Saeculum: government, law and culture

The approach taken by Christians and churches to political issues is often influenced or even driven by gospel imperatives. We advocate positions on the political questions of the moment with one eye open to how that advocacy will be received by the community, desiring to leave a door open for the gospel.

A good recent illustration of this was the approach taken by Christians to the Voice referendum. For those who voted yes, or advocated that Christians ought to vote yes, one of the main reasons for doing so seems to have been the public witness of the church.

One of the leading arguments in favour of the Voice was Michael Jensen’s article The Voice: A Christian Consideration. Although not expressly stated, it is difficult to escape the feeling that Jensen’s advocacy of the Voice was driven at least in part by a desire not to damage the witness of the church in the eyes of the world.

Lest that be unfair, other writers were more explicit. One author wrote that “If we don’t support the Voice, significant damage will be done to our relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and great damage will also be done to our faith and public witness”.

PeaceWise argued that seeking reconciliation through mechanisms such as the Voice “has the potential to witness Jesus, even as Christians we are called to a broader ministry of helping show others the life-changing possibility of reconciliation with God himself (see 2 Corinthians 5: 11-21)”.

Let us consider the arguments for and against such an approach.

Reasons to tailor politics to gospel imperatives

There are two strong arguments for Christians to tailor their politics to gospel imperatives. The first is that the vast majority of political issues are matters of wisdom, not biblical prescription. The Bible speaks to all aspects of life and has clear social and political implications, but is not an encyclopaedia of law or government. Even where Scripture clearly sets out a moral principle, such as “love your neighbour as yourself” (Mark 12:31), or seek justice for the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17), this does not often translate neatly into a particular policy or law.

As the debates within the Christian community regarding the Voice illustrated, respectable biblical reasons can be marshalled on both sides of a political question. This does not mean that such questions are unimportant, rather it means that Christians are not bound to support one side or other, but must engage in the difficult task of thinking through such issues with fallen reason and wisdom. Christians therefore have a measure of freedom in deciding which position to support.

Secondly, matters of politics are penultimate, concerned almost exclusively with this passing present age. But the gospel concerns matters of ultimate importance – the eternal destiny of souls. Given what is at stake, Christians should be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the gospel:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel … (1 Corinthians 9:19–23).

Given the penultimate nature of political questions and the freedom that Christians have, it would seem to be a small thing to make adjustments to our political posture if that could open a door for the gospel.

Reasons for caution

On the other hand, there are also some reasons for caution. The first is the risk of insincerity. Advocating something for no other reason than that it might be a good witness could make light of important issues. Although they are penultimate, political questions matter. They can affect people’s lives in significant ways. They can do real good, or cause real harm.

One of the main arguments against the Voice was that it would enshrine race into the Constitution, and entrench a constitutionalised form of critical race theory. If that were true (and I am not expressing a view one way or the other), then it would have introduced a real harm into our constitutional arrangements which would have been next to impossible to remove.

Would the benefit of opening (or not closing) a door to the gospel through advocacy in favour of the Voice have been worth that harm? That’s a difficult question. Issues such as the Voice need to be evaluated on their merits as political questions, not solely through the lens of the gospel.

Secondly, approaches to Christian political engagement based on gospel imperatives typically lean in favour of one side of politics – “covering left and punching right”. But that strategy can backfire. The assumption that a conservative approach to politics is inherently less virtuous than a progressive approach is not one that a Christian can accept. The gospel cannot be neatly equated with any political party or side of politics.

In the Voice referendum, the majority of Australian people ultimately voted no. Open advocacy of the Voice in regions which strongly voted no would likely have worked against the goal of witnessing to the gospel. This ties in with the point I made earlier about sincerity: our politics should not be determined by our geography.

Conclusion

So, should Christians tailor their politics to gospel imperatives? Yes, but cautiously. Leaving the door open to the gospel is not the sole consideration, but political questions ought to be evaluated on their merits.