Multimedia Teachings by Gary DeLashmutt Multimedia Teachings by Dennis McCallum Background of Colossians

Colossians 3
Christianity & Politics Part 2

by Gary DeLashmutt

Teaching t07467

Watch | Download | PowerPoint | Mp3* high/low

*MP3 files are available in high and low quality versions depending upon your bandwidth

Introduction

Remind of last week's irony concerning democracy: On the one hand, a biblical world-view has influenced civil government by creating democracy. On the other hand, this development creates greater ambiguity for Christians living in democratic countries, because scripture gives us no specific directions or examples on how involved in the political process we should be.

Allow me to illustrate this ambiguity by tell you a story. Imagine this situation.

After so many decades of struggle, the day has finally arrived. The legislation which abolishes this horrible inhumanity is finally being enacted as the law of the land. Among the Christians who have labored so long for this day, there is both joy and deep-seated satisfaction. They reflect on the day their consciences were first sensitized to this terrible evil which turned human beings into legal non-entities by legislative sleight of hand. They remember their struggles to mobilize their fellow Christians to abolish this practice--and how many of them declined, criticizing them as political radicals. They remember the years of prayer and protest and lobbying and voting--and how agonizingly slow the progress was. They remember the enmity of many non-Christians whose social and economic lives were threatened by their crusade. They know their cause has polarized society. They take no joy in this--but rather in the thousands of human beings who will now be protected by the law instead of being sacrificed by it. They look forward to meeting people who will be rescued because they persevered in spite of such overwhelming opposition. Truly, they have won a great victory with the help of their Lord!

If you thought I was describing the banning of abortion, there are probably different opinions about it: some who are pro-choice, some who are pro-life and support the present pro-life movement, and some (like myself) who are pro-life but have serious concerns about the movement.

But I was not describing the pro-life movement. Rather, I was reading a description of the abolition of the Slave Trade in Great Britain in 1807 (and the emancipation of and remuneration to existing slaves in 1833). This was the culmination of William Wilberforce's political leadership over more than fifty years.  It was undoubtedly the greatest humanitarian fruit and the most enduring social legacy of the evangelical revival of the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

Many of us (myself included) refer to this event to defend Christianity against the charge that it is responsible for oppression. But how can I cite Wilberforce's political work without also actively supporting the pro-life political movement? Is this just lazy hypocrisy--or are there other differences that account for this ambivalence? 

I can promise you one thing that will not happen this morning.  I will not clear up all these ambiguities.  But I think I can provide you with a biblical framework for political involvement in a democratic country.

3 positions on Christian involvement in the political process

Christians should focus primarily on political change.

EXAMPLES:

This has often been the position of churches that have departed from a high view of scripture (liberal and liberation theology).  One such bishop declares: "The mission of the church is to build the kingdom of God on earth, and the means of this mission is politics."[1]

More recently, some segments of the evangelical church have moved in this direction, though with a very different agenda (Christian Coalition; Reconstructionists).  Many in this camp have insisted that America is a Christian nation that should have a Christian government:   "If righteousness is going to prevail, if paganism is going to be turned back, then we must move to restore this nation to being a Christian nation.  Otherwise we will lose the war for America's soul, and the United States as we know it will perish.  And if we are going to reform and rebuild our country, we're going to have to deliberately infiltrate the (political)  power bases of America."[2]

PROBLEMS:

It takes the focus off of the good news which is for everyone, and turns Christianity into a partisan political issue.

It often (not always) leads to embracing some form of government (Marxism with Liberation Theology; Theonomy with Reconstructionists) that ignores New Testament emphasis on separation of church and state.

Christians should not be involved at all.  Christians should focus entirely on fulfilling the Great Commission through evangelism, discipleship, missions, and perhaps social service.  Civil government is part of Satan's world-system.  Richard Langer calls this position "political asceticism."[3]

EXAMPLES: This is the historic position of groups like the Amish and the Quakers.  It is also the de facto position of many people in Xenos who say "If we just focus on evangelism and discipleship, social change will take care of itself."

PROBLEMS WITH THIS VIEW:

People who hold this position usually base it on the example of Jesus and the apostles, who were uninvolved politically--even concerning obvious social justice issues like slavery.  But the fact that Jesus and the apostles were uninvolved politically does not necessarily prove that we should not be.  They lived under a totalitarian rather than a democratic government, which severely limited their options.  Nevertheless, their example and teaching laid a foundation for social and political action, and many subsequent Christian movements are legitimate extrapolations of their teaching and example.[4]

It is simply not true that "Society will automatically change if the church is effective in evangelism and discipleship."  Individual evil is weakened  as individuals come to Christ, but structural evil (like the Slave Trade) requires intentional attention that sometimes must include political and legislative action.

Christians should focus primarily on fulfilling the Great Commission--but with measured, strategic involvement in the political process as the situation permits.  This seems to be the most balanced and biblical position.

EXAMPLES: Chuck Colson; John Stott (books to be listed at end)

The main way we represent Christ (and impact society) is through proclaiming and living out the good news.

STOTT: "Evangelism is the major instrument of social change, for the gospel changes people, and changed people can change society . . . (Therefore)  evangelism takes primacy over social action."[5]

COLSON: "Politics is not the church's first calling.  Evangelism, . . . providing discipleship, fellowship, teaching the Word . . . are the heartbeat of the church.  When it addresses political issues, the church must not do so at the risk of weakening its primary mission."[6]

We also represent Christ by doing good for society, which involves pursuing social justice through appropriate political means.

STOTT: " All individual Christians should be politically active in the sense that, as conscientious citizens, they will vote in elections, inform themselves about contemporary issues, share in the public debate, and perhaps write to a newspaper, lobby their member of parliament or take part in a demonstration.  Further, some individuals are called by God to give their lives to political service, in either local or national government."[7]

COLSON: "On an individual level, political involvement for the Christian entails not only voting and other basic responsibilities of citizenship, but dealing directly with political issues, particularly where justice and human dignity are at stake."[8]

"But . . . others are called to make a Christian witness from positions within government itself.  After all, as men like (Wilberforce and Shaftesbury) illustrate, Christians who are politicians can bear a biblical witness on political structures, just as they do in medicine, law, business, labor, education, the arts, or any other walk of life . . . They exhibit this in their moral witness and their willingness to stand up for unpopular causes, even if such causes benefit society more than their own political careers."[9]

BIBLICAL SUPPORT:

If Christians are to be involved as salt and light in the other social structures God has established (family and market-place), why should we not also be involved in this social structure? As citizens of our nation-state, we have the same civic duties as every other citizen: to serve on juries, to pay taxes, to vote, to support candidates they think are best qualified, etc.  If we agree that Christians may be involved as policemen or soldiers or judges, why should some not be involved as elected officials?

There are examples of Christians in the New Testament who were involved in government. "Caesar's household" (Phil. 4:22) may refer to converted civil servants.  "Erastus the chamberlain" (Rom. 16:23) was probably a city treasurer in Corinth.  Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were on the Sanhedrin. 

There are also historical examples that we appeal to as part of our apologetic that Christianity is humane and liberating (Wilberforce; Shaftesbury).  To do this without acknowledging that it has a place in our present situation is hypocritical.

Key guidelines for personal political involvement

Work for the well-being of all people and not just those of our own group.  This is what pursuing "social justice" means--pursuing what is good and right for all people.  Following Jesus' example (Mk. 10:40-45), we should use our power to serve--especially those who are powerless (poor and oppressed). Social justice also includes defending the rights of those with whom we disagree, like condemning the harassment of homosexuals and abortion doctors.

STOTT'S DEFINITION OF POLITICAL ACTION: "Love seeking justice for the oppressed."

MYERS: "If public protest gives the impression that Christians are principally concerned about power and their own standing in society and in the political order, it will become that much more difficult to take thoughts captive to Christ."[10]

CROMARTIE: "(Evangelicals) urgently need to develop a public language, philosophy, and posture that shows our loving concern for the common good of all, and not just the . . . good of fellow believers.”[11] (55)

STEPHEN MONSMA: "(Christians should be known) not as moral busybodies who are seeking to foist their morals onto all of society by the force of law, but as those who have a passion for justice, as those who respect all persons as unique image-bearers of God and who therefore seek to treat them with justice."[12]

DON EBERLY: "If the Christian faith becomes just another organized interest group--determined to take over political parties and drive through its own narrowly defined legislative agenda--neither its political power nor its spiritual influence will grow.  If, however, (Christians) are committed to a holistic social and moral vision for America--one that offers real solutions to the lack of honesty and integrity in politics, seeks to serve the common good of all humankind by offering sound ideas across a spectrum of concerns, and promotes practical ideas for strengthening homes, rebuilding schools, and restoring neighborhoods--then it could offer the leadership a society needs and wants."[13]

Rely on respectful discourse and persuasion rather than nasty rhetoric, dogmatic biblical pronouncements, and illegal protests.  See Rom. 12:17,18; 1 Cor. 4:12,13.

SEEL: "Evangelicals have long lost their monopoly status in American society, so that moral leadership demands persuasion before legislation.  The culture we face is more like that of first-century Rome than that or nineteenth-century America.  But unlike the early Christians, many American evangelicals are unwilling to pay the price that persuasion requires in a competitive and often hostile world of ideas and beliefs.  Frequently, evangelicals have looked like Confederates at the end of the Civil War, longing for a Dixieland of the imagination and trying to exchange a cultural capital that has decreasing value . . . Does the 'we versus they' language, the Satanizing of nonbelievers in spiritual warfare novels, or the vilifying of pro-choice opponents model Jesus? . . . (This attitude) blinds us to other people; it destroys our love for those with whom we disagree.  We instead become tribal in outlook, judgmental in tone, and coercive in style."[14]

COLSON: "Christians have not done a particularly good job at this task (i.e., political involvement).  Often they have terrified their secular neighbors, who see Christian political activists as either backwoods bigots or religious ayatollahs attempting to assault them with Bible verses or religious magisteriums.  In a pluralistic society it is not only wrong but unwise for Christians to shake their Bibles and arrogantly assert that 'God says . . . '  That is the quickest way for Christians, a distinct minority in civil affairs, to lose their case altogether.  Instead, positions should be argued on their merits.  If the case is sound, a majority can be persuaded; that's the way democracies and free nations are supposed to work."[15]

COLSON: " . . . there are legal means available to express political opposition: we can picket, petition, vote, organize, advertise, or pressure political officials.  Is it right to abandon our respect for the rule of law, the foundation of public order, simply to make statements that could be made legally in other forums? . . . In our day, breaking laws to make a dramatic point is the ultimate logic of terrorism, not civil disobedience."[16]

BUMPER STICKERS: What are you really accomplishing by having one that says "Ban partial birth abortions?"  This is more like animals shrieking at one another than human beings reasoning with one another.  It is a very poor substitute for civil discourse, and instead contributes to needless hostility and social polarization.

Be realistic about social policy rather than succumbing to eclectic idealism. 

"Eclectic idealism" refers to how one Richard Langer describes most American evangelicals' view of what government should do.  It is eclectic in that it focuses on one or two moral issues (like prohibition or abortion), and it is idealism in that it expects government to enforce God's righteousness in these areas.

But in the one civil law that God created (Old Testament civil law), God made a comprehensive social policy.  And because of his realism about human's fallen condition, his laws often focused on regulating the "bad" so that it didn't become "ugly" rather than enforcing the "good" (e.g., divorce).

How does this apply to our political involvement today?  Consider legislation on sex education.  " . . . our present attitude toward teen-age sexuality has also failed to distinguish between the good, the bad, and the ugly.  I would argue that abstinence is the good, teen-age sexuality activity is the bad, and teen-age pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are the ugly . . . Recently, several programs have been tested which explicitly seek to reduce or delay first coitus, promote better communication with parents, and train students in the skill of saying no . . . (These programs) seem to be more effective than abstinence only programs which have been tested to-date.  Interestingly enough, they have been universally opposed by evangelicalism.  Why?  Because they include in the program education about condom usage.  Evangelicals, equating the bad with the ugly, see no (value) in such programs, claiming that the 'both/and' message is confusing and misleading.  It does not seem to matter if the programs can delay sexual activity and increase safer sex behaviors.  They include a message which is opposed to God's moral will and therefore they cannot be good social policy.  I think this is a serious mistake."[17]

Support candidates based on political competence and concern for social justice rather than because of their religious confession, their party affiliation, or their position on one issue. 

LUTHER: "I'd rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian."[18]

BOICE: "A Christian does not have to vote for the 'Christian' candidate if a choice is offered.  Moreover, if we think that we have to vote only for Christian candidates, we subject ourselves to base manipulation by whatever candidate is willing to use the proper evangelical terms when speaking to us."[19]

Preserve spiritual unity with fellow Christians by respecting diversity of political opinion and involvement.

Political issues are usually super-complex, so we need to have humility.

For a variety of reasons, God will lead sincere Christians into different levels of political involvement.  As with other areas of ministry, we should resist the tendency to judge others as unspiritual unless they are as involved in this area as we are.

Church leaders should be careful in the way they wield political influence. 

EIDSMORE: "The (pastor's primary) role is to teach the principles of the Word God as they apply to politics and every other field of life.  It is then the responsibility of individual Christians within the church to take those principles and apply them to concrete situations in society."[20]

COLSON: "While I believe an open pulpit endorsement of a candidate is improper, I also feel that--if made responsibly from the right motivations--a cleric's statement that Christians should not support candidates who reject basic human rights is justified."[21]

Two models for political influence

What about the scenario I presented at the beginning of this teaching?  Are there differences between the abolition of the slave trade and the pro-life campaign that justify responding positively to the former and negatively or ambivalently to the latter?  I think there are, and that these differences provide us with two different models for Christians' involvement in the political process in democratic countries.

MODEL #1: THE SOCIAL REFORMS OF 19^TH CENTURY ENGLAND - The legislative culmination of a 100-year spiritual movement

Grass-roots evangelism and discipleship of thousands of people (Wesleyan movement).

Over time, these converts' salt and light (including their example in social service) permeated the society and sensitized the culture's conscience on key social justice issues.  This occurred to the point that a majority of the common people became opposed to the slave trade, while the main proponents were wealthy aristocrats who were profiting financially from it.[22]

In this context, God raised up gifted and competent politicians who worked to enact these key social justice issues into legislation.

MODEL #2: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT OF THE 1980'S - The legislative replacement for a spiritual movement

Ineffective in grass-roots evangelism and discipleship.

Shrill rhetoric and polarizing tactics that needlessly alienates people from Christianity.  No real change in Americans' view on abortion.

The result: focus on imposing a moral agenda on an unconvinced public.

Conclusion

I know these two teachings haven't addressed all the important and complex issues in this area.  My goal has been to start to fill in what I think has been a "blind spot" in our church, which makes us more vulnerable to unbalanced and extreme perspectives on this area.

For Further Reading:

James M. Boice, Two Cities, Two Loves (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996)

Charles W. Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict (William Morrow & Zondervan Publishing House, 1987)

Stott, John R. W., Involvement: Being a Responsible Christian in a Non-Christian Society (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company: 1984)

Footnotes