Introduction
In 2016, “Not my President” became synonymous with opposition to the Trump presidency. Some used the phrase to denote a general opposition to his party platform and agenda. Others used the phrase believing the 2016 election was rigged. Regardless of their reasons, citizens who use such a phrase are like a sailor who says, “Not my Captain.” Mutineers are on board.
In 2021 we may see a shift (and have seen already) in the phrase's use. Although not as popular as it was in November of 2016, Joe Biden's opponents have co-opted the phrase to express their displeasure with a potential/looming Biden presidency.
The question for this article is not whether the phrase should have been used in 2016 or in 2020/2021 for either candidate. The question is whether Christians who use such phrases are out of step with the Biblical mandate to honor and obey authorities of the state. Particularly, is the phrase harmonious with genuine prayer for the president?
Is the Phrase Biblical?
I should clarify what I mean by the question, “Is using #NotMyPresident biblical?” Of course, I am not asking if we find the phrase in the Bible. Nor am I asking whether there are morally analogous examples of civil disobedience in the biblical narratives whereby we could extrapolate or justify contemporary civil disobedience. I am, however, asking if such a phrase is compatible with commands to honor and obey governmental authorities.
To answer this question, I’d like to offer to you a British pastor’s thoughts on a similar question from the long eighteenth century. Andrew Fuller pastored a Baptist congregation in Northamptonshire, England. He held that station from 1782 till his death in 1815. For more on the life and ministry of Andrew Fuller, I commend John Piper’s brief biography available for free on DesiringGod.com. He wrote his “Thoughts on Civil Polity” in 1808, arguably a more politically tumultuous time than even our current civil affairs. But first,...
A Shift in Our Thinking
What I mean is there’s been a shift in not just what we think but how we think. Francis Schaeffer, in Escape from Reason, points out what we once took for granted in reasoning: “If a certain thing was true, the opposite was not true.” That sounds simple enough. “In morals,” he continues, “if a thing was right, the opposite was wrong. This is something that goes as far back as you can go in man’s thinking. . . . The sobering fact is that the only way one can reject thinking in terms of an antithesis and the rational is on the basis of the rational and the antithesis. When a man says that thinking in terms of antithesis is wrong, what he is really doing is using the concept of antithesis to deny antithesis. That is the way God has made us and there is no other way to think. Therefore, the basis of classical logic is that A is not non-A” (35). Modern man has traded this classic way of reasoning for the relativistic goo of both-and. Or what Shaeffer refers to as “synthesis.” Thus, as Schaeffer states, “truth as truth is gone.” But what does this have to do with Fuller or the obligation to pray for state authorities? Stay with me. We’re almost there.
Andrew Fuller’s “Thoughts on Civil Polity”
In “Thoughts on Civil Polity,” Fuller states,
What is that “honour” and “obedience” due to government, and that prayer to God “for all who are in authority,” which the Scriptures enjoin, (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1, 2; Tit. 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–17,) but an attachment to them as magistrates, irrespective of their party? We cannot pray for them as we ought, unless we feel a sincere attachment. (Fuller, “Thoughts on Civil Polity,” in Works 3.672).
Bringing this article full circle, what Fuller is doing is reasoning in terms of antithesis and he is correct for doing so. Attachment to the reigning official, regardless of their political party, is assumed by the command to pray for those in authority. We cannot offer genuine prayer for governmental authorities without sincere attachment. Conversely, feelings of sincere attachment are necessary for sincere prayer.
Conclusion
So can an American Christian rightly say, #NotMyPresident? In Andrew Fuller’s thinking, no. We would be right to heed such moral reasoning. The command to pray for those in authority requires acknowledging their authority as such. Regardless of the political party in control, churches and households must obey this command from God. Honor and obedience are owed to those in authority over the state. Albeit, that does not mean that churches nor homes must submit when the state meddles outside of their respective spheres of sovereignty. A pastor is to lead his church. A father is to lead his home. Let not a magistrate rule thy pulpit nor thy kitchen table.
Regardless of who is in the oval office, shame on your pastor if he fails to pray for the state and her authorities, even if they gained such authority by spurious means. And shame on you, fathers, if you neglect these prayers at your kitchen table.
Comentarios