Christian Morality and Government

Christians are often conflicted on many issues when applying Christian beliefs to the public and political realm. It generally places us in a spiritual conundrum. Finding the balance between Acts 5:29 ESV "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" and our Constitution's Preamble promise to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".

As a Christian, I believe in two truths of humans and our relationship with God. First, we are inherently evil and when left to our own devices, we desire, commit and create evil in any and every manner possible. Secondly, God desires that all humans be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). We also know that all humans will not be saved (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). That realization places a higher level of responsibility on us because it requires us to "preach the Gospel" so that we fulfill God's requirement of us to make disciples. We never know when we are actually participating in his plan to bring a lost soul into the Kingdom. Regardless of our evangelistic efforts through the Holy Spirit, there is a portion of the human population that will reject God.

So, where does this leave us as a society. How does the government factor into Christian morality? How does the leveling of legal liberty affect Christians and non-Christians?  Does a government position/action place the Christian citizen in judgement simply because of their participation of the society? How should a Christian respond in the civic discourse? These are important questions for Christians.

First, we need to analyze what we are as a nation and to what extent morality governs our public policy. So, let's address the first question. How does government factor into Christian morality? Well, the quick and simple answer is...it doesn't. To begin with, we have a public document ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by the President plainly stating we are not a Christian nation. It was the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. The first line states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." The Treaty of Tripoli is a document of public record agreed upon and ratified just 5 years after the last of the original 13 colonies (Vermont) ratified the Constitution. I know many people quote different Founding Fathers about religious morality, but those references are always in the context of "love thy neighbor" because a free society cannot exist if human interactions are not respectful. 

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This works two ways, it protects the Church from having its doctrine regulated by the government. Since the government is precluded from "establishing religious doctrine", it is then forced to govern justly across all beliefs. This places the government in a position of maintaining civil liberties to groups of people who do not conform to the Judeo-Christian version of morality. If a citizen wants the Bill of Rights applied appropriately, they have to accept this civic truth. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are like the Bible, we can't pick and choose the parts we like, we have to accept it in its entirety. 

So, how does the 'leveling of legal liberty' affect Christians and non-Christians? Essentially, it gives every "group of people" an equal voice in the public discourse and ensures everyone's civil liberties are protected equally. While behaviors that may be viewed as sinful by Christians are given legality by the government, they actually do not affect the Christian in any manner. How our neighbors behave and believe have no impact on us. The same First Amendment that affords us our religious liberty affords them their right to reject religion, it's doctrine and the moral teaching within. Our society has contained non-Christian religions for decades with a basic acceptance of everyone. The existence of same-sex marriage or legalized marijuana isn't any different. Individual liberty is the most essential component of our societal design. 

Does a government position/action place the Christian citizen in judgement simply because of their participation of the society? Well, to answer that question, we need to examine Christian theology and Christian history. Christian theology teaches that we are saved by grace through faith not by works (Ephesians 2:8). So, understanding that it is our faith that saves us, we are called to repentance for our sins...individually. We are not accountable for the sins of the society. Jesus Christ has already accomplished that work. The only things that can remove the promise of salvation is rejection of Christ and/or unrepentant sin. What the society around does is irrelevant. Accepting that something exists in our community does not mean we must condone it spiritually or morally.

Some Christians would argue that we are guilty by complicity. That argument fails when we look at the history of Christians. In the very beginning, Christians lived under a pagan Roman government, was their salvation in jeopardy? Paul used the Roman legal system to his advantage. Was he damned for it? The Roman government declared Christianity illegal because they refused to worship a human emperor as a god. Since the government rejected Christ, were the Christians complicit in that rejection? What about the Christians who lived under Muslim rule? Communist rule? Nazi rule? Understanding that the Christians living under governments that persecuted or opposed Christianity were still saved forces us to focus on our own faith. Scripture is very clear that our faith is where salvation resides. It is not granted on the basis of where we reside.

So, how should a Christian respond in the civic discourse? Again we should look at scripture for guidance. Romans 12:9-21 gives us a very good idea. Basically, we should always be respectful. There is nothing wrong with publicly stating our beliefs as long as its done in a loving manner. Public civic debates are not the forum for evangelizing. We should keep those conversations on the personal level or in a forum in which its designed. Ministering to people individually usually renders the best results. Paul did not proclaim the Gospel in the civic buildings among the rulers of the cities he visited. He preached in the temples and the streets. That's the example we need to follow. 

Understanding that we live in Two Kingdoms as Martin Luther described it, the civil and the spiritual, allows us to understand civil liberties and our Christian role in society. By respecting and protecting the civil liberties granted to all of us, even when we disagree, we secure them for everyone. It's when we take a position that marginalizes another group that we endanger our own rights. We are dependent on those liberties to participate in a public debate from a Christian perspective and to have the freedom to proclaim the Gospel.