Democrats clear way for funding bill, end threat of shutdown

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) has announced that he will vote to advance a Republican measure, set for this afternoon, to fund the government through the rest of the year. He also said that enough Democrats would join him to advance the bill.

His party faced a dilemma: oppose the bill in hopes of saving some federal jobs but forcing a government shutdown for which they would be blamed, or give in to the GOP’s spending regime in the name of keeping the lights on.

Either choice would lead to criticism and, to an extent, that is as it should be in our system of governance.

Political parties exist to represent and advance the beliefs and agendas of their constituents. At no time in our nation’s history has our population been so monolithic that deep differences did not exist. The Founders’ solution was to create a participatory government where the various demographics and ideologies of the people would be represented.

At the same time, the hope is that this checks-and-balances system ultimately advances the common good.

And it is this hope that is in jeopardy today.

Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, and Rahm Emanuel

Pete Buttigieg announced yesterday that he will not run for Michigan’s open Senate seat. The move is widely seen as preparing for a potential 2028 presidential campaign. California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently launched a high-profile podcast series, reaching across the aisle to interview key MAGA figures, apparently in preparation for his own campaign for the White House. And former White House chief of staff and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel is said to be mulling a 2028 bid as well.

Democrats could hardly consider more disparate choices: Buttigieg would be the first openly gay president, while Newsom and Emanuel are often on opposite sides of “woke” ideological issues. But we should expect our electoral politics to be as diverse as the voting public.

William von Hippel, an evolutionary social psychologist, writes in Psyche: “For a happier life, we must balance two old psychological needs.” The first is our quest for personal autonomy; the second is our need for relational connections. Connections are vital to our survival, but autonomy is essential to aspirational advancement.

Our political system seeks to embrace both: we elect leaders with whom we most agree personally (autonomy), but we do so in a process that aligns us with others of a similar perspective (community). The difficulty, of course, is that others exercise their own autonomy in community as well. In America, we resolve our differences by voting. And when we vote, for someone to win, someone must lose.

When others are “downright evil”

Here’s what’s changed in recent years: We can now exercise our autonomy and community in ways that far transcend the act of voting itself. Every person with an internet connection has a public platform. Our ability to express our positions and to oppose those of others is more unlimited than ever before in history.

As a result, to cut through the “noise” of competing voices, many turn to rhetorical extremes, name-calling, and otherwise slandering their opponents. Accordingly, the two sides see each other as the “downright evil” enemy of our national future on a deeper level than ever before. And the more we see others as evil, the more we feel compelled to do whatever it takes to defeat them.

This is how nations “die by suicide,” as Abraham Lincoln so prophetically warned.

Here is one place where we clearly need biblical wisdom to guide our autonomy and community in ways that do not destroy our democracy.

Three practical responses

Exodus 22 commands: “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (v. 28). Ecclesiastes 10 takes this further: “Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, nor in your bedroom curse the rich, for a bird of the air will carry your voice, or some winged creature tell the matter” (v. 20).

Today, your cell phone is the “bird of the air” to beware.

How, then, are we to respond to our political leaders?

One: Refuse to slander.

The Bible specifically forbids slander of all kinds: “Put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander” (1 Peter 2:1). This is a vital issue, since “on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36). If we are in conflict with someone, we are to go directly to them (Matthew 18:15); if we know that they are in conflict with us, we are to do the same (Matthew 5:23–26).

Think how much anger, animosity, and damage could be avoided if we spoke to those with whom we disagree rather than about them.

Two: Support them when we can.

Paul taught us: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those who exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). Accordingly, “Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (v. 7). 

Peter agreed: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13–14). Accordingly, we are to “honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor” (v. 17).

However, both Paul and Peter were eventually executed by the governing authorities because they would not submit to them. The reason: We must obey our highest authority, and our highest authority is always the Lord.

This is why Peter boldly told the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). At issue for both apostles was the prohibition against preaching the gospel. When it came to choosing between God’s call and man’s authority, they knew which to choose: they would “honor the emperor,” but they would “fear God” (1 Peter 2:17).

Three: Respect the position even if you cannot respect the person.

The apostles taught early Christians to respect the “governing authorities” precisely because their position was “instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). The emperor at the time was Nero, one of the most horrifically immoral rulers in history. But the apostles knew to honor the position when they could not honor the person.

One way to do so is through intercession: “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:1–2, my emphasis). It is difficult to slander people for whom we are praying.

“Kind words do not cost much”

So, let me ask some practical questions:

• When was the last time you prayed for political leaders with whom you disagree?

• Have you said things about political leaders you would not say to them?

• Does your political engagement honor the Lord and draw people to him, or does it create a barrier to faith for those who disagree with you?

Let’s close with this observation from Blaise Pascal:

“Kind words do not cost much. They never blister the tongue or lips. They make other people good-natured. They also produce their own image on men’s souls, and a beautiful image it is.”

What “image” on other souls will your words produce today?