The Feed

I’ll bet most Christians consider themselves “good citizens.” If that term means anything, it means involvement in the community esp. in its self-government. In our system, after all, citizens are supposed to be the ruling class.

So Christians shouldn’t shy away from politiical involvement. They instead should actively participate to influence public policy in such a way that it promotes justice.

It’s every citizen’s right and duty to get involved in politics whether they’re a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or whatever. Countless courageous people have risked and even given their lives to protect our ability to choose how we’re governed, and it’s a slap in their faces to not participate in that process at all.

However, there are obviously degrees to which any given individual is able to or desires to get involved in politics. Not everyone has the time to devote themselves to learning every aspect of a given issue or to get significantly involved as an activist. There are so many things in life that demand our attention. Politics may not be near the top of everyone’s to-do list in their current season of life. One thing is for certain, not everyone is called to run for office. So regarding the question of a given individual’s involvement in politics, clearly the answer depends on the person, and furthermore, it depends on the issue in question. Some issues simply matter more to some people than others.

That leads to the question of partisanship. Webster’s Dictionary defines a partisan as “a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; esp: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.” In the sense that this means that we as individuals should be loyal to a particular political party no matter what the issue, I would hope the obvious answer would be no. Clearly there are issues on which the political parties have official stances that are contrary to our own views, but that doesn’t mean that a given individual from a particular party necessarily shares those same views. Undoubtedly, we all have our “hot button” issues that matter most to us, but electing an individual (or party) to represent us involves far more than one or two issues. In any case, being a firm adherent to a cause is one thing. But, being a firm adherent to a party is quite another.

Consequently, if at an individual level we decide for ourselves (based on the issues most important to us) which candidate to support in a given election, then how is it even remotely feasible to suggest that the church as a whole support a given candidate, or furthermore, support an entire political party? I suppose one could try to make a case for defining those issues which might be important to most Christians, and then suggest that all Christians align with the party that supports those issues. But is it the duty of those who are so “enlightened” to advise the rest of us how we should vote? In addition to the fact that all issues don’t have the same importance to everyone, isn’t it also obvious that not all Christians agree on the best approach to many issues, and no one political party has the “correct” view on every issue anyway? So, should the church show partisanship toward a particular party? My vote is an emphatic NO!

Should the church take a position on specific issues? This is where it gets messy. I believe that the church can influence the political process in at least three ways. First and foremost would be to love people…everyone (yes, even the tax collectors and sinners who may disagree with us)…and to change hearts one by one. It seems to me that this was Jesus’ approach. Second would be to provide information, insight, and perspective to the congregation on various issues. But this needs to be done in a fair and balanced manner. In my experience, my opinion is more easily solidified by hearing the facts as they are seen from all sides in a given situation, being able to engage in a dialogue with those with opposing views, and not by having someone tell me what I should believe while only presenting one side of the facts. In other words, while I would like for the church to provide opportunities that promote education about the faith aspects of various political issues and to encourage open discussion, I would also prefer that it ultimately be left between God and me to decide what to believe about those issues. Someone giving a message or leading a discussion group may offer their opinion, but I don’t see the need for the church to take an official stance on most of these issues. I say this not because we can’t agree, but because I don’t see the need for it.

As for the third way, it’s then conceivable that people within the church would feel so passionate about a given issue that they would decide to organize a group to attempt to influence the political process, and this doesn’t need to be officially endorsed by the church. But here’s where I think we need to be very careful in choosing those issues. In my opinion, it’s better for the church to be known for what I’ll call Category 1: promoting positive change (looking after widows and orphans, caring for the poor, the sick, the oppressed, the persecuted, the imprisoned, and the least of these, being a good Samaritan, standing against the unjust treatment of others, and the list goes on) and to not be known for what I’ll call Category 2: attempting to make what we believe are God’s moral truths the laws of the land. Obviously, there is some overlap with certain issues, but the bigger point is that there’s a huge difference, in my mind, between the motivations that drive these two categories. One seems motivated by love and the other seems motivated by self-righteousness. And like it or not, these motivations significantly contribute to the public’s perception of Christians.

Darren Whitehead gave a message at New Community a while ago where he mentioned the results of a George Barna survey which asked participants their opinion of evangelical Christians. The top three responses were: Anti-Gay, Judgmental, and Hypocritical. Nothing positive. Perhaps this is due, at least in part, to those Christians in the public eye that have chosen to spend their time and resources fighting for Category 2 issues rather than for Category 1 issues. Refreshingly, there are other Christians who have a different approach. So, what would it take for the top survey responses to be: Radically Inclusive, Injustice Fighters, and Extremely Compassionate? From my perspective, we can start by focusing on Category 1 and steer clear of Category 2. We can certainly have personal views on any given moral topic, but we may be doing more harm than good by insisting that everyone else in society abide by that view. Along these lines, I found the following article about Rick Warren very encouraging:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-04-on-religion_x.htm

I’d also like to point out that when Bill Hybels was interviewed last December on Fox News Chicago, (if my memory serves me correctly) he stated that the church shouldn’t be focusing on issues like gay marriage and abortion, but instead should look to issues like poverty and AIDS.

But as one of you stated, this isn’t a popularity contest. While that may be true, there’s a big downside to not caring what non-Christians think of us. It seems to me that there’s a fairly sizeable segment of society that is so put off by evangelical Christians that they simply don’t want to hear anything we have to say. The door is shut. I’m not saying that it’s a justified response on their part or that their perception is necessarily fair. But if the reality is that they’ve stopped listening, then maybe we should make an effort to stop burning those bridges and start focusing on something other than self-righteous attempts to legislate God’s morality. Just a thought.

In any case, what if we can’t agree on what we believe to be God’s perspective on a given issue? So what? There are countless issues on which Bible-believing born-again Christians disagree. Do we need to agree on everything? If we do, should those who disagree go off and form yet another denomination? That’s the last thing we need! Isn’t there room in The Church, or even our church, for a group that supports one conclusion on a given issue and different group that supports another conclusion? As long as there’s mutual respect and not divisiveness, why can’t we agree to disagree on certain issues and still be politically active if we so choose? Again, I don’t understand why the church as a whole needs to have a unified stance on most of these issues. And no, that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a stance on anything. Perhaps Category 1 would be a good place to start.

And finally, I know that there are some people that insist that if we just beg God hard enough for His perspective on a particular issue, that we’ll all be given the “right” answer because there’s only one true answer. I would say that it depends on the issue. When the church thought that segregation was the right thing to do, don’t you think that they truly believed that it was God’s desire at the time? What makes us think that if we “figure out” God’s will now in our day of total “enlightenment,” that we’ll have the final answer for everyone on every issue? Can’t we be wrong again? Or isn’t it also possible for one person to get one answer from God and another person to get a different answer from God? For example, what did Jesus say about eating certain foods? He left it to the individual to decide. Maybe some of the complicated moral issues of today are also a matter of personal conscience and are best left between an individual and God to reconcile.

Jesus asked us to spread the Good News. But has the historical Christian involvement in politics thus far been a story of good news to the world, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the persecuted? For the most part, I don’t think so. However, I firmly believe that it doesn’t have to be that way in the future. We could do so much better. But we’ve sure got our work cut out for us.

Anonymous,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that this is probably the wrong format for a debate. I prefer this format. In our meetings it’s sometimes extremely difficult to express a complete thought without someone interrupting and often routing the conversation in another direction. Here you can convey an entire thought. What’s more, this format gives you time to think about a topic or about what someone has written rather than giving a knee-jerk response to someone’s comments after having 2 seconds to think about it in a meeting.

I agree that good leadership is missing in many families, churches, businesses, etc. And I also agree that good leaders set direction. But the question here is the role of church leaders when it comes to political issues. The leaders at Willow regularly set direction for the church. Look at the Chapter 2 campaign for the new auditorium and the Regional strategy as well as our involvement in Mississippi, South Africa, Costa Rica, and countless other areas. We have a Vision Night every year. The WCA conferences are another example of how Willow is setting direction, not only in our church, but in churches all over the world. But if you look at this list of leadership initiatives, none of these things are overtly political in nature. And politics is where I’m advocating what you call individualism.

I also think that good leaders can set a direction and foster an environment of participation without insisting that the “children” obey their “parents” to use your analogy. In my opinion, good leadership is best accomplished by helping and inspiring others to develop their own convictions rather than commanding them to share the convictions of the leaders. This is where being a church leader is quite different than being the leader of a business. If you think about any of Willow’s campaigns that I listed above, in no case was the congregation commanded to participate. But the leadership effectively got most of the church involved without having to do that. And while the parent/child analogy is appropriate to describe our individual relationships with God, I can’t agree that the church leaders should act as the parents of the congregation. If that’s what you’re advocating, then you’re right, we would disagree on many points. I belonged to a church where the leaders dictated like parents, and I for one would never want to go back to that, especially when it comes to politics.

One more thought on individualism. I believe that we stand before God as individuals, not as members of Willow Creek Community Church. We vote as individuals, and ever since the temple curtain was torn in two, we each have individual relationships with God.

Regarding Tough Love and our immoral society, I don’t believe that legislating God’s word will make our society moral. And if we take that to its logical conclusion by legislating every last part of God’s word, we’d all be in jail, wouldn’t we? Or should we only advocate the legislation of those things with which we don’t personally struggle? I think that’s a fair question to ask. I also don’t believe that the church taking a firm stance on political issues will make society want to follow just because we have leaders with strong convictions. We can only move society (and the church) in that direction by changing people’s hearts. And ironically, we do that by loving them…which is tough.

As a side comment, can I ask why you choose to post as Anonymous?