Can the
gospel and social activism co-exist? Should Christians involve themselves in
the world by participating in politics, pursue advanced degrees in education,
medicine, science, and law, produce films on a wide range of subjects, seek a
career in journalism, and develop non-governmental programs for long-term
social reform based on a well thought out biblical worldview? Or should
Christians spend their lives in so-called full-time Christian service and
reject the world? If every Christian followed this narrow ministry track, who
would fund both domestic and foreign missions? If Christians abandon politics
and the courts, to name just two “secular” realms that impact us daily, it’s
quite possible that the freedoms that we have to preach the gospel might someday
be taken away.1
What
would happen in today’s world if what’s left of the salt and light of
Christianity were withdrawn?2 Not only can’t a
biblical case be made for such a narrow shaping of the Christian worldview, but
it would also be impossible, impractical, and frightening to attempt to defend
and implement such a position.
Our
Only Agenda?
Christian
author and pastor John MacArthur argues for a narrowly focused gospel agenda:
“We are interested in people becoming saved. That is our only agenda…. It is
the only thing that we are in the world to do.”3 The only thing? What
about the millions of Christians who work in hundreds of different professions
that have no direct relationship to the single agenda of “people becoming
saved”? How is this different from being involved in social issues? They both
take time away from preaching the gospel. Has he told the members of his church
to quit their jobs and head for the highways and byways to get people saved
24/7? Of course not.
Right
after MacArthur tells us that preaching the gospel “is our only agenda,” he
adds this caveat: “If we are going to see our nation transformed, it has to be
done from the inside out, that’s our agenda.” But how? Can we do it from afar,
cloistered behind the walls of the sanctuary? Could the Samaritan who helped
the man who “fell among robbers” (Luke 10:30-37) have demonstrated compassion by
only preaching the gospel?4 At the conclusion of the
story, Jesus told His audience to “go and do likewise” (10:37).
While
some argue that personal acts of mercy are warranted and encouraged by
Scripture, being involved in politics is a waste of time, money, and energy
when lost souls are at stake. If governmental policies are hurting the poor by
making them dependent on the State, how can Christians ignore the political
process that reinforces multi-generational poverty in the name of “social
justice”?5 The Bible has a great
deal to say about the oppression of the poor by individuals and governments
(1 Kings 21:1-16; Eccl. 5:8; Isa. 3:14; 10:2; Ezek. 22:29; Amos 4:1; Zech. 7:10). Saying “it’s the government’s
job” to deal with poverty, jobs, and housing is akin to saying, “go in peace,
be warmed and be filled” (James 2:16). The poor
today are oppressed more by government policies than by individual oppression.
A Good-Samaritan Faith requires Christians to get involved in politics in order
to halt the oppression of the poor by policies that make people dependent upon
the State.
Why
Things Were the Way They Were
In his
book Why Government Can’t Save You, MacArthur opens the first
chapter with a description of how things used to be:
There was a time when nearly
everyone could name off all the Ten Commandments, but
today most don’t know what the Ten Commandments are. There was also a time when
retail stores, dining and entertainment establishments, and all nonessential
enterprises would be closed on Sunday out of respect for the Lord’s day. But
now for most people in the West it’s fairly much business as usual on Sundays.
Furthermore, there was a time (not so many years ago), when respectable
citizens uniformly disapproved of homosexuality, adultery, and divorce;
believed sexual promiscuity was absolutely wrong; disdained cursing or obscene
language; saw abortion as unthinkable; and automatically held public officials
to high moral and ethical standards. But today many citizens, when polled on
such issues, view them either as acceptable practices, civil rights, or
inconsequential matters.6
Why was
there time when nearly everyone could name off all the Ten Commandments?
Because Christians took their faith seriously and applied it beyond the church
doors and the Sunday School hour. America was a beacon to the world and still
is because of how Christians once applied their faith to every area of life.
Those who came here understood that America was a Christian nation. In fact,
the case could be made that America’s public display of faith is what attracted
so many to our shores.
The
late Francis Schaeffer asked a fundamental question of those who enjoyed the
fruit of our nation’s Christian heritage: How should we then live?7 He not only asked the
question, he attempted to answer it with a series of prophetic and provocative
books and films. Schaeffer’s own eschatological views, like those of
MacArthur’s, created a roadblock that did not allow him to work out the full
implications of what he thought needed to be accomplished.8 Charles Colson updated
the question with “how now shall we live?”9 by offering more specific
solutions to today’s current problems. The gospel is certainly the first step
in the process of social transformation, but it’s not the only step. It never
has been: “Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and
envy and all slander, like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word,
that by it you may grow in respect to salvation” (1 Pet. 2:1-2; also, Heb. 5:12-14). Growth after birth is the goal.
If
Christians don’t engage the culture at every level — politics included — then
they will be excluded from every area of life similar to the way “social
credit” is being used in China to exclude non-desirables as defined by the
State. Get busy now or forever hold your peace when the iron boot of the
State and social forces stomp on your face forever.
Fix
Only What’s Broken
MacArthur
is concerned that some “believers have often displayed mean-spirited attitudes
and utilized the same kinds of worldly tactics as their unbelieving opponents.”10 If this
is the problem with Christian activism, then deal with it without condemning
the whole process. Peter and Paul, and sometimes even Jesus, were not always
“nice.” Taking a firm stand on moral issues may seem “antagonistic toward the
very lost people God has called … to love and reach with the gospel,” MacArthur
argues, but often times it’s necessary. Christians have been nice, and the
world has used this niceness to walk all over Christians. Niceness in the face
of evil is often misinterpreted as weakness and irrelevance by non-Christians:
On an individual level,
Christians have bought the lie that it’s better to be nice and to “get along”
than it is to be right and stand up for the truth. We’ve accepted the notion
that it’s wrong to be different, both inside and outside the church. And we’ve
allowed ourselves to be manipulated by guilt to the point that we’re afraid to
say no to anyone in the church, no matter what our responsibilities or priorities
we already have.11
Take a
lesson from Candace Owens. She refused to be a doormat. She spoke up and fought
back. The early church did as well. Peter and John said, “Whether it is right
in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge;
for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20) Later, Peter said, “We must obey
God rather than men” (5:9).
I’m not
opposed to criticizing the tactics, methods, and behavior used by some who
present the claims of Christ to a lost world. My adage has always been, “Do not
give the opposition any reason to reject your position other than the position
itself” (cf. 2 Cor. 6:3). But
sometimes it’s the position itself that’s offensive no matter how well or
compassionately it’s presented. Jesus Christ is an offense because He is a
constant reminder of the sin that resides in all of us (1 Pet. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:23). Jesus came to redeem us from our
sin. This is offensive to people who don’t believe that they’re that bad. They
resent anyone who insists that they might need a “savior.” If we think that a
smiling face and an accommodating demeanor will lead people to accept the
gospel and the moral worldview that goes along with it, then we are deluded.
Stephen Brown makes the same point:
I believe that Jerry Falwell
and many like him are hated, not only for the things for which they stand, but
because they aren’t supposed to stand at all. They are Christians, and
Christians are supposed to be seen and not heard; Christians are supposed to
stay in church, smile, and talk about God; Christians are supposed to bless the
mess of paganism and act like a kept woman.12
Some
argue that the gospel must precede social transformation because being moral
without Christ turns the gospel into a form of works righteousness. This can
certainly happen. Many Americans have adopted a civil religion where morality
is perceived to be enough, whether it’s advocated by a Christian, Buddhist,
Muslim, or even an atheist. Passing laws to protect the unborn and to maintain
the sanctity of marriage shouldn’t have to wait until everyone’s a Christians.
Should we ignore good laws even if they are put into place by moral
non-Christians?
For a
number of years, Rome protected the church against radical Jews who wanted the
Christian leadership rounded up and thrown in jail or worse. Paul considered
protection by the non-Christian Roman civil government to be a good thing. He
appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11; 28:19) without agonizing over whether he was
succumbing to “the deadly dangers of moralism.”13 Paul accepted the civil
morality of the Roman empire as beneficial (cf. 1 Pet. 2:13-17) for the spread of the gospel
(Acts 23-28).
In a
book edited by John MacArthur and produced by members of The Master’s College
faculty, we learn that Christians should recover a Christian worldview. There
are even chapters on church and state, economics, and art in the book.14 The chapter on
developing a biblical view of Church and State makes the good point that
“Believers need to be reminded that there can be no healthy or lasting change
of social structures without a redemptive change in people, which is why Christ
came two thousand years ago.”15 So, we’ve moved from
preaching the gospel “is our only agenda” to teaching a broader agenda that
includes changing social structures. But what are the particulars?
Power
Politics
America
is a mess, and we can include the world as well, because Christians, who have
undergone a redemptive change, are keeping their personal transformation under
wraps. There is fear by some Christian leaders that if Christians get involved
in politics, the gospel message will be diluted. That might happen, but it
doesn’t have to. It doesn’t seem to register with these same critics that our
non-involvement does not enhance the spread of the gospel. It is not inevitable
that Christians, once successful in the political realm, will get “blinded by
might.”16
Christians
are still sinners and there are always pitfalls and dangers in any endeavor,
even those distant from so-called worldly pursuits. The church is not a haven
from corruption. Have you noticed how often Paul deals with problems within the
church (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1-2; 6:1-11)? Paul knows the temptation that some
have in lording “it over the faith” (2 Cor. 1:24). Corrupt leaders (1 Sam. 2:12-25) and “savage wolves” (Acts 20:29) are not exclusive to politics. The
Church is no more immune to “power politics” than the State.
No one
I know is claiming that government can save anyone or that politics is a
substitute for the cross of Christ.17 The assumption of so
many opposed to almost any kind of social activism by Christians is the belief
that social activism must always be preceded by gospel proclamation. Must we
wait until pro-abortionists become Christians before we can pass laws outlawing
abortion?
Ultimately,
Christians who are faithful to the demands of the gospel, without the need of
coercion or special laws, will make society better for everyone. As Michael
Novak, who held the Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American
Enterprise Institute, observed, “When there are 250 million consciences on
guard, it is surprising how few police are needed on the streets.”18 But right now we do not
have 250 million consciences, and until we do, certain precautions need to be
taken because of the sinful nature of man. Our founding fathers understood
this. John Adams wrote.
The moral government of God,
and his viceregent, Conscience, ought to be sufficient to restrain men to
obedience, to justice, and benevolence at all times and in all places; we must
therefore descend from the dignity of our nature when we think of civil
government at all. But the nature of mankind is one thing, and the reason of
mankind another; and the first has the same relation to the last as the whole
to a part. The passions and appetites are parts of human nature as well as
reason and the moral sense. In the institution of government it must be
remembered that, although reason ought always to govern individuals, it
certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and
human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be.19
The
Need for a Defensive Offense
At this
point in time, Christians are out of necessity playing defense. We are like
Peter of Haarlem, the lockkeeper’s son who stuck his finger in a dike when he
saw that his town was threatened by flood waters. Peter could have gone about
preaching the gospel, but at that moment, the town needed to be
saved from an impending disaster. We are in a similar situation. We are about
to be overwhelmed by a flood of governmental oppression.
The
Christian faith and Christians are under attack. The day may come, because of
our self-imposed silence, that we will be forced to be silent as a matter of
law. Then what will we do?
1.
David R. Mains, The Rise of the Religion of
Antichristianism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985) and David
Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity (Washington,
D.C.: Regnery, 2003).(↩)
2.
Alvin J. Schmidt, Under the Influence: How Christianity
Transformed Civilization(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 329; D. James
Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (Nashville,
TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994); D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If
the Bible Had Never Been Written? (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
1998).(↩)
3.
Quoted in Jon Zens and Cliff Bjork, “A Better Society Without
the Gospel? The Unbiblical Expectations of Many Christian Leaders,” Searching
Together 27:1, 2, 3 (Spring-Fall 1999), 12.(↩)
4.
Gene Mills, “Shepherds, Samaritans, and Standers By,” Perspectives (October
2003), 4.(↩)
5.
Gary DeMar, “Is Social Justice Just?,” Liberty at Risk:
Exposing the Politics of Plunder (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision,
2003), 167-174.(↩)
6.
John MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You:
Alternative to Political Activism (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing,
2000), 3-4.(↩)
7.
Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? in The
Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, 5 vols.
(Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 5:79-277.(↩)
8.
For an assessment of Schaeffer’s dilemma, see Gary DeMar, “Fear
of Flying: Clipping Theonomy’s Wings,” Theonomy: An Informed Response,
ed. Gary North (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), 57-64.(↩)
9.
Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcy, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton,
IL: Tyndale House, 1999).(↩)
10.
MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You, 5.(↩)
11.
R. C. Sproul, “Foreword,” in Stephen Brown, No More Mr.
Nice Guy!: Saying Goodbye to “Doormat” Christianity (Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 1986).(↩)
12.
Brown, No More Mr. Nice Guy!, 25.(↩)
13.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., “The Deadly Dangers of Moralism,”
delivered at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California (2002: tape
GC-80-257).(↩)
14.
John MacArthur, gen. ed., Think Biblically!: Recovering
a Christian Worldview(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003).(↩)
15.
John P. Stead, “Developing a Biblical View of Church and
State,” Think Biblically!, 293-294.(↩)
16.
Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, Blinded By Might: Can the
Religious Right Save America? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).(↩)
17.
Edwin W. Lutzer, Why the Cross Can Do What Politics
Can’t (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1999).(↩)
18.
Michael Novak, “The Causes of Virtue” (a speech given in
Washington, D.C., January 31, 1994). Quoted in Charles Colson, Justice
that Restores: Why Our Justice System Doesn’t Work and the Only Method of True
Reform (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishers, 2001), 105.(↩)
19.
John Adams. Cited by Michael Novak, On Two Wings: Humble
Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (San Francisco, CA:
Encounter Books, 2002), 49.(↩)
