Dear Editor,
Bishop Edghill reportedly claimed that Jesus would “vote for the PPP/C.” So, how might Jesus have responded to that? If scripture is anything to go by, Jesus would likely have told the Bishop exactly what he told St Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” (Matthew 16:23). According to Matthew, Jesus had begun to tell his disciples about his imminent suffering. Peter, we are told, took him aside and scolded him, evoking this harsh, public rebuke from the Master. Why? The answer is in the response. According to Jesus, Peter – like the bishop – was not seeking to advance the kingdom of God, but was projecting human perspective and seeking his personal ambitions.
Jesus would have rebuked the Bishop because his claim is not grounded in truth. For one, the leadership of the PPP/C does not recognize Jesus Christ as Lord. Second, Jesus did not come to subscribe to any human government. As a matter of fact, He came to establish His own kingdom (Luke 1:28–33), where He is the head and the subjects are in total submission to him. Furthermore, when the disciples asked Jesus, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6), He immediately redirected their attention to the mandate of the Christian church (Acts 1:8), and it is not to go around endorsing political candidates. The caution for the Christian is to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God” (John 4:1), so as to distinguish between “the spirit of error and the spirit of truth” (John 4:6).
Jesus would have rebuked the Bishop because he was not seeking to please God. His sole aim was to obtain the favour of the PPP/C. He was on the PPP/C stage to do what the PPP/C wanted him to do. This is in stark contrast to Jesus who declared, “I don’t care about human praise… you like to have your friends praise you, and you don’t care about praise that the only God can give!” (John 5:41, 44).
Jesus would have rebuked the Bishop for misusing the Lord’s Name in an effort to legitimise the PPP/C party in the eyes of Christians and endear himself to the party’s faithful. The Bible still says that we must not “Use the Lord’s Name in vain.” If that’s not using the Lord’s Name in vain, what is?
Jesus would have rebuked the Bishop because endorsing political candidates was never part of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus was consumed with obeying God. He famously declared, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work” (John 4:34). Jesus would have rebuked the Bishop because politics has to be inclusive, ie it must reflect a plurality of philosophical, religious and other views. On the contrary, exclusivity is a feature of Jesus’ kingdom. Whosoever will, may enter, but it is exclusively for those who are “born again” (John 3:3). Now, this is not the first time that the Bishop has tried to affix a spiritual or biblical signature to his political ambitions. It was during the mid-nineties when, dressed in his bishop‘s garb and addressing a gathering of Christians, he declared, “I spoke to him in a previous office. I have spoken to him in his present office and I will speak to him in another office.” The Bishop was then supporting the Good and Green Guyana (GGG) and was ‘speaking prophetically’ about Mayor Green’s political destiny. Mr Green, who at the time was mayor, had been prime minister and was supposed to become, I guess, president. Maybe, Jesus was voting for the GGG at that time? Perhaps, He who is “immutable” can’t make up His mind about which political party to support.
This one thing is certain: as a citizen of Guyana Bishop Edghill is free to support the political party of his choice. He does not, however, have the authority to invoke and associate the Lord’s Name with that party. And based on what I see in Scripture, the Lord would sternly rebuke the Bishop, even as He did Peter. As for Peter, having benefited from the Lord’s rebuke, he later declared, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29). Let’s hope the Bishop benefits from Peter’s experience.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
