Extrapolate!

To complete the set of posts in the "Excommunicate!" thread, I will lay out what I believe are the basic principles for Christian involvement in public life.

1. Christians are citizens of both heaven and earth. We have obligations from each kingdom, and must not completely exclude either.
2. God has the foremost claim on our lives. When the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man are in conflict, God's claim comes first.
3. All justifiable actions are not created equal. We should seek to edify and not offend people, whether Christians or not. The cross is a stumbling block of its own; we need not make Christianity more difficult to accept.
4. We should enforce standards of public morality on our own members, but not on those who do not profess Christ. Jesus befriended corrupt bureaucrats and call girls, and sided with the poor and weak over the rich and powerful.
5. As citizens of the United States (or other representative governments), we have a civic duty to vote and advocate in favor of policies that we believe promote the type of society we want. There is no Biblical mandate to change the government; rather, we are to accept unfair taxation and oppression with humility. It is the United States, not God, which grants us temporal freedoms and gives us the duty to change our government.
6. When Christians are in positions of temporal authority, they are to use their authority to do good, stop oppression, and promote peace. (References: most of the prophets).
7. The Church, in all its forms, is God's voice on earth. It should never dilute his message with man-made additions. Throughout history the church has failed in its mission whenever it has added its own agenda - moralistic, political, nationalistic - to God's agenda. In Latin America, observers thought the Catholic Church would make itself relevant again by embracing liberation theology. God, however, has blessed protestant churches that remained apolitical with massive growth since then.

This list is by no means exhaustive. However, I think it highlights some of the key differences between our identity as Christians and our identity as U.S. citizens. The Bible was written to Roman citizens and subjugated peoples, but they were never counseled to rebel, and there is no record of the early church demanding freedoms from the government. However, Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen, and we should likewise exercise our rights (and responsibilities) as American citizens as long as they do not contradict the laws of God.

Christian leaders in the Alabama case violated principles numbered 2, 3, and 7 above. On 2: They put their political agenda first. They could have avoided this by considering that in a trade-off between showing love and protecting federalism, showing love must win out. On 3: They tied political conservatism to Christianity, creating a stumbling block for blacks and liberals. On 7: They diluted the message of Christ with a political message.

There is no Biblical category for non-church organizations made up of Christians. Any group of Christians, whether they worship together or not, are part of the body of Christ. There is no way, even in a republic, for us to speak as Christians collectively without speaking as the Church. The attempt to do this is one reason for the Alabama debacle. We are the only ones who see the distinction - God doesn't and non-Christians don't.

Is there any place at all for the Church to speak out publically? Yes, but we should be very cautious. Here's another list, the points of which must be addressed before the Church can righteously and profitably speak on a public issue:

1. Is the issue clearly Bible-based or vital to the practice of Christianity? Abortion, human rights, civil rights, freedom of religion: yes. Tax breaks for charitable giving, war, government spending: no.
2. Is the means of 'speaking' justifiable? Civil disobedience needs to pass a high test, but is appropriate where obedience would break God's law. In public speech, care should be taken to be no more firm or uncompromising than necessary.
3. Are we removing a splinter from society's eye when there is a log in our own? The church has no right to speak against gay marriage until it has addressed bias against or hatred towards homosexuals in its own midst. Obviously, this has to be a matter of degrees, but it should be evident to the world that we love - in deed as well as word - those whose behavior we seek to curtail. This also applies to human rights abuses internationally: when we condemn abuses, are we truly objective, or are we just complaining because it's "our people" getting the short end of the stick?
4. Does speaking out fit into the context of the "little-c" church? Different churches are equipped to speak in different ways. A missionsary-led church, for instance, is not likely to have the same reputation or moral authority to speak on a local issue that an indigenous church has. A church dealing with severe internal sin is ill-equiped to confront sin in the world. A church that cannot keep its own members from divorcing looks foolish defending marriage.
5. Are the underlying motives godly or worldly? We must be honest with ourselves: just because something is justifiable in general does not mean it is justified for you, even as a follower.

The Church is the body of Christ. We can never separate what we do or how we present ourselves from the Head. We must live our public lives mindful that we are the visible manifestation of heaven on earth. Scared? You should be.