Journeyman

Firstly, let me ask the foundational question – IS there a role for the Christian voice (expressed individually or collectively) in public policy and politics? And the answer is an emphatic YES.

In Western Society (leaving alone vestiges of establishment in England etc.) this is not a peculiar right. Rather it’s the right of any citizen, or organisation of citizens, in a liberal democracy, to express opinion on public policy. They have a right to seek to convince other people of their point of view. They have a right to contact politicians and civic leaders and explain which decisions they would disagree with and which they wouldn’t. They have a right to do this through the media and in the public domain. To disqualify someone from the right to be activist, to lobby, to speak in society simply because they are Christian, or because their position has a Christian or religious foundation, is a denial of civil rights and is intolerance that should be decried.

Secondly, let me add nuance by asking this question. If someone has a strong Christian conviction, in what manner do those convictions interact with their social and political engagement?

1) It encourages engagement. The role of government is respected and affirmed in the Bible (Romans 13 being an example) – although this is not absolute and does not call us to condone oppression or systemic injustice. In a liberal democracy the form of the government is of the people and for the people. Broadly speaking “we” are the government – and to respect it is to play our part.

2) It fosters constructive engagement. Concepts of justice, fairness and welfare permeate the Judeo-Christian ethic.

3) It cannot be removed from that engagement. Every politician is asked to make decisions – some of them difficult. To these decisions a politician must bring their wisdom, discernment, intelligence, experience, their sense of values as to what is in the national interest, and how the country should be run, and what would be best for society etc. A person’s religious or philosophical framework permeates these things. They must do as their conscience sees fit, and if we disagree with the values that inform their conscience then we will vote them out. I believe in the separation between church and state, the separation of religion/philosophy and politics/governance is impossible and to expect it is nonsensical and undemocratic.

And this interacts with the question of extent, my third point.

I value the separation of church and state. I am glad I do not live in a theocracy. Yet I hold to some ideals and ethics – which I would consider inherent to my following of Jesus – which I would like to have society embrace institutionally, legally, politically.

Many of these ideals and ethics are very common and not controversial – I want murderers to be caught and punished, swindlers and fraudsters to be held to account etc.

Other ideals tap into a common value but there may be disagreement on their application – for instance, I want our society to protect the weak and the vulnerable. We all agree. Yet… I am convinced that an unborn baby is a person who is weak and vulnerable… now it gets interesting. I do not want society to move in a direction that leads terminally ill people to feel pressured to end their life. Controversial perhaps.

But the reason I would be activist on these issues is that in these examples we are tapping into a clear sense of the role of government in Romans 13:1-7. These are issues of justice and protection and we expect the government to maintain order and peace by bringing “punishment on the wrongdoer” etc.

So on these issues – the issues pertaining to the biblical role of government – I will speak up. Vehemently at times. My Christian convictions will inform my conscience and my sense of right and wrong and I will not just give voice to, but actively stand up for what I think is right. I would expect no less of any good citizen, Christian or otherwise.

Perhaps we can define this extent by saying these are “legislatable” issues and Christians should be politically active in these areas.

There are other issues, however, which are not inherent to the domain of government. I would place much of the “debate” about homosexuality in this category. I have personal views on how marriage is defined – and will voice these views if asked or when appropriate.

But this is not a matter of defending the weak against wrongdoing, it’s a matter of opinion. (Unlike, I might add, the inciting of harm against homosexuals, which I would speak up against). I might advise someone not to enter a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex (or anyone they are not married to), but I wouldn’t want to live in a society that prevented it through compulsion – by turning it into a crime or something.

This is the domain of the “non-legistable” issue – where Christians can have an opinion, but not demand (or even expect) the compulsion of the government’s “sword.”

Similarly, I would advise against promiscuity or the viewing of pornography. I would counsel people to go to church and aspire to a Christian sense of holy living, including an acknowledgement of God as Lord and Saviour. But I cannot compel them, and the government should not either.

The main value to engage with in this area is that of freedom. And it is that freedom that I would fight for and be activist about. The exercise of the freedom may not be legislatable but the freedom itself is once again a matter of defending the weak from wrongdoing – it is legislatable.

In particular I would defend religious freedom. We should get rid of heresy laws. We should allow churches to organise their community, and even exercise relational discipline, with those who have freely and voluntarily joined.

By drawing a line between what is “legislatable” and “not legislatable” (these are my terms, and I’m still working on their conceptual precision), I think the biblical view of government makes room for pluralism.

This makes missiological sense in a post-Christendom world.

When I hear Christian brothers and sisters lamenting some further loosening of the legal bonds on social morality, my response is to ask “What’s the solution? What would you rather have – a bunch of people compelled to conform to every single one of your ideals, or a group of people who have freely agreed with you, choosing not to do something that the law gives them freedom to do? Don’t crack the whip, get out there and have conversations, meet people, know people, listen to people, and show them the value of your position. Live it.”