Dear CF,
This Saturday, November 10, the Christian Fellowship is having a
dinner discussion on “Christianity, Morality, and Public Policy.”
Please RSVP to Clint at if you plan on coming,
along with any dietary restrictions, so he knows how much to cook.
However, if you decide you want to come and haven’t RSVP’ed, please do
come—we have plenty of food and plenty of space.
How does a dinner discussion work? Well, a few hardworking members of
the fellowship make a home-cooked meal, and the rest of us come and
enjoy it. We split up into small groups and discuss the topic.
Attached to this email are some questions and quotes to get the
discussion started, but generally each table’s conversation takes on a
life of its own.
Who’s invited? Simply put, anyone who’s interested in the topic. If
you have friends who might be interested in discussing the topic and
in eating with us, bring them along whether or not they consider
themselves Christian or part of the fellowship.
Great! Where is it? and when? We’re meeting at Kurt Keilhacker’s
house; it’s about a ten minute walk from the Hark. (Kurt is a friend
of the CF, and graciously opens his home to us). We’ll send out
directions later this week, and a group will walk over together from
the Hark if you don’t feel like navigating on your own. Dinner will be
served at 6:30, and you can stay as long as you like thereafter.
And what’s the topic again? We’re going to be discussing
Christianity, Morality, and Public Policy. The rest of this email
describes the topic and poses some questions for us to think about.
Again, please RSVP to Clint at . We hope to see
you Saturday!
~Renee
Christianity, Morality and Public Policy.
Certain political issues often have religious arguments for or against
them (abortion, environmentalism, gay marriage, and sex-ed in schools
come to mind). But even if there is a “right” answer to certain
political issues from a Christian perspective, is government
intervention the right way to deal with the issues? Should Christians
be focusing on the legislatures or on individual lives? Should they be
wielding their convictions in the form of political power?
How much should Christians seek to legislate morality? Should the
Church (and churches) get involved in politics and policy
recommendations?
In our capacity as Christians we are called to “make disciples of all
nations.” Matthew 28:19. And it seems we are to focus more on
changing individuals than changing policies; in his letter to
Philemon, Paul does not speak of the general wrongs of slavery, but
asks a slaveholder to change his attitude with respect to one slave.
Philemon 8–17.
However, we are called to respect the State, and the authorities of
the State are referred to as “God’s servants”, Romans 13:4, 6.
Perhaps the State is supposed to be an “agent of” God and His
mandates.
Vice laws in the U.S. have not always worked well – just look at the
Prohibition Era and our current “war on drugs.” Legislating morality
doesn’t seem to work well. Does that mean we shouldn’t do it, or just
that we don’t do it well?
“The church works best as a force of resistance, a counterbalance to
the consuming power of the state. The cozier it gets with the state,
the more watered-down it becomes and the less able to challenge the
surrounding culture.” Philip Yancey, A State of Ungrace, Christianity
Today, February 3, 1997, at 35.
What role should moral and religious convictions play in deciding
political matters, either in creating policy or voting? Is it our
religious duty as well as our civic duty to vote?
In this country, several religious organizations have considerable
political power, and politicians believe elections are won or lost on
the “religious vote.” See, e.g., Guiliani Woos Christian Vote,
Financial Times, Oct. 22, 2007, available at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21412492/.
There is the common admonishment for Christians to “be in the world,
but not of it.” Cf. 2 Corinithians 10:3 ("For though we live in the
world, we do not wage war as the world does."). We’re also supposed to
care about our government. See 1 Timothy 2:1–2 (pray for our leaders).
Perhaps we are supposed to be involved in picking our government if
we live in a society that lets us.
But God’s people aren’t always good at picking leaders. See 1 Samuel
8:6–9 (Israel rejecting God by asking Samuel for a king (Saul)); 1
Samuel 16:6–7 (Samuel thought that Eliab was the Lord’s anointed, but
“[t]he Lord does not look at the things man looks at.")
Nor are we good at figuring out God’s will: “There is a way that seems
right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Proverbs 16:25. See
also Acts 5:38–39 (Israelites rejecting the apostles, and Judas the
Galilean advising that “if [the apostles’ purpose] is from God, you
will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves
fighting against God.")
Should Christians (and other religious persons) in the U.S. oppose the
separation of church and state when that separation prevents their
worship or religious practices, or are there times and places where it
is OK to be shed of our outward religious behaviors?
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there
is no authority except that which God has established. The
authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1 (NIV)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I
Take prayer as an example of an outwardly religious behavior. In Marsh
v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a state
legislature’s practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer
delivered by a chaplain paid by the state does not violate the
establishment clause of the First Amendment, saying that “the practice
of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the
fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body
entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an
‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is
simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the
people of this country.” Id. at 792.
However, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), the Court
invalidated a state statute authorizing public school teachers to hold
a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer,”
saying it was a law respecting an establishment of religion within the
prohibition of the First Amendment. The Court’s invalidation was based
on the fact that the law was not “secular,” but instead had an express
purpose of returning voluntary prayer to the schools.
Another example of the State trying to create an expressly
non-religious forum is then banning of women’s Muslim headscarves in
European schools. See, e.g., France Awaits Headscarves Report, BBC
News, 11 Dec 2003, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3307995.stm.