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.