Don’t Blaspheme The President
(Or Anybody Else!)

by Hal | January 25th, 2012

Is that a shocking statement from a politically conservative, evangelical Christian? It’s meant to be. We need to hear it.

As I listen to the comments following the State of the Union, the latest debates and the primary voting, there is a lot of harsh rhetoric being hurled around. Last night one of my sons read someone’s comment online, that if Candidate X wasn’t the nominee, he simply wouldn’t vote in November, because there wasn’t a bit of difference between Candidates A, B, C, or Incumbent D.

Really? No difference? None whatsoever? Not in their experience, their policy positions, their personalities, their family life?

It struck me that Jesus had warned, “I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.” (Matthew 12:36)

And I thought, You know, I wouldn’t want to try to convince the Lord that that comment was an honest, objective statement to make.

This is what someone dubbed “the silly season,” the time for political grandstanding. It’s like the early stages of the playoffs in stadium sports – everyone is encouraged to pick a favorite and cheer for their hometown celebrity and all that. Most of us guys understand the trash talk and ribbing before and after the game are just the spectators’ share of the competition. All in good fun. Hating the Yankees is a family tradition and all that. Dad went to State so of course we boo for Tech, and so on.

But there is a serious difference in politics, and I’m not talking about the serious aspect of choosing leaders and lawmakers. In sports, you’re cheering or jeering for an institution, the “team.” In a campaign, you’re talking about individual men and women. That’s when you have to beware of blasphemy.

Huh?

It’s just this: When Paul wrote to his associate Titus on the island of Crete, he said,

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1-2

That term “to speak evil” is the Greek word blasphemeo – “to blaspheme.”  If you consider that the New Testament applies this word to men and angels as well as to God, it means something broader than dishonoring the divine majesty. Compare the other verses where it appears, and you realize that blasphemy means to make a railing accusation that impugns somebody’s reputation – even if he deserves it.

Blaspheming God means you deny His holiness and take away the worship He is due; you falsely accuse Him of being less than He is. Blaspheming a man means you assassinate his character.  It’s the difference between saying a man is acting foolish and saying he’s a fool.

That’s why this conservative Republican turns off some talk radio commentary he otherwise agrees with – because I am tired of slander which parades as analysis. And it’s not a one-sided problem, it comes from all directions of the political compass.

As we pursue the privilege of choosing our own leadership this year, we ought to remember those warnings. There is a real need to consider the character and actions of men and women who want the honor of governing our country. There is a godly and constructive way to compare and contrast the alternatives – at times, to criticize them sharply or even ridicule them (think of Elijah).  But there is a limit, and past that line, we’re blaspheming – and we will give account for it one day.

  • http://medievalchristianreflections.blogspot.com/ Michelle

    Agreed! I get a bit ruffled with others (who are also conservatives and Christians) and just freely say whatever they want about him. It doesn’t mean if asked, I will agree with his statements or policies.

    But Paul wrote this during the reign of  Nero. And God still led him to write that. That is what keeps my own tongue in check, because ultimately, we are honoring the Lord Jesus when we honor our President.

    Great post!

  • Timothy Hong

    I agree that the name-calling, personal attacks on candidates violates Titus 3.  But I’m wondering about the example you gave.  It might be that the speaker chose his words poorly, but I think the sentiment he was trying to convey was that (s)he could not vote for anyone other than Candidate X because only X supported Z cause. Our accountability in choosing our leaders will also be upheld, will it not?

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure it will, Timothy. My focus in the illustration was that this commenter dismissed the very real and objective distinctions between four candidates by simply denying there was any difference at all. It was a throwaway, rhetorical comment of the sort that we tend to make, without considering it’s untrue on the face of it and really doesn’t do justice to the individuals involved.

    Better to have said, “I don’t like anyone but A, and don’t plan to vote for any of the alternatives.” That only reflects on my own feelings and intentions.

  • http://cultivatedlives.blogspot.com Heather H

    I was just thinking about that yesterday and especially aware of how my words and tone affect my children…  We happened to pass the presidential motorcade yesterday and I was thankful for the opportunity to talk to my children about how we are to honor and respect our leaders and the office of the presidency even if we don’t agree with their positions and plan on voting to get someone else in there instead…

  • Dllnjb

    THANK you so much for writing this.  I am so glad that I am not alone in believing this way.  And thank you for providing the scripture to back it up….now I can use that to support myself when I’m trying to express to someone that I don’t like all the negative slander in our conversation….especially in politics.

  • Katiedee1125

    So glad to hear this. I totally agree!

  • Katiedee1125

    So glad to hear this. I totally agree!

  • bondservant

    Voddie Baucham has a great 4-part series on Romans 13 – well worth the listen!

    http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/sermons/politics/

  • Mark Dove

    Hopefully the terseness of my submission the other day wasn’t confused with combativeness, but I don’t see the comment here. I genuinely think it applies and wondered at your thoughts. We often speak with hyperbole and it is not necessarily sin to do so. Even if it implies something about particular people. To say “there [isn't]  a bit of difference between Candidates A, B, C, or Incumbent D” is to say something true hyperbolically. Of course there are differences. But it is true that we are where we are with what, five of the last seven having been republicans? This just ain’t all Obama’s fault.

    If Paul can say that a Cretan has said all Cretans are liars, etc, then maybe you need a bit more nuance here? Or do you think I miss the boat on this? 

    Thanks for the blog. I appreciate it.

    Mark Dove
    member of
    Covenant Reformed Church of Elk Grove
    http://www.covenantreformed-eg.org/

  • http://www.raisingrealmen.com Hal

    Thanks for the clarification, Mark, obviously I misinterpreted your intent. We’ve had some issues with Internet trolls on Facebook and our blog recently and yes, to be honest, the first comment was so brief I simply took it out. My apologies to you.

    You are quite correct that sometimes Scripture speaks in allegory, metaphor, and maybe even hyperbole. My point in writing was to ask whether we Christians allow ourselves to get caught up in the “game” to the point we actively embrace misrepresentations of other men’s characters and beliefs. It would be accurate to say President Obama’s policies are socialist; a stretch to say they are communist; and over the line to accuse him of treasonous intent. In the present example, it grated on me because there are sharp differences in many areas between each of the leading candidates, whether you look at character, philosophy, or policy, and each of them gets something right (for example, I hope some of them get more time to invest in their apparently stable marriages after the election).

    In the case you mention (Titus 1:12-13), I take Paul at face value–he doesn’t just quote the pagan writer, he affirms the characterization as fact. John Gill’s commentary helpfully identifies the specific poet and poem Paul is citing, and explains Crete’s reputation as an island of liars to Roman and Greek writers (some of it for persisting in religious fraud). “[S]ome countries are distinguished by their vices,” he writes, “some for pride; …; some for covetousness; some for idleness; some for effeminacy; … and others, as the Cretians, it seems, for lying; this was their national sin.” Gill says the word “cretize” in Greek signified lying, just as the sexual immorality of Corinth became an idiom as well. Ovid called the nation “mendax Creta”, lying Crete, according to Gill.