The Christian in Politics: Two Key Attributes
August 01, 2006
I recommend reading an interesting interview of Michael Gerson, who until recently served as a speechwriter and adviser to President Bush. Mr. Gerson touches on two particularly important characteristics of the faithful Christian participating in the political sphere.
First, where God has not spoken definitively, the Christian must remember that there may be several different Biblically faithful approaches to any given political question. Asked where he thinks “the Religious Right has gone off track,” Gerson replies:
“Some of it is what I would call baptizing policy recommendations, as if there were a Christian view on tax policy or missile defense. These are questions of prudence and judgment on which reasonable people disagree. . . .
I think there are informed and correct views on tax policy. I don’t think there’s necessarily a Christian view.”
This admission does not mean that everything is relative. Gerson is quick to point out that:
“there is a Christian view on human dignity and on the responsibility of government to protect the weak and on making sure societies are not just organized for the benefit of the strong. Those are consistent teachings that have relevance in every time, and they motivate people across the spectrum.”
In today’s postmodern culture, we probably encounter more often the problem of Christians making relative what God has made absolute. But we cannot take our eye off the flip-side problem. Os Guinness is right: “it is equally an error for Christians to make absolute what God has left relative.” The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life, at 98.
Second, the Christian must remember that citing Scripture and relying on it as our primary authority may not be the most effective approach in a public policy debate. When asked to identify “the challenges for Christians regarding contentious issues like gay marriage and abortion,” Gerson replies in part: “How you argue makes a huge difference. Proof-texting arguments from Scripture . . . [is] often counterproductive.”
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the Bible is irrelevant to public dialogue. I share the belief of my local church that the Holy Scriptures “sufficiently teach God’s will for His world, and have supreme authority for faith [and] life . . . .” I’m simply recognizing that others in the American political dialogue will find Scripture irrelevant and unpersuasive, and thus, pointing to it as a sole or primary authority would often be counterproductive.
Scripture may inform, or even dictate, our public policy positions. But we cannot allow our focus on God’s specific revelation to blind us to the wealth of other evidence of His will and tools of persuasion that He provides through general revelation – in creation, culture and conscience. Armed with His general revelation, as seen through the lens of special revelation, the Christian can and should make persuasive prudential arguments in the marketplace of ideas – without having to quote chapter and verse.Of course, this isn’t my idea. Chuck Colson long has taken this approach in the field of criminal justice reform among others. Jennifer Roback Morse does the same in her study of families, as does Jay Richards with respect to intelligent design.
