Don Emmerich is a writer and libertarian activist who lives in Denver, Colorado. When not working on his first novel, he primarily writes about American foreign policy, Christianity, and the philosophy of religion.
The recent ascendancy of the Religious Right has led many to conclude that Evangelical Christians should stay out of politics. Even though I myself am an Evangelical, I sympathize with this view, agreeing that the actions of such leaders as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have been, to put it mildly, misguided.
But does the wrong-headedness of my fellow believers mean that Christians should start practicing political abstinence? As sympathetic as I am to this view, I don’t think so.
Christians are called to help others. (I’m not going to reference any biblical verses here because support for this point can be found on pretty much every page of the Bible.) And given that governments can be instruments for doing both good and evil, it follows that Christians are obligated to be politically involved and thus help their governments do good and prevent them from doing evil.
In the past, politically involved Christians have helped make the world a better place. For instance, some of the staunchest abolitionists were Evangelicals, from William Wilberforce in England to such Americans as Charles Finney and William Lloyd Garrison. Christians were also at the forefront in the fight for women’s suffrage in the early nineteen-hundreds, as well as the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties.
The problem with the Religious Right, then, has not been that they’ve engaged in politics but simply that they’ve engaged in it so wrongly.
The first mistake of the Religious Right has been the inconsistency with which they’ve applied their faith to public policy. Evangelicals have focused on attacking a small number of issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, and divorce laws), all of which seemed to be condemned by literal interpretations of Scripture. However, at the same time, they have espoused policies that would seem to be condemned by the same interpretive methods. For example, the New Testament clearly portrays Jesus as a pacifist and would therefore seem to condemn such actions as Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war, a doctrine that has been fervently embraced by numerous Evangelical leaders.
The second mistake of the Religious Right has been its determination to force unbelievers to live by distinctly Christian values. It’s my belief that all people (barring those with such mental illnesses as sociopathy) share a core set of moral values. This conclusion is shared by such scholars as anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn.
According to Kluckhohn,
Every culture has a concept of murder, distinguishing this from execution, killing in war, and other “justified homicides.” The notions of incest and other regulations upon sexual behavior, the prohibitions upon untruth under defined circumstances, of restitution and reciprocity, of mutual obligations between parents and children—these and many other moral concepts are altogether universal [1].
Given that virtually all of us share these values, it makes sense to establish our laws accordingly. For example, I doubt anyone would want to repeal prohibitions against such acts as murder and theft.
But there are some values that are more controversial. The wrongness of homosexuality, for example. Although we conservative Christians may find homosexuality to be contrary to God’s law, this isn’t so obvious to many other people. Whereas everyone agrees that such actions as murder and theft are wrong, a large number of people see nothing wrong with giving two men or two women the right to marry.
So, in conclusion, I think Christians should be politically involved. But they must not be so consumed by such issues as abortion that they fail to realize the importance of other issues. And they must realize that unbelievers should come to embrace the peculiarities of Christianity through evangelistic preaching, not state coercion.
[1] “Ethical Relativity: Sic et Non,” Journal of Philosophy, LII (1955).
Regarding homosexual marriage… the writer completely misses the point. The gay lobby doesn’t want to be ALLOWED to marry. They already can marry each other. They want the government’s official APPROVAL of their marriages.
But this is because government officially approves heterosexual marriages. The answers is to either approve all marriages, or none.
Why? Heterosexual marriages improve the fabric of our society, homosexual marriages do not. So promoting one over the other kinda makes sense.
Studies have repeatedly shown that children with a mother and a father doe much better in life than any other parenting arrangement. Thus, society has in its best interest to promote that particular type of relationship.
So then we should make divorce illegal, and if a parent dies, the surviving spouse must be legally compelled to remarry. Think of the children!
But let’s not focus on the details. The larger point of the article seems to be that:
1) Christians should be politically active
2) Christians should avoid being one-issue voters
I tend to agree. I can’t understand Christians who vote solely on abortion (Oh no, I can’t support candidate X for sheriff because he’s pro-choice! The horror! I know he has no power to affect abortion in this country, but what if the liberals ram through a Constitutional amendment that gives my small town’s sheriff the responsibility for rewriting the nation’s abortion laws?) Sure, abortion is a big issue, but it’s not the only issue, and for some things (like sheriff, railroad commissioner, judges in civil courts) it’s completely irrelevant.
And yet, I’ve decided to become a one-issue voter in the presidential election this coming November. I’ll only vote for a candidate who promises to shut down Guantanamo Bay.
Darius T:
I would argue that government has no moral authority to decide whether or not two people can be married, be they heterosexual or homosexual. This is a matter that should be decided by religious institutions, and religious institutions alone.
And just because something is good for society doesn’t mean that the government ought to promote it. If every American read a chapter from the Bible every day, society would probably be better off, but I don’t think anyone of us want a federal law mandating such behavior.
Don Emmerich, thanks for the article. I’ve always found it difficult to write about libertarianism and limited government from a biblical Christian perspective, but you have done it quite well.
This writer is misguided on his derision of Christian voters. He only need look at his home state of Colorado to see how Christians are in step with a majority of Centennial State voters on a number of issues. For instance, a solid majority approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a majority even REJECTED a Democratic-sponsored ballot initiative that would have legalized domestic partnerships in the state. Get over it - America is no Canada and the US is going to continue to be heavily influenced by religious conservatives for years to come.
My “derision of Christian voters”? Disagreement is derision?
Don, the government is NOT telling people that they can marry, they are telling them that the government approves. I can marry whomever I want in the privacy of my own home or church (assuming my marriage fits the requirements of my church). But I CANNOT expect the government to approve of my marriage if the government deems it not worthy of approval. You confuse approval of marriage with banning of all other types. That is not the case. For example, living a polygamous LIFESTYLE is not illegal in this country (or at least, any remaining laws against it are not enforced). But the government does ban polygamous marriage, because it doesn’t want to endorse or approve of such relationships.
As for your “Bible reading” example… that cannot be made a law simply because of the Constitution, as it would be promoting one religion over all others. One has to show DISCERNMENT in deciding what moral actions to promote versus ones to remain neutral to.
“So then we should make divorce illegal, and if a parent dies, the surviving spouse must be legally compelled to remarry. Think of the children!”
Well, divorce should be made more difficult, but not illegal. After all, the evidence supports that divorce is HEALTHIER for some families than living together in strife.
Darius T said: “One has to show DISCERNMENT in deciding what moral actions to promote versus ones to remain neutral to.”
Is government-recognized gay marriage a moral question? Earlier you mentioned that a traditional family is better for kids, which is a utilitarian argument, not a moral one. Of course both morality and utility are part of the equation here, but I wonder which one is of primary importance in the way you shape your political views. I’m just curious to understand your thinking, I’m not trying to use the Socratic method.
Darius T said: “Well, divorce should be made more difficult, but not illegal”
Yeah, I see your point. I would turn it around, though. Marriage should be made more difficult. We wouldn’t have so many divorces if we had a way to prevent foolish marriages. People who aren’t mature enough to marry shouldn’t get married.
I think Don made some very excellent points - points I too would make. However, I still remain conflicted on matters such as these. I have some pretty strong political opinions, but I have found the more I cultivate a consciousness of the Spirit within the more disinterested in politics I am.
Darius, concerning whether one chooses to remain neutral, I feel that is a personal decision. If I effectively remain neutral by deciding not to sign a petition to force a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages some “misguided” lady brought to my church (as I have done), that doesn’t mean I am promoting gay marriage. It may mean that I think its a diversion tactic by the Republicans, in which case I refuse to be duped. Or I may feel that the promotion of such petitions has no place in the worship service. Or I might feel that Congress has more important things to concern themselves with, and therefore I refuse to participate.
The thing that concerns me with the Christian Conservative movement is that it confuses Christianity with Conservatism (or more recently, Neoconservatism) and vice-versa. It makes issues black and white when they rarely are. The implication is that if you don’t vote one way or the other that you are not a Christian. It fails to take into account that Christians might differ in their political views while still retaining core spiritual values.
And yet, even some of the most “wise” marriages end up in divorce. You can’t forget that the heart of man is inherently wicked.
As for my reasoning on government-endorsed gay marriage… I think it’s both: a moral AND utilitarian argument. Which one takes precedence? I would probably say the moral argument, since that will never change and scientific studies can change with the wind. Promotion of gay marriage involves the endorsement of abhorrent, unnatural behavior, behavior that has been considered vulgar throughout history except by the most “enlightened” societies.
“The thing that concerns me with the Christian Conservative movement is that it confuses Christianity with Conservatism (or more recently, Neoconservatism) and vice-versa. It makes issues black and white when they rarely are. The implication is that if you don’t vote one way or the other that you are not a Christian. It fails to take into account that Christians might differ in their political views while still retaining core spiritual values.”
This is true, that is a danger. However, what you fail to recognize is that USUALLY those who land on the other side of the political spectrum as Christian Conservatives are also very weak in their theology. A great example of this is Jim Wallis, who promotes a Social Justice Theology. He is going to be speaking this weekend up here in Minnesota at a Progressive Christians Conference which is basically a group of Christians who believe in Pluralism (their websites say this explicitly). I can tell you pretty confidently that Jim Wallis is not a Christian if he believes (and he likely does from everything I’ve seen of the man) in religious pluralism.
I would say that where you’re more correct is in regards to Christians who vote for politically liberal ideals out of ignorance or because it feels good. I don’t believe someone like Jim Wallis (or most politically-active Christian Liberals) fit in that category, however.
“However, what you fail to recognize is that USUALLY those who land on the other side of the political spectrum as Christian Conservatives are also very weak in their theology.”
What evidence do you have to support this idea? It is quite presumptive. This idea presumes the degree that one’s theology should affect his politics, and still fails to take into account other possible factors. If what you have said is true, you could also say that Blacks Christians generally have a weak theological basis since they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Its too easy for someone to then say, “If they were real Christians, they would have voted for George Bush. He’s the one going after the evildoers.”
Darius T:
I see your point. But I would just change my wording and argue that the government has no moral authority to “approve” one type of marriage over another.
It seems that you and I disagree over whether the wrongness of homosexuality is known through special or general revelation. I think it’s known only through special revelation, although I’m not convinced of this. I think most people naturally find the thought of homosexuality “gross,” but I don’t think they find it morally wrong. And the two concepts, of course, are different.
Chris A:
You make a good point. I’d say that political conservatives tend to have a more dispensationalist theology than non-conservatives. And I certainly wouldn’t call dispensationalism good theology.
Don,
I assume you’re also a proponent of legalizing official polygamy.
Yes, I guess we do disagree over how “obvious” the immorality of homosexuality is to the general populace. I think people naturally find it wrong and the only way that people think it is morally okay is due to a warping of their personal and/or societal mores (which has happened throughout history). But you’re probably right, it’s a bit of a gray area. When it comes to gray areas, I opt for conservatism over social experimentation.
Don,
You think that Dispensationalist Theology is more prevalent among Christian conservatives (who are largely Reformed in their theology)? I would say the opposite, Christian Conservatives are more likely to follow a Covenant theology, at least in my experience. Perhaps I misunderstand, please define what you mean by dispensationalist theology.
What we need is a supreme leader or group of leaders to determine what kind of morality is best for society. We need to think of the group first! If this works for morals, it can also work for economics, foreign policy, health care and so on. Individuals must be compelled to do what is in the best interest for everyone. It’s for their own good!
I was referring to the eschatology popularized by the “Left Behind” series.
Oh… well, that eschatology is DEFINITELY a gray area theologically-speaking. You may disagree with it, but it’s pretty hard to say definitively that it is wrong or worse, anti-biblical. Personally, I don’t care about eschatology, since the NT doesn’t teach that we should care much about how the end is going to happen, but to be on our guard against false teaching and that Jesus will come when He is least expected.
Colin, you do have a way of exaggerating everything.
It’s hard to believe that the positions that you belittle so much today were held by you only a few years ago. You must have a lot of “white Conservative Christian guilt” to deal with, huh?
I made the best guesses I could at the time. Looking back on my past beliefs makes me proud, not ashamed, because I can see that I have learned. I listened to people who argued with me, and changed my views where I was shown to be incorrect.
Don Emmerich said: “It seems that you [Darius T] and I disagree over whether the wrongness of homosexuality is known through special or general revelation.”
That’s a great way to put it. I agree with you, Don. The wrongness of homosexuality is only known through special revelation.
So what you guys are saying is that some morality is obvious and some is hidden? Does that jive with what the Scriptures teach about man’s knowledge of good and evil?
Don,
You have made some good points, but I believe it points to a bigger issue: globalization. In only the past 15 years, this world has found avenues of connection never before seen or thought. Who would have realized 45 years that China would be the largest producers of capital today? Who would have thought that every single college graduate in India would be fluent in English (and better educated than their US counterparts)? With these trends in globalization, however, identity itself has changed. One can longer be simply identified as one particular label, including Christianity. With this “identity crisis,” religious groups have sought new roads to the new society and culture. It seems that American Christianity has largely become political in order to assert their own identity. This is why politics is so important to them: it is the manner in which they can assert their identity in today’s society. Since you live in Denver (hey, I’m here just north of the DTC!), I’m sure you’ve seen more newscasts than the average American about the continuing saga of Ted Haggard (doesn’t it seem like the news channels here mention it every other week?). Again, it’s not about religious beliefs, but a cultural identity that’s been changed because of globalization.
Don, like you I feel that government has no place “approving” of marriages. This is a religious position, and one which government involvement is merely dilutes. That said, so long as government makes ANY restriction on marriage (between siblings, between parent/child, etc), they are implying a valid and invalid form of “marital contract”. Marital contracts that are specifically non-moral would allow my single brother to “marry” my recently widowed grandmother. This would allow him power of attorney, visitation, to share his health benefits, etc. All the benefits that gays claim to want would also be important in caring for an aging grandparent. Government civil unions should either be entirely blind to the pair of people getting married (requiring only that they be of legal age), or I fully reserve my right to lobby for MY moral restrictions. If you can limit marriage to unrelated people who live together, I can limit it to unrelated people of opposite genders. I will try to post my blog article on this subject to address what I assume will be many criticisms of this perspective (from both sides).
“I made the best guesses I could at the time. Looking back on my past beliefs makes me proud, not ashamed, because I can see that I have learned. I listened to people who argued with me, and changed my views where I was shown to be incorrect.”
That’s the way I feel too. I used to be somewhat of a Christian conservative. But only because I thought you had to be. Plus its just so much easier to go with the grain. This is partly because of laziness and partly because of pride. Here is some advice for politically minded Christians:
19Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
20For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
(James 1:19, 20)
If you are set to defend a position before you consider the other side, you are not fit to respond - especially if you are prone to respond in anger. Why? Because when the desired end of the debate is to be right at all cost, you fall into self-deception. You will get to a point where you defend the status quo position without really being persuaded that you are speaking truth. If you engage in this type of debate, not only will you look like an idiot, but you will be personally frustrated and confused. Always be willing to admit you are wrong.
I have watched Christian leaders bypass perfectly legitimate opportunities to apologize in favor of trying to make people believe they didn’t say what they plainly did say. They have been corrupted by political “spin”, which is just another word for deception. When we confuse what is acceptable Christian behavior with what is allowed in the political arena, we end up with a very poor representation of Jesus.
Darius T said: “So what you guys are saying is that some morality is obvious and some is hidden?”
What I’m saying is that some things are revealed in general revelation and others in special revelation. If everything was revealed in general revelation we wouldn’t need special revelation.
Don said, “…The recent ascendancy of the Religious Right…”
Question–Am I wrong in thinking the heyday of the religious right has already come and gone?
In some ways I’m one of those practicing “political abstinence,” as you call it. (I do vote, and I have a fairly well-thought out basis for why I vote the way I do, and even though my voting record pretty much matches the religious right, my reasoning wouldn’t match theirs.)
Don said, “Christians are called to help others. (I’m not going to reference any biblical verses here because support for this point can be found on pretty much every page of the Bible.) And given that governments can be instruments for doing both good and evil, it follows that Christians are obligated to be politically involved and thus help their governments do good and prevent them from doing evil.”
I don’t think I agree with your rationale here. Yes, Christians are indeed called to help others, both those in the faith and especially those of the faith. But I don’t think it therefore follows that the good we do needs to be in any way connected with politics. I don’t fulfill by Christian responsibility to do good by being involved in politics.
Don said, “The second mistake of the Religious Right has been its determination to force unbelievers to live by distinctly Christian values.”
I too see a problem with this, but my problem is a religious one; unbelievers who live in a “distinctly Christian” way somehow think they are therefore Christians, muddying the waters when it comes to talking with them about sin and the need for salvation. In other words, people who are forced by someone–be it parent, employer, or government–to follow certain “christian” rules mistakenly think that they actually are Christians.
Thainamu, are there truly people who believe they are Christians because our government forces them to live by “christian” rules? I’ve never run into such a person.
Jew said, “People who aren’t mature enough to marry shouldn’t get married.”
Better yet would be chemical castration of all males until they are mature enough to marry. Think of the problems that would solve.
“The wrongness of homosexuality is only known through special revelation.”
If you’re going down that path, then you have to accept a lot of other statistically abnormal forms of sexuality–polygamy, pedophilia, etc, etc. Special revelation has nothing to do with the fact that many cultures don’t approve of homosexuality. The Religious Right weren’t the first people in the history of the universe to think that monogamous sex that makes babies is both morally right and beneficial to society.
Thainamu said: “If you’re going down that path, then you have to accept a lot of other statistically abnormal forms of sexuality–polygamy”
Yeah. There’s an awful lot of polygamy in the Old Testament. Monogamy isn’t uncommon in history, but neither is polygamy. General revelation isn’t doing a great job of pointing to monogamous heterosexual marriage as the only possible moral option. Fortunately the Bible (the New Testament in particular) spells it out for us.
What we need is a supreme leader or group of leaders to determine what kind of morality is best for society. We need to think of the group first! If this works for morals, it can also work for economics, foreign policy, health care and so on. Individuals must be compelled to do what is in the best interest for everyone. It’s for their own good!
that has been tried, it was called communism. didn’t work out. i hope that comment was tongue in cheek.
every christian, should be active in politics if they so desire. what is totally unacceptable, at least to me, is when religious leaders involve themselves in an official capacity as opposed to personal. if any church wants to be politically active then it must give up tax exempt status first. the law is clear. what kind of message is sent by a church that flaunts the law to accomplish its own political goals? the ends justifies the means type of thinking seems to permeate the religious right as well as our current administration. it’s like being pregnant, either you stand on your principles or you don’t.
Bob, that was definitely tongue and cheek.
“every christian, should be active in politics if they so desire. what is totally unacceptable, at least to me, is when religious leaders involve themselves in an official capacity as opposed to personal.”
I have to agree. The key phrase here is “if they so desire.” I think some Christian leaders are making political involvement obligatory by implication. We cannot use Christ’s community as a platform for political proselytizing.
thainamu wrote:
“Don said, ‘Christians are called to help others…And given that governments can be instruments for doing both good and evil, it follows that Christians are obligated to be politically involved and thus help their governments do good and prevent them from doing evil.’
“I don’t think I agree with your rationale here. Yes, Christians are indeed called to help others, both those in the faith and especially those of the faith. But I don’t think it therefore follows that the good we do needs to be in any way connected with politics. I don’t fulfill by Christian responsibility to do good by being involved in politics.”
You’re absolutely right, thainamu. I should have worded this differently, perhaps: “…it follows that being politically involved is one way Christians can go about helping others,” or something like that.