Politics
Perhaps you should run
Obedience belongs to us. The results belong to the Lord.
*****
Every four years, for a brief season, nomination papers open and the question becomes concrete: who will step forward to govern our towns and cities?
Budgets and bylaws will be passed, libraries and parks funded, streets and neighborhoods planned, and public moral judgments made. Decisions will be made. The question is, by whom, and according to what vision of justice and the public good?
I write to suggest that some of you should step forward, and that those who do must let God’s Word govern the campaign and leave the result to the Lord. I write this while running for municipal council in my home city of Peterborough, Ontario. I do not write from the safety of hindsight. The campaign is underway, and whatever attention or pressure may come as election day approaches has not yet come. That is part of why I want to think clearly now.
I have said that I am not running despite being a Christian, but because I am a Christian. I believe public office is a responsibility before God and a trust from the people. That means honesty, stewardship, justice, neighbor-love, and service.
That confession must govern my campaign, my exercise of office if elected, and my response to the result if not.
Furthermore, that confession raises a more basic question. Is Christian faith merely a private motive a candidate brings into politics, or is civil office itself under Christ? The prevailing ideal of religious neutrality draws the line there: Christians may hold office, but they must not insist that God’s Word governs the office. Scripture and our confessions reject that division.
“I don’t have enough time”
Perhaps your first objection is your calendar.
You have a job, perhaps two. You have children. You serve as an elder or deacon, sit on a school board, help govern a Christian organization, teach Sunday school or catechism, care for aging parents, practice hospitality, and seek opportunities for evangelism. You already have more good work before you than hours in which to do it.
Those responsibilities may be why you should not run. But municipal elections generally come only every four years. The opportunity to stand is not permanently available, and for many of us a truly quiet calendar is not a few months away but decades away. If we wait until our responsibilities have thinned out and life finally feels manageable, the nomination period will have closed and someone else will have stepped forward. Scripture warns us against burying w
hat has been entrusted to us, and it tells us that whoever knows the good he ought to do and fails to do it sins.
That does not mean every capable Christian is commanded to become a candidate. Capability is not identical to calling. But capability does create a responsibility to discern.
I ran as a federal candidate in 2021. I did not win. Campaigning did take time. Yet I learned that public service need not simply subtract from family life. At times it can be woven into it.
My family came with me to rallies, debates, and candidate events. They helped deliver literature. My oldest daughter baked cupcakes for the campaign. We traveled, talked, worked, and learned together.
Time itself is finite, but family life is not simply a ledger in which every hour spent in public service is an hour stolen from one’s children. A child who comes to a debate, helps deliver flyers, watches his father speak with an opponent, or prays for an election is not necessarily being deprived of family life. He may be receiving a memorable form of Christian instruction. The campaign became part of our life together. My children saw that public responsibility was not merely something their father discussed at the dinner table. It was something a Christian family could practice.
This must not be romanticized. A man who neglects his wife and children while claiming to save the country has misunderstood Christian service. A wife should not be steamrolled by political ambition, and children should not be treated as campaign props. Some families are in seasons when candidacy would plainly be irresponsible.
Still, “I have a family” or “I am already serving” should not always end the discussion.
When the cost became personal
After the 2021 federal election, the Peterborough Public Library began hosting “Drag Queen Story Time” events for children.
A friend and I organized two peaceful protests, one in September 2022 and another in January 2023. We said publicly that God made human beings male and female, that this created distinction is good, and that deliberately blurring it is harmful, particularly when children are involved.
In the days before, during, and after the second protest, the opposition became much more intense and personal.
Some people involved in the counter-protest found my employer through LinkedIn. They tweeted at the company, telephoned, and tried to have me fired.
That was wicked behavior.
I wish I could say that I met the pressure with calm confidence. I did not. When people began contacting my employer, the possible cost was no longer theoretical. I had a wife and nine children to provide for. I found myself thinking about what would happen if I lost my job and how I would continue caring for them.
I was afraid, and I am ashamed that I did not trust God’s fatherly care more readily. Thankfully, I did not withdraw what I had said or abandon the stand we had taken, and I discovered then that willingness in principle, and steadiness under pressure, are not quite the same thing. Courage is not the absence of fear. It is obedience while fear is still present.
In the end, I was not fired, although I was placed under pressure at work. That experience made me more active in seeking other employment. In time, an opportunity arose with ARPA Canada. The public advocacy that some people had tried to make a professional liability became an asset and part of the experience that fitted me for my present work.
There was other good as well. My friend and I were quoted in the local newspaper saying plainly that God made human beings male and female, and that this is good. My friend was later interviewed on national radio, where he had a further opportunity to speak about the issue. The truth about God’s created order went out more widely than it otherwise might have.
We did not persuade the library to stop hosting “Drag Queen Story Time,” so we did not achieve the immediate result we had sought. But silence did not have the last word.
God has not promised that every Christian who speaks publicly will keep his job or quickly receive a better one. Faithful Christians have lost employment, income, professional standing, friendships, and much more. But, as Lord’s Day 10 teaches, “all things, in fact, come to us not by chance but by his fatherly hand.” I can now identify several ways the Lord used that period for good. At the time, I could not see them. That is often the nature of obedience. We are called to obey before we are shown what the Lord intends to do with it.
An opportunity to speak plainly
Running for office can give you the opportunity to share truth with people you might never otherwise communicate with.
I am now in another campaign, and if attention increases as election day approaches, I expect some questions concerning my previous advocacy, and my Christian beliefs.
I welcome those questions.
If reporters, voters, or opponents ask me about abortion, transgender ideology, drag events directed at children, or my belief that Jesus Christ is Lord of public life, I hope to answer plainly. Public attention can bring pressure, but it can also widen the audience for truth. The concern is not that people may discover what I believe. The concern is whether, when pressed, I will speak with the clarity, charity, and confidence that those beliefs require.
Honest scrutiny is not persecution. A candidate asks the public to entrust him with authority. Voters and journalists are entitled to ask about his record, beliefs, judgment, and character. Some criticism may be true and necessary for me to hear. A difficult question is not an attack simply because I would have preferred an easier one.
There is, however, a subtler danger.
A candidate can begin responding to opposition before it arrives. He imagines the headline, the social-media campaign, the accusation of bigotry, or the votes that may be lost. Then he edits himself in advance. No one has ordered him to deny what he believes. He simply learns to say less and less of substance.
A Christian who had worked on many political campaigns once told me about a pro-life candidate who had spent years counseling women outside an abortion clinic. Her faith and concern for preborn children were central to why she was running, and the first draft of her brochure said so.
Then came a series of individually plausible revisions. The campaign did not want her to appear to be a one-issue candidate. Voters needed to learn more about her family and background. Some of the material about abortion no longer seemed to fit the brochure’s tone.
By about the tenth draft, the brochure described a brave and bold woman who would defend the oppressed, but it no longer told voters what she had spent years bravely doing. Nothing in the handout was an explicit lie. Yet the overall picture was no longer candid.
A campaign message must be selective. It may not be deceptive.
That is why the 9th Commandment matters so much. Prudence asks how, when, and where a relevant truth should be spoken. Fear asks how much truth can be removed while leaving every remaining sentence technically accurate.
A candidate under the 9th Commandment
The Heidelberg Catechism’s Lord’s Day 43, in unpacking the 9th Commandment, treats lying and deceit as works of the devil. We are taught that God is forbidding here not only false testimony, but also twisting another’s words, gossip, slander, and rash condemnation. Positively, the 9th Commandment requires us to love the truth, speak it candidly, and defend and advance our neighbor’s honor and reputation.
That is a demanding political ethic. It means a Christian candidate not only shouldn’t tell explicit falsehoods, he mustn’t even deliberately cultivate a false impression.
Obviously, a Christian candidate will not be able to include everything he believes in every campaign piece. But he should ask whether a reasonable voter would feel deceived if an omitted conviction became public the next day. When asked a direct and relevant question, he should answer it rather than hide behind words designed to leave opposite audiences with opposite impressions.
The same commandment governs how we speak about our opponents.
Christians on the political right are not immune to gossip, exaggeration, rash judgment, or caricature. We may call abortion the killing of preborn children. We may say that gender ideology rebels against the created order. We may identify attempts to have a man fired for lawful Christian speech as wicked. The 9th Commandment calls for moral clarity.
We may not twist an opponent’s words, invent motives, repeat allegations we have not verified, or treat every person on the other side as though he were guilty of everything done by anyone associated with his cause. We may oppose a policy as foolish, unjust, destructive, or contrary to God’s law without pretending to know every motive in the heart of the person promoting it.
The commandment also requires truthfulness about the office itself. Candidates should not promise powers the office does not possess. A municipal councillor must not pretend to be able to solve every social problem, command every public institution, or repair every failure of federal and provincial government. Exaggerating our own authority is also a form of false witness.
Finally, the commandment applies when falsehood favors us. If supporters exaggerate our accomplishments, circulate an untrue allegation against an opponent, or attribute an endorsement we did not receive, we may not quietly enjoy the advantage. We should correct flattering falsehoods as readily as accusations made against us.
The Christian candidate should be difficult to intimidate and difficult to provoke. He should refuse both cowardly concealment and slanderous combativeness.
Why municipal office?
Municipal politics may offer a particular opportunity for principled Christian service.
Municipal elections in Ontario are non-partisan, so candidates do not run under formal party banners. That removes one important part of the machinery of compromise. A municipal councillor is not formally required to defend an entire federal or provincial platform, submit to a party leader, or vote according to the direction of a caucus whip. He can own his judgment and explain his vote issue by issue.
That can make it easier to act as a principled Christian.
It does not make faithfulness easy.
There are still media narratives, activist groups, professional associations, donors, influential residents, council colleagues, city staff, and informal voting blocs. There is still the desire to be liked. There is still the fear of being treated as unreasonable, extreme, ignorant, or hateful.
In some ways, municipal pressure can be more personal. There is no national party organization absorbing the criticism. The councillor meets his opponents at the grocery store, the arena, the library, and the school event. The people affected by his decisions may be his neighbors, former colleagues, customers, fellow church members, or parents whose children play with his own.
Municipal independence therefore creates both an opportunity and a responsibility. A councillor has greater freedom to act according to principle, but he also has fewer excuses when he does not.
Municipal government is also wonderfully concrete. It concerns public order, roads, taxes, libraries, parks, planning, policing budgets, infrastructure, and whether families can use public spaces in safety.
Christian political involvement cannot be limited to dramatic protests or national controversies. We also need Christians who will read reports, steward tax dollars, protect neighborhoods, maintain good order, and carry out ordinary public duties faithfully.
A Christian candidate should be prepared not only to advocate or protest, but to govern.
Obedience and results
The author, in front of where he seeks to serve: “A candidate should take the office seriously and take his campaign seriously too, genuinely seek to win. You want to win because winning provides an opportunity to govern. But victory must remain a means of service rather than becoming a god.”
A phrase I once heard in a sermon has stayed with me:
“Obedience belongs to us. The results belong to the Lord.”
Proverbs 21:31 expresses the same truth: “The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but deliverance is of the Lord.”
That horse must still be prepared. Confidence in providence is not an excuse for carelessness, passivity, or half-hearted work. A candidate should take the office seriously and take his campaign seriously too, genuinely seek to win. You want to win because winning provides an opportunity to govern.
But victory must remain a means of service rather than becoming a god. Victory does not vindicate sinful methods, and defeat does not transform poor preparation, unnecessary harshness, or dishonesty into faithfulness. My loss in the 2021 federal election did not mean that the candidacy had been pointless. It formed my family, gave me experience, and contributed to later opportunities. Yet I could not know those results in advance. I was responsible to act faithfully and leave the consequences to God.
The same is true now. I do not know whether I will win my municipal election. I do not know what attention or pressure may come before election day. I do know that Christ’s lordship will not be strengthened by my victory or weakened by my defeat.
Perhaps you should run
Our churches contain men who manage employees, read financial statements, chair meetings, teach clearly, withstand conflict, make difficult decisions, and carry heavy responsibilities. Some serve as elders or deacons. Others sit on school boards, own businesses, work in the trades, farm, practise law, teach, manage organizations, or serve in the professions.
Those existing responsibilities may be reasons not to run, but they may also be evidence that God has given you gifts public office requires. You need not already be an expert in municipal law or public finance. Much of that can be learned. The question is not whether you are already a fully formed politician. It is whether the Lord has given you something your neighbors presently need.
It is therefore worth asking whether refusing to step forward could itself sometimes be unfaithful. That question should not be answered quickly, but with prayer, Scripture, counsel from family and church leadership, and honest examination of motive.
Are you declining because you already carry responsibilities that must not be abandoned, or because political office is public, costly, and likely to bring criticism? Are you guarding your family, or guarding your comfort? Are you exercising humility, or burying a talent?
You may never have spare time. You may not feel fearless. You may lose. Do not confuse ambition with calling or candidacy with entitlement to office. But if, after prayer and counsel, you believe God is calling you to offer yourself as a candidate, step forward.
Speak plainly. Tell the truth about yourself, your opponents, and the office. Defend your neighbor’s good name. Refuse to make public approval your master or electoral victory your god.
Someone will govern your community, and that government will act from some moral vision. The question is which one.
Obedience belongs to us. The results belong to the Lord.
Paul Lawton wrote this while running for municipal council in Peterborough, Ontario. You can find his campaign website here. The sidebar article that accompanies his article in the Sept/Oct 2026 issue can be found below.
*****
Christ is Lord of the magistrate too
The apostle John calls Jesus Christ “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” Psalm 2 commands kings and judges to serve the Lord with fear and to kiss the Son. Civil rulers are not autonomous authorities who may acknowledge God if they find it personally meaningful. They are servants who receive their authority from Him and will answer to Him.
Belgic Confession Article 36 speaks with refreshing directness:
“…because of the depravity of the human race, our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.”
The Confession does not stop at saying that government should keep traffic moving and prevent theft. It says that civil rulers are called “to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God.” They are to act subject to God’s law, remove obstacles to the preaching of the gospel and divine worship, resist anti-Christian power, and do so while refraining from absolute authority and remaining within the office entrusted to them.
This is neither statism nor religious neutrality.
The magistrate does not administer the sacraments or exercise ecclesiastical discipline. Those responsibilities belong to Christ’s church. Yet civil rulers are not therefore free to act as though Christ has no claim on public life. They should acknowledge Christ, govern subject to God’s law, protect the free course of the Word, and resist anti-Christian power by the lawful means entrusted to their office.
The magistrate must not usurp the government of the church, but neither may he pretend that civil government is religiously neutral.
A Christian understanding of government therefore includes the restraint of evil, the protection of the good, the preservation of public order, the honoring of marriage and family, respect for private property, the protection of preborn children, and recognition of the created distinction between male and female. It also includes the restraint of government itself. Civil rulers are not saviors, and their authority is never absolute.
Some of these matters are primarily the responsibility of federal or provincial government, rather than municipal. A city council cannot change Canada’s Criminal Code or determine federal abortion law, for example. But no municipal decision falls outside God’s moral order. At times the moral vision is unmistakable, as when councils fund Pride events, fly the Progress Pride flag on civic property, or use municipal bylaws to restrict the delivery of pro-life literature depicting the victims of abortion. More often, that moral vision is expressed less dramatically through decisions about libraries, public spaces, policing budgets, taxation, zoning, neighborhoods, and the treatment of families. In either case, council is acting from some view of the human person and of what a good society ought to be.
Because Christ is Lord, politics matters. Because Christ is Savior, politics cannot save.
That should make Christians more willing to serve and less willing to compromise. We can work seriously for a good political result without acting as though an election decides the fate of Christ’s kingdom.
