The Grounds for Christian (and Evangelical) Civility in Politics

When we, as evangelical Christians, engage in political life, we may do well to employ particular principles, and we may benefit from the use of certain interpretative frameworks of understanding embodied in ideological perspectives. Ideological perspectives simplify complex social and political phenomena, enabling adherents to make “sense of the political world” and providing adherents important interpretive frameworks for analysis and assessment.

But, political principles and ideological interpretations are neither religious commandments nor matters of divine revelation. Human thought is always tainted by the adverse effects of the fall and humankind’s sinful condition.  And, as a result, neither the political left nor the political right can claim the mantel of divine favor. As former congressman Paul Henry wrote in 1974 in his book Politics for Evangelicals, if devout Christians seeking to be faithful to their sovereign God “cannot come to an agreement on matters where there appears to be direct biblical teaching, then it is hardly to be expected that they will come to agreement on the matters where biblical teachings are arrived at only indirectly and inductively.”  

When Christians engage in political life, they must do so humbly and with civility. This contention is based on three considerations.[1] The first basis for exercising political civility in politics is that, in our political thinking and action, Christians need to exercise theological humility.  For Christians, the Bible serves as an authoritative text.  Certainly, the Protestant tradition within the Christian faith has long advanced the notion of sola Scriptura as the basis for discerning God’s will for humankind. But when we seek to apply the principle of sola Scriptura for guiding our political thinking about politics, there are at least three complications in doing so.  These complications mandate that a certain level of theological humility be exhibited when seeking to discuss politics from a perspective that endeavors to be faithful to biblical teachings. These three problems involve (a) the nature of biblical material related to political life, (b) the need for interpretation of biblical texts, and (c) the effects of sin in interpreting scripture.

First, given the purposes for which it was written, the Bible does not provide any substantial, systematical discussion of politics that explicates a particular philosophical perspective related to civic and political matters. Certainly, there are particular biblical passages that do relate to public life, some directly and others more indirectly. But, these passages must still be assessed to determine whether they represent instructions for a particular historical audience (e.g., are such statements given specifically to particular kings or kingdoms in the Old Testament) or whether they constitute instructions that transcend time and place.  Overall, however, it is probably accurate to state that those biblical texts that do directly address politics and may serve as guides for Christian political action are, in fact, relatively few in number, fairly general in the nature of their discussion, and in need of some level of interpretation with regard to how these particular texts apply to contemporary political life. 

Moreover, factors other than one’s theological perspectives come into play with regard to interpreting biblical texts.  In addition to possible theological differences, there are also likely to be differences among Christians in terms of the analytical understandings of such principles of justice, the common good, and equality. For example, even if all Christians could agree that the state should pursue justice, it is far from clear just what that might mean, as there are different analytical understandings as to whether justice is retributive, distributive, or restorative in nature.  

Finally, assessments related to the role of government are also related to other, more empirically related, factors.  For example, such assessments are also likely to be shaped by: one’s interpretation of the proscribed powers given by the American constitution to different levels of government; one’s assessments of the present cultural, social, and economic realities within American life; one’s judgment related to the root causes of problems that are currently confronting American society; and, one’s beliefs related to the likely consequences (both intended and unintended) of governmental actions.  These interpretations, assessments, and judgments related to such empirical factors do not rest on one’s theological interpretations or one’s analytical perspectives. Yet, they too will likely shape one’s expectations related to the propriety, need, and wisdom of governmental intervention in particular matters of public life.  

Given these differences in theological understandings, analytical perspectives, and empirical assessments, it is not surprising that Christians who endeavor to be faithful to their Christian calling and who also seek to be faithful to scripture, can easily come to different views related to the role and function of government, the particular political priorities or issues to be addressed, the specific public policies that should be pursued related to such political priorities, and the political party most likely to pursue and implement such policies. 

The second basis for the exercise of political civility in politics is the moral ambiguity associated with politics and policy-making. Given the complexity of politics, the limited adequacy of information related to political issues under consideration, and our inability to predict with certainty the outcomes of legislative policies, there is a moral ambiguity related to politics that further calls Christians to exhibit political civility when engaging in political discussions and decision-making.  As Paul Henry noted in his book Politics for Evangelicals, politics is not the only arena of life within which moral ambiguity is present, but what distinguishes politics is the extent to which moral ambiguity is present.  

The moral ambiguity of politics stems, in part, from the nature of politics.

Certainly, not all political values or all political interests are necessarily of equal merit, and there are inherent ethical assumptions in the pursuit of political ends.  Nevertheless, there are three facets about the nature of politics contribute to its moral ambiguity.  First, politics frequently relates to choosing between relative goods in terms of political ends, and the moral ambiguity of politics relates to the need to decide which of these various relative political goods are more substantial, meritorious, or critical in nature than other such goods.

            A second characteristic of politics that contributes its moral ambiguity relates to the very complicated problems with which politics must deal. Not only are many political problems immensely complex, but decisions related to these complex issues must almost always be forged on the basis of incomplete, inadequate, and/or ambiguous information.  In efforts to make good public policy, there is almost always a desire for more or better data on which to make political decisions, and the data that are available are usually subject to multiple interpretations as to what they indicate or suggest.  Yet, to delay decisions about how best to address a problem may only perpetuate and acerbate the problem itself.  Hence, there is always a cloud of uncertainty surrounding any piece of proposed legislation, with different people being likely to come to different assessments as to whether, and just how, some piece of proposed legislation might actually accomplish its intended purposes, rectify the problem, and resolve the issue.  

Third, even if there were universal agreement as to which policy area held the greatest priority, universal agreement as to what constituted the major problem to be addressed by the policy under discussion, universal agreement as to what the data revealed about that problem, and universal agreement that the proposed piece of legislation would accomplish its intended purposes, there still could likely be differences in assessments related to possible, but unintended, outcomes associated with the policy proposal—and that these undesirable, unintended consequences outweighed the desired intended consequences of the legislation. Thus, the moral ambiguity of politics also relates, in part, to the fact that political decisions and particular public policies have both intended and unintended consequences. Neither Christians nor non-Christians can predict with complete accuracy and assurance that the intended outcomes of legislative policies will be realized or that certain adverse unintended outcomes will not emerge in the wake of such legislation. Even policies proposed and passed with the best intentions and assessments can still foster undesirable unintended outcomes by the passage of such legislation.

Finally, the third basis for exercising greater civil in politics is that, given the biblical command to love one’s neighbor as oneself, it is imperative that Christians be willing to exercise greater charity to one’s political opponents. With its competing values, policy priorities, and social and economic assessments related to policy-making, politics always entails the presence of disagreement.  But, one of the most important decisions we as Christians can make related to politics is the manner by which we choose to treat those with whom we disagree

There is clearly a need for greater civility and charity in contemporary American political life.  On the one hand, there are practical reasons to do so. But there are important religious reasons to do so as well.  We must treat those with whom we disagree politically with respect because of who they are. Though we may disagree strongly with others, we must never forget they are image-bearers of God and thereby possess inherent dignity and right of conscience. We are to treat others with respect and good manners regardless of their political perspectives. When we treat our political opponents with disdain, we publicly dishonor God.

            The fact that our political opponents are image-bearers of God and that we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves should be sufficient enough to cause us as Christians to treat our political opponents with civility and respect—regardless of who they may be, the particular policies they may propose, or the particular religion, or lack thereof, which they exhibit or express.  But, not only do we as Christians frequently fail to do so, we all too often judge and treat our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ on the basis of the political positions they adopt. Somehow we come to view other Christians who do not hold the political positions we do as either exhibiting a “less informed faith in Christ” or even “not a true faith in Christ.”  In other words, we let our political and ideological perspectives make judgments about the nature of someone else’s faith in Christ, forgetting that we not the ones who are to separate the sheep from the goats.

It is our religious faith that should structure our political perspectives—not the converse.  As Paul notes in Galatians 3:28, we are all one in Christ; there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female—and, by extension, no Democrat or Republican, or no liberal or conservative. God does not judge us according to these distinctions, and neither should we if we seek to be faithful unto Him.

[1] This brief essay is drawn from more extensive remarks that I gave in the Seventeenth Annual Paul B. Henry Lecture, Calvin College, April 26, 2013.  The full presentation, along with it further explication of the arguments, can be heard at: http://new.livestream.com/calvin-college/events/2039295