Premise 2: Christians are called to deny the world and flee from worldly activities ("Love not the world").
Conclusion: Therefore, to remain untainted by the world, Christians must refrain from politics.
In countering this argument, one must ask whether the premises are true. Concerning premise one, is politics necessarily part of an evil world system separated from God? To answer this, one must begin by defining politics. Politics is actually morality socially applied, or, rather, how we live together in society. Is God interested in human political activities? Absolutely, God is definitely interested in our social relations. Many of the Ten Commandments deal with social relations. To say that God is not interested in politics is to say that God is not interested in social ethics. Individuals cannot be separated from society; thus, there can be no clear distinction between ethics and politics. Artistole was right in saying that "man is a political animal."
Politics is, therefore, not intrinsically evil or dirty. It is evil men and women who make politics evil and ungodly. describes how all things, including politics, should be under subjection to Christ. This is precisely why Christians must be active in the political arena. Christians must act to redeem politics and make it more righteous in practice, but it cannot become so if there are no righteous ones involved.
There is an equivocation between premise one and premise two on the concept of the world. Politics is part of the world as the created realm of God, but it is not necessarily part of the world system Christians are called to deny. What does Scripture mean when it directs us to "love not the world"? It means to love not the beliefs and values of the "fallen" world. The world, in this sense, is not the world as it was created, but rather the mindset which has developed in the world after the fall by men in opposition to God. To love not the world is to refuse a way of looking at reality that is antithetical to God's way of looking at reality. To love not the world means bringing "every thought captive to the obedience of Christ," and to think in terms of God's truth in every aspect of life. It means that if one is going to be politically involved, then one must approach politics thinking and living in a Christian way. It does not mean to escape from living in the world. It does not mean to keep these areas fro m redemption. It does not mean to remove oneself from all activities in the world. Politics can, thus, be godly or worldly, depending upon the mindset and the character one brings to it.
The second argument used against Christian political involvement is that it is morally wrong to infringe or force one's personal views on society at large. This is the argument that Christians hear, through many subtle means, from non-Christians. In our postmodern culture, tolerance has emerged as the most treasured virtue. Tolerance supposedly demonstrates the highest expression of compassion, caring, unity, and, ultimately, love for one's fellow humans. In a pluralistic society with a wide diversity of viewpoints, a person must not promote beliefs that are by nature exclusive (like Christianity) because this would demonstrate intolerance, disrespect, or even hate for those in disagreement. Love and unity must be preserved at all costs. Thus, Christians cannot bring values derived from their faith into the public domain as part of public policy for that would be harmful and offensive to others, and, ultimately, immoral to do so.
This argument could formally read as follows:
Premise 1: Tolerance is the supreme contemporary virtue. If you do not practice tolerance then you do not love; to be intolerant is to hate.
Premise 2: To be involved in politics in a pluralistic society you must be tolerant of all beliefs and practices, giving them equal standing.
Premise 3: Christianity is naturally exclusive, thus it cannot be pressed into public policy for it will be intolerant resulting in more harm than good.
Conclusion: Therefore, if Christians really care about people and society and want to be respected for their virtue, then they must not bring Christianity and Christian values into the marketplace of politics.
It is quite obvious that tolerance is the most exalted virtue today, but should Christians buy into this cultural assumption? Tolerance is simply sentimentalism if it is not grounded in truth. The biblical view is that love is inseparable from truth. How can one even define love if it is not grounded in absolute truth? Chesterton once described tolerance as the virtue held by those who do not believe in anything.
Out of the Reformation a doctrine of tolerance emerged. But today's view of tolerance is different from toleration. Toleration is the recognition that there is truth and one can affirm it, yet still allow for other less truthful perspectives to coexist. Tolerance, on the other hand, affirms the equal value of all viewpoints, and is thus in direct conflict with Christianity. Therefore, Christians must not be persuaded that tolerance is the supreme virtue.
Christianity is naturally exclusive, and this should not be a cause of shame for Christians. The Ten Commandments demonstrate the character of God and are for all people. If the principles of Christianity have no universal value, then they have no value at all. If Christian moral standards are for all people, then all Christians have not only a right to teach and apply them to all, but an absolute responsibility to do so. Christians have the obligation to teach to all society that it is wrong to steal, kill, covet, or commit adultery. These are social principles, not just personal, private morality.
The final argument is based on an appeal to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the claim that it teaches the separation of church and state. If the Constitution requires the separation of church and state, then as good citizens we should not mix religion and politics. For a person to bring Christians values into the political realm and try to make the law of God public policy is to violate this First Amendment prohibition. Good Christians must obey the law and keep their Christian faith out of politics. A formal reading of the argument would be as follows:
Premise 1: The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States teaches the separation of church and state.
Premise 2: To bring Christianity and Christian values into politics is a violation of the First Amendment (and thus is against the law).
Conclusion: Therefore, obedient citizens must keep Christianity separate from politics.
Does this final argument withstand scrutiny? Certainly not! There is no such usage of the terms church, state, or separation in the First Amendment. The First Amendment was written to prohibit the establishment of a national church, or of a specific Christian body as having preference over all others. The establishment clause meant there would be no State Church in America.
This original understanding of the Constitution has evolved into the contemporary reinterpretation where it now means we must have a secular state where God is kept entirely out of the political and social arena. The original intention was that the church and state would be two distinct and separate institutions but both under God. Nowhere does the First Amendment prohibit people with religious convictions from applying faith precepts to the legislative activities of the state. There is no violation of the First Amendment when Christian apply biblical principles to public policy issues.
Clearly, these three popular arguments used against conservative Christians in order to keep them from political activity are not valid. Furthermore, in the Bible there is much political activity by God's servants. The judges and kings ruled under God. The prophets and Moses were quite political. Daniel served in the civil governments of Babylon and Persia. Joseph governed in Egypt. The Apostles spoke of following God's rules rather than men's.
In conclusion, to be obedient to Christ requires political activity. Jesus is quite clear about the need to overcome social injustices. If Christ tells us to confront the forces of evil, but society tells us not to, and even makes a law against bringing religion into politics, then who should we follow, the state or Christ? In the broadest sense, we are called to political activity because we are responsible to apply Christian principles and standards to all areas of our society, and politics is one of these areas.
