In Christianity 2.0, I write that the church should avoid wading into political waters. Where this gets tricky is that some moral issues are deeply political. Some of these issues include abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism.
I think the general rule should be that the church can talk about political issues that the Bible speaks directly to. For example, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality and transgenderism, so these issues would permissible. The Bible also condemns murder, so the church can speak against abortion (although it should refrain from instructing its congregation to picket abortion clinics, as this would cross the line into political activism).
An example of a political issue that the Bible does not speak to would be a $15 minimum wage (which I heard one church actually advocated for recently). A $15 minimum wage may be a good idea, it may not be, but promoting it is something that will divide the church and may well prompt people to leave, since few people want to give money to an organization that pushes political ideas they disagree with. Of course, advocating against homosexuality or transgenderism may also prompt some people to leave, but the church is obligated to teach what the Bible says about the subject. If people aren’t willing to accept what the Bible says, and they decide to leave the church as a result, then so be it. That is a price worth paying in order to preserve the integrity of the religion.
We must always remember that the church is not just another meet-up group. It has a specific mission: To save people. Therefore, what ultimately matters is not how many members a church has but how many people it has saved.
Illegal immigration is another hot political issue that has come to the forefront in recent years. But the church should avoid promoting any specific immigration policies. The only thing it should say is that we should follow the law. Christianity has always taught that we should follow the law, so there is no reason to make a change in this regard.
Progressive churches have often argued that Jesus’s command to “love your neighbor” means that we must accept illegal immigrants into the country. The problem with this argument is that illegal immigration has clear negative consequences for both American citizens and the illegals themselves. For citizens, there is the enormous financial burden that illegals bring because they need financial assistance (You don’t hear any of these progressive Christians offering to let these people stay in their homes). In addition, there are criminal illegals who wreak all sorts of havoc on our society.
The illegals themselves are endangered because they can easily be exploited by businesses that pay them extremely low wages and subject them to awful working conditions. Many are trapped because they can’t go to the police without possibly getting deported. Considering all this, it is not at all clear that allowing illegal immigration is the right choice for our fellow Americans or the illegals themselves.
The purpose here is not so much to argue against illegal immigration as it is to demonstrate that the wisdom of allowing it is debatable and not as cut and dried as so many of these progressive churches would have you believe. Therefore, to suggest that “love your neighbor” means we must allow illegal immigration is disingenuous at best.
Now, some progressive Christians will no doubt take these points I've made and argue that we should legalize these people, that the best way to prevent illegals from being exploited is to change the law. Well, that's something that should be debated in the political arena, not in the church. The church would be wise to stay out of it.
Jesus’s teaching about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s applies here. The church needs to avoid unnecessary political battles at all costs. Otherwise, it will become divided and will ultimately fracture.
If there is one circumstance where the church should absolutely be willing to enter the political arena, it is when religious freedom is at risk. The church should speak out against laws that endanger it, as well as the political parties that want to take it away. I don’t think the church should go as far as telling people which candidates to vote for, but it should clearly identify those who are attacking the religion.
Too many people struggled and died to give us the religious freedom that we enjoy today. We must never take it for granted. And we must never surrender it without a fight.
I think the general rule should be that the church can talk about political issues that the Bible speaks directly to. For example, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality and transgenderism, so these issues would permissible. The Bible also condemns murder, so the church can speak against abortion (although it should refrain from instructing its congregation to picket abortion clinics, as this would cross the line into political activism).
An example of a political issue that the Bible does not speak to would be a $15 minimum wage (which I heard one church actually advocated for recently). A $15 minimum wage may be a good idea, it may not be, but promoting it is something that will divide the church and may well prompt people to leave, since few people want to give money to an organization that pushes political ideas they disagree with. Of course, advocating against homosexuality or transgenderism may also prompt some people to leave, but the church is obligated to teach what the Bible says about the subject. If people aren’t willing to accept what the Bible says, and they decide to leave the church as a result, then so be it. That is a price worth paying in order to preserve the integrity of the religion.
We must always remember that the church is not just another meet-up group. It has a specific mission: To save people. Therefore, what ultimately matters is not how many members a church has but how many people it has saved.
Illegal immigration is another hot political issue that has come to the forefront in recent years. But the church should avoid promoting any specific immigration policies. The only thing it should say is that we should follow the law. Christianity has always taught that we should follow the law, so there is no reason to make a change in this regard.
Progressive churches have often argued that Jesus’s command to “love your neighbor” means that we must accept illegal immigrants into the country. The problem with this argument is that illegal immigration has clear negative consequences for both American citizens and the illegals themselves. For citizens, there is the enormous financial burden that illegals bring because they need financial assistance (You don’t hear any of these progressive Christians offering to let these people stay in their homes). In addition, there are criminal illegals who wreak all sorts of havoc on our society.
The illegals themselves are endangered because they can easily be exploited by businesses that pay them extremely low wages and subject them to awful working conditions. Many are trapped because they can’t go to the police without possibly getting deported. Considering all this, it is not at all clear that allowing illegal immigration is the right choice for our fellow Americans or the illegals themselves.
The purpose here is not so much to argue against illegal immigration as it is to demonstrate that the wisdom of allowing it is debatable and not as cut and dried as so many of these progressive churches would have you believe. Therefore, to suggest that “love your neighbor” means we must allow illegal immigration is disingenuous at best.
Now, some progressive Christians will no doubt take these points I've made and argue that we should legalize these people, that the best way to prevent illegals from being exploited is to change the law. Well, that's something that should be debated in the political arena, not in the church. The church would be wise to stay out of it.
Jesus’s teaching about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s applies here. The church needs to avoid unnecessary political battles at all costs. Otherwise, it will become divided and will ultimately fracture.
If there is one circumstance where the church should absolutely be willing to enter the political arena, it is when religious freedom is at risk. The church should speak out against laws that endanger it, as well as the political parties that want to take it away. I don’t think the church should go as far as telling people which candidates to vote for, but it should clearly identify those who are attacking the religion.
Too many people struggled and died to give us the religious freedom that we enjoy today. We must never take it for granted. And we must never surrender it without a fight.