This is the last in a 4-part series. (And here’s Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3)

My exploration of motives for Christian involvement in politics began to shift when I realized that the same Paul and Peter that preached a political worldview of simply obeying the laws (in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, respectively) were the same Paul and Peter that when told by authorities not to preach, they refused to obey.

What’s going on? Apparently there’s some other principle at work that creates a depth, complexity, and dynamism within this issue: God and His Nature, Christ and His Glory.  More on this in the next post.

I then started looking not just for Paul’s statements about politics but also how he politically viewed himself in a political world.  Paul was a Roman citizen, the ancient equivalent of being an American citizen.  It came with the same privileges, rights, and disdain we as Americans experience today.  So when did Paul pull the “Roman Citizen” card?  In short, when it furthered his preaching of the Gospel.  He pulled the card a few times in the latter part of Acts, each time to talk to a successively higher authority in the Roman government.  Acts ends with Paul waiting in prison to talk to Caesar himself after using his citizenship to appeal his charges to the emperor.

So, as for conclusions, here’s where I’ve landed (at least for the time being).  God’s concern for the political actions of His People does not ultimately rest upon what is done.  Rather, He is concerned that His Bride act from transformed hearts that effect why they are doing, voting, advocating as they are.  Paul used the rights and privileges offered him by his nation to further enable his continuing work and service of the Gospel.  Not to create external structures that do this work for him.  So, I’m all for advocating and seeking legislation that furthers our freedom to do the work of the Church.  I think there’s an absolute Biblical precedent for seeking the support and freedom for the individual to do the work of a Christian.  Our defiance to the laws of this land begin where this freedom ends.  Where the laws and statutes in place hinder us from doing the work that Christ has called us to, that is when our defiance starts.

Jesus said that his Kingdom was not of this world, and that if it was, then his followers would fight to free Him from Pilate.  His Kingdom is a spiritual, not temporal reality, hence our weapons to usher this Kingdom are spiritual and not temporal.  Laws, states, and politics don’t do it; rather love, service, and preaching do.  This being the case, all our political maneuverings should be to free us to do those things.  We will do them regardless, mind you, but it is (or is meant to be) in the interest of the prosperity and stability of a country to support and free Christians to act like Christians – not push them or even create incentives for them to, but create the welcoming environment in which they can serve, love, preach, and suffer for the benefit of those around them with no hindrances.

So what frees us to do the service of the Gospel?  I think this is where personal leadings, preferences, discussion, and discourse come in.  Perhaps making gay marriage unconstitutional will actually ultimately hinder our work as Christians rather than facilitate it.  So what if it “made a statement”?  At what cost?  Perhaps being in favor of the war would hinder your evangelism to Muslims.  Perhaps being against the war would not free you to take advantage of the new open environment there now is for missions work in Iraq.  Perhaps (and I really stress the “perhaps” on this one) making abortion illegal would hinder our freedom to act like Christians.  I will unpack all this in my last post.  Don’t freak out over that statement.  I just want the conversation opened up and founded upon the biblical basis for our activism: putting the weight on ourselves to be the Church rather than on the country to reflect the ideals of the Church, because Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world.

I know I have overstated my case.  I have repeated myself and rephrased myself in more ways than perhaps necessary.  Some of that stems from all this being fairly fresh in my mind, and it probably comes out in my writing.  The rest of it though comes from my conviction that this worldview is essential for so many reasons.  The American Church is impotent today and has little impact on the culture it finds itself in.  Much of this comes from the recent fanaticism of Fundamentalism in light of post-modernity becoming the reigning philosophy of the day.  Fundamentalism just doesn’t work anymore.  The rest of the watching world has already filed Evangelicals away as completely out of touch and irrelevant in today’s modern world.  Historically, the Church has been a small movement that has toppled nations.  Now it is a massive creature with absolutely no impact whatsoever on the people, communities, and cultures around it.  Remove the Church in America and very little would change.

Bottom line:
Our goal in our legislation should be this: that we would so free ourselves to be and act like Christians that in doing so we serve the people, communities, cities, and nations around us to such an extent that they would suffer without us.  And it is in this that the watching world will see a Gospel that proclaims that there is a God through Whom all things were made and find their sustaining life so that this God has a just and rightful claim on the lives of His creatures.  They will then see that this God has moved upon individuals on the basis of this claim to change them radically to love those around them in a way no one else does.  And it is by seeing this that they will behold our Beautiful Christ and Savior who loves His Bride to love His world so that His world might love Him as was intended and will surely be.

I hope this helps.

This is Part 3 of a series. (And here’s Part 1, Part 2, and, Part 4)

“Damn it . . .”

That’s what I said the other night upon seeing the movie “Amazing Grace” for the first time.  As most of you probably know, the movie is about William Wilberforce’s life-long fight to end the British slave-trade, which he eventually did.

The reason curses fell from my lips after this display of passion, dedication, and commitment to what is right is because something resonated within me saying this was right; this was good; this is how Christ’s intentions were to be displayed in this world.

The only problem was that it went against every trajectory the past couple of posts of mine have set.  I realized that the direction I was going in these posts was close to some sort of moral-anarchistic libertarianism where politics were ultimately not a moral issue and political affiliations were a matter of personal preference and opinion, not moral and ethical worldview.

I now see that this view is equally as narrow-minded and incomplete as the opposing view that it attempts to counter, namely that politics is the chief means by which we assert and change the moral state and opinions of individuals and nations.  I am reminded that I am a fallen man with a fallen mind who is as prone to wander to the extremes of opinion as anyone else.  So, coming from this place of repentance and humility (hopefully), I’d like to briefly explore the heart of this issue as I now see it.

A few things got me shifting my thinking a bit on this whole politics/Christianity thing.  First, Amazing Grace.  Second, a sermon by A.W. Tozer called “The Christian’s Relation to Government,” on a passage in 1 Peter.  Third, a brief, but influential discussion on this topic with my pastor in Richmond.  And lastly, a book I’m currently reading The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark, that shows “how Christianity led to freedom, capitalism,  and Western success”.

If you look at the world as Evangelical Fundamentalists would like to have it, it suspiciously looks like a world that lives your Christian life for you.

A world where the poor pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps so the Church wouldn’t have to deal with them; where your t-shirt, tracts, and bumper stickers did your preaching so you didn’t have to engage people where they were; where your music was all so blatantly Christian, you didn’t have to look for God’s work in and through everything else in this world; where abortion was illegal and homosexual relationships were unconstitutional so we didn’t have to actually engage so-called “sluts” and “gays”.

In this hypothetical world, we could keep us godly people close together and keep those “sinners” far away from us so we didn’t “catch it”; it’s be a world where our laws would do the preaching and our lips would do the condemning.

I’m not saying this ease of spirituality is the motive in the front of every fundamentalists’ mind.  I think people are doing exactly what they think they are supposed to do as Christians in America, because of this Gospel of comfort and self-determination preached from nearly every pulpit in America that gets significant exposure.  This births a worldview that has two primary flawed presuppositions:

(1) that conversion is fundamentally an act of the human will, so every non-Christian is just flat out refusing to do what they must know is true – love Jesus.  I mean, if it’s so obvious to us, how could they possibly not know?

(2) that the Gospel makes life “easier” in some sort of way, be it financially, cognitively, circumstantially, and/or emotionally.  This leads to the assumption that those who don’t ascribe to it must be absolutely miserable with completely dysfunctional relationships, families, and lives.

These two ideas firmly in place lead to the general idea that if we can create an environment that caters to Christians and encumbers non-Christians, then they’ll see how much better it is on our side and convert.  Then everyone will be happy.

Now, once again, I don’t think this is consciously the idea, just the functional ethos underlying much of what is done. However (to put it gently) this is all unbiblical, destructive, unloving, and tantamount to blasphemy against the nature and intention of God.

I mean every word of that, but (here’s where my recent research and thinking has changed my tone), what is so bad about that prevailing worldview unpacked is the heart behind what is done, not necessarily how that’s actually worked out.

What this means is that if you have two people doing the same sort of advocacy for the same political issue, one could be in sin and the other not.  Where the difference would be is in the motives of the heart.

My contention is that much – most, perhaps – of the motivations underlying the political involvement of American Evangelical Fundamentalists is unbiblical.  It is trying to make the nation we’re in reflect “Christian” ideals so as to ease the burden off Christians to act for those ideals in spite of the government.

“Christian” was never intended to become an adjective.  It was only ever supposed to be a noun to describe people – not music, shirts, bookstores, or nations.

These are the wrong motives underlying much of what is going on. In my next post, I’ll tell you what I think is the underlying Biblical principle for proper political involvement by Christians.  Leave comments freely.