Should the Church Take Political Action?
by John Stott
Genuine Christian social concern will embrace both social service and social action. It would be artificial to divorce them. Some cases of need cannot be relieved at all without political action (the harsh treatment of slaves could have been ameliorated, but not slavery itself; it had to be abolished). To go on relieving other needs, though necessary, may condone the situation which causes them. If travellers on the Jerusalem–Jericho road were habitually beaten up, and habitually cared for by “Good Samaritans”, the need for better laws to eliminate armed robbery might well be overlooked. If road accidents keep occurring at a particular crossroads, it is not more ambulances that are needed but the installation of traffic lights to prevent accidents. It is always good to feed the hungry; it is better if possible to eradicate the causes of hunger. So if we truly love our neighbours, and want to serve them, our service may oblige us to take (or solicit) political action on their behalf.

There is, of course, a real danger of the politicization of the gospel, which is the identification of the Christian faith with a political programme. This is wrong for two reasons. The first is that it ignores the primary concern of the Christian faith, which is to love God – the “first and greatest” commandment. Loving our neighbours as ourselves is also important, and they belong together. The second reason is that in a fallen world, no one political programme can claim to be the expression of the will of God.

As Archbishop William Temple, probably the most socially concerned Archbishop of Canterbury in the twentieth century, put it, “Its assertion of Original Sin should make the Church intensely realistic and conspicuously free from Utopianism.” Certainly the evangelical Christians who gathered in Lausanne at the great International Congress on World Evangelization (1974) declared forthrightly in their covenant: “We . . . reject as a proud, self-confident dream the notion that man can ever build a Utopia on earth.”

We should also not forget that our call to social involvement must be integrated into our spiritual lives. We cannot, for instance, divorce social action or social service from prayer. One good example of this comes from the work of Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

“Many who visit Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity are surprised that every lunchtime they leave their life-sustaining work in dispensaries and in the home for the dying. Why go back so soon? To pray. They have learnt that to work without prayer is to achieve only what is humanly possible, and their desire is to be involved in divine possibilities.”

The church should, therefore, not forget its primary calling to pray, worship, evangelize and call people to follow Christ. Politically, it also needs to be aware that even as it seeks the very best for human society and studies the Word of God in pursuit of a Christian mind, it cannot enshrine Christian thinking into a particular political programme. One of the virtues of democracy is that it leads us to humility and the necessity of listening to one another, especially when we disagree with one another and are seeking to find a way forward.

In 1942 William Temple emphasized the important distinction between principles and programmes in his well-known book Christianity and the Social Order. The Church is committed to the everlasting Gospel . . . it must never commit itself to an ephemeral programme of detailed action.” Readers of Temple will know that he was very far from saying that religion and politics do not mix. His point was different, namely that “the Church is concerned with principles and not policy”. The reasons why he believed the church as a whole should refrain from “direct political action” by developing and advocating specific programmes could be summed up as “integrity” (the church lacks the necessary expertise, though some of her members may have it), “prudence” (she may prove to be mistaken and so be discredited) and “justice” (different Christians hold different opinions, and the church should not side with even a majority of its members against an equally loyal minority).

“So the Church is likely to be attacked from both sides if it does its duty. It will be told that it has become political when in fact it has been careful only to state principles and point to breaches of them; and it will be told by advocates of particular policies that it is futile because it does not support these. If it is faithful to its commission it will ignore both sets of complaints and continue as far as it can to influence all agencies and permeate all parties.”

Of course, we need to recognize that individual Christians and even specialist Christian agencies will have expertise on policy issues and will speak out, campaign and conduct research on these issues. It may also be that a large number of Christians find themselves in agreement over a particular policy and unite in either supporting it or protesting against it. However, these are different from committing the church to a particular policy. Even if we agree with this clarification of roles and concede that not all Christians are responsible for working out policies, we still have to grapple with the principles, and these are by no means always easy to formulate.

However, even when we have done our homework and discussed, debated and prayed together, we need to ask, “On whose shoulders does political responsibility rest?” Failure to ask and answer this question is one of the main reasons for the current confusion over Christian political involvement. We need to distinguish between Christian individuals, groups and churches. All individual Christians should be politically active in the sense that, as conscientious citizens, they will vote in elections, inform themselves about contemporary issues, share in the public debate, and perhaps write to a newspaper, lobby their member of parliament or congress or take part in a demonstration. Further, some individuals are called by God to give their lives to political service, in either local or national government. Christians who share particular moral and social concerns should be encouraged to form or join groups which will study issues at a deeper level and take appropriate action. In some cases these will be exclusively Christian groups; in others Christians will want to contribute their biblical perspective to mixed groups, whether in a political party, a trade union or a professional association.

Granted the propriety of political thought and action by Christian individuals and groups, however, should the church as a whole involve itself in politics? Certainly the church must teach both the law and the gospel of God. This is the duty of the church’s pastors, teachers and other leaders. And “when the church concludes that biblical faith or righteousness requires it to take a public stand on some issue, then it must obey God’s Word and trust him with the consequences.” Whether we think the church should go beyond teaching and take corporate political action of some kind is likely to depend on whether we adhere to the Lutheran, Reformed or Anabaptist traditions within Protestantism in relation to church and state. At least we can agree that the church should not enter this field without the necessary expertise. But when church leaders do their homework thoroughly, and take time and trouble to study a topic together in order to reach a common Christian mind and recommend common Christian action, their informed and united stand is extremely influential.

Take the individual Christian first. In general terms, every Christian is called to be both a witness and a servant. For each of us is a follower of the Lord Jesus who both witnessed a good confession and said, “I am among you as a serving man”. Thus diakonia (service) and martyria (witness) are inseparable twins. Yet different Christians are called to different specialist ministries, just as the Twelve were called to the ministry of the Word and prayer, while the Seven were called to take charge of the daily distribution to the widows (see Acts 6). The metaphor of the church as the body of Christ enforces the same lesson. Just as each member of the human body has a different function, so each member of the body of Christ has a different gift and so a different ministry. At the same time, whatever our specialist calling may be, emergencies will override it. The priest and the Levite in the parable of the good Samaritan could not excuse their shameful neglect of the man who had been assaulted and robbed by saying that their calling was to work in the temple. If we are called to a predominantly social ministry, we still have an obligation to witness. If we are called to a predominantly evangelistic ministry, we still cannot say that we have no social responsibilities.

As for the local church, the versatility of its outreach can be greatly increased if full use is made of all its members with their different gifts and callings. It is a very healthy thing for the local church’s oversight or leadership to encourage people with similar concerns to coalesce into “special interest” groups or “study and action” groups. Some will have an evangelistic objective – house-to-house visitation, a music group, a world mission group, etc. Other groups will have a social concern – sick and welfare visiting, a housing association, community or race relations, the care of the natural environment, pro-life, anti-abortion campaigning, the needs of an ethnic minority, etc. Such specialist groups supplement one another. If an occasional opportunity is given to them to report back to the church membership as a whole, the representative nature of their work will be affirmed and they can receive valuable support from their parent body in terms of advice, encouragement, prayer and financial backing.

No one Christian could, or should try to, get involved in every kind of ministry. But each local church (at least of any size) can and should get involved in as many areas as possible, through its groups. The groups make it realistic for the church greatly to diversify its concern and action. Christians need to have a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures in order to give them the theological foundations for Christian involvement. Christian reflection and Christian action cannot be separated.

I end this article with what may be a rather surprising reference to the Roman Catholic mass. The word “mass” is said to be derived from the final sentence of the old Latin rite, Ite, missa est. In polite English it might be rendered, “Now you are dismissed.” In more blunt language it could be just, “Get out!” – out into the world which God made and godlike beings inhabit, the world into which Christ came and into which he now sends us. For that is where we belong. The world is the arena in which we are to live and love, witness and serve, suffer and die for Christ.

From Issues Facing Christians Today by John Stott