Bottom-Line Morality

Traditional values can form the basis for making common cause with unbelievers.

A non-Christian schoolteacher looks at her neighbor over a cup of coffee. Tears of frustration are in her eyes. “You’re a Christian. Help me understand what these Christian parents want,” she says, referring to a heated meeting over curriculum the previous evening.

The leader of a men’s Bible study asks for volunteers to campaign for “Christian” school board candidates. He speaks with fervor: “We have let secular humanists run our schools and our government too long. It’s time for Christians to get into politics and fight back. America needs to become a Christian country again, before it goes down the tubes.” After an angry campaign, the “Christian” slate wins a majority on the school board and curriculum review is on the agenda.

Christian political involvement is not happening in a comer. Newspapers report that in Washington State the “Religious Right” has taken over the Republican party apparatus. People Weekly, the barometer of celebrity, runs a feature on the big-time TV evangelists. The Reverend Pat Robertson is seriously running for President, and after the Iowa caucuses, nobody is laughing.

In the midst of all this, some Christians are becoming uneasy with this “thundering prophet” confrontational political style. Even Falwell has reassessed his political involvement. But how do individual Christians find their way? As Christians and citizens, it is easy to feel caught in the middle, without good criteria for making choices.

From some of our fellow Christians comes the suggestion that real Christians will always vote for Christian candidates. On the other hand, many non-Christians, like our distraught school teacher, are loving, compassionate, upright, and moral. And one is sometimes left cold by an impression of harshness, lack of humility, and naïveté in many politically active Christians.

Here are some insights we have found useful in this election year.

Traditional Values

There is little in political history or Scripture to support the idea that Christianity has a corner on the moral and social values that will sustain a great nation.

It is not hard to understand how people link loss of Christian influence to loss of national moral fiber, if they take their perspective from watching the evening news over the last three decades. Since the fifties, there has indeed been a decline in the observance of “traditional values” in the United States. We also sense our prosperity and our favored position in the world slipping away. And over this same period, there has been an active and generally successful effort by some to excise religion (by which is nearly always meant the Christian religion) from public life, public education, and public discourse.

Because many Christians believe the decline in Christian influence in public life caused the decline in traditional moral standards and national influence (and prosperity), they conclude that to reverse these trends Christianity must be aggressively re-established in government.

But these people may not appreciate that the traditional values held by Christians are not very different from the values held by our “secular humanist” schoolteacher. Some would chalk it up to the lingering influence of Christian culture on her upbringing. That may be partly true, but it runs deeper.

In The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis points out that the “traditional morality” that has been held by all ancient and modern civilizations, East or West, has virtually the same content. Despite some incongruities and exceptions, nearly all widely held religions define what makes a person good and what makes something evil in ways that are remarkably similar to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Lewis calls this commonly held traditional morality the “Tao,” which means the “Way” in Chinese. In Lewis’s day the term had the advantage of avoiding sectarian prejudices that might be elicited by phrases such as “biblical morality,” “God’s law,” or “general revelation.” And presumably this word also helped his readers stop thinking that traditional morality begins and ends with the Christian tradition. Since Lewis’s time, the importation of Eastern religions into North America makes the word less useful. So we shall use phrases like “the shared moral tradition” or “common morality” to mean the same thing.

Lewis’s examples of the moral precepts that existed in other and ancient cultures strike us with their familiarity. We discover that not only do all cultures have moral strictures against murder, but that familiar notions like the following crop up repeatedly in moral codes: “I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for me” (ancient Egyptian). “Slander not” (Babylonian). “Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded” (Hindu). “Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you” (Chinese).

The familiar moral and ethical concerns continue: “What good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?” (Roman). “Love thy wife studiously. Gladden her heart all thy life long” (ancient Egyptian). “To care for parents” (Greek list of duties). “Has he approached his neighbor’s wife?” (Babylonian list of sins). “Nature and reason command that nothing uncomely … and nothing lascivious be done or thought” (Roman).

For those steeped in Scripture, the biblical forms of these admonitions will immediately come to mind. Many similar statements could be quoted, covering integrity, chastity, marital fidelity, the unique value of individual human life, charity, the value of work, and love of country. No wonder non-Christians get so upset when Christians assume that only a Christian can be a good moral steward of government.

A Christian View Of Government

Non-Christians have a right to be upset. In fact, Scripture is on their side. Consider the function of government that is stated in Scripture. In particular, consider government’s relationship to promoting moral values.

Jesus clearly said that he did not come to set up an earthly kingdom. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” implies a division of responsibility or function between church and state. In the desert temptations, and then as his followers urged him to set up an earthly kingdom, Jesus insisted that his kingdom was not of this world.

What then is God’s view of government? Paul, in Romans 13, told the early Christians: “Submit … to the governing authorities.… The authorities that exist have been established by God.… For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.… He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience” (vv. 1, 3–6, NIV).

Paul was talking about Roman, non-Christian government. But he presumes that government will generally do right; that it is in fact God’s servant to check evil. He also assumes some congruence between what the Roman authority prohibits and encourages, and the conscience of the believer.

How can a Roman government promoting pagan worship be God’s servant? How does God ensure that it or any government does right? How can we confidently form alliances with unbelievers in the moral arena?

The answers to these questions are found in the first two chapters of Romans. Paul points out that God’s “eternal power and divine nature … have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Later, Paul says that those who ignored the evidence “know God’s righteous decree.…”

Human beings, based on what they see in the created world, come to know right and wrong. Paul says, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the [Jewish] law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves … since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.” Paul is asserting that all human beings know certain fundamental aspects of the law. This is the source of the shared morality, part of God’s common grace to individuals and the human community (i.e., the Tao in Lewis’s terms). As such, it inevitably finds its way into the foundation of all effective and humane social structures. Without it the world would be chaos. It is not propositionally revealed law; it is less than that. But it is sufficient for government. Effective government based on this shared moral wisdom provides an environment within which God’s people and his church are allowed to exercise their earthly mission.

Church And State, Religion And State

The Constitution of the United States started with two simple principles of church-state relations. One was nonestablishment: there would not be a state church. The other was free exercise: the government would not prohibit or interfere with religious belief.

In 1835, when Alexis de Tocqueville published his prescient book Democracy in America, he observed that the success of democratic government in the United States depended on both the specific “separation of church and state” and on government facilitation of religion. The first part of this observation we all recognize, but the second sounds surprising today. He observed in this connection that “despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot. Religion [is needed] in democratic republics most of all,” because when political controls are loosened (as in a democracy), society will not escape destruction, unless internal moral controls are strengthened. Religion provides this strength.

This does not mean that the government promotes any particular sect. While it is important to individuals whether or not their religions are true, it is not important for government that all citizens profess true religion—only that they should profess some religion that reflects stable and shared values.

There is a difference, of course, between Tocqueville’s America and our own. In his time, the influential people of the nation were largely theistic. In addition, those who did not believe in a theistic explanation of the universe or a revealed morality tacitly recognized that it would not be good for the country to attack the religious impulse of the majority. Tocqueville observed that the nontheists recognized religion as the guarantor of the freedoms they themselves enjoyed.

In our time, the situation is more complex. There is pressure from some, whom Tocqueville and his contemporaries would have defined as “nonreligious,” to make the government “neutral” in the matter of religion. But as their activities look more and more like a coherent program based on a defined set of beliefs, it is beginning to feel like religion to some of the rest of us. The government “neutrality” they seek is not really neutrality but establishment. Metaphysics teaches us that to be “neutral toward religion” is to have adopted a religious stance.

The Christian cannot respond to this trend by entering into a competition for establishment. Tocqueville warns that apart from “influence proper to itself,” religion can be seduced to rely on the artificial strength of laws and governments. But when a religion makes such an alliance, “it sacrifices the future for the present, and by gaining a power to which it has no claim, it risks its legitimate authority … by allying itself with any political power, religion increases its strength over some but forfeits the hope of reigning over all.”

In fact, history teaches us that when the church moves too close to the mechanisms of the state and lives on the basis of state power, sooner or later tyranny rears its head. Examples include the atrocities of the Inquisition and the social and religious intolerance of Calvin’s Geneva.

The Four Rings Of Morality

We have suggested, first, that concepts drawn from the shared morality are the key issues for politics and government; second, that these concepts are not the sole possession of the Christian faith; and third, that there is danger in seeking religious establishment. What does this suggest for Christian action in the political arena? How should Christians act as voters and politicians? How should the state act in relation to morality and religion?

Consider a graphic way to organize the various issues: The values and traditions that make up our moral and religious lives can be considered to reside somewhere within four concentric circles (see figure below).

• The Codified Common Morality. The innermost ring contains generally accepted moral and ethical beliefs that can be defined in reasonable rules and laws, which, therefore, the government ought rightly to articulate in its body of laws. This includes laws related to murder, theft, rape, aspects of personal responsibility such as traffic laws, and certain base-line standards regulating such things as marriage, education, and minimum wages.

Considerable discussion has taken place regarding which “sins” should be made “crimes.” We do not suggest a specific answer to this problem. Nor do we mean that all existing laws are an adequate expression of the moral tradition, only that some part of that tradition is and should be prescribed in law.

• The Common Civil Morality. The second circle includes aspects of the shared moral tradition that cannot be defined in statutes and regulations, but that should be promoted by government communication and action. Examples of such official persuasiveness are presidential and other official speeches regarding the nation’s values and priorities; tax advantages for giving to charitable and religious organizations; broad-based educational programs for the prevention of disease or drug abuse; recognition of individual merit and achievement; and provision of opportunity for advancement through higher education. Thus, ring two represents areas of moral consensus sufficient to support government in taking positions as to what is good to do and what “noncrimes” should be strongly discouraged.

Since the primary social structure that defines and maintains the shared moral tradition is religion, government (particularly democratic governments) ought, within ring two, to promote and facilitate religion in a broad, pluralistic, nonsectarian way. Our social structure is harmed by fastidious, ACLU-style opposition to religious expression, a pickiness that has been encouraged by our judiciary. In this connection, we might agree with Norman Podesta, president of People for the American Way (a group founded to “counteract” the influence of the Moral Majority). He wrote recently in connection with public education; “Let the textbooks describe the marvelous diversity of religious beliefs that Americans brought to these shores … the extraordinary contributions that religious leaders, religious institutions, and religious people have made—and are making today. But there is no need for the textbooks to promote any one religion.”

Democratic government is an embodiment of shared traditional values. It is in its survival interest to foster and nurture the root source of those values.

• The Common Social Morality. This third circle is the area of public debate. It involves issues upon which moral and well-meaning people disagree and that therefore do not yet command sufficient general agreement on the question of its legal implementation to be moved into the inner two rings.

Ring three is an area of important activity for individual Christians and the church. Christians play out part of their social responsibility in public discussion. They must enter the debate on social issues to enrich and enlighten the consensus of ring two and the laws of ring one by a clear statement of values Christians share with the moral traditions of most cultures.

Historically, particular values have moved in and out of the third ring, the church often playing a key role in these social movements. Slavery in the early 1800s was an important third-ring issue that engendered sufficient public debate and that a civil war caused to be moved into ring one. The commercial manufacture and sale of alcohol is an issue that moved into, and then back out of, ring one. While Prohibition has been repealed, in our day public drunkenness and alcoholism remain within rings one and two, respectively.

As a means of testing and creating consensus as a foundation for social, political, and legal change, the government has the responsibility to encourage discussion of important social issues on the basis of the common moral tradition. For this to happen, there need to be two awakenings: First, the government must realize that it should not a priori rule out religious participation in these discussions. Currently, religion is often ruled out on the basis of a blind application of the principle of separation of church and state. In fact, no one’s participation in any important policy discussion is free of “religion,” that is, values based on some world view held by faith and not by proof.

Second, the church must learn to frame its viewpoints in categories that are meaningful and compelling to non-Christians. For example, the public debate over prohibition of abortion is at present a third-ring discussion. Framing this question in absolutist biblical terms will not win sufficient support for political consensus and action. The question could, however, be conceived in terms of shared values: “Under what circumstances does abortion represent a violation of the ancient and widely held values of the sanctity of human life, maintenance of the strong family unit, protection of the weak, and the preference of long-run benefits of the group over short-term convenience of the individual?” Here sufficient common agreement might be found for political action.

Similarly, Christians could address current social concern over sexual promiscuity in four different ways: (1) conclusory biblical arguments against fornication, adultery, and homosexuality; (2) general biblical principle—“As a Christian I believe that each individual has infinite worth and is therefore not to be used or abused as merely an object of another’s gratification”; (3) the argument from the shared moral tradition—“The collective wisdom of culture, tradition, and nearly all religions considers sexual activity uniquely the province of marriage”; and (4) utilitarian arguments—“Society as a whole pays a price for individual promiscuity in the form of the cost of abortion, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, child support, and welfare.”

Use of arguments of the second, third, and fourth types are compelling to Christians and non-Christians alike and have the potential of winning social consensus. This approach also shifts the burden of proof to those who seek to change consensus and law away from traditional values. They must demonstrate why such change is good for society in the long run. But arguments of the first type tend to be resolved on the basis of individual rights in which the final answer will be, “America is a free country. You have a right to do your thing. I have a right to do my thing. Therefore government should do nothing.”

• The Common Morality Plus. The fourth circle is where we live out our religious faith. “Religious faith,” as used here, ought to include the “religion” of the avid atheist and the “secular humanist,” as well as the full range of theistic religions.

Much of the ethical refinement that sustains great cultures and institutions is located in ring four. For the Christian, the high calling to Christlike servanthood is expressed here. Ring four encompasses the other three rings. It is peripheral only in that this discussion is about effective activity in earthly kingdoms. Ring four is where the church must be the church and where our personal witness to God’s redemptive acts in our lives must be proclaimed. It is the realm of person-to-person discussions of values, ideas, commitment, and beliefs. In fact, a godly life is as likely to change people’s attitudes about third-ring debates as all the political discussion and activism you can muster.

Suggestions For Christian Action

How, then, can Christian citizens be effective in the world of politics? Let us offer some suggestions:

1. Form alliances with all who firmly hold to the shared moral tradition, regardless of their other sectarian (fourth-ring) positions. Diversity of support is compelling to legislators as well as to other potential allies.

2. Participate in third-ring debates, attempting to demonstrate how specific issues violate traditional values held by Christians and non-Christians alike. Put the burden of proof on those who hold positions that have not withstood the test of time.

3. Do not frame issues in ways meaningful only to other Christians. If you do, you may alienate some who would otherwise agree with you and who are working to promote the same values.

The principle here is the same one Paul applies in 1 Corinthians 14, “Unless you speak intelligible words … how will anyone know what you are saying?” None of this means you have to hide your Christian commitment.

4. Do not spend all your time talking only to other Christians about the problem. This leads to frustration and anger, but not effectiveness.

5. Be careful not to support any political action that would give narrow fourth-ring values the force of law. God gave us choice and a moral field within which to move. To force narrow moral rules on individuals by law is to do more than God was willing to do.

6. At a time when the world is spiritually and physically poverty stricken, consider whether it is good stewardship to give scarce dollars to ministries that promote the idea that to be moral one must be Christian. And recognize there is a real danger that those who are not ready to accept a Christian world view will oppose the moral issue because they oppose this kind of ministry. They will shoot the message because of the messenger.

Finally, for Christians, whether private or public, action must be accompanied by appropriate attitudes. These include humility that gives credit to the values of those who do not accept the Christian faith.

A nation’s activity encompasses more than rings one or two. If we are careful in the way we seek change, even though our ring-three efforts do not necessarily result in a ring-one or two change, we may win hearts and minds. The American people, acting voluntarily, may establish in personal behavior what we could not compel through law and government. We must take seriously our call as Christians to be salt, light, and peacemakers. We are always forced to consider this question: “Is our goal only to win, or do we want also to serve?”

Warren S. Brown is professor of psychology at the Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, Pasadena, California. He is a member of the Brain Research Institute at UCLA. Dennis Vogt, a lawyer, is president of Watchcare Corporation, Seattle, Washington. He specializes in management strategy for service organizations where fear of litigation is reducing quality.

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