Christianity Today Institute Focuses Evangelical Thought on the Christian as Citizen

The institute produced a 32-page special report to be published in CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

From the Religious Right, the federal government often is pictured as a nest of secular humanists, and state governments as the bane of Christian schools. From the Left, liberal churchmen bring a different set of complaints: Central American policy, Reaganomics, the nuclear arms build-up.

Across the spectrum, Christians are awakening to political issues, but it is difficult for many to know whose lead to follow. In an attempt to shed light on biblical principles underlying the conflict between church and state, several of the country’s better-known evangelical thinkers have written a series of articles that outline, from a centrist evangelical point of view, the standards by which Christians should act toward and participate in civil government. The series is entitled “The Christian as Citizen” and will appear as a 32-page supplement in the April 19 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. The special report contains major articles by J. I. Packer, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth S. Kantzer, Stephen Monsma, and David McKenna. In its essence, the special report argues that based on Scripture, civil government deserves the strong respect of Christians, even when it does not embrace Christian views. The report is not likely to make either the Religious Right or Left completely happy.

The magazine supplement will be the first report of the Christianity Today Institute, which has been organized to focus evangelical academic thought on contemporary issues confronting the church, and to transmit the results of that academic study to the church’s practicing leadership. The institute’s first meeting was held last November in Chicago to address the subject of the Christian as citizen. In addition to the five article authors, participants in that meeting were Vernon Grounds, president emeritus of Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary and president of Evangelicals for Social Action; Nathan Hatch, a church historian from the University of Notre Dame; Myron Augsburger, pastor of Washington Community Fellowship and a leading Mennonite spokesman; and V. Gilbert Beers, executive director of the Christianity Today Institute. Kenneth S. Kantzer, author of one of the articles, is dean of the institute. Three guests met individually with the participants to present their views of the conflict between church and state and to answer questions. Those guests were Jerry Falwell, head of Moral Majority and senior pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church, in Lynchburg, Virginia; Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine; and Charles Colson, founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship.

In the first article in the series, J. I. Packer, an Anglican theologian and author, writes that Christians are not to stand aloof from their government. On the contrary, he writes, civic participation is part of their New Testament obligation to serve God. Not only that, Christians are called to render their due to the existing political regime, whether it be the intolerant Roman government of the first century or our own pluralistic democracy.

Packer criticizes three categories of Christians that he sees as subverting the biblical model of Christian citizenship. The first are those on the Left who cut the heart out of the gospel by painting Christ as Liberator and Humanizer instead of transcendent Lord and Savior. The second are those who, in a mistaken form of piety, withdraw completely from participation in government. The third are those on the Right who would ride roughshod over non-Christian beliefs.

Packer writes that representative democracy, although not the only form of government under which Christianity can survive, is the fittest form because it recognizes the dignity of all individuals, and because in it, governmental powers are separated, a fitting self-check in a fallen society.

In another article, evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry warns those Christians who would attempt to impose laws that would advance the organized church, since religious conviction must be voluntary to be genuine. The U.S. Constitution and Scripture agree on the absolute worth and dignity—and consequently the freedom—of individuals. It is primarily on this constitutional mooring, Henry writes, that Christians should base their fight against social ills such as abortion, rather than on distinctly Christian religious beliefs that all citizens do not hold.

Henry writes that the church is dependent on civil government to preserve order in society, and that government is valuable even as a check on society’s religious believers, who remain vulnerable to self-interest and self-assertion. He warns, however, that the courts have badly misread the First Amendment to the detriment of Christian moral principles, and he says this must be changed.

Stephen Monsma, a Reformed scholar and former member of the Michigan State legislature, also addresses the First Amendment’s religious freedom clauses, and the tensions they impose on church-and-state relations. Monsma writes that the U.S. Supreme Court has given an overly broad interpretation to the nonestablishment of religion clause, thus allowing the state to discriminate against religious influence, which is far from what the Founding Fathers intended. At the same time, the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause sometimes results in discrimination in favor of religion, such as rulings that allow the Amish to shorten their children’s education, a right not granted to the nonreligious.

On the matter of civil disobedience, Monsma writes that although the government has allowed pacifists to object conscientiously to the military draft, the government has not extended this privilege to other moral matters. Conscientious objectors still must contribute tax money for nuclear arsenals; the taxes of prolife Christians can be used to pay for abortions; and those citizens who want the government to feed more of the hungry must instead pay taxes that subsidize tobacco farmers.

Christians must refuse to obey when government requires them to contravene God’s will, Monsma writes, but he issues strong cautions for those who would engage in civil disobedience. For one thing, Christians recognize that governmental authority is rooted in God’s will. For another, Christian humility recognizes that an individual’s convictions are fallible. Still, those Christians who believe they must disobey laws should not have to forfeit the respect of their fellow Christians, Monsma writes.

In his article, David McKenna, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, addresses the matter of the organized church, and ordained ministers engaging in politics. Only in rare and temporary circumstances should pastors involve themselves, McKenna writes, because the public and the news media often are confused about whether a pastor-politician is speaking for himself, his church, or his political constituents. In addition, the political world of compromise often knocks harshly against the moral absolutes of the pulpit, McKenna says.

He writes further that church members must recognize that, as congregations, their duty is primarily spiritual, not political. Congregations should work to send members into the world to penetrate it individually rather than confront it corporately. The church’s organized political action should be confined to pivotal issues of justice, such as religious liberty, which insures the integrity of the church; social equality, which assures protection of the weak; and moral order, which assures a climate for advancing the gospel.

In an article that concludes the series, Kenneth Kantzer makes the distinction that although the United States is not, and never was, a Christian nation, its founding documents assume the existence of a moral order with absolute values. He writes that the U.S. Constitution cannot long survive without those absolute values, which are being eroded.

Congregations In Israel Continue To Face Opposition

A city government injunction is preventing a congregation of Jewish believers in Christ from worshiping in a rented building in Rehovot, Israel. The congregation, Grace and Truth Assembly, also has been harassed by extremist Orthodox Jews.

Grace and Truth is one of two believing congregations in Rehovot, a city of 50,000 about 12 miles south of Tel Aviv. Ray Hicks, administrator for Southern Baptist representatives in Israel, said the Rehovot situation is not unique.

Hicks said congregations have been harassed in Ashkelon, Tiberias, Nahariya, Netanya, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem (CT, March 15, 1985, p. 42).

Grace and Truth Assembly is comprised of about 25 adults, most of whom are Israeli citizens. Pastor Baruch Moaz said he and other members of the group have been abused physically and had their property vandalized.

Rehovot’s mayor, Ezekiel Harmelech, and the city’s leading rabbi, Simcha Kook, condemned the congregation for moving to the rented location in November.

The following month, the city issued an injunction that demanded that the congregation move to another site. The city contended that Grace and Truth was meeting for worship and operating a small publishing house in an area zoned strictly for residential use.

However, Moaz cited several exceptions to the zoning rule. He said the rented building formerly housed a kindergarten, and that synagogues and rabbinical schools operate in the vicinity.

One week after the congregation held its first Saturday Sabbath services at the rented location, Moaz said, Kook staged an unauthorized protest in an attempt to obstruct the entrance to the building. “Failing to hinder entrance, the rabbi led his people into the building, took it over, and remained in possession of it for well over an hour, singing, praying, and removing Bibles and hymnbooks, which were later found trampled upon in the street.

“The police were called as soon as the demonstration began,” he said. “In spite of the fact the station is only 200 yards away, it took them well over half an hour to arrive.”

During a subsequent demonstration, a number of persons were prevented from entering the building even though police were present, Moaz said. “No public official has acted meaningfully to insure freedom of religion.”

BAPTIST PRESS

A Recent Study Commends The Church’S Role In Charitable Giving

Churches have played a substantial but rarely recognized role in charitable giving, according to a recent study prepared by the Washington, D.C.-based Council on Foundations.

Called “The Philanthropy of Organized Religion,” the study points out that in 1983, more than $8.5 billion was channeled through religious organizations to finance charitable programs at home and abroad. That figure exceeds the total given by nonreligious philanthropic foundations ($3.46 billion) and corporate foundations ($3.1 billion).

The Council on Foundations prepared the report after charitable groups recognized a need for better cooperation in the wake of the increase in the numbers of needy people during the recession of 1981 and 1982. The report says it is unrealistic to expect the private sector to shoulder the entire burden borne by government social programs.

The study is based on responses to a questionnaire sent to 2,700 organizations. Since only 485 organizations responded, the report acknowledges that “statistical validity is not possible.” The survey excluded groups with fewer than 1,000 members, eliminating most nondenominational congregations.

Only regional and national religious leaders were polled, increasing the chances that many small but significant local programs were overlooked. In addition, the survey excluded charitable assistance that was provided within congregations.

The study did, however, point out numerous nontraditional programs that involve Christians. These include a grant to an institute providing inner-city youth with a seven-week summer work program on a farm; funds for an agency that taught more than 8,000 Latin Americans how to read and write for only $12.04 per person; and a grant to an organization that uses volunteers to build houses in Africa for the very poor, at a cost of $1,000 each.

What’s In A Name? Lots, If It Is International Aid

Major news media reports of alleged wrongdoings on the part of an organization called International Christian Aid (ICA) have caused public relations headaches for a relief organization with a similar name. International Aid, based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has received well over 100 phone calls and letters from people who mistook it for ICA.

An added twist of fate is that the man who came on staff as International Aid’s chief public relations officer last December, Lee Baas, is sometimes confused with ICA president L. Joe Bass.

International Aid has worked with American farmers to provide surplus grain to famine-stricken countries in Africa. Baas said that he recently received a call from a farmer who said the ICA news coverage had made some Iowa farmers skeptical of International Aid.

Baas told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that it is difficult to determine if such perceived links to ICA will affect donations. Since its founding in 1980, International Aid has assisted relief and missionary efforts in 132 countries. During fiscal 1984, it provided $7.3 million worth of assistance at a cost of just over $120,000.

The organization provides commodities, primarily food and medical supplies, to church and missionary organizations in the Third World. International Aid has worked extensively in Ethiopia with Sudan Interior Mission.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.