What does our view of origins have to do with politics? Everything! A person’s view on origins will guide his or her thinking on how society should function. Our understanding of our beginnings will inform our view of politics because it will determine our understanding of the nature of man, the nature of the universe, the existence of God, our moral responsibility, economics, and the purpose and scope of government in society.
The Left and the Right
In the United States, political positions are often described in terms of the left and the right. Those who are on the left are often called liberals and tend to side with the Democrat Party on various issues, whereas those on the right are often called conservatives and tend to side with the Republican Party. The left and the right represent two sides of a spectrum. As such, there are those on the extreme ends while others are more moderate or closer to center. On some issues, the left and right are opposed. On other issues, the left and the right have the same goal, but disagree on how that goal should be achieved.
We will find that the positions and methods advocated by the political left are consistent with the religion of secular humanism based on a neo-Darwinian evolutionary view of origins. Conversely, the positions and methods advocated by the political right are more aligned with the Christian worldview based on biblical creation. Let’s examine some of these issues.
Those on the political left are pro-abortion. The official 2020 position of Democrats is that a pregnant woman should legally be allowed to pay a doctor to assassinate her unborn child for any reason. Furthermore, they believe that the government should be allowed to take some of your money (via taxation) to help a mother pay for the murder of her child. These positions are consistent with the neo-Darwinian evolution view that humans have no inherent value, but are merely chemical accidents. Why not get rid of a chemical accident if it is inconvenient? Furthermore, evolution supposedly advances by the strong dominating and eliminating the weak. And we can hardly think of anyone weaker and more helpless than an unborn child.
Conversely, those on the political right are pro-life and do not believe that anyone has a right to murder an unborn child. From the Republican Party website, “The Republican Party is proud to stand up for the rights of the unborn and believe all Americans have an unalienable right to life as stated in The Declaration of Independence.” Hence, murdering an unborn child should be illegal. This, of course, is consistent with the biblical creationist position that human beings have inherent value because we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), and therefore murder of any sort is forbidden (Exodus 20:13). Furthermore, the Scriptures teach that human life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 1:5, Exodus 21:22-23). Therefore, abortion is morally wrong because it is murder and hence contrary to the law of God.
Gender and Marriage
The Bible teaches that God created human beings with exactly two genders: male and female, each made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). These genders are assigned by God and are biologically innate, irrespective of human opinions or feelings. Therefore, the Lord forbids men to act like women or women to act like men by, for example, cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5). Transgenderism is an abomination to God because it represents a treasonous rebellion against His design.
Furthermore, God created marriage as the life-long union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:23-24; Matthew 19:4-6). One of the reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring (Malachi 2:14-16). God designed the family unit. The Lord therefore forbids adultery, or any sexual behavior outside the context of marriage. God specifically forbids homosexual behavior which He calls an “abomination” or a “detestable act” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Hence, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LBGT) movement that is celebrated by the left is condemned by God as detestable.
Those on the political right are pro-family and support the biblical position on marriage and gender. The Republican Party website states, “Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman…. Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society.”
Conversely, the political left promotes and celebrates sexual perversion and attempts to redefine marriage to include a union of two men or two women. The 2020 Democratic platform states, “Federal contractors should be required to develop and disclose plans to recruit and promote people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities, and veterans—and be held accountable for delivering” (underline added). So, if you want to improve your chances of getting hired or promoted in a leftist society, simply begin engaging in all sorts of sexual perversion. The Bible states that such perversions are deserving of death (Romans 1:27-32; Leviticus 20:13); whereas the political left believe that such perversions are worthy of special protections. Indeed the left are well-described in Romans 1:32, “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
But again, the position of the left is consistent with the evolutionary basis of the secular humanistic worldview. In the evolutionist worldview, human beings are merely animals and therefore have no inherent morality. Animals do what they want. What is “right” in terms of sex is merely what happens to be favored in society, which constantly evolves over time. In the secular view, there was no Adam and Eve, and therefore marriage is simply a manmade cultural trend that changes over time. So why not change the definition of marriage to suit the times?
The two most opposing views on economics are socialism on the one hand, and free enterprise (capitalism) on the other. Socialism seeks to promote equality of conditions whereas free enterprise promotes equality of opportunity. Many people have a view that falls somewhere in between these two extremes. However, those on the political right are far more aligned with free enterprise than those on the left. Indeed, some on the political left are full-blown socialists. It is obvious that some people have far more wealth than others. Why does such inequality exist, and what is to be done about it?
Those on the political left view wealth inequality as a problem to be solved. They attempt to enact “fundamental reforms to address structural and systemic racism and entrenched income and wealth inequality in our economy and our banking system” (underline added). The socialistic economic view can be summarized as follows: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Hence, under socialism, your income is completely irrelevant to how hard/long/smart you work. Instead, your income is based entirely upon your needs. So, a family of four gets paid more than a family of three, because the need is greater, regardless of how hard or long they work.
Conversely, under free enterprise, people are allowed to work as hard and efficiently as they desire, and are allowed to keep the money they earn from that work. Consequently, their income is based on their labor, regardless of their needs. Under free enterprise, if you want to work just enough to feed yourself, you can do that. And if you want to earn far more income than you really need, you can do that too by working harder and smarter. On the other hand, if you refuse to work then you don’t get an income.
Free enterprise is consistent with the Christian worldview; what you reap is not based on what you need, but is based on what you sow (Galatians 6:7; 2 Corinthians 9:6). This position follows logically from biblical creation in which God created people to work (Genesis 2:15, 1:28) and a worker is worthy of his wages (Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:18). God’s creatures should be allowed to enjoy the fruit of their labor (Deuteronomy 25:4; Leviticus 19:13; 1 Timothy 5:18). Therefore, God forbids theft (Exodus 20:15). God’s law protects personal property and possessions (Deuteronomy 19:14, 27:17; Leviticus 19:11). Consequently, the Bible identifies socialism as wicked (Proverbs 1:10-14).,
God gives different gifts to different people (1 Corinthians 12:4-11). This includes giving them differing degrees of starting wealth and different abilities. So, wealth inequality is actually part of God’s design (Matthew 25:15; 1 Samuel 2:7). And lest people think that this is unfair, we should remember that everything on earth rightly belongs to God (Psalm 24:1), and therefore anything you “own” is actually by God’s grace. Under the biblical system, if you want more wealth, you can work harder, invest wisely, and God is pleased to give you more (Matthew 25:20-21; 2 Corinthians 9:6).
Another important consideration in biblical economics is the Fall of man. When Adam rebelled against God, one of the punishments God placed on mankind was that work would now be difficult and unpleasant at times, and there would be obstacles to success (Genesis 3:17-19). Hence, our sin nature tends toward laziness and aversion to the unpleasantness of work. So, God also gave us incentives to work, not the least of which is hunger. We require food to live, and we must work to acquire food. Biblically, those who are unwilling to work should not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).
But what about people who cannot work due to injury or age? God has a plan for them too. God’s people (either collectively as the church or as individual families), are to provide for the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7,11, 24:14-15; Esther 9:22; Matthew 6:2-3; Romans 15:26; James 1:27). Under the biblical system, government is not authorized to be involved in economics.
Conversely, socialism is opposed to these biblical principles; it denies private property and instead seeks to equalize wealth. But since wealth is a natural outcome of labor and not of need, socialism does not occur naturally. It must be imposed by the state. Generally, the way leftists attempt to equalize income in an otherwise free market economy is through disproportionate taxation. In other words, those with greater income are taxed proportionally far more than those with lesser income, thereby reducing the wealth difference. Hence, the left applies a double standard in taxation (one percentage for lower income, a different and higher percentage for higher income). This is in violation of biblical principles; God repudiates a double standard (Proverbs 20:10, 23, 16:11; Deuteronomy 25:13; James 2:1-4). Those on the political left seek to increase this double standard, whereas those on the political right generally want to reduce it or eliminate it.
But from a secular, evolutionary perspective, there is no fundamental objective morality, and therefore no moral mandate against theft. If you can steal from someone who has more than you have, and get away with it, why not? And by using the government to do it, it’s perfectly legal. But from a Christian perspective, government-sanctioned theft is still theft (Exodus 20:15). Those who enact such policies are sinning. And those who knowingly vote for those who enact such policies (when there is an alternative) are complicit in this sin (Psalm 50:16-18; Proverbs 29:24).
In full-blown socialism, a person’s income is adjusted by state-sanctioned theft to fit the person’s assessed needs, irrespective of how hard or efficiently that person works. But such a system cannot possibly function due to the nature of man and the world as described in the Bible. The difficulty and unpleasantness of work imposed at the curse creates a disincentive to work; so, God (through the rewards of free enterprise) provides compensating incentives to work. But socialism removes the positive biblical incentives to work hard or to work at all. If you got paid exactly the same whether you go to work or not, would you work? Few would. If you got paid the same for minimal work as for working hard, would you put in lots of extra hours?
Socialism removes man’s incentive to work. Yet, labor is what produces a nation’s wealth. With no incentive to work, no one produces anything of value and the economy collapses. Therefore, mathematically, the only possible outcome of socialism is national poverty. It amazes me that many people don’t understand this. The more a nation moves away from free enterprise and toward socialism via excessive taxation, the poorer that nation will be. You cannot do the opposite of what God decrees and expect to be blessed.
The Role of Government
The left and right have different views on the role and scope of government. What is the purpose of government? What aspects of society should be controlled by the state? The political left supports a larger government than the right, a government with a lot of power to control many issues (such as the economy). The political right supports limited government; the state should have only the power necessary to accomplish those relatively few tasks for which it is appointed.
This is an instance of the left and right largely agreeing on the goals, but disagreeing on the methods. Both sides see the need for education, helping the poor and unemployed, and the need for healthcare and housing. The left believes that the government should be responsible for such things. Conversely, those on the political right generally believe that God has decreed that individuals, families, and the church are responsible for dealing with these issues – not the state. The Republican platform website states, “Strong families, depending upon God and one another, advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives.”
Limited government is, of course, the position of Scripture. God has authorized the state to punish certain crimes for the protection of its citizens (Romans 13:1-7). So, a police force and justice system are a good and necessary function of the state. But God has never authorized the state to control education, to provide for the poor, to redistribute wealth, or to regulate commerce. God does care about such things, but He has specified in Scripture how these issues are to be handled. It is sinful for the state to steal authority from God and attempt to control those things for which God has not authorized it; we are not to give to Caesar that which belongs to God (Matthew 22:17-21).
The biblical role and scope of government stems from biblical creation principles. First, God is the Creator and therefore has the right to specify the separate roles of church and state. Mankind fell in Adam, and therefore God has authorized a state-sanctioned police force and justice system to restrain evil (Romans 13:1-7). But since the administrators of justice are themselves sinners, their power must be limited to their God-ordained responsibilities. And they are subject to the same laws that they enforce, and must face the same penalty when those laws are violated. To give the government far more power than it needs to accomplish its God-ordained role is a recipe for disaster and inevitably results in tyranny (e.g. Revelation 13:12, 16-17). So, limited government is based on the biblical creation principles that God is sovereign, and man is fallen.
In an evolutionary view of origins, government is simply a mechanism that enabled groups of humans to survive better than their competitors. If it is merely a means that helps you survive, then there are no limits on its role. In the secular view, there is no God to set constraints on what the state can and cannot do. So, if you can get the state to steal from your neighbor and give to you, why not? Indeed, many people vote for policies that they believe will personally benefit them, regardless of the morality of that policy. Why not use the government to force people to do what you want them to do – if you can get away with it? Why not use the state to tax your neighbor and use his money to build a program that you like, rather than spend your own money? On the Christian system, that would be theft – you’re just using the government to do it. But on a secular humanistic system, there is no objective basis for morality. Anything goes.
Interestingly, some on the extreme political left want to “defund the police” and there have been a number of protests this year to that effect. Yet, the biblical purpose of government is to be an avenger of God’s wrath on those who practice evil (Romans 13:4). A state-sanctioned police force and justice system are authorized by God. So, the left wants the state to do all sorts of things that God has not authorized, and ironically, some of them want to prevent the state from doing the one thing God specifically authorizes it to do. Amazing. It’s almost as if those on the left read the Bible and then said, “Let’s do the exact opposite!”
Unfortunately, many Christians fail to heed the biblical limitations God has placed on the state, and actually vote for people who want to expand the power of the state. They might ask, “But what is so wrong about giving the state the power to do lots of good things that go beyond what God has authorized?” First, it is sinful. (A godly goal can still have a sinful method.) We should not give to the state what belongs to God (Matthew 22:21). Suppose you are very concerned about feeding the poor and homeless – a commendable goal. So, you break into your neighbor’s house, and steal half of his belongings and sell them, and give the money to feed the poor. Few would argue that this is morally commendable. Yet, people will vote for government programs to feed the poor by taking money from its own citizens through taxation. It’s still stealing; you’re just using the state to do it. God hasn’t authorized the state to tax for this purpose; therefore, it is theft. God has authorized individuals, families, and the church to care for the poor, through voluntary giving.
Second, it inevitably leads to tyranny. The more power you hand over to the government, the less freedom you have. If you think it’s okay to authorize the government to tax your neighbors for a good program, what is to stop your neighbors from authorizing the government to tax you to support abortion, which they think is good? If you elect leaders who refuse to limit their authority to what God authorizes, do not be surprised when they refuse to limit their authority to what God authorizes. Without biblical limitations, there is nothing to stop those in power from doing whatever they want. Men must either choose to be ruled by God, or they condemn themselves to be ruled by tyrants.
The limited government advocated by the political right is described in Romans 13:1-7. This is a state whose purpose is to act as God’s avenger of wrath, punishing certain crimes as authorized by the Lord and thereby restraining evil. Such a government is a blessing and source of comfort to law-abiding citizens (Romans 13:3). The big government of the political left is described in Revelation 13:1-18. This is a government that refuses to abide by biblical limitations, and has grown out of control. It has become a powerful “beast” that tries to control all aspects of society, essentially attempting to replace God. It attempts to regulate commerce (Revelation 13:17). This beast is a tyrant that oppresses and murders Christians (Revelation 13:7, 15).
The Government We Deserve
On just about every issue, we see that the political left promotes policies consistent with secular humanism and directly contrary to Scripture. The left praise those things that are wicked, such as sexual perversion and the murder of the unborn, and they condemn things that are good such as biblical marriage and gender. The Lord has something to say about this reversal in Isaiah 5:10, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
It is therefore perplexing that some on the left profess to be Christians. Of course, it is possible to have your sins forgiven and still have unbiblical views on politics. But it is not consistent, nor is it honoring to God. How can we say we love God while voting for policies and persons that directly oppose His law (1 John 2:4, 3:24, 5:2-3)? The policies of the left are consistently anti-biblical, and should not be supported by Christians.
God doesn’t use polite terms like “leftist” to describe those who rebel against Him and His law. He refers to them as “wicked” and “evildoers” (Psalm 26:5). Hence, those who promote the continued state-sanctioned murder of the unborn are simply evil (Isaiah 59:7; Proverbs 6:17). Those who praise sexual perversion and promote laws giving perverts special privileges are hopelessly wicked (Romans 1:25-32). Those who attempt to give the state authority that rightly belongs to God are sinning despite any positive intentions (Matthew 22:21). Those who vote to put wicked leaders in office are complicit with their sin (Psalm 50:16-18; Proverbs 29:24). Indeed, it is a biblical command to appoint godly leaders who will judge righteously (Deuteronomy 16:18).
In a Republic such as ours, we elect our own leaders. As such, we always have the government we deserve. If most of the people in this nation are wicked, then they will vote for wicked leaders who promote anti-biblical policies. We then all suffer the consequences (Proverbs 29:2, 28:12). Conversely, if most of the people of this nation love the Lord, then they will vote for godly leaders who promote Christian principles. We then all enjoy the blessings that follow.
But regardless of who is the leader of any particular nation, Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and He always will be. Jesus sometimes allows wicked leaders to rise to power, but only up to a point (John 19:11, Romans 9:17). Psalm 2:10-12 states, “Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!”
 “We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.” 2020 Democratic Party Platform, p. 32
 Some otherwise pro-life supporters believe that there should be exceptions in cases of rape, or where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. However, others disagree.
 Some people are confused by the fact that some biblical men took more than one woman as a wife contemporaneously (Genesis 4:19). But that doesn’t imply that God approved of this. Polygamy is sin (Leviticus 18:18), but God did not assign a civil punishment for it (just as He did not assign a civil punishment for the sin of coveting). Nonetheless, Jesus confirmed that marriage is the godly union of one man and one woman for life (Matthew 19:4-6).
 “We will act swiftly to end homelessness among veterans and will enact strong protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth, especially Black, Latino, and Native American LGBTQ+ youth, who too often find themselves on the streets.” 2020 Democratic Party Platform, p. 21
 In Proverbs 1:14, the wicked say, “Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse.” That is, the wicked insist that everyone throw all his money together in one purse so it can be shared by all, each according to his need.
 Some people mistakenly claim that Acts 2:44-45 supports socialism. Here, the followers of Christ began selling much of their property and possessions and shared with those who had need. But this is not socialism because they gave voluntarily. The government was not involved at all, and there was no stealing from some to give to others. Rather, each person chose how to use the money he earned under free enterprise. And that choice rightly involved giving to those in need.
 Under biblical principles, God does expect more from those who are given more (Luke 12:48); but God keeps the percentage the same. For example, God expects His people to tithe (Hebrews 7:5); they are to give ten percent of their increase to the Lord (Deuteronomy 26:12) as a symbolic way to signify our recognition that the Lord ultimately owns everything anyway. Obviously, ten percent of a rich man’s profit has a greater dollar value than ten percent of a poor man’s profit. But the percentage is the same, and so the system is fair. Hence, a fair (income) tax would be the same percentage for the wealthy as for the poor: a “flat tax.” And it would be less than ten percent. A government that takes more in taxes than God takes in tithes is essentially attempting to replace God as the sovereign owner and controller of the world. Clearly, we have a long way to go on this issue.
 Currently, income taxes in the United States are progressive (higher percentage for higher income), but are far closer to the flat-tax end of the spectrum than the socialistic end where your income is irrelevant to what you get to keep. In 2019, a single person with an adjusted gross income of $50,000, paid 14% in federal income taxes, whereas a single person making $100,000 paid 18%. So there is a 4% penalty for doubling your income.
 There is a range of opinions on this issue even among conservatives. Some believe that the state may be involved in a limited way in such issues, such as providing finances for education. However, this involvement will inevitably be far more limited than that proposed by the political left.
 I am not suggesting that the beast of Revelation 13 represents any specific modern nation. And without applying any specific interpretive eschatology, I am convinced that there are timeless lessons to be learned from Revelation. When modern governments exceed their biblical limitations, they inevitably become like the beast of Revelation 13.
 I recognize, of course, that not every position up for election has a viable candidate that holds perfectly to biblical positions on all issues. But when one of the two most likely candidates is pro-murder and the other is anti-murder, would it not be sin to vote for the pro-murder candidate? If that person gets elected, and people are murdered due to his policies, are not those who voted for him complicit in that sin? Nor do I respect those who refuse to vote on the basis that “voting for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.” Unless Jesus is running for office (and He isn’t because He is already the King of kings), you will necessarily be voting for an evil person, for there is none righteous (Romans 3:10) since all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23). The question then becomes, “of the candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning, who will promote policies best aligned with Scripture?”