Is it wise for followers of Christ to be involved in the social debate over public policy?
The question of political activism is dividing Christian groups right down the middle. Some are convinced that it is our moral responsibility to use our civil rights to “capture our culture for Christ” and “reclaim our national Christian heritage.” They reason that the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) is not meant to keep religion out of government as much as to keep government out of religion. Others are just as convinced that the wrong mix of religion and politics can be explosively destructive to all.
Both sides make good points. One group reasons that it is our calling to be salt and light in our society. They point to the mistakes of churches that remained silent about slavery, a woman’s right to vote, or the civil rights of ethnic minorities. The other side warns, however, that whenever religious movements have been married to governmental authority or political parties, people of faith have traded their spiritual message for a political reputation.
The argument is not just American. As we enter the 21st century, people all over the world are talking about the role of religious fundamentalists in government. While Christians in America debate this issue among ourselves, similar discussions are occurring among Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu populations. As societies of the world become increasingly international and pluralistic, minority groups are becoming equally sensitive to any group that tries to use the political process to “lord it over” other religious or ethnic interests.
The need to speak two languages
As our own culture changes, I believe part of the answer requires followers of Christ to know how and when to speak a second language. We have a biblical responsibility to speak the language of our mission to anyone who is looking for spiritual answers. On the other hand, it is our constitutional responsibility as US citizens to speak the language of liberty and justice for all. While trying to lead others to Christ, we still need to be able to say to a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, “I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight for your right to say it. In addition, I will use my social influence to seek just and fair treatment not only for my family but for yours as well.”
The need for wise distinctions
Jesus Himself taught us to balance the duties of our dual citizenship. Rather than discounting either civil or spiritual responsibilities, He told His followers to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God (Matthew 22:21).
In this light I’d like to suggest some distinctions that I believe are important to consider as we think about our obligations to both God and government. In the following list of comparisons, a “political voice” is one that speaks for its public, and a “prophetic voice” is a messenger who speaks on behalf of God.
1. A political voice often mobilizes support by concealing its own faults while calling attention to the weaknesses and limitations of the opposition. A prophetic voice is first brought to its knees by its own wrongs and failures (as were Isaiah and Nehemiah).
2. A political voice tends to speak for the special-interest groups it represents. As a result, it is likely to confront the sins of the right but not the sins of the left—or the sins of the left and not the sins of the right. A prophetic voice, in the best sense, represents the interests of all. The messenger of God, therefore, lovingly and faithfully confronts sins on all bands of the social spectrum. Heaven’s representative confronts the sins of the wealthy and the powerful as well as the sins of the poor and the weak.
3. A political voice calls for external regulation and legislation that often focuses on curbing the freedom of its opponents. A prophetic voice calls on all to submit themselves to God for a personal change of heart, resulting in voluntary self-limitation.
4. A political voice often represents the special interests of supporters who expect material benefits or social influence in exchange for their donations and votes. A prophetic voice represents the interests of God in a manner that seeks justice and mercy for all members of a society.
5. A political voice may have to settle for strategies of compromise to maintain an adequate base of support. A faithful prophetic voice does not waver from timeless values and perspectives, and is willing to be “one crying in the wilderness” with accountability to God alone.
6. A political voice works for change through the strength of opinion polls, ballots, and governmental appointments. A prophetic voice calls for change through loving confrontation and persuasion—relying on whatever voluntary change the Spirit of God and His Word will make in the hearts of hearers.
7. A political voice rises and falls on the changing tides of public sentiment. A prophetic voice rests on the ultimate and eternal authority of God.
8. A political voice seeks changes in social behavior by applying the external pressures of law-making and enforcement. A prophetic voice calls for change in individual hearts as the means of transforming a society.
Worst case for followers of Christ would be for us to let our political efforts or alignments detract from our spiritual mission; or for our spiritual mission to make us no political good.
Father in heaven, we need Your wisdom. Please show us how to be good citizens of both heaven and earth. Help us to be heard in behalf of those who need a voice. Teach us to seek justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before You. Give us sound judgment in whatever opportunity we have to contribute to good public policy. But please don’t let us be known more for our belief in good laws than for our love for Your Son who died for us. —Mart De Haan
(+1 rating, 1 votes)
Loading...