The Church

The Church and Politics:
Issues of Morality

“Render to Caeser the things that are Caesar’s
and to God the things that are God’s.”
Mark 12:17

When Jesus made the statement recorded in Mark 12:17, those who heard him “marveled at Him.” This essay will not leave readers marveling. Its goal is to expose the work the church still needs to do to figure out how to apply the wisdom of Jesus’ statement.
Adolf Hitler’s directive to the Lutheran church was, “Preach your religion; stay out of politics.” How did that work out? The fact is that at the root of most politics is morality. Speaking about morality without exposing political implications is nearly impossible. We still have an obligation to speak about morality.
The most frequently quoted biblical texts guiding ecclesiastical matters of God and government (church and politics included) are in Romans 13:1 and Acts 5:28-29. Romans 13 exhorts, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” This is typically modified by only one exception, the one given by Peter in Acts 5. The Jewish authorities asked, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name?” Peter replied, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” This is understood to mean that we are always to obey civil authority except when it gives a command that violates God’s command. The same pattern appears in the stories of Daniel and his companions (Daniel 3 and 6). The Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, decreed that all people worship the golden statue of him or be thrown in the fiery furnace. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego refused. Later, King Darius decreed that no one was to petition any god or man except him for thirty days or be put in the lions’ den. Daniel refused. In both cases God’s authority overruled human authority.
But should we read Romans 13 and ask, “What authority has God given? Is it unlimited? Can a governor require all blonds to dye their hair red?” When the authority given is exceeded (and it often is), is it wrong to challenge it? Surely not.
Most congregations are comprised of mixed political persuasions. If the members discuss politics, they run the risk of offending one another. If the leadership exposes its political bias, members of differing positions could choose to leave. So, it is an issue of unity, but it is also an issue of conflicting moral views.
During the early days of Covid, each congregation had to decide what to do about the government’s restrictions on gathering. Some said, “We must obey God’s appointed authorities.” Others said, “God’s command, ‘Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together,’ overrides the command of the government.” Finally, some said, “That is not covered by Romans 13 and Acts 5. The government is exceeding the authority God gave it.”
Our answer to moral issues will impact our politics. And unfortunately, our politics can shape our understanding of morality. Christians do not have a consensus of conviction on these questions.
At least three positions are possible for churches.
(1) Be silent about all politics and be very careful about the moral issues clearly implied. Some churches
with sincere convictions are adamantly silent, saying, “As a church we do not talk about politics. We stay in our lane, all things biblical.” But those who are completely silent find themselves in a moral dilemma: be silent about morality embedded in a political issue or risk losing members who disagree. Should the church uncritically support educational administrators, or does it have a moral obligation to inform its families with school children that the local public school system is teaching Critical Race Theory while giving the half-truth, “We do not teach CRT,” yet teaching its content without using the name?
(2) Be open about politics, support political parties, political candidates, and specific elected politicians.
Name names pro and con, criticize or support political administrations, and influence members how to vote. There is a downside. If both the leadership and the members are openly of one political persuasion, people who disagree will obviously choose not to be part of that church. Where will they go?
(3) Some churches will not say anything about politics but boldly hit hard on the moral issues embedded within
politics, and let the pieces fall where they may. Obviously, the pieces will fall!
The questions keep coming. Is the US systemically racist? Where should churches stand on Black Lives Matter, biological males in women’s sports, and what is a woman? Where should we stand on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? If we should not consider the color of a person’s skin against them, is it equally logical that we should not consider it for them? Is the United Nations a good (moral) institution by promoting peace among nations or a good idea gone bad (immoral) by failing to act in wars of genocide and disproportionate condemnations of Israel? Has the United Nations become a tool of the Left? Are Palestinians justified in their claim that Israel is an occupying force, or is Israel right that the Palestinians want to annihilate all Jews?
Denominations, such as Quakers and Mennonites, absolutely oppose participation in military service. Others are less restrictive, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, who are pacificists but allow members to serve in the military in medical service without bearing arms. Yet others think it is immoral for the state not to oppose evil--with force when necessary. The same is true regarding the death penalty, one denomination opposes it, another supports it. Both appeal to moral reasons for their position.
What does “separation of church and state” require? Or since that proposition is not in the US Constitution, is it a legitimate policy? The Constitution says, “Congress shall not establish any religion.” Does that guarantee freedom of religion or freedom from religion? Frequently, churches and individual Christians have not sorted out all of this.
Conservative Evangelicals are viewed and criticized by other Christians (and non-Christians) as associated with the political Right. They are pejoratively labeled, “Christian nationalists.” Theological liberals typically associate with the political Left, oppose nationalism, support open borders and globalism. It is said that Christian liberals share values with conservatives but vote Left. Perhaps the most common position of churches is avoidance, apathy, and non-involvement in political issues. If evil is real, how can this be?
Jesus said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” His wisdom is profoundly evident. For the most part churches hear this and are diligent in forming their convictions on how to apply it. Yet the diversity of views among Christians shows our lack of seeing things as God sees them. What is the cause of our diversity? A failure to ask for wisdom? A lack of humility? A lack of love for one another? Our unwillingness to talk to one another civilly and non-judgmentally? Or is it merely the Fonzie syndrome, the egotistical unwillingness to say, “I was wrong”? Why do we think we are the ones who are thinking clearly, and the other guys aren’t?
Our problem is far more than different views on political issues. We cannot sort out what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God because we do not agree on what is moral. That is the problem.