This is an IMB worker’s response to Anthony Russo’s post “Should Christians Express Their Political Views?”
For starters, I am uninterested in re-hashing the various points made during Mr. Russo’s post, as well as those presented during the discussion. Others have done an excellent job in raising perspectives that apply to the situation. Instead, I would like to present a different view of the subject; this requires us to leave the North American environment and even the current year.
Consider situations where Christians or the church have wed themselves to a particular political, social, or governmental movement. Can you name some? I’ll give a very brief list, though I imagine that you folks can add both breadth and depth to the examples.
1. Christian support of the Confederacy: Yes, I realize I’ve simplified things, but the point holds even so. The opposite view also applies: the North appealed to the Bible for their support as well.
2. The Christian Democrat party of Venezuela: This party dominated the national political scene for decades; it was rightfully called an oligarchy due to its tendency to take care of its own (rich, family members). The masses of poor were on their own. The current president, Hugo Chavez, has been harshly critical of Christianity in general, and his primary opponent has been the Christian Democrats or their allies. Nothing particularly Christian has been noted about the party (see comments about the poor).
3. Catholic support for the policies, wars, theft, brigandage, and genocide applied by Spanish and Portuguese explorers of South America: The church attached itself to the actions of the crown not because kings and queens were moral people nor because conquest was a Biblical issue; the church just liked what the conquistadores were doing. As well, the church viewed political processes (military conquest) as an acceptable method of evangelization. (Interested readers should check out Eduardo Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America” as well as “Cross and Sword“)
4. Christian support in Germany for the policies of Adolf Hitler: Yes, the case can be made they were weak, or allowed themselves to be badgered into that support. Even so, the question isn’t “Should strong Christians express their political views?” And, while I realize it is unpopular to criticize a theological giant, Dietrich Bonhoeffer failed to render to his government the respect and obedience that the Bible demands. I imagine, in my comfortable post-war life, that he could have opposed Nazism’s views without attempting to murder a duly-appointed national leader. Instead, he took a political stand and expressed it as Christian. (It is hard for me to disagree with the man, though; despite the critique, I admire his resolve.)
5. Papal support for various kings across Europe during the 100 Years War between England and France: Popes were chosen based on international political ramifications; intense “prayerful consideration” was usually punctuated with mercenary forces and bribery. Kings were strengthened by their affiliation with the Holy See. At its nadir, the situation deteriorated to the degree that a pope in Rome supported and enjoyed the support of half of Europe. A competing pope in the French city of Avignon enjoyed the patronage of the other half. The 14th century, already decimated by the plague, suffered as a direct result of the politicizing of the faith. It is easy to say “But the issues were not Biblical ones,” but to those alive at the time, the issues were indeed Biblical and moral. (For an in-depth look at this, read Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror.”)
6. The English rallying cry of, “For God and Country!” This was colonialistic zeal of Christianity at its worst. Much of Asia and Africa feels that Christianity is nothing more than a branch of Western oppression, imperialism, and invasion. This is not due to national governments attaching themselves to the cause of Christ; no, it typically is the church joining the work and public policy of the state.
7. Sectarian violence supported with religious militias: I remember the first time I heard of Christian militia fighting Druze forces in Beirut. Catholic vs Protestant violence in Northern Ireland fits as well. Churches and Christian communities come to identify themselves as political forces in their own right; the result is something the scriptures never intended.
We can easily justify our need to be involved in the American political process, and rightfully so. However, the issues we choose must be those that are truly Biblical, and not political. We need to look at the history of the church and the state in order to understand the dangers of planting a Christian flag on various politically moral high places. We need to tread cautiously as we look for ways to be involved as Christians. Too often, we state our political views as black-and-white Biblical mandates when in fact, they are positions of conviction based on our understanding of a Biblical guideline.
My point is that there’s a larger picture when we consider politics and the Christian view. I think much of what happens in the political realm falls into the cracks of conviction, places where Biblical guidelines are vague or missing. Too often, we choose to declare the Bible’s true intent without considering that we could be wrong. As well, we attach ourselves and our faith and our churches to a political person, or an end of the spectrum without considering that much of our conviction is simply how we interpret the Bible’s view of things.
My answer to Mr. Russo’s well-placed question? No. Christians should express their Biblical views of the world. That should suffice to cover the political aspect of things. Simplistic, I know, but it’s the best I can do.
(My thanks to Mr. Russo and his commenters for the inspiration)
This is a very good effort, but I must raise some objections.
1. Roman Catholicism and Protestant evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity have nothing to do with each other. The crimes of Roman Catholicism are as germane to this discussion as are the crimes that Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc. have committed in the names of their false religions.
2. As to your point in “6.”, which is “much of Asia and Africa feels that Christianity is nothing more than a branch of Western oppression, imperialism, and invasion” … how much of that is Marxist, Muslim or some other anti-Christian propaganda? And how much better off are these nations after colonialism?
3. It is easy for me to criticize Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was to the left of the leading neo-orthodoxy theologians of his day. He practically invented the “situational ethics” school of thought, as well as postmodernism (at least in the “Christian” context). Bonhoeffer also believed in universalism, which goes a long way towards explaining his “sin is justifiable under certain circumstances” philosophy. (As for killing Hitler, I don’t know that I would classify it as murder anyway.) That so many evangelicals have for Bonhoeffer – and that some have for Karl Barth – mystifies me, especially when other theologians far more conservative than they are considered opponents. Or should I say that if Bonhoeffer is to be admired (and in the case of Eric Metaxas, claimed as being an evangelical with orthodox beliefs), then why not Rob Bell?
4. Reading the examples provided in this post makes me think that Christians SHOULD speak out. However, in doing so, one should be aware that the political positions advocated by those who would purport to speak for evangelical Christianity may not necessarily be justified by the Bible. So, to echo your point, the speaking out should be Biblical and not political, and in the course of doing so will mean occasionally (and perhaps often) opposing evangelical political activism.
5. Perhaps the best way to have a Biblical position on political (and other) issues is to divorce yourself from politics. I am going to provide an example: had George W. Bush been Barack Hussein Obama, the “pre-emptive” war and nation-building in Iraq MIGHT NOT have been seen as such a good idea by nearly so many evangelicals. (Keep in mind: Bush had already famously claimed that Muslims and Christians worship the same God – a comment that would have gotten Obama excoriated by evangelicals – when he said “trust me … Iraq is an imminent threat that might attack us at any time now.”) The New York Times ran a story on how several prominent evangelical preachers – including some in the SBC – vigorously endorsed the Iraq War from the pulpit. That was not our finest hour, especially in retrospect.
6. Divorcing yourself from politics MIGHT mean divorcing yourself from pastors who tend to electioneer. Just a thought.
So instead of saying that a sin is justified, you just say it isn’t a sin in the first place? What degree of evil must one commit to place themselves outside the scope of murder?
Hello JOB,
I’m not sure if your ‘sources’ for this statement apply strictly to the topic at hand on involvement of Christians in politics?:
“Roman Catholicism and Protestant evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity have nothing to do with each other. ”
I do know that there are MANY Protestant Christian communities that share core values of my own Church in areas such as ‘the common good’, ‘protection of the weak and the poor’, ‘the dignity of the human person’, as my parish partners with several other denominations in our community to serve the common good.
I don’t know if you have any sources that show that sharing, but you can look at some of these topics and decide for yourself, if there possibly exists any common interests between my faith’s social justice doctrines and those of ‘Protestant evangelical/fundamentalists’.
If you the time and the inclination, take a look at some of these specific social justice principles and issues, and let me understand if you notice any similarities or disparities concerning particular topics:
http://www.osjspm.org/notable_quotations.aspx
http://www.osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx
Jeremy,
Some good thoughts, and good examples to think about. Though we don’t by any means have a monopoly on thinking beyond the realm of monocultural bias on questions like this, I do think living in another country for a significant amount of time is a positive factor for helping someone be sensitive to issues like this.
That being said, I think I would re-word the question as follows: Should Christians express their views on political issues in such a way as to give the impression they think they are THE Christian view on that particular issue?
I don’t think that just because we are Christians we need to put a gag on our mouths and never express our opinions on controversial issues. If that were the case, the only ones who spoke up on controversial issues would be non-Christians. But we do need to be careful to divide between merely personal opinions, and opinions we feel a consistent Christian faith demands we take.
Also, I think that churches and Christian ministries need to be careful to not take positions on issues on which believers who have an equal commitment to Jesus and the authority of the Word of God legitimately differ.
At the same time though, as churches, there are some issues on which we must take a position. Baptism, for instance, is one of these. To be neutral on baptism is not a viable option, even though equally committed Christians differ in their views on baptism.
Political issues, though, seem to me to be of a different nature. The bottom line, it seems to me, is dividing between political and non-political issues. I am still thinking on what are the best guidelines for this.
“Love not just those of your own tribe,
your own class, family or people,
but those who are different, those who are strangers,
who are strange to your ways,
who come from different cultural and religious traditions,
who seem odd, those you do not understand.
Love as the Samaritan loved the man he found
beaten up by robbers,
somewhere on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho.
To love is to open our hearts to people
to listen to them,
to appreciate them
and see in them their own unique value,
to wish deeply that they may live and grow. ”
Jean Vanier ‘The Body Broken’
Christians are responsbile to only voite for anti-baby murder candidates. Period. Then of course, we should hold their feet to the fire and if they don’t take steps to make baby murder illegal we should work to vote them out.
It is never acceptable to vote for pro-baby murder candidates or to support them and their policies. If saying that makes me too pro-Republican for somepeoples taste, they’re the ones with the problem–not me.
David Rogers has it pretty much correct here.
The questions quickly become prickly. What is the ‘Christian’ or biblical worldview of:
US foreign policy with respect to Israel?
Tax policy?
National debt?
Monetary policy?
Negative income tax?
The list is endless and all of these have multiple positions and Christians on every side of them.
While we are trashing Bonhoeffer, let us not forget that Reichsbischof Muller and others used Luther’s writings about Jews and the concept of “German Nationalism” to bring the Lutheran church in line with the Nazi vision. Or at least to muzzle them from being a thorn in Hitler’s plans.
Some historians claim Luther was old and sick when he wrote such things about the Jews. The problem is, these writings existed from a man who was considered both paragon and hero.
Which brings us to the fact that, as believers, we should never elevate humans but only look to Christ.
Why is it that some people appear to think that Christians should just “set aside” their convictions (Biblical World View) before they enter the voting booth? This is just absurd to me!
To me the “Christian Citizens” of this nation, and every nation, have a duty unto God and their fellow man to influence the governance of their nation to the fullest possible extent!
It is nothing less than delusional to believe that unrighteous men are capable of governing any nation righteously…
15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt.7:15-20)
The meaning of the above text is quite simple: All decisions (fruit), be they personal or political, flow from the personal character and convictions of the man or the woman.
Many of the Christian Forefathers of this nation held a deep conviction that any man who was not a Christian was not fit for office… I agree!
Grace for the Journey,
Too late! The Baptist ministers of Va. met with the colonial legislators and agreed that in exchange for their freedom to practice their fiath, they would go back to their communities and encourage their young men to enlist in the patriots’ cause. That is why we can afford the luxury of this discussion. We are to advance the cause of Christ in every area of life, including politics. But we do need some sense of what is the best way to do it.
Great article.
Christians should express their opinion if they are prepared to hear the opinion of the other person in return. If you are going to get your feelings hurt, maybe not. If you are prepared for the consequences, fire away.