One of the most significant issues to come out of the recent national elections in the United States (and one that, in our opinion, will not rapidly fade away) is the proper role of political-action groups composed of evangelical Christians. Other concerns may have received more attention by voters, but we believe that in the final analysis the questions raised by the activities of religious lobbyists will overshadow even such immediate and perennial interests as the economy, national defense, and energy.
As revealed by the sampling of letters in response to Roland Hegstad's September article, "Washington for Jesus Really?" (see pp. 2, 19), religious leaders are sharply divided over the proper function of such Christian lobbying groups. At MINISTRY we find ourselves somewhat divided as well. We share strongly the alarm and dismay of those who decry the moral decline of America. We stand with those who affirm the sanctity of the family; who oppose pornography and the ever-increasing violence and sexuality of broadcasting and film; who refuse to affirm that homosexuality is an acceptable life style; and who equate abortion with the taking of life. Thus, we are in harmony with many (but by no means all) of the goals of conservative Christian lobbyists.
At the same time, however, we unhesitatingly disagree with the method political activism by which such groups seek to achieve these commonly shared goals. We do so, because as Mr. Hegstad points out in his article, the Scriptures give precious little support for using politics as a substitute for evangelism. A Christianity that is not able to inculcate its ideals through the spiritual means en trusted to her by her Master has no right to turn to the strong arm of the state to prop her up. When the Lord advised to "render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's," He also added, "and unto God the things which be God's" (Luke 20:25). Legislated morality is a hollow victory at best, as demonstrated by America's brief experiment with the national prohibition of alcohol. A legislated morality operates on principles precisely the opposite of those utilized by evangelism. Legislated morality attempts to produce an external conformity while leaving the heart untouched. Evangelism seeks to change the heart, knowing that by so doing there will be a change in the outward life, as well.
The September article makes a distinction that we feel is important in this context. The committed Christian has a responsibility to use the individual vote and other influence he may have as a tool for shaping the moral posture of society. After a careful study of candidates and issues, he may cast his vote for those people and concepts that, in his opinion, are most compatible with Christian ideals of justice and virtue. However, this is a matter quite different from organized efforts to establish the kingdom of God on earth by political action.
There is yet another reason why we feel it necessary to part company with the methods of our evangelical lobbyist friends. As much as we would like to see certain moral values become an established part of society, we share the concern expressed by some readers that the same religious group that can exert political leverage to legislate spiritual values with which we agree, can do likewise to establish religious practices and ideas with which we disagree. Such groups have great potential for religious persecution. Indeed, the lesson of history is that religion, when it turns to politicians for support, inevitably degenerates into intolerance and persecution of those who fail to conform to the prescribed practices or beliefs.
As one letter writer makes clear: criticism and misunderstanding are to be expected by those who attempt to make distinctions between laudable, worthy goals and inappropriate methods of achieving them. In the minds of some, to oppose evangelical Christian political activists, for whatever reason, is to put oneself in the camp of the "atheists," "liberals," "agnostics," "facists," "antichrists," and assorted "diabolical riff-raff," who are dragging society to ruin. We are willing to risk being unfairly tarred with that brush if necessary in order to raise our voices against the dangers we see in organized religious lobbyists for political action.
We believe the founding fathers of the United States did well to separate the church from the state. We are most reluctant to begin dismantling the wall they built, no matter how worthy the objective. We believe the moral goals we all want to achieve can best be brought about by the method Jesus advocated "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ... to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:19, 20). —B.R.H.
