about that. I would consider the amount that a country spends on its defense to be something that's almost morally neutral. As long as there’s…
Sean: Do you mean morally neutral or physically neutral?
Scott: I'm not really distinguishing between those two.
Sean: Well, morally neutral, a government has 22 or 24 percent, that's morally neutral. That's a sufficient amount to have a defense.
Scott: Right.
Sean: Okay.
Scott: Yeah. And that's a moral obligation. I don't think the Bible has as much to say about that, particularly in the New Testament.
Sean: Okay. Yeah, that's fair. Okay. That's helpful. Now, one of the objections that we often hear is that you can't legislate morality. Is that true?
Scott: No, it's completely false.
Sean: And by the way, an atheist online, he said, yeah, laws are not about legislating morality. They're just societies deciding how they can operate and not operate together what's best for society functionally, but not necessarily right and wrong.
Scott: Well, that's sort of a different point. But I think we legislate morality all the time. We legislate moral behavior. We can't legislate moral intent. Those are two different things. MLK was famous for saying, “Law can't stop people from hating me, but they can stop people from lynching me.”
Sean: Okay.
Scott: So I'd say most laws have some sort of moral underpinnings. Even something as straightforward as driving on the correct side of the road has the principles of respect for life and property underlying it. Because I think we correctly assume that if somebody's careening down the wrong side of the freeway, they have respect for neither of those things. Now, what your objector is describing is what's called logical positivism—the law is whatever the government says the law is. But we have traditions of civil disobedience, which is a long held tradition, which presumes that there are some laws that don't have a moral foundation that people are not obligated to obey. And even going back to MLK, he acknowledged that there is such a thing as an unjust law, which we would expect because we have miserable, wretched sinners who are making the laws. And we should not expect perfection in the laws, even if they come out of a democratic process.
Sean: I think somebody could technically make an argument that laws are not legislating morality from, say, a logical positivist or atheist perspective, that they're just purely functional. But when I've gone and read Supreme Court justice briefings…every year I read, like, one or two entirely, and I think people should.
Scott: To try to get to sleep.
Sean: [laughs] Exactly. Well, they're filled with moral language about what we should do, and what we shouldn't do, and what rights we have. And so I think such a position is stripping the basis of what laws we come to and why in a way that doesn't capture what the legal system is really doing. So, I think you're right about that. If we take that a step further, someone accusing religious people of imposing their morality on unbelievers. I've got some thoughts about this. I had a dialogue with an atheist maybe five years ago, and we were supposed to come up with different myths that the other side had about their view and surprise them on the spot. And my interlocutor in this one, he said the idea is that atheists or secular humanists want a secular state and getting rid of religion. All we want is one voice of secularism here, and religion not to be favored. If I remember correctly, that was his argument. And I started saying, wait a minute, when I argue for, say, a biblical view of marriage, I look at other skeptics who view that differently and I don't impugn them with hatred. I just think they have a different worldview. And I get called bigoted and hateful and homophobic and attacked. And his position…and then he kind of said, well, there are some positions that are odious by their very nature. Now, as I thought back on that later, what I should have said was, okay, wait a minute, you want to define marriage in a way that is directly against a religious view and get rid of religion. That's how you want to define it. There's no neutral way of defining marriage. Either you define it, or religious view defines it. They're not both there. And the point is, they're not neutral. So, Christians could be charged with legislating morality, but everybody, in a sense, is trying to legislate morality, right? Worldviews are not—-at least big laws about marriage and life are not—-worldview neutral. You see it that way?
Scott: Yeah. The public square is not devoid of a worldview. It's not a vacuum. And some worldview is going to fill it at some point. I remember some years ago, I was debating a hospital group that was being asked to support an initiative in their state and to help fund, using embryonic stem cells for research and for treatment, things like that. And I was making the case against that. Well, I thought that a law to support that was a bad idea. And one of the physicians in the room raised his hand and said, I am so tired of you religious people imposing your morality on everybody else. And I shot back at him and I said, we're doing no such thing. In fact, let's get rid of the silly notion that law is not the imposition of somebody's morality, because you are imposing your view of what a human embryo is on me, which I find hugely objectionable. And so let's get rid of that notion, because all law is the imposition of somebody's morality, somebody's worldview. And your secular friend, they don't want just a voice. They want the voice.
Sean: I think that's right.
Scott: And I think, be honest about that. And so, that drives me nuts, more than just about anything else, to hear that accusation, because I think it's not hard to refute.
Sean: So finally, after six years, we got to the root of what bugs you the most. I'm kidding. Now, so, in part, if we were to say, well, Psalm 139 says this, therefore it should be pro-life, that would be moving towards a bad argument. And also maybe what some might call Christian nationalism. Rather we should make a case from natural law that's publicly available. And when we do that, it lines up with Scripture. We don't have to rely upon Scripture. So I think it's not to say, no, we're not trying to legislate morality. I think the response is to say, everybody's legislating morality. The question is, which morality is right and just, and what's the evidence for it? That's a conversation we want to have. Okay, let's do, gosh, one or two more. In fact, maybe we wrap up with this. What would be your advice to Christians in this political moment to love their neighbor, honor God, just handle our political divisiveness, not only within the church, but without the church? What are some principles to keep in mind? And in some ways I ask this because I want to look back on my life in different moments and say, you know what, I handled that well and wasn't taken in by the cultural moment.
Scott: Hear, hear.
Sean: So, coach us a little bit, give us some pointers.
Scott: One is, I would not treat politics as if it's the ultimate thing. Our ultimate allegiance is to the kingdom of God.
Sean: Amen.
Scott: And the emphasis we put on politics, I think in light of that, is often overstated, because whoever wins the elections, you know, that's not the end of the world. If your person doesn't win, you know, all Sheol is not breaking loose. The country's not going down the tubes. Now it may take directions that we're not thrilled about, but our democracy has been around for a long time. And it has withstood divisive times that are much worse than the one we're in at the moment. So, I would say, treat politics as something less than our ultimate commitment. Our ultimate commitment is to faithfulness to the kingdom of God. And whoever is elected is not going to threaten the ultimate advance of God's kingdom. That’s out of our hands. Our responsibility is to be faithful to what God has called us to do and leave the task of cultural transformation. That's ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit in a particular culture. Second, I think it's to listen well to people who you disagree with. I mean, the premise to that is actually have relationships with somebody that you disagree with. My guess is that we tend to gravitate toward our own tribe pretty regularly, but who in your life do you have that just sees the world differently than you do? And then to have a relationship with the person where you listen first before you respond. And I like the way that our colleague, Tim Muehlhoff, does this in his classes. They say, you can't critique someone until you have restated their position to their satisfaction, which I think is a great rule of thumb. And then, I think, third, let's be careful that we don't equate Christian faith with any particular country or government or political platform, because all—as we mentioned before repeatedly on this podcast and in other settings—political platforms are going to be flawed. No one's going to be perfect. None was written with biblical fidelity as its goal. So, when you're assessing your tribe, remember that your tribe is not perfect. There are flaws in the platform that your tribe has put out. I think we have to own that. There are things on both sides of the political aisle that make me really nervous. So that may leave me in the ranks of the politically homeless. But I think maybe those three things would be the places where I would start.
Sean: That's helpful. I would just throw in, personally, one of my favorite Proverbs is Proverbs 18:20, that talks about the first to speak in court sounds right until the cross examination begins. I've said it here and I've said it on a Cultural Update, that I, almost every day, read The New York Times, and I can vouch that it is a left leaning publication as a whole. There's no debate about that. I read it for a lot of reasons, but I also read the Wall Street Journal pretty consistently. And I listen to some podcasts that are conservative and not so. I want to hear both sides. And I think there's a whole lot of people who only listen to one voice. If you just watch MSNBC, or you just watch Fox News, that's going to shape your worldview. Now, what I'm not saying is that all political positions are equal. They're not. You're right. I've heard you say this a bunch of times. No political party is built saying, how do we develop biblical faithfulness in this party? Neither of them did that. But that doesn't mean I can't look at both political parties and try to say, okay, which one, on the big issues, align more with biblical principles? That's what I'm going to be held to account for. And that's where I feel like, only when I read both sides and actually try to get through the manipulation and the framing and the narratives that both sides are trying to put on, can I come to a conclusion over what I think is true. So, minimally, take the time to consider other perspectives thoughtfully. And if you reject them, know why. Last thing that I'll say is this, is when it's all said and done, I try to ask myself a question. I know I completely fall short on this. But, what is our goal as Christians during this election season? More than anything else, it's to love God and love our neighbor. Love God and love our neighbor. Now, do we do that through our voting? Sure. Do we do that through certain candidates and others? Probably. But if we would just ask that question and let that question lead us, I think it would affect our attitudes. I think it would affect the way we treat people. So, given that the greatest commandment is to love God and love others, vote according to your conscience before the Lord, but let us be known by our love. Sadly, I don't have a lot of confidence that people watching the church right now are going to say, yeah, that's a group that has conviction, and they stand up for it, but they're known for their love. I hate to say it, but we're not. I can't control that, but hopefully I live my life in a certain way that I love my neighbor. That's what I think God is going to hold us to account for when this political season is done.
Scott: Yeah, I don't want the gospel to be discredited by my political interactions with people. And I think we're at risk of that, because I think it's important that we hold views that are biblically grounded. It's important to be right, but it's also important to be good, and to be loving, and to be winsome at the same time while we do this in a culture that is really watching how we do this. And I think so many people are so discouraged with the polarization of the culture, I think they're desperately looking for someone, some group, who can help break some of these log jams and actually do this differently than the way it's being done today. And by God's grace, that would be the community of God's people, that's doing it differently enough to where the gospel is upheld and God's honored as opposed to contributing more to the polarization and division.
Sean: Good stuff. Well, I would say get out there and vote, have political conversations, engage in the political process. If you're in America listening to this, you have a privilege and an honor to get to vote. That's something I don't want to take for granted. When it's all said and done, let us make sure our focus is on the kingdom of God and loving our neighbor through this. That's what matters most. Good stuff, Scott.
Scott: Amen.
Sean: There's so many policy things I’d love to probe in and explore with you and debate. Some people might be disappointed like, "Oh, why didn't you weigh into candidates?" But partly because of what I do as an evangelist and an apologist, I'm not going to tell people how to vote. And some people can criticize it, that's fine. But, more than anything else, we want you to think biblically about it.
Scott: Hear, hear.
Sean: Good stuff. All right, well, that was fun. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically, Conversations on Faith and Culture. The Think Biblically podcast is brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. We've got programs in apologetics, and in theology, and in philosophy, and in Old Testament, marriage and family, online and in person. Please check it out online. We love your comments and/or questions, especially about this, or your reflections on how to think Christianly about politics. Please email them to us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We would appreciate a rating, even if it's quick, on your podcast app, or if you share this with a friend. We will see you this Friday for our weekly Cultural Update. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.
