by Rev. Mark Creech
RevMarkCreech.org
A gentleman recently left a comment beneath one of my articles that deserves thoughtful consideration, especially with Election Day approaching. He wrote:
“I’m voting for the party that stands against liars and corruption; that stands against those who twist religion for power and earthly gain; that wants to feed the children, house the widows and welcome our neighbors; that allows people to exercise their god given free will. I’m voting for the party that doesn’t wave Jesus around like a mascot, but uses their hands, treasure and time to actually do what Jesus said…I’m voting blue. And if you love Jesus and aren’t a Pharisee, you will too.”
Honesty, integrity, compassion, and concern for the vulnerable are certainly Christian virtues. But assigning them exclusively to the political left is another matter entirely.
Before you vote on Tuesday, consider several important biblical distinctions these remarks illustrate.
Compassion Is a Christian Command, And Not a Political Party Platform
Christ commanded His followers to feed the hungry, care for widows, welcome strangers, and love their neighbors. Absolutely! But when Jesus gave these commands, He was primarily addressing personal responsibility, not prescribing government programs.
Consider the Good Samaritan. He did not appeal to Rome to establish assistance for wounded travelers. He personally stopped, cared for the injured man, and paid his expenses.
The early Christians voluntarily shared their possessions. Paul instructed families to care for widows and churches to assist those without other support (1 Timothy 5:3–16). He taught that giving should be voluntary and cheerful (2 Corinthians 9:7).
Ancient Israel’s laws certainly included provisions for the poor. But these passages do not establish any particular modern welfare program as a divine mandate for the government.
Christians may fully agree on helping the needy while disagreeing on the proper responsibilities of government, families, churches, and charities. Government assistance may be appropriate in certain circumstances, but it is not synonymous with Christian charity. Nor does supporting government assistance relieve anyone of the personal duty to love and serve his neighbor.
Neither Party Has a Monopoly on Virtue
Dishonesty, corruption, and the exploitation of religion for personal gain are human sins, not partisan monopolies. Wherever they occur, they deserve condemnation.
Neither does the biblical teaching concerning free will mean every human choice is morally right or must be legally protected. Civil laws necessarily distinguish between permissible conduct and conduct that harms others, violates their rights, or undermines institutions that sustain human flourishing.
Who Were the Real Pharisees?
Perhaps the most revealing part of the comment is its suggestion that Christians who disagree politically with the political left are Pharisees.
Today, that label is often directed at those who hold traditional biblical convictions, as though adherence to moral absolutes necessarily makes one narrow-minded, judgmental, unloving, or self-righteous.
But is that truly what Jesus condemned?
Christ rebuked the Pharisees for elevating human traditions above God’s commandments, rendering His Word ineffective through their teachings (Mark 7:8–13). He condemned their hypocrisy in imposing burdens on others that they themselves were unwilling to bear (Matthew 23:1–4). He exposed their spiritual pride and neglect of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23).
Their problem was not simply holding to strict religious convictions. Their religious practices often distorted God’s commands, obscured His mercy, and contradicted the righteousness they professed.
A profound difference exists between faithfully upholding Scripture and self-righteously replacing God’s revealed truth with human traditions, personal opinions, or cultural preferences.
That distinction applies to conservatives and progressives alike.
It also raises serious questions whenever religious leaders reinterpret historic biblical teachings on human life, marriage, sexual morality, or personal responsibility to accommodate prevailing cultural attitudes. Such interpretations deserve careful examination in light of Scripture, rather than automatic acceptance or rejection because of their political associations.
Likewise, we must guard against proclaiming tolerance and love while dismissing those with different convictions as morally inferior or unworthy of being heard.
The real question is not who can successfully attach the label “Pharisee” to an opponent. It is whether we submit our beliefs and conduct to God’s Word or bend that Word to accommodate our preferences.
Christ Is Lord, And Not a Political Mascot
Christian responsibility in public life requires thoughtful consideration of the sanctity of human life, religious liberty, marriage and family, justice, personal responsibility, compassion for the vulnerable, and the proper authority of government. These are not peripheral concerns; they are fundamental to a nation’s moral character and enduring strength. However compassionate, generous, or philanthropic a people may be, compassion alone cannot sustain a society that abandons the principles on which its moral and civic foundations rest. A nation that neglects these principles imperils its future.
One point in the gentleman’s comment I wholeheartedly agree with: Jesus Christ should never be treated as a political mascot.
But that warning applies to every political party.
Christ is Lord over every political party, and no political party is Lord over Christ.
Before Tuesday, these truths deserve our serious reflection.
Our challenge as Christians is never to make Jesus conform to our politics, but to bring our political judgments under the authority of His Word.
