Surviving a Political (or Similar) Career: Avoiding Kiddie Answers and More

I spoke to a former Senator recently who relayed to me just how hard his time had been in politics. He said that there were some Senators who were irrelevant. They would batten down the hatches. They would lock their doors to real dialogue with other “worldly” Senators and the worldly system. They consistently voted “no” to bills, constantly “wearing the black hat” — his description, not mine. And thus, they were irrelevant. No one consulted them. No one listened to them when they spoke. They were in office, but only in name, not in impact.

This person then described how he had tried to ride the “middle,” to take a thoughtful middle line. And he told me how tremendously difficult it had been. The “side” he attempted to take was essentially no side at all; it was grey. And herein lies one of the great challenges, a challenge faced not only by politicians. Thinking specifically first about politics, my sense is that it can be so partisan. People (so it seems), need to be able to compartmentalize you; clarifying who you are. The voters need to do so. Also, fellow politicians need to be able to “count on you.” So, they need to put you in a box. And the temptation can then be to box ourselves in too; seeing ourselves as others do, this side or that.

We will all face this — not just in politics — but in the corporate world, in the world of education, in the world of entertainment, and even in Christian ministry. To be grey is to be seen as a loose cannon, someone who cannot be fully understood and therefore cannot be trusted. This puts us in a twilight zone where it can be very lonely. What can we say on all this? What I told this person is this: the twilight zone is biblical(!), which may come as a shock to some. But to be able to weigh sides well and find middle ground is biblical, based on what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians.

What is absolutely clear to anyone reading 1 Corinthians is that the Corinthian Christians had problems. Their defining problem is stated at the start of the letter. The Corinthian church had a party spirit: “For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I follow Paul,’ or ʼI follow Apollos,ʼ or ʼI follow Cephas,ʼ or ʼI follow Christ.ʼ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:11-13)

Bruce Winter helpfully pointed out in his doctoral work that the Corinthians’ issue went back to a larger worldly spirit, a partisan spirit bred into them in many ways by their education.[1] Various “Sophists” (wisdom teachers) would turn up in town instructing young people, founding schools, even competing with each other. Children and young people would then learn loyalty towards certain teachers, thereby opposing other “schools.” Alas, the Corinthians learned the same kind of spirit in their Christian life, parading their devotion to Paul or Apollos or Cephas.

Paul calls out this worldly approach. Soon afterwards, he describes the Christians in Corinth as “babes” in Christ, little children in their ability to think, those unable to discern. Further, when he says this, he returns to their basic problem of a party spirit:

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? (I Corinthians 3:1-4)

A singular passion for a cause, one that shuts others out, can sound very noble. Those in your same group will certainly appreciate it. But in the end, it is very likely unbalanced.

Seeing the problem here will help us move forward. Our own society, beginning right back with education, does the same: encouraging a party spirit. How should a person in politics, or others in their fields, respond to this? When people around us encourage us towards a party spirit, we must be wary, seeing that the Bible speaks against this. It is not mature to be doggedly parochial, feeding off the praise of those in our group who would spur us to be the immovable card-carrying member of their cause. This in fact is a sign of overall immaturity. And this should be an encouragement to those in politics and to others in positions of responsibility: that they are doing no one any favors, least of all God, by perpetuating such a mentality.

The remainder of Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians gives his powerful and provocative answer to this problem. Before looking at the details of Paul’s answer, we should see where he is going, his ultimate ideal. Paul ends his letter with a call to a personal relationship with Jesus. If a person does not have “friendly affection” towards Jesus, that person is accursed! Paul then adds, “Maranatha”, i.e., “Come, Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 16:22). This is an extraordinary statement. It is all personal. Because the God of the universe has come down to be a person, not just to die for our sins but to live in this world with us, then this changes everything and everything must come back to Jesus and a relationship with him. That is why, after sixteen chapters of debating issues, Paul boils everything down to this — it must be personal! It must be about Jesus and a relationship with him and the fact that one day there will be blessings and curses based on friendship with him or alienation from him.

Here, before we go any further, is something that all in politics need to remember, and the rest of us as well: there will be a day of reckoning. There will be a day when Jesus personally turns up, and will we be ready? Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will find that day as comforting as they expect, so we must be careful to take measure of ourselves, to not assume that just because we are religious, we have no need for self-examination. After all, the Pharisees were religious, just unwilling (usually) to see that they were not yet right with God.

This speaks to the need to have a good conscience towards the person of Jesus and therefore to long for his return. Who is happy to see their parents intervene when a fight between siblings occurs? It is the child in the right; they have nothing to fear in justice. Paul’s words, then, are wonderfully personal and wonderfully resetting for anyone in politics — and for anyone who looks to follow Jesus in any conflict situation. In all the struggle and all the pain and all the wonderings about compromise and irrelevance, one’s real hope is that the person of Jesus will come back one day to call everything to account.

So far, we have only looked to the beginning and end of 1 Corinthians, not at its substantial middle. So, it is to its substantial middle we now turn, seeking further answers. Based on what has been said so far, we can easily see that Paul was no fan of partisan approaches, no fan of simply following one party blindly — however good that party might be. But it is one thing to bemoan a partisan attitude; it is another to confront it. And here we turn to see what Paul himself does about this problem: he intelligently corrects it! He assumes that people, by God’s grace, will be people who think.

Paul does not give up, simply allowing the Corinthian Christians to look to the lowest common denominator when it comes to internal issues between them. He does not conclude people are so silly that the Holy Spirit cannot break through their thinking. Rather, what he does is try to navigate a carefully thoughtful line for the truth, a line navigated through the grey.

One might ask whether it is relevant to apply a passage addressing Christians and their disputes within the church to a non-Christian environment like politics. I would suggest 1 Corinthians can be used in this way, that it is clearly still relevant. If the question were, “How should we reason with others,” the letter would be less relevant, because Paul assumes that he is reasoning with Holy Spirit people who will “get it.” But the point here is not how to reason within politics and elsewhere, but the fact that Paul reasoned as a means of engagement, and the fact that Paul assumes Christians will be thoughtful people. Paul’s approach gives a more general encouragement for us who are Christians to be thoughtful, willing to operate in the grey when it comes to a multiplicity of issues.

The Corinthians were beset with disagreement over whether to eat food sacrificed to idols, not a problem Westerners often face today — although one wonders about some reported college fraternity practices and pledges of loyalty. The issue itself, then, is one that will more likely confront Christians in Hindu countries like India or in countries like South Korea where ancestorial loyalty (and even ancestral worship) is strong. The way Paul handles the issue, however, is relevant to all. Instead of facile “kiddie answers,” Paul instead navigates a balanced line in between.

Should a Christian eat food sacrificed to idols? Paul says, “yes,” because an idol clearly is nothing. Nothing mystical happens to meat when it is sacrificed to an idol. Therefore, it is perfectly fine to eat it. But Paul then immediately turns things around to say, “No.” It is not right to eat food sacrificed to idols if a Christian brother who has a weak conscience will be led to eat it and thus go against their conscience.

This is where the friendly affection towards Jesus in 16:22 becomes important. What Paul says concerning food and idols is completely consistent with how he finishes his letter. What matters most is a person’s relationship with Jesus. Therefore, if one uses their own personal freedom in a way that causes another Christian to go against their conscience, it is wrong: wrong because it is inconsistent with the overarching principle of love that should drive everything (see 1 Corinthians 13). Therefore, Paul follows his “Yes,” with a qualified “No.” He gives a nuanced answer that depends on the circumstances, not a blanket approach.

Nor is Paul finished. What about if one is invited to an unbeliever’s home? What should the Christian do then? Should they eat food sacrificed to an idol in that situation? Paul answer is “Yes!” Eat what is put before you without raising any questions of conscience (1 Corinthians 10:27). But if someone at the meal raises questions about whether you should be eating it, don’t; not because of your own conscience but for their conscience’s sake! Why the yes, then no, but at the same dinner party?  Most likely Paul recognizes that it would be too complicated to have the long debate and explanation in front of the non-Christian host—especially at a dinner party. What becomes most important is to avoid leaving the non-Christian with an impression that a Christian is not serious about God. So, Paul says, give up your freedom.

Nor still are the nuances complete!  This then leads to another question. Should one eat at a feast at an idol temple? Paul says “No!” The reason is that while an idol is nothing, the feast is actually paying honor to demons, which Paul recognizes as offending God. The point of all this is to say that Paul is nuanced in his answers. The “kiddie thinking” of his audience has been to say this-side or that-side, only yes or no, black and white, all answers boiling down simply to thinking like “I follow Paul, you follow Apollos.” Paul’s response is to model thoughtful nuance and careful distinction.

Years back, a certain Governor of Texas pushed forward in having teen girls get access through government money to receive a vaccine for a certain sexually transmitted diseases, earning vocal criticism.  Yet, it seems to me that he was attempting to do exactly what Paul was doing here. He was attempting to deal with a complex situation and to ride a line of wisdom. The complaint against his decision (from some Christians) was that sex outside of marriage is wrong, so if the government is providing free access to vaccines for young girls, it is essentially saying that it is okay for them to have sex outside of marriage. Government money should not be spent on things that are effectively assuming sin. But it seems to me that the Governor was right in the sense that this was not a simple issue, and so it required more than just a quick answer. He could fight sexually transmitted diseases without thereby implying he endorsed premarital sex.

People will practice what is wrong for multiple reasons. Some have no “friendly affection” towards Jesus, and without a sense of answering to him, they engage in many types of risky behavior. Others, including Christians, fail in a moment of weakness or vulnerability. What is the outcome? Sometimes it is a certain sexually transmitted disease can cause cervical cancer. Given that some people will have sex in their teens, the thing that is ultimately good for the community and thus for the government to do is provide resources, so as to avoid future problems of cancer in women.

Some may think that I have already gone way too far into the weeds by giving an opinion on the above issue; others may even vehemently disagree with my opinion. But what matters here is not my opinion — perhaps I need to weight this up further. My point is not to get bogged down on this one issue, but rather to speak to the larger point. Paul in 1 Corinthians avoids saying simply “no… no… no…” or “yes… yes… yes…” to issues.

This ought to caution us. If we find ourselves always saying “no… no… no…” with a particular issue, always just promoting our side over against the other side without carefully working through the nuances, chances are that our thinking is immature. I suspect that this often-times reveals something of the heart of the problem. We are too often inclined to just stick to our ‘party,’ maybe out of love for the partisan fight or possibly because we have never actually learned to think something through. The easy thing is to simply get riled up about it and land hard on one side or the other together with other hard liners. Maybe the Christian thing to do is more nuanced.

Let us return to where we started: politics. In my discussion with the former Senator, what stood out most was how his attempts at living in the “grey” had taken their toll. He shared how soul-sapping it was to work in an industry where everyone constantly must promote themselves: how difficult it was to not let it get to you, to not let it feed your sinful ego and sense of self. It is one thing to talk about living in the grey, playing by the rules so as to have a voice. But what if playing according to the rules gets you covered in mud, mud that does not easily wash off? This, of course, is not just relevant to politicians; its relevance extends to people in business, in academia, in the entertainment industry, and even pastors in churches. How can all of us learn and grow in this?

Here we can return to 1 Corinthians 16:22, the section about being friend with Jesus and having a clear-conscience desire to see him return. So often we try to cut corners in life, learning to act patiently rather than actually becoming patient, learning to act loving, rather than actually becoming loving. But the Lord is not into short cuts. He is into full change. Think on Hebrews 12 for a moment:

In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:4-11)

God is more committed than a loving parent to see fullness in our lives. God also is an external agent: one who has our backs, one who is determined to have us on the straight and narrow, one who wants us to grow.

In line with this, I would add that we need to not be lazy. We need instead to develop our own ability to think through “grey” areas and come to good decisions. Every time we avoid the hard work of pushing towards a good biblical answer on any matter, instead being content with half-baked solutions, we are missing the chance to grow. We need to start believing that the Bible has more good answers to tricky questions than we imagine, but they are only there for people willing to dig! This means we need to read it, again and again. In an age of quick fixes and quick information both time and energy are required to actually read.

Queen Elizabeth I was an amazing scholar of the Bible. This is often a little-known fact. She read the New Testament in Greek and was very well versed in the Scriptures. In fact, certain evidence shows that she was constantly — in the midst of black-and-white Puritan voices — trying to do what was right for God and country. I have heard recently from a friend who had close personal information on Queen Elizabeth II that the same may have been true for her too. We must take a leaf from their books. We must learn to read the Bible ever-better for ourselves, putting ourselves into a positions where we can learn from others how to do this.

What we ought not do is simply build a multitude of voices around us that simply tell us what to do or what we already want to hear. If so, we will never really learn to think for ourselves in a godly way. Get people around you who will not just spoon-feed you ideas. Get round people who will be coaching you to think for yourself, to think biblically.

The ex-Senator I spoke to was unsure if he would ever return to politics. The pressure to compromise, he told me, was too draining. My encouragement to him was that he was exactly the kind of person that we need! We need Christians with a sanctified discontent when it comes to blunt partisan answers to tough questions. We need thinkers — Holy Spirit-filled biblical thinkers: those who are walking closely with Jesus, who have learned through hard work to wrestle through difficult issues and to stand (often in lonely places) in the gap.

As has been repeated many times throughout this article, the same could be said for people in business, people in the entertainment industry, in ministry. It is hard! It truly is. But the church needs to step up, and we as members of Christ’s body need to step up to demand more of ourselves, never being content with trite answers, always pushing deeper to apply Scripture more and more in a Holy Spirit-filled way to our lives and the world.

[1] B. W. Winter, Philo and Paul Among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement, 2nd edition. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002).