Politics is an interesting approach to public life. The word comes from the Greek politika, meaning “affairs of the cities,” and it has been defined in many ways, from: “who gets what, when and how”[1] to that which “comprises all the activities of co-operation, negotiation and conflict within and between societies.”[2] Certainly, Jesus’ disciples seemed to be politically inclined. Simon was a zealot, and his son, Judas was a member of the feared Sicarii.[3] All twelve were ready to back up Jesus, as their political messiah, but Jesus had another approach to deal with public affairs. Didn’t he? If Jesus chose not to involve himself in politics, should we? Certainly, it cannot be denied that the political systems of both the religious and the state elements of society were the immediate cause of the crucifixion of our Savior. So, keeping this context in mind, should we be involved in politics?
I believe that politics is a little like giving to charity. Obviously, the greater the work involved the more a ‘hands on’ approach would be needed. When this is so, administrative expenses become necessary to help the needy. When the administrative expenses exceed the amount of funds given to the needy, then the value of the charitable organization becomes questionable. After all, Jesus wasn’t beginning a business and hiring folks to take certain responsibilities for which they would be paid an agreed sum. He was probably looking for volunteers.
Something similar could be said of politics. Politics, however, is a little different, in that no one expects it to be a voluntary institution. People expect to get paid for their services. However, when the expenses needed for the services rendered exceed the actual aid given to the public, one has to wonder about the value of the institution. That said, what does this have to do with Abram in Genesis 14?
It seems to have a great deal to do with how Abram acted. The context concerns the Bible’s mentioning war for the first time. This war involved the political views of two societies, that of Mesopotamia and that of the land bridge, between Mesopotamia and Egypt. The latter felt that its interests were being abused by their lords in Mesopotamia, and they decided to rebel and become independent, after serving the authorities in the East for twelve years. After taking a full year to prepare for war, the kings of Mesopotamia came to make war against and defeated the rebellious cities in the plain. This is the context, but how does this affect the people of God?
Lot, remember, had sought to be understood, as the senior power between Abram and himself (Genesis 13:5-7). Abram, however, wasn’t seeking conflict between himself and Lot. The idea of violence between the two was totally abhorrent to him. Therefore, he decided to separate from Lot, who was offered the senior’s choice of the land (Genesis 13:8-9). Lot chose the region of the Jordan and pitched his tent toward Sodom (Genesis 13:10-12), but Sodom was a very wicked city (Genesis 13:13), and it wasn’t long before Lot began involving himself in the political system of that city (cp. Genesis 19:1, 9). The scriptures conclude that Lot was a righteous man, who was very troubled over the wicked behavior of Sodom, where he had invested time and labor with a view to doing the right thing (2Peter 2:7-8). Nevertheless, his efforts had gone unappreciated (cp. Genesis 19:9).
What about Abram? Abram remained a pilgrim in the land, and kept himself aloof of the political institutions of his day, save for his protection against violent men (cp. Genesis 14:13). Only when he heard that his family was abused by the political structures of that day, did Abram involve himself in their struggles (Genesis 14:14-16). How this should play out in our modern day is a matter of personal choice, in my opinion. However, speaking just for myself, it is interesting that Lot, who, for what seems to be for the sake of righteousness, was deeply involved in the political system of his day, partook in the same suffering/judgment of his political friends. He had to be rescued by Abram, who, seemingly chose to reject being a part of political solutions for the problems that faced the righteous in that day. When all was said and done, Abram went back to his life, as a sojourner or pilgrim (cp. Genesis 14:22-23), while Lot reinvested himself in his political career (Genesis 19:1). Abram gained all (Genesis 15:1), and Lot lost all (Genesis 19:16-22). My conclusion is, while politics isn’t evil in itself, neither is politics the solution for the problems of the righteous. If this is logical and true, how heavily should a believer be involved in an institution that cannot solve its problems?
_______________________________________
[1] Quote from Harold Lasswell, 1963.
[2] Quote from Adrian Leftwich, 2004.
[3] See my earlier studies: A Traitor at the Table of the Lord; and Who Is Simon the Pharisee?
Smoodock's Blog 