For Political Advocacy

In the first week I argued in the negative and Joseph argued for the affirmative. This week we reverse roles and I will be arguing for.

So, let us begin with some definitions. When we say political activism, what do we mean? There is a question of degrees with this, though that comes up more in the affirmative than the negative. This degree question would ask whether it is enough to simply live our lives in support of or in opposition to a position, or would we rather need to be in support of or opposed to a viewpoint, speaking or perhaps even demonstrating to make our opinion known. Would we be willing to risk arrest, legal trouble, or loss of employment? I am arguing for the affirmative position, in favor of political activism, so these risks must be considered.

Now then, let us get to the spectrum of definitions. Merriam Webster defines activism as a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action, especially in support of or in opposition to one side of a controversial issue. This is closer to a more extreme definition suggested above, as opposed to simple passive support of a view. I will go in that direction since for most of us when we think of activism in a political sense these speaking or demonstrating actions are what come to mind.

I will be coming at this from a Christian perspective. One can be either a positive or negative activist without Christianity with a specific set of causes and results, though in that scenario there would often be focus on self, community, or country. For a Christian, whichever side of this activism debate you are on, I would argue that the causes and results are different for a Christian, with a hopeful likely focus on the Great Commandment and Commission. Additionally, considering this is for a class with a focus on philosophy and ethics from a Christian perspective, it would be absurd to make an argument without a faith component.

I am arguing in favor of political activism, coming at this from a place where we want to be agents for change. God is the one who does the real work of salvation. I however do not think that gives us the right to coast along in the comfort of salvation. Jesus died a very public death for us, paying a high price in the process. Shall we thank Him with silence?

If we consider this today it looks different than from previous generations. It used to be that political activism would take the form of street demonstrations or perhaps letter writing. These things still happen today, but in addition we also see the Internet as a tool by which tools of various forms are used, with the net result being that activism happens on this platform via these tools. This is not the only way which activism happens, but it is a common way currently. Television is still an influence though it is on the decline, as people more selectively choose what they want to watch instead of defaulting to an all you can eat cable buffet. So, if we are willing to find the places where people gather and communicate, we can be effective.

So, let us begin with some hopefully easy to see reasons to be in favor of political activism. Things that come to mind quickly would have an evangelistic or discipleship focus. Most Christians, even brand-new milk drinking Christians will have heard of the Great Commission or the idea of going to make disciples. Now, there is some debate over whether this was meant solely for the initial disciples of Jesus or His followers throughout eternity. The safe answer here is to go with the all believers choice, selecting the other should lead us to ask ourselves if we are being fearful. Even if you are a strict cessationist regarding the Spiritual gifts, it seems a copout to go with the Great Commission is not for me perspective. Questions will also come up regarding whether one can disciple a non-believer. Justification is a work of God if we believe Eph 2:8-9 but that does not mean we should not talk to people about God. We should not get to a place where we choose to not proclaim the kingdom to someone because we think they couldn’t possibly come to faith or are too lost.

Now, to bring this back to political activism, as we are talking to non-Christians about the faith, it will hopefully be very obvious to us that we will encounter opposition from non-believers, worldly people, or self-centered folks who would argue I am good, I don’t need a savior or something like that. We need to have answers for these objections, which usually involve comparing ourselves to a holy God and not to a sinful neighbor. So then, as we are having these discussions with others, we will hopefully be anticipating some common objections like these, regarding lifestyle differences between the Fruit of the Spirit filled life and the alternative.

Topics like abortion, divorce, families, and the death penalty are all very divisive. Thinking of R.C. Sproul’s book Everyone’s a Theologian, I would also argue that everyone is a philosopher. In either realm, we all have opinions. They may or may not be well formed or sound, but we all have them. So, considering this, let us consider why folks might oppose our view and see if we can find answers which do not sound like we are beating them over the head.

Jesus sent His followers out; we see this multiple times in Scripture. He prayed for them, that they would be united as the Father and the Son. So, if He sent them and prayed for them, can we see this includes us? The Calvinist reader may be thinking I do not need to evangelize, God is going to choose whom He is going to choose and that is that. I would volley back with a reply by the previously mentioned R.C. Sproul, a man with much philosophy and theology training. His reply as to why to make disciples was that Jesus commands it. He clearly is not taking the view there that there is no place for this today.

If we look at Scripture, in 2 Cor 5 we see Paul speak of ambassadorship, specifically we who are His being His representatives to the alien nation of unbelievers. If we think of this in an international way, the USA or other nations have representatives which they use to communicate with leaders of other nations; these people are typically called ambassadors. These people play a substantial role in international matters.

So, I’ve finally mentioned politics. What do you think of the idea that Jesus was at the center of a political movement? The Sanhedrin were His opponents; this opposition was not entirely religious. Part of what we see there is the leadership of Israel trying to protect the nation from someone they perceived as a threat to both the nation and their well-being. Jesus as a threat to the nation can be seen a few times in Scripture. Additionally, the Sanhedrin had a nice racket going, receiving food and money via offerings from the people. Jesus turned over tables in the temple because of it I believe. As more folks followed Jesus, what the religious leaders received had to be decreasing. They were losing power.

John 11:47-53 proclaims the below.

Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. (“NASB Bible”)

So, can we see this was about much more than belief in God? It is not hard to see this as a nation battling against the Son of God. This again gives me shivers every time I read about the Jews shouting crucify Him or let His blood be on our hands. There are things worth arguing for, and for those things we ought to be willing to speak up.

Against Political Advocacy

For this first week I am arguing in the negative and Joseph is arguing for the affirmative.

So, let us begin with some definitions. When we say political activism, what do we mean? There is a question of degrees with this, though that comes up more in the affirmative than the negative. This degree question would ask whether it is enough to simply live our lives in support of a position, or would we have to be vocally supporting or demonstrating for a viewpoint, perhaps risking arrest, legal trouble, or loss of employment. I however am arguing for the negative, in opposition to political activism. There is still a question of degree it just does not seem as prominent on the negative side. Having said that, let us get to the spectrum of definitions. Merriam Webster defines activism as a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action, especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue. This is closer to the more extreme definition I defined so I will go with that.

I will be coming at this from a Christian perspective. One can be a positive or negative activist without Christianity with a specific set of causes and results, often focused on self, community, or country. For a Christian, whichever side of this you are on, I would argue that the causes and results are different for a Christian, with a likely focus on the Great Commandment. Additionally, considering this is for a class with a focus on philosophy and ethics from a Christian perspective, it would be absurd to make an argue without a faith component.

I am arguing against political activism, arguing that it is not a positive influence on the faith or life of a Christian. In summary, if we are focused on politics, we are not focused on God. The Great Commandment is hard to live out with too much focus on political activism.

If we consider this in today’s society it looks different from previous generations. It used to be that political activism would take the form of street demonstrations or perhaps letter writing. These things still happen today, but in addition we also see the Internet as a tool by which tools of various forms are used, with the net result being that activism happens on this platform via these tools. This is not the only way which activism happens, but it is a common way currently.

Let us begin with an idea which should be very easy to see; political activism is a distraction. If we are focused on activism this takes our hearts and minds away from God. Instead of living out the Great Commandment, we will be thinking about the other person; specifically, can we change the opinion of the other(s) and if so how. We can get really focused on dialogue with others with opinion swaying goals in mind, political evangelism if you will, as opposed to Biblical evangelism or discipleship. We can be spending hours staring at our phones or computers, interfacing via social media or email, again with goals of changing opinions in mind. Especially in these electronic device based realms, we can get very focused on what we want to see and hear, approaching this like a think tank in a way, so that we spend time responding to others whom we either agree with or wish to argue or debate with. Again, the end goal here is one of opinion change, as opposed to discipleship.

The above homogenous perspective leads us to the next reason to oppose political activism; it can cause us to only interface with people who think like us. I was a fairly heavy Twitter user in the past. My current job limits my usage of it, but here is one of the best ways to argue from this perspective. With Twitter as well as other social media platforms we can very easily see this in action. Folks who are politically active on these platforms often have friends lists full of people who think in a very similar way. President Trump is a very polarizing figure, though certainly not the only one. People will do all sorts of things to find more followers who either support or oppose him, depending on the agent’s perspective. So, there are at least two issues with this. One is that we cannot be stretched from a philosophical perspective if we only interact with others who think like us. The other is that the above audience limitation is going to result in us being less able to evangelize, meet, or dialogue with others who do not think like us, since we will simply not have as much opportunity to dialogue with those who think differently.

Political activism may cause a potential future believer to not listen. Many folks I know who are passionately in favor of an issue typically know their side well. This can show up in at least two different ways. In one scenario, folks simply decide to not listen because they believe the person speaking or communicating is so different or wrong in their belief that the listener decides the speaker or argument is not worth listening to. Another way this shows up is that the speaker wears out the listener. We can be such strong advocates for a topic that we wear people out, to the point where the person hearing is unwilling to actually engage in active listening, in a sense living down to the stereotype of the young child with their fingers in their ears unwilling to listen. A former pastor of mine referred to this as not taking care of the soil.

Focusing on the above-mentioned difference between hearing and listening, political activism can cause both us and others, to hear but not listen. Let us examine the difference. In the hearing case, we can tell what words are being said by the speaker or writer. We may know what is being spoken but are not really processing or taking in the information. Conversely, in the listening case, the hearer is more involved, not only receiving the words, but taking them in, mentally processing what they are hearing. Likely next steps for this include thinking about the probable truth or falsehood of what is being spoken, why the speaker believes what they are proclaiming, and/or why he or she is proclaiming it. When Scripture tells us he who has ears let him hear I believe it is referring to this latter type of input.

So then, how do we put this all together? One answer to this is self, taking the form of pride or idolatry. In all of the above scenarios, people are making choices focused on self, comfort, people, or argumentation, as opposed to thinking in a Great Commandment or Great Commission way. It is easier to hear what we want to hear, think what we want to think, and do what we want to do, than it is to listen, think, and do as He commands us. The question is, will we. I have heard it said that sin is remaining in our lives in places we are not willing to cede control to God; this idea seems very true here.