Christians and Politics

like cheese and crackers or oil and water?

Introduction

Here in Australia we have a democratic form of government. People are free to run for parliament and they can start their own political party, join an existing one, or run as an independent. If elected, they then have the potential to be able to introduce what they believe to be positive legislative reforms or to try to block what is in their view, harmful legislation.

For Christians who may be unhappy with the state of their society, or who may believe that political engagement is an essential aspect of being salt and light in the world, involvement with politics may seem to have many positives that we would be foolish, indeed, grossly negligent, to ignore. While it is true that politics can be difficult and messy much of the time, the possible good outcomes mean that that messiness just has to be coped with.

So the thinking of many Christians goes.

While the benefits that could come from Christians being in politics seem to be quite apparent and compelling, could there actually be more serious problems with such engagement than merely the unpleasant rough and tumble that seems to be an inevitable part of the democratic process? Could the hope of good outcomes – for both the Christian and wider communities - be blinding us to far more serious harms that political engagement does to our Christian witness in the world?

In this paper I will draw attention to several matters relating to Christians in politics that I believe raise some concerns and then I will outline two further problems of a more fundamental nature. I would suggest that Christians involved, or thinking of being involved, in politics need to clearly address these points.

Some general concerns

Firstly, with whom in politics can Christians be fruitfully and honourably aligned? When deciding to engage in politics there would seem to be three possible options: Christians could join an existing major (or minor) secular political party; an openly Christian party; or they could run as an independent.

If a major party is joined, given that the major parties have the best prospects of being, or forming, a government at some point, taking this course gives a person the greatest likelihood of being able to play some part in seeing legislation passed or, if in opposition, stopped. Since having an influence on the legislative agenda and outcome is presumably the primary reason for Christians wanting to participate in politics, joining a major party would seem to be a sensible option to take.

There are several downsides to such a move though. While there may be some or even many parts of a secular party platform that a Christian may readily assent to, it is highly improbable that there will be full agreement. Therefore, at some point, a Christian is almost certain to find themselves in the invidious position of having to decide whether to stay with a party that does some things that are dubious or even outright highly objectionable - with the hope that by hanging in there they will get the opportunity to vote for particular legislation the Christian very much supports - or simply leaving.

As has long been recognised, compromise (along with the moral corrosion that often seems to accompany it) would appear to be unavoidable if one wants to have an ongoing life within a major political party –indeed, within politics more generally.

It also has to be recognised that it is within the Cabinet, or even the inner cabinet, that the real decision-making goes on, with backbenchers often just making up the numbers. The pressure to compromise becomes all the more pointed therefore because those who fail to faithfully toe the party line have very little prospect of being appointed to Cabinet.

It should also come as little surprise to Christians if a secular party refuses to adopt policies that may be popular with some Christians but that do not appear to have wider support in the electorate. Moreover, it seems to be increasingly the case that secular parties are more concerned about getting and maintaining power than in making stands on principle.

Alternatively, in order to try and avoid some of the problems that come with membership of a secular party, a Christian wanting to get into politics could join a more or less openly Christian party. Taking this approach may seem to help in some ways but while there may be more agreement amongst Christians as to some policies to pursue, e.g. opposition to abortion, there may also be strong disagreement as to how to go about achieving such ends, e.g. by incremental change as opposed to outright prohibition of abortion.

A Christian party may also have the luxury of being able to adopt policies that the party does not believe are compromise positions. However, the very firmness of their position may have the unintended consequence of ensuring that they thereby never get anyone elected to parliament. Uncompromising policies may not have wide community appeal. The party then faces the dilemma of whether they should water down, or somehow disguise their positions, in order to try and enhance their electoral chances. Is there any point in having what may be regarded, by party members, as good policy if such policies never see the light of day in parliament?

Furthermore, on a wide variety of issues, if not all issues, is there any position that can be unambiguously declared to be “the Christian one”? Sincere Christians hold opposing views on a number of controversial matters such as what to do about boat people, going to war, dealing with environmental problems, and the death penalty, to name a few. Indeed, what is the right Christian political position on seemingly more mundane issues such as health, education, taxation, and immigration?

Can any Christian party legitimately claim to have the true Christian position on every matter or even any matter? Perhaps this is part of the reason why overtly Christian political parties have usually done very poorly at elections, even though the majority of the Australian population claims to identify as being Christian.

One way for a Christian would-be politician to try and avoid making any compromise on their own particular convictions is for them to run as an independent. While it is usually much more difficult to get elected as an independent - as compared to getting elected as a major party member - if an independent is successful they can claim a mandate for their policies (at least in their own electorate) and they are not accountable to any party.

The downside is that, having only a single vote in parliament, the independent has very little influence. One exception to this is the relatively unusual situation where there is a hung parliament and one or more independents have the balance of power. Obviously the independent cannot do anything to bring such a set of circumstances about and so it is possible that their entire parliamentary career may be of relatively little consequence.

The political system in Australia is often referred to as a representative democracy. This set-up presents something of a dilemma for all politicians but perhaps more-so for those who are Christians. Having been voted in as an electorate’s representative in Parliament, does that mean that a politician is thereby obliged to vote according to his/her perception of what the majority of that electorate wants, regardless of the politician’s own personal convictions? Or, since the politician has been freely voted in by the electorate, does that thereby grant the politician the right to vote as they see fit (party obligations not withstanding)? Another way this could be put is, should politicians lead (in the direction they think things should go) or should they follow (the will of the voters who put them there)?

Oftentimes it may be difficult to discern if there is clear support one way or the other in an electorate on a particular matter but at other times there may be apparent strong support for something that runs directly against a Christian politician’s convictions. If a politician is a member of a major secular party they are allowed to have a conscience vote on only a very limited number of issues. Beyond those issues, if a politician wants to have any future with the party they must vote along party lines, regardless of their own views. An independent politician avoids that problem but they still have to decide whether they can in good conscience vote against what most of their electors want and if they decide to do so, there is every likelihood that they will then be voted out at the next election.

It may be argued that all of the foregoing difficulties are either somehow surmountable or, even if they are not, that these problems do not outweigh the potential good that could come from Christians being politically involved. Be that as it may, there are two further challenges of a more fundamental nature that need to be addressed by Christians wanting to engage in politics.

Two more fundamental problems

1. The first matter is intrinsic to the nature of voting and democracy itself. If a democracy is going to be able to function it is essential that when a vote is held on an issue that all parties involved agree to accept the result of the vote.

That does not mean that the losing party cannot speak out against the decision and vow to try and get the result reversed if there is a future vote on the issue. What it does mean though is that in the mean time everyone has to abide by the result of the vote, like it or not.

If parties go into a vote saying that if they lose the vote they are going to disregard the decision and do what they wanted anyway, then the basis for democracy is broken down. Putting up with decisions that go against us is a sometimes very difficult but absolutely necessary part of the whole democratic process.

It may be felt that this requirement can be lived with, even if unhappily at times. The important question though is, can it, indeed should it, always be lived with?

For example, what if in Nazi Germany a democratic vote had been held on whether or not to carry out the Holocaust, and the majority had voted in favour? Would it have been right for the German Christians, or indeed any of the German people, to have accepted the outcome of the vote and simply lived with the killing going on until another vote may have been held at a later date with the result perhaps being reversed? Surely not: yet once we commit ourselves to involvement in the democratic political process, are we not bound to comply by its rules?

It could be argued that the above example is hypothetical and so extreme as to be unhelpful for this discussion. However, we presently live with an actual situation that many would regard as being as morally problematic as the Holocaust. That situation is of course the widespread destruction of human life by abortion.

Today we have votes in our parliaments on whether it should be legal for young human lives to be able to be aborted on request. We have Christian politicians - some of whom have stated that their desire to stop abortion is one of the main reasons why they entered politics - participating in these votes, and thereby agreeing to live with the outcome should they lose. And a number of these votes have been lost and these politicians (and Christians in the electorates) have then obediently abided by the rules of democracy and allowed the killing to proceed.

How is this essentially different to standing aside after a successful vote in favour of the Holocaust?

Of course it could be claimed that the solution here is to make sure that there are sufficient good people in parliament so that vital votes are not lost, thus avoiding such predicaments. It is impossible though to be able to guarantee that the numbers will be there when it matters and once we get on the democratic political ride we can’t just hop off when we don’t like how the ride is going.

It may be true that democratic government is the best, or at least, the least worst, form of government, but it is nevertheless the case that democracy is inherently seriously flawed. In the end, popular demand determines what is to be regarded as legal, and in the minds of many, what is therefore morally right.

When Christians choose to participate in the democratic process they implicitly agree to this principle and have to be prepared to go along with the results whatever they may be. Certainly they can continue to object and try to get things turned around at some future vote if things don’t go as they want, but in the mean-time they may have to stand by and allow some terrible things to take place. Even if truly awful consequences, such as having to live with babies being openly killed in our suburbs, are relatively uncommon, can voluntarily putting ourselves in the position where such things can occur, ever be right?

2. Lastly, for Christians who would be engaged politically, the question must be asked of them: do Christians have either the right or the responsibility to try and use the power of the State – through legislation and associated penalties - to compel non-Christians (and indeed Christians) to abide by Christian moral principles?

We are the inheritors of 2000 years of church history and there have been times during that period when there has been much overlap between church and state. Is such an overlap a desirable goal, even if it should take a different form to that historically experienced, for Christians to be aiming for today?

When Christians engage politically it is reasonable to assume that they do so with the hope of seeing (at least some) specifically Christian moral values being either retained or introduced into legislation. But which Christian moral values should Christians seek to have enforced by the raw power of the State? All of them? If not all, on what consistent, principled basis can it be determined which Christian moral values should be enforced by law and which can be properly set aside?

It is only in recent decades that homosexual acts have been decriminalised in Australia. Arguably it was because the Bible states that homosexual acts are immoral that laws against such behaviour were passed in western nations in the first place. From a Christian perspective was it a bad thing then that these laws were removed? Should Christians be pushing to have such laws reinstated? It is the case that some Christians do want the laws restored and some even want the death penalty to be applied for such acts, but those wanting any recriminalisation of homosexual acts appear to be very much in the minority.

In the past divorce has been illegal but now simple, no-fault divorce is available. Prostitution has also been largely legalised. Again, are divorce and prostitution things that Christian politicians should be seeking to make illegal again? If not, why not? If so, why these particular acts and not others? Should adultery between heterosexuals be criminalised? What about greed? What about all the Old Testament moral laws?

It is the case that in the past Christian values have played a major role in helping define what is legal or illegal. But there would seem to be no consistency, either in the past or the present, as to which values have been made into law and which haven’t. Can this be justified?

Returning though to the question that opened this section: do Christians have either the right or the responsibility to try and use the power of the State – through legislation and associated penalties - to compel non-Christians (and indeed Christians) to abide by Christian moral principles? Putting aside the question of which Christian values should be given the force of law, should Christians be attempting to use the law to impose any Christian values?

This is not to deny that many people are better off in some ways because Christian morals have been given legal force. Much suffering has been relieved by legislation introduced by Christian politicians: the abolition of the slave trade, laws against child labour, and many other laws that have been passed to the benefit of many. It is because of such good outcomes that a seemingly strong case can be mounted for the position that the use of political power by Christians must be a good. Even so, we must be careful not to be seduced by an “ends justify the means” philosophy.

Besides, apparent benefits that come from using the law to enforce Christian morality may in some instances be more illusory than actual. Criminalising homosexual acts, for example, may have resulted in less such behaviour, at least overtly, due to fear of prosecution. However it probably did little for those who have such attractions except make them angry and resentful. Perhaps part of the reason why many in the homosexual lobby seem to be so militantly anti-Christian is because the church has been seen to have taken the course of supporting the criminalisation of homosexuality rather than that of caring about the homosexuals.

In making these points it should not be construed that what is being advocated here is a weakening of Christian moral values. Rather, what is being questioned here is simply whether it is God’s intention that Christians use State power to enforce Christian values. What is the biblical justification for claiming that that is what God wants us to do?

Some may think that because I am questioning the rightness of Christians being involved in politics that I must therefore be advocating that Christians should withdraw from society – perhaps setting up our own completely separate, alternative community. That conclusion does not need to follow though.

The political process is one means by which change can be brought about in a society but it is not the only one. Perhaps we have become so reliant on the government and the political process that we now think that if we don’t get involved in trying to change the law we can’t do anything. Could it be the case that bringing about change by political means is the (relatively) easy way to do things and, human nature being what it is, we have decided to take that easier option?

What alternative is there though? Christians should seek to bring about a better world simply by living truly as Christians. That of course may sound very trite but if enforcing Christian values by law is not what God requires of us, then it is the only other option.

While political solutions are being relied upon, we can easily allow ourselves to think that we are doing all that we can do by casting our vote, joining a party or even perhaps by running for office. If those courses of action are unsuccessful then we can express our disappointment and maybe try harder at the next election. In the mean time we can allow ourselves to pretty much get on with living life as we want because what else can we do anyway?

Alternatively, if we believe that as Christians we should be contributing positively to our world, yet seeking political power is rejected as a means to achieve that, then other ways must be found. Just because we are not seeking to pass laws does not mean that we cannot be meaningfully engaged in our communities. We can, as appropriate, still speak to our society about what we believe is the right way to live and in particular we can be demonstrating that through the lives of our families and our church communities. Rather than being forced to comply to Christian values by law, non-Christians can be drawn to God by the example of truly godly people.

At one point two of Jesus’ disciples, James and John, came to him and requested that they be given positions of power. Jesus’ response was to contrast the way the worldly powers of the day exerted authority over the people with his own example of sacrificial servanthood. Jesus indicated that, likewise, those who follow him are not to try and dominate by the use of power but they are to be the servants of all. (Mark 10: 25-45)

At a later time, during the Last Supper, a dispute arose amongst the disciples as to which of them was greatest in the kingdom. Again Jesus contrasted the way those in power in the world wield authority and the way his followers should conduct themselves, as humble servants. (Luke 22: 24-27) Christian influence is to be exerted in a radically different way to that of the world.

Would the slave trade have been stopped when it was if Christians had not worked against it in parliament? Perhaps not but perhaps if the wider Christian community had long before addressed the issue with the seriousness and absolute commitment that slavery warranted, maybe it could have been stopped even sooner - by people choosing not to have slaves. In the United States, for example, would it have made a difference if significant numbers of Christians who were opposed to slavery had been prepared to move to and live in southern slaving communities with the intention of helping to change hearts and minds?

Today we face the great moral challenge of abortion. If Christians should decide not to use the political process to try and stop abortion, that could be regarded as being an abandonment of the unborn children. There are though other things we could be, and are doing, such as seeking to educate the community about life before birth.

Given the enormous seriousness of what abortion is however – the deliberate taking of young human lives – simply saying what abortion is, is hardly sufficient. When defenceless, innocent human lives are about to be deliberately taken, direct intervention to try and help the intended victims is surely the right and necessary course of action for the Christian to take whenever possible.

(I would add that I believe that such intervention should be non-violent: see Should violence be used to stop abortion) Given that I have questioned in this paper whether it is right for Christians to try and use the power of the State to enforce Christian values, it may seem to be inconsistent to now be saying that it is right for Christians to force their views about abortion by directly intervening to try and stop abortions taking place.

The question is, what is it that God requires of us? I can see no case for saying that God wants Christians to use the power of the State to compel people to abide by Christian values. I do believe though that it is consistent with the teachings of the Bible for Christians to (non-violently) come to the aid of those who are about to be unjustly killed. Few Christians have any problems with the actions of Christians like Corrie ten Boom and her family who helped save the lives of Jews during WWII.

It is certain that it would be far more costly for Christians if they were to take non-political, yet uncompromising, stands on the key issues of their day: such as abortion in ours, and slavery and the Holocaust in previous days. (Everything would be profoundly different and much, much harder if Christians generally today were to adopt the view that it is better to lose our freedom, and everything else, than to be free, prosperous people in a society that openly allows the killing of children.)

Perhaps the high cost of other courses of action is part of what makes a political approach more attractive. But cost, while it is to be taken into account by Christians, is not to deter us from acting rightly. No, Christians don’t need to use the power of the State – we just need to be living rightly, no matter what the cost.

Summary

In summary then, my concerns about Christian involvement in politics include:

• With whom in politics can Christians be fruitfully and honourably aligned?
• Can compromise in politics (with the seemingly inevitable accompanying moral corrosion) be avoided?
• Do very many issues, if any, have a position that can be unambiguously declared to be “the Christian one”?
• In a representative democracy should Christian politicians lead (in the direction they think things should go) or should they follow (the will of the voters who put them there)?

• Can Christians rightly put themselves in the position where, by participating in democratic political votes, they have to agree to accept (live with) the outcome of the vote, no matter how terrible that outcome may be?
• Do Christians have either the right or the responsibility to try and use the power of the State – through legislation and associated penalties - to compel non-Christians (and indeed fellow Christians) to abide by Christian moral principles?

Conclusion

There is no denying that good has come about by Christians being involved in politics and having laws passed which reflect Christian values. This fact undoubtedly encourages many Christians today to participate in politics with the hope of achieving similar outcomes. It also means that any suggestion that Christians should not be seeking political power could be summarily dismissed.

However, outcomes are not the only things that Christians must consider when evaluating a course of action. For example, there might be a lot less pornography about if 100 of the main pornography producers were assassinated, but that would not justify Christians starting to shoot.

Power is extremely seductive and Christians are not immune to its temptations. Christians are called to be servants, to love, to take up our cross, to die. It is to be the example of the conduct of godly lives, in conjunction with our words, which is to transform our world. Substituting the power of the State to force society into a superficial conformity with Christian values can, it is true, be helpful in some respects, but overall I do not believe it is the path that Jesus has called his followers to take.