A Christian perspective on civic engagement and political life
By / Jul 28

Responsible citizenship is a steadily mounting challenge for Americans. Rampant isolation leaves us disconnected from our neighbors. Social crises leave us feeling powerless and perplexed. Digital screens and social media increasingly mediate these realities, often compounding our confusion.

Few citizens have a coherent vision for civic engagement, especially engagement in such an alienating and disorienting cultural moment. Amidst unrest and uncertainty, David C. Innes calls Christians to examine the first principles and foundations of civic and political responsibilities with his book Christ and the Kingdoms of Men: Foundations of Political Life. Innes is a professor of politics at King’s College and has written extensively on the intersection of political philosophy and theology. He is also a teaching elder at Trinity Church in Long Island. Innes’ positions as professor and elder have fostered an obvious skill for guiding laypeople and leaders toward thoughtful engagement with matters of politics in an accessible way.

Christ and the Kingdoms of Men is an introduction to “fundamental questions and challenges of political life.” Innes intends to speak directly to citizenship and political activity from a Christian perspective, drawing resources from theology, philosophy, and political theory. In doing so, he hopes to offer a grounded, coherent, and intentional understanding of politics that an average citizen can practically apply.

Kingdom-centered principles

Political questions and activities often touch on essential questions about human life. Innes sets out to help readers connect practical civic questions to the foundational ideas that undergird them and equip them to reflect and critically respond thoughtfully.

Innes draws from the kingdom narrative of Scripture to ground his ideas of social and political life. The themes of creation, fall, and redemption reveal an intelligently ordered world where humans made in God’s image are called to cultivate society. Sin and evil are pervasive and must be restrained. The hope of restoration lies in Jesus’ redemptive work and ultimate return. Within these foundational realities lie resources for discernment, analysis, and application regarding questions of justice, morality, social relations, legitimate authority, and other essential political matters.

Innes contends that government provides a public good and, within its exercise of legitimate authority, essentially merits obedience. He examines the purpose of government from Romans 13:1-7, outlining wh­at it means for governments to “punish evil and promote good.” Additionally, Innes deals with various “problems” of political life and governance. For example, he examines the tensions between the social need for governance and the reality that sinful people govern. Then, he explores how various modern traditions have sought to square these tensions. The book closes with practical application for citizens and civic leaders and an appeal to pursue the common good through politics.

Christ and the Kingdoms of Men presents a clear and convictional offering for how to think about political activity and governance. Innes models how to think critically about these issues by fleshing out his theological and philosophical rationales for the reader. This feature alone makes the book worth reading, as it challenges reactive and ad hoc means of thinking about politics that are often modeled in the public square and absorbed by Christians. By calling readers back to first principle questions of, for instance, cosmology and anthropology, Innes encourages deep reflection and intentionality in considering complex issues of politics and governance. Instead of offering simple answers and position statements, Innes provides tools to analyze and dissect practical civics matters.

Principles in the public square

Innes also helpfully recognizes the universal and contextual challenges of governance. Rather than offering idealistic principles, Innes engages by applying those principles amidst the complexities of political engagement. For instance, Innes acknowledges that any government in a Western context will have to navigate the barriers that individualism erects to constructive citizenship. He then demonstrates the resources biblical themes like the imago Dei offer to those seeking political solutions in an atomized society. By raising these challenges and showing how to think theologically about solutions, Innes exposes readers to realistic wrestling with tensions and complexities in political engagement.

In painting a thoughtful and dynamic picture of politics, Innes likewise calls for a more holistic engagement with the political sphere. For example, in his section on faithful citizenship and statesmanship, Innes contends that citizenship goes beyond voting. Concern for the common good will lead citizens to regular civic engagement, not just on voting day. Here, Innes challenges the temptation to fix political energy exclusively on elections to neglect further engagement like organizing or governmental participation.

At moments in the book, Innes’ explanations or prescriptions can oversimplify some issues. For example, Innes speaks of spheres like government or the market as essentially distinct without going in-depth on the manifold ways these spheres function. This presentation is liable to reduce the interdependent and complex nature of such spheres within, for example, a globalized economic system that transcends borders yet is deeply interwoven with states. In an introductory book, this is a reasonable limitation. However, Innes also articulates distinct and potentially wooden boundaries around what the governmental functions of praising good and punishing evil can mean. These hard limitations potentially obscure the actual scope of various spheres. They also limit the potential application of how Christians could apply Innes’ broad and valuable principles in genuinely prudential circumstances that might fall outside his stated boundaries.

Innes’ work is appropriate for use in both academic spaces and by local church leaders and laypeople. Innes recommends further reading at the end of each chapter, which is helpful for those looking to pair the book alongside other political theology books and books from related disciplines. For one, Innes’ prescriptions on various prudential matters of society and politics are worth comparing to different traditions and perspectives. Likewise, works from other related disciplines like political science or economics would complement Innes primarily theological reflections. Furthermore, as an introductory level book that covers a wide ground, Christ and the Kingdoms of Men is necessarily cursory on several of the dense topics it covers. The recommended resources, along with reflection questions and keywords, give the book a useful format for teaching.

Christ and the Kingdoms of Men displays that Scripture holds immense resources for understanding our role in civic life. Furthermore, David C. Innes presents how Christians can unearth insight and analysis from those biblical resources. As the church navigates an often confounding and chaotic public square, Christians must be equipped to apply essential principles to various political and civic issues. Whether readers agree or disagree with Innes’ perspectives on the many issues he examines, they will find the topics he tackles worth deep reflection and consideration. Furthermore, readers will find a demonstration of thoughtful and intentional biblical analysis on politics and governance, a valuable resource in our present moment. 

The Equality Act: A dangerous law with a clever name
By / Feb 25

If you were looking for the very best way to get Americans to accept a radical piece of legislation, giving the bill a clever name would be near the top of the list. This is exactly the case with the so-called “Equality Act,” officially known as H.R. 5. Judging by its name alone, it seems like the kind of legislation that almost anyone would support. After all, what kind of person is opposed to equality? Even more, the bill is supposedly an effort to combat discrimination. And what kind of monster would think discrimination is good? 

But here’s the real issue: it takes more than a clever name to make a good law. And once you move past its name, the serious issues with H.R. 5 are both obvious and alarming.

The Equality Act

The truth is, the Equality Act is not just a bad bill; it’s a dangerous one. (See our explainer and one-pager). It does not represent a good faith effort to protect LGBT Americans from discrimination. It is, in fact, an effort to codify into law the progressive orthodoxy of the sexual revolution and to legally silence those who dissent. 

H.R. 5 would “expand the definition of ‘sex’ to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ (SOGI) and would revise every title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add these categories as new protected classes in the federal code.” Should it be enacted, it would imperil religious freedom, substantially harm women and girls, and cement a false conception of the human person into our nation’s laws and consciousness. Not to mention the fact that it would effectively destroy the clear (biologically determined) distinctions between males and females in our society and laws.

And for these reasons, it is paramount that H.R. 5 is defeated.

Addressing discrimination

Christians should oppose discrimination and stand up for human dignity. Of all people, followers of Jesus should recognize the inherent value of every person, regardless of their age, race, ability, religion, or any other details or features that define them, including their sexual orientation and sense of gender identity. Every person is created by God and made in his image (Gen. 1:26-27). That is why every person matters. Regardless of who they are, what they believe, or what they’ve done, no one can separate themselves from the image of God. Being stamped with God’s image means that each person possesses intrinsic dignity and deserves to be treated with respect.

There is no doubt that people in the LGBT community sometimes experience discrimination. But as Ryan T. Anderson points out, “Rather than finding common-sense, narrowly tailored ways to shield LGBT-identifying Americans from truly unjust discrimination, [H.R. 5] would act as a sword — to persecute those who don’t embrace newfangled gender ideologies.”

Anderson is correct. If the Equality Act were merely attempting to eliminate unjust discrimination, it would likely enjoy enthusiastic and bipartisan support. But it isn’t. 

Instead, in the name of “antidiscrimination” H.R. 5 would see Christians and others forced to deny their sincerely held beliefs or suffer untold consequences at the hands of the state. It would see women and girls forced to share private spaces with biological males. It would see pro-life conscience protections stripped away from healthcare professionals. And it would threaten the very existence of countless faith-based charities and nonprofits. 

Disagreement isn’t discrimination

We live in an age where disagreement on issues of sexuality is construed as violence. Christians and others who hold to traditional understandings of gender and sexuality are frequently slandered as zealots and bigots. But in most cases, such charges are baseless.

H.R. 5 would punish people who, whether on the basis of the Bible or biology, hold fast to their beliefs that there are only two sexes (male and female), that gender is tied to biology, and that both of these realities are permanent and fixed. 

Christians should have enormous compassion for people struggling with their sexual identities and for people who believe there is some kind of misalignment between their biological sex and their internal sense of gender. But that compassion doesn’t negate our convictions about God’s intentional design for men and women. Nor does it undermine the importance of biological realities.

Men and women are different. Public policy shouldn’t punish people for adhering to facts supported by science, reason, and faith. Moreover, women and girls shouldn’t be forced to share changing facilities and restrooms with biological males or to compete against them in athletic competitions. Faith-based nonprofits shouldn’t be forced to choose between maintaining their beliefs about human sexuality or ceasing operations. Healthcare professionals shouldn’t be forced to violate their consciences (and medical training) in order to remain licensed and employed.

Opposing the Equality Act

Legislation that would punish people for recognizing distinctions written into our DNA is not a serious way to advance equality. It is, however, a clear demonstration of the strength of the LGBT lobby. People of faith, and all Americans of goodwill, should reject H.R. 5 for exactly what it is, reckless government overreach. 

This bill would eradicate safeguards, destroy civil liberties, and obliterate freedom of conscience. It would also erase women and girls and supplant biological facts with subjective experiences. Supporting H.R. 5 is no way to advance equality.

Christianity and civil government
By / Feb 11

Recently, I had the opportunity to read Politics after Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World by noted scholar David VanDrunen (Ph.D., Loyola University Chicago and the Robert B. Strimple Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary California). The majority of VanDrunen’s work focuses on natural law and the two kingdoms’ doctrine, rooting both in his conception of the divine administration of common grace through the Noahic covenant. For VanDrunen, the Noahic covenant is essential for his project, and that shows in this book as well.  He argues the Noahic covenant is “foundational for understanding the revelation of God’s will in the natural law, the character of Christian’s pilgrimage in the present age, and the nature of God’s common rule” (20-21).

In Part 1 of Politics after Christendom, VanDrunen expands on much of his already published work on grounding political and public life in the Noahic covenant as he seeks to show how God has “ordained civil government—as the ruling authority of political communities—to be legitimate, but provisional, and to be common, but accountable” (25). Governments are legitimate because God has given them authority to do their work, but they are provisional since they are set in place for a limited time and purpose.  Governments are common to all, but they should be morally accountable for administering justice on behalf of those within their authority. These concepts of government as established by God and morally accountable to those under their authority set the parameters for Van Drunen’s political theology.

Part 2 focuses more on the practical outworking that comes from rooting political theology in the Noahic covenant. VanDrunen’s main effort in Part 2 shows how the Noahic covenant is needed to shape how Christians reflect on significant issues of legal and political theory. He does so by dealing with topics such as religious liberty, family and commerce, justice, and customs and laws. Part 2 does not seek to offer a comprehensive Christian political theory of these issues but offers a framework for thinking on today’s crucial contemporary political issues. Additionally, VanDrunen is careful in this section to posit what political and public life ought to look like for the human race in general and not precisely just for Christians.  He writes as a Christian and as a citizen and recognizes that the truthfulness of Scripture offers much truth for the world, regardless of whether one is Christian. VanDrunen argues that society should be pluralistic so that all of the basic Noahic institutions of family life and justice are available to all.  In this way, VanDrunen makes a solid case for his political theory framework grounded in natural law and Scripture.

VanDrunen takes great care in crafting his arguments, even if he is building on much of his previously published work, particularly Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought and Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law. However, this book strengthens the theoretical foundation of his earlier works by exploring in a more detailed manner the practical applications of his political framework. It makes a powerful argument for why Christians need to be actively engaged in politics even as they seek to be faithful to Christ in a changing cultural landscape. While the book is dense, written more for academics than laypeople, he effectively introduces his arguments by giving a few sentences summarizing his main points. This makes the book accessible to all who are willing to engage and wrestle with the text.

While VanDrunen understands Christians will always desire a government that closely adheres to the ethics of Scripture, he also understands that this will not often be the case this side of heaven. Instead, VanDrunen’s framework offers Christians a standard that is intelligible to all, regardless of their faith, because of its grounding in natural law, that provides a coherent approach to government, even in a fallen world, drawing on God’s establishment of government for the common good of society. 

VanDrunen makes a strong case for how the Noahic covenant might apply to contemporary political issues, though he may read more into the covenant than is explicit in the text (a point that VanDrunen admits). The Noahic covenant does not explicitly deal with many of the issues that VanDrunen applies it to in Part 2. In these instances, VanDrunen’s commitment to the principles of classical liberalism, drawing on the foundations of Locke and others, are placed into the text rather than allowing it to speak for itself. Though these principles are not inconsistent with the teachings of scripture, this is more a case of VanDrunen finding direct answers to modern questions that were not the main concern of the author and original audience.

Nevertheless, this book is an excellent resource for anyone who wants to deal with political issues biblically. While one does not need to accept all of what VanDrunen is proposing in this volume, Christians, evangelicals particularly, will find here an excellent introduction to political theology and how the Scriptures and natural law apply to our current political situation.  

How do Christians advance Jesus’ kingdom here and now?
By / Nov 4

The tone on social media, in the news, and in the public square in general is really harsh and often negative. It seems when we’re backed into a corner or in a situation we would not choose, we feel intimidated. When we feel overlooked, we want to be heard. When someone else asserts control over us, we feel insecure. Fear takes over. We bow up and start fighting our way out. It looks like bravery. Many people will call us strong, and maybe that’s true. But we learn from the prophet Jeremiah that when we engage in social, community, or even political issues, courage isn’t necessarily loud, and civility isn’t toothless at all. In fact, Christians have much good to do and the power to do it.

Under the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon became the superpower of the day. After several years of war against Judah (the Southern Kingdom), Babylon sacked Jerusalem in 586 BC. There had already been one Jewish deportation 11 years earlier, but the significant one came when Jerusalem fell. The exiles, those Nebuchadnezzar deported from Jerusalem, were people of religious, financial, and political influence. They were upset about their situation, so they began listening to the false prophets who were promising a quick return home. Jeremiah, who was still in Jerusalem, wrote to them to remind them they weren’t coming home soon. It would be 70 years before the God who deported them would allow them to return. Seventy years is a lifetime. Many of the exiles would never see Jerusalem again. Babylon wasn’t their hometown, but it was their home now. 

We also know from reading the prophets Amos and Hosea, that Israel and Judah were conquered and then deported into exile because of their moral and spiritual disobedience. The prophets warned them, calling them to repent, but their hearts were hard, so God disciplined them by allowing their enemies to defeat them and deport them. Living under a foreign ruler on foreign soil became fertile ground for God’s sanctifying work in their lives. 

When God deported his people to Babylon, he did not isolate them in concentration camps or private communities. He put them in established cities. They lived in the city of Nippur, some in Susa, others in cities along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. They were surrounded by people who spoke a different language, embraced different values, and worshipped false deities. 

It takes courage to love neighbors who may not love you in return. It takes civility to view other people with dignity and worth and to put their interests ahead of your own. God’s call on our lives is “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6:8).

Jeremiah wrote this letter recorded in chapter 29 to a specific group of people at a specific time for a specific purpose. In our case, we are not in exile, but we are “foreigners and strangers” (1 Peter 2:11). We aren’t waiting to return to Jerusalem, but we are waiting for a new Jerusalem. We may not live in our hometown, but this is our home now. So when we consider how to apply these words Jeremiah wrote to the exiles, we take the long view, in light of the Lordship of Jesus and his view of the Kingdom.

Being Kingdom focused in this present age

In his book, The Kingdom Focused Church, Gene Mims notes that Jesus mentioned the “church” only twice in the Gospels, but he referred to the kingdom nearly 90 times. “After John [the Baptist] was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God: The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:14-15)! 

We may think of the Kingdom of God as a faraway idea or place or future event, but the Kingdom is near and now. The Kingdom is Jesus’ rule in the lives of his people, so the priority of the church and our motivation to engage in the public square are to join Jesus’ Kingdom activity in the world to redeem the world and prepare for his coming. 

Just as God’s people were put in cities throughout Babylon, God has placed you and me in a community with the same expectation of advancing his Kingdom. So in light of the social, ethnic, religious, and political challenges how do Christians advance Jesus’ kingdom here and now? 

Planting your life in a community means you settle down, grow roots, and become an active part of public life. You build relationships with your neighbors, you engage in commerce, join the HOA, volunteer at the Senior Center, run for office, and pay taxes. And you even advocate for social issues that affect the everyday life of your neighbors. 

Is your investment in your city conditioned on your neighbors following Jesus with you, attending your church, or even agreeing with you on social issues? Not at all. Will your neighbors ever worship your God? We hope so, but only God knows. Will their priorities be the same as yours? Will they agree with your politics? Not necessarily. Jesus loved and served many people who did not follow him. 

It takes courage to love neighbors who may not love you in return. It takes civility to view other people with dignity and worth and to put their interests ahead of your own. God’s call on our lives is “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6:8). He has placed us here so that through our acts of justice, mercy, and humility, our neighbors would see a picture of a coming Kingdom, a “city whose architect and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:10).

This is an adaptation from The Civility Church Toolkit: “Week 3 Sermon: Our Neighbors’ Good, Jesus’ Kingdom, and God’s Glory,” pgs. 59-63

Christians and the cancel culture
By / Jan 27

In June 2019, there was a Twitter backlash against the Black Hat security conference and its decision to confirm Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tx.) as a keynote speaker. Black Hat is a technology event series founded in 1997. Many within the national security and cybersecurity fields, along with many long-time attendees, voiced their disgust that Black Hat would choose to highlight Hurd given his pro-life convictions and voting record. Black Hat decided to rescind the invitation, bowing to public pressure.

While the issues of abortion and cybersecurity seem to be separate, the canceling of Hurd’s keynote is a prime example of a phenomenon in our society called “cancel culture.” This happens when a group seeks to cancel someone or something often based on a single disqualifying factor. These factors can be as simple as a past tweet or article, or as large as a deeply held religious or social belief. Those who seek to cancel someone will use anything to silence any dissenting opinion or thought, which leads to a breakdown of civil discourse and a weakening of our social fabric.

Unfortunately, cancel culture is the norm now. In our society, one’s position on an unrelated issue can lead to a fallout. Even one tweet or offhand comment has the potential to ruin one’s career or family, especially in the hands of those who are seeking to discredit someone. 

What is cancel culture?

Simply put, cancel culture is the boycotting or silencing of someone or something with the threat of financial or popularity loss. The case of Black Hat reveals that many believe hosting someone with differing ideas affirms everything that a person has ever said. In these cases, shaming in order to enact change is a tactic used to silence opposition rather than engage in a conversation or debate over the things most important to us. This reveals that the public is not able to maintain a pluralistic understanding any longer.

Cancel culture became prominent after the rise of social media in the mid-2000s, which gave those without a public megaphone the ability to share their thoughts and ideas with anyone across the world. In the last few years, social media has increasingly been abused to shame those some disagree with on fundamental issues. We have to acknowledge that technology, like every tool, will be misused, abused, and manipulated.

This cultural phenomenon reveals the deep longing for power and control that each of us have, as well as the lack of honest dialogue in our society that can strengthen our own understanding in the face of dissenting views. We would rather lord our perceived superiority and intellect over our neighbor rather than love him by giving him the respect he deserves as an image-bearer of God (Matt. 22:37-39). 

As Christians, we are called to push back against this culture and to stand up for the dignity and rights of our neighbors, especially those with whom we disagree, as we seek to persuade them of the truth of God’s Word.

But Scripture speaks of the Christian, not as a proud person who exploits power for his own gain, but rather as one who imitates Christ, who willingly laid down his life on the cross for his enemies (1 John 3:16). The Bible teaches us that humility and the ability to be “quick to hear, slow to speak” (James 1:19) should be the foundational characteristics of a redeemed individual (Col. 3:12).

In a broken society marred by sin, we are all naturally drawn to power, especially the power of “canceling” someone because it makes us feel as though we are in control. But instead of seeking power, we are called to live under the reign and rule of God alone, recognizing that each of us falls short of God’s glory. Our pursuit should be one of laying down our pride, power, and person. We are each corrupted and broken (Rom. 3:23) and are called to submit to God alone.

Thicker skin and intellectually honest dialogue

In addition, defining someone’s worth based on the issues we disagree with does immense damage to our credibility in the long run because it shows we are unable to engage one another’s ideas as presented nor have a rich debate about what is true. We show that our ideas only have longevity if we continue to force them on people rather than withstanding the refining nature of deep and thoughtful engagement. We would rather cancel someone or something than take part in honest dialogue.

Engaging ideas dissimilar to our own means listening to someone’s views with respect, especially if we disagree. Just as Christ doesn’t define our dignity based on one sin or one particular issue, neither are we to condemn another based on one thing. We are more than our ideas, beliefs, and failures. Christians of all people should understand this because we were bought with a price by the blood of Christ—blood that is powerful enough to completely wash us clean, not just clean up an isolated stain.

As we engage one another, we must champion the dignity of every individual, which will often mean having the courage and moral fortitude to withstand criticism and hard questions. In order for each of us to grow and mature, we must be able to defend our beliefs rather than run from the opposing position. Christians should take this challenge to rise to the occasion and give a reason for the hope within us, with confidence in the God of all wisdom (1 Pet. 3:15). 

Engaging the cancel culture with respect 

Just as we are called to give a reason for the hope within us, we are also called to do it with gentleness and respect because those we engage with are not simply ideas but human beings made in God’s image. As our society increasingly becomes more divisive, we must take important steps to love our neighbors in our online dialogue. One practical way of doing this is by seeking to understand one another’s ideas or positions rather than caricaturing them. This will mean that we read widely and listen intently to those with whom we disagree. We must attempt to represent their ideas for what they really are rather than being intellectually dishonest about what our neighbor believes. Representing their views in a way that they would agree with goes a long way in showing your credibility and love. This is the beginning of convictional kindness. We engage others in truth but also in love.

Cancel culture will only lead to a segmented society and to a breakdown of civility and public discourse. Ultimately this can lead to a weak trust in one another as well as the erosion of our democracy. But, as Christians, we are called to push back against this culture and to stand up for the dignity and rights of our neighbors, especially those with whom we disagree, as we seek to persuade them of the truth of God’s Word. We must care more about loving God and our neighbor than we do about being right or popular. Instead of seeking power in vain, we should submit to the One who has already won the victory, as we represent him to those in need of the grace that will cancel their sin.

Russell Moore in Iowa on Courage and Civility
By / Nov 26

For Thanksgiving travels, we wanted to bring you a message on the twin values of civility and courage ERLC president Russell Moore recently gave at Veritas Church in Iowa City. This event was part of the ERLC's Faith and Healthy Democracy project that seeks to help Christians better understand our chaotic public square and engage our current cultural moment.  

Resources from the Conversation

ERLC Unveils Evangelical Survey Results & Research Project on Faith and Healthy Democracy
By / Sep 26

NASHVILLE, Tenn., Sep. 26, 2019—The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission unveiled results of a public survey conducted by LifeWay Research today that explore the perspectives of American adults with evangelical beliefs on civility, politics and how likely they are to engage with views different from their own.

Additionally, the ERLC released a report interacting with the findings of this public survey, titled “Faith and Healthy Democracy.” The lead researcher and author of the report is Paul D. Miller, professor of the practice of international affairs at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and an ERLC research fellow.

Russell Moore, president of the ERLC, commented on these projects:

“The results of this survey were occasionally encouraging, frequently surprising, and, in some cases, indicting. What the responses clearly show is that there are forces driving apart those within the church. That shouldn’t surprise us. But it should convict us. My prayer is that this survey and report would be one among many initiatives that can help show us the way forward and help us learn to love one another and stand with courage in the public square. Biblical courage often means being willing to stand alone, against a crowd. But biblical unity means those who are in Christ should never be forced to stand alone, or against, those who bear the name of Christ.”

The LifeWay Research survey covered a broad range of topics—asking questions concerning civility, political preferences, personal relationships and news sources, among other things. 

Paul Miller, lead researcher of the “Faith and Healthy Democracy” report, utilized the LifeWay Research survey results to consider the state of public discourse and then ask how evangelicals can help improve the public square. The report concludes with two sets of recommendations, one for individuals and another for churches and seminaries. 

The full report is available at this link. 

An introduction to “Faith and Healthy Democracy”
By / Sep 26

In June 2017 a gunman opened fire on a group of Republican Congressman, nearly killing one. Just over a year later, several pipe bombs were mailed to prominent Democratic officials, including former President Barack Obama. In recent years Americans have attacked and killed fellow Americans at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, a gay nightclub in Orlando, and a church in Charleston because of political, religious, or ethnic differences. In June 2018, 31 percent of respondents in a Rasmussen poll believed civil war was likely to break out within the next five years.

These sporadic incidents of political violence are still thankfully rare, and civil war is unlikely. But the violence is a warning sign, a dramatic indicator of a broader breakdown in the American public square—in how Americans perceive their neighbors, their government, and their opportunities for civic engagement. The American public square, as our interviewees unanimously told us, is caustic, toxic, ignorant, and corrosive. The level of polarization, mistrust, and tribal animus is not unprecedented in American history—the 1790s, 1860s, and 1960s were worse—but the 2010s rank close to those decades as among the least flattering to the aspirations of American democracy. We hate our politicians, and we hate each other.

Some observers warn that democracy cannot survive a wholesale loss of faith in one another, in public persuasion, and in the rules of democratic politics. That conclusion might be overdrawn— the United States did, in fact, survive the 1790s and 1960s (and, barely, the 1860s)—but it is also unnecessary. We do not have to believe that democracy is on its last legs to want it to see better days. It is enough that something is wrong for us to see a duty to put it right. Waiting for an apocalyptic crisis is a dereliction of the duties of citizenship, a form of national procrastination that is both cause and evidence of the state of the public square. Christians can and should desire a better public square, and we can and should bear public witness for that goal. Christians are called to love our neighbors; we are called to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” in which we sojourn (Jeremiah 29:7); we are called to “fear God, honor the king,” (1 Peter 2:17), to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” (Matthew 22:21), to do everything to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31), to “work heartily, as for the Lord” in all things (Colossians 3:23).

This report explores how American evangelical Christians might contribute to healing political and cultural divides in America. It also aims to identify gaps in Americans’ civic education and civic practice and to suggest ways to fill that gap. We hope to engage Christians on what healthy democratic participation looks like: how do we love our neighbors politically, and how might our faith lead us to advocate for human flourishing in the public square?

This report shares what we heard from nearly 50 interviews with evangelical leaders and learned from a survey conducted by LifeWay Research. We do not have a central thesis or argument; we do not (yet) delve deeply into solutions or recommendations. This is only the first of many steps we aim to take over the following year. With the public release of this report, we hope to kick off a dialogue among churches, seminaries, with the public, in the media, and with the academy.  We also hope to develop materials for use in churches based on this research, helping equip church leaders to teach their flock about how to love their neighbors politically. Civic education is not the church’s primary mission, but the church’s primary mission of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ has implications beyond the four walls of the church, and we hope to help churches teach about those implications with truth and love.

The full report is available at this link. 

Faith and Healthy Democracy
By / Sep 26

In June 2017 a gunman opened fire on a group of Republican Congressman, nearly killing one. Just over a year later, several pipe bombs were mailed to prominent Democratic officials, including former President Barack Obama. In recent years Americans have attacked and killed fellow Americans at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, a gay nightclub in Orlando, and a church in Charleston because of political, religious, or ethnic differences. In June 2018, 31 percent of respondents in a Rasmussen poll believed civil war was likely to break out within the next five years.

These sporadic incidents of political violence are still thankfully rare, and civil war is unlikely. But the violence is a warning sign, a dramatic indicator of a broader breakdown in the American public square—in how Americans perceive their neighbors, their government, and their opportunities for civic engagement. The American public square, as our interviewees unanimously told us, is caustic, toxic, ignorant, and corrosive. The level of polarization, mistrust, and tribal animus is not unprecedented in American history—the 1790s, 1860s, and 1960s were worse—but the 2010s rank close to those decades as among the least flattering to the aspirations of American democracy. We hate our politicians, and we hate each other.

Some observers warn that democracy cannot survive a wholesale loss of faith in one another, in public persuasion, and in the rules of democratic politics. That conclusion might be overdrawn— the United States did, in fact, survive the 1790s and 1960s (and, barely, the 1860s)—but it is also unnecessary. We do not have to believe that democracy is on its last legs to want it to see better days. It is enough that something is wrong for us to see a duty to put it right. Waiting for an apocalyptic crisis is a dereliction of the duties of citizenship, a form of national procrastination that is both cause and evidence of the state of the public square. Christians can and should desire a better public square, and we can and should bear public witness for that goal. Christians are called to love our neighbors; we are called to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” in which we sojourn (Jeremiah 29:7); we are called to “fear God, honor the king,” (1 Peter 2:17), to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” (Matthew 22:21), to do everything to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31), to “work heartily, as for the Lord” in all things (Colossians 3:23).

This report explores how American evangelical Christians might contribute to healing political and cultural divides in America. It also aims to identify gaps in Americans’ civic education and civic practice and to suggest ways to fill that gap. We hope to engage Christians on what healthy democratic participation looks like: how do we love our neighbors politically, and how might our faith lead us to advocate for human flourishing in the public square?

This report shares what we heard from nearly 50 interviews with evangelical leaders and learned from a survey conducted by LifeWay Research. We do not have a central thesis or argument; we do not (yet) delve deeply into solutions or recommendations. This is only the first of many steps we aim to take over the following year. With the public release of this report, we hope to kick off a dialogue among churches, seminaries, with the public, in the media, and with the academy.  We also hope to develop materials for use in churches based on this research, helping equip church leaders to teach their flock about how to love their neighbors politically. Civic education is not the church’s primary mission, but the church’s primary mission of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ has implications beyond the four walls of the church, and we hope to help churches teach about those implications with truth and love.

10 things the Bible says about our speech
By / Jul 1

We live in an age where “speaking your mind” is considered a virtue and a hailed as a sign of good leadership. But is this trait something the Bible comends? Should Christians be known for “speaking their mind?”

There are several truths about our speech we should consider from Scripture:

  1. The Bible commends honest speech. Proverbs 6:17 names a “lying tongue” as one of the things God hates. The prophet Zechariah instructed God’s people: “These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another. Paul commands the new covenant people of Ephesus, “Let everyone of you speak truth to his neighbor.” (Ephesians 4:25). Lying is a sin, the product of a fallen nature. Lying is the work of the enemy (John 8:44). So truthful speech is the sign of a redeemed heart.
  2. The Bible commends truthful speech for rebuke. Faithful, the Proverbs says, are the wounds of a friend (Proverbs 27:6). Flattery is the tool, not of someone looking to deepen a relationship but to leverage proximity for personal gain (Proverbs 29:5). God used the courage of the prophet Nathan to confront David over his sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:17). Jesus in Matthew 18 gives instructions on redemptive confrontation designed to restore a sinful brother into loving community (Matthew 18). Paul considers this a sign of love, from one brother or sister, to another (Galatians 6:1).
  3. The Bible commends public arguments against sin and heresy. Jesus very publically, throughout the gospels, confronted errant religious leaders. When the heart of the gospel message was at stake, Paul was unafraid to confront Peter publically (Galatians 2:11-13). And much of the New Testament, the inspired canon of Scripture, consists of public letters that contain, at times, stinging rebuke of sin. Paul says that polemics are not only important within the church, at times, but also without, as we are tasked with engaging the reigning worldview arguments and presenting alternative, biblical worldview (2 Corinthians 10:5).
  4. The Bible seems to commend the use of satire and other forms of creative engagement. Elijah playfully taunted the false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27). Jesus employed the use of parables, metaphors, and similes in communicating truth. Paul was often acerbic in his rebuke of the Corinthians. Sharply worded polemics, uplifting satire, and, at times, sarcasm, can be employed in a way that reflects faithful Christian witness. However, this must be done within the boundaries of what is considered civil and wise speech (see below).
  5. The Bible commends civility and respect in speech. In the Scriptures, kindness, respect, and good manners are not simply “nice” things for certain people, but are considered Christian virtues. Peter, in a letter written to address the persecution and marginalization of Christians, exhorts God’s people to be both courageous and civil (1 Peter 3:15). Later Peter reminds us to treat every single human being with dignity (1 Peter 2:17). In the Pastoral Epistles, you will notice that one of the cornerstone characteristics of qualified church leaders is gentleness (Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3).
  6. The Bible commends wise and informed speech. The way we speak is a oft-repeated theme in Scripture. James devotes almost an entire chapter to the power of the tongue (James 3). Words have power. Words matter. Words can either be life-giving or life-crushing. King David’s prayer was for a mouth that offered words that were “acceptable” in the sight of God (Psalm 19:14). Proverbs affirms the value of applying just the right word in the right moment (Proverbs 25:11) and, like James (James 1:19), rebukes those who speak before thinking (Proverbs 17:28; 29:20).
  7. The Bible says that the mouth is a good barometer of the heart. Luke records Jesus words: “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:45). Words are not neutral; they reflect either good or evil. Nobody can really say, “I didn’t mean that.” It’s better to say, when we misspeak, “Those words come from an unsanctified part of my heart.” What’s more, speaking my mind may not reflect speaking that is true or virtuous, because the Christian mind is in constant state of needing to be renewed by the gospel (Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 10:5).
  8. The Bible commends the wisdom of not sharing everything with everyone all the time. Proverbs says trustworthy people keep confidential information confidential and it is a sign of low character to reveal secrets (Proverbs 11:3). Later, Proverbs extols the “prudent man” who knows to keep information to himself and rebukes the “heart of fools that speak folly” (Proverbs 12:23). Sharing everything all the time to anyone who listens is not a sign of “authenticity” but a sign of foolishness.
  9. The Bible commends humility as a sign of grace. “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” – this maxim is mentioned three times in Scripture (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6,1; 1 Peter 5:5). What does this have to do with our speech? I tells us, I believe that graceful, measured, civil speech is a sign of God’s grace and proud, boastful speech is a sign of God’s resistance. Humility means speaking with recognition of our own fallenness. It means resisting the urge to speak out of turn. It means we have the self-awareness to know if we are the right person to speak on a particular issue at a particular time.
  10. The Bible commends speech that edifies. Paul, writing to the Ephesians, says that Christians can either speak words that destroy or words that build, words that are given with a desire to build up the body of Christ or words that are wielded as carnal weapons of destruction (Ephesians 4:29). There is a difference, even, between verbal and written engagement meant to crush and winsome polemics meant to inform or rebuke.

So, is “speaking your mind” a Christian virtue? Not if “speaking your mind” implies unfiltered, uninformed foolish talk that hurts and destroys. Let’s pray for Holy Spirit power to seek after God in the way we use the gift of language and pray for repentance when our mouths reveal as-yet unsanctified parts of the heart.