Luke 14:34-35
“Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Luke 14:34-35 )
Should the Church speak to social issues only in generalities or should it speak specifically? It certainly has the right to speak specifically. John the Baptist did not address Herod with the general principle that “adultery is wrong.” He said, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”
What if the church says the wrong thing? It has certainly done so in theology, and we do not solve the problem by saying the church should not interpret the Bible. The church often errs in evangelistic practices, but we do not cease engaging in evangelism. We simply say, “That interpretation is wrong, and the churchmen who make it do not represent me.”
For example, I would speak out in favor of Sunday closing laws, while other churchmen would speak out against them. And the irony of it is that I might be right morally and wrong politically. But this is the risk one runs.
For maximum effectiveness the church should limit its social action agenda to causes that are clearly biblical mandates. The problem with so much of both the religious left and the religious right agendas is that they are often a carbon copy of non-Christian society, whether the change-agent elite on the left or the traditional culture-captive on the right. This means that nonbiblical items are included on both agendas, and thus the moral force of whatever biblical mandates may be on the agendas is greatly reduced. Does defense buildup or the ownership of the Panama Canal really have the same clear biblical mandate as the sanctity of the home or the right to life? Far better to limit our agenda so that we establish battle lines on clear biblical mandates. This will not only give us God’s own authority in the battle for truth, it will also go far toward bringing believers together for a united impact.
May the church make official pronouncements, or is this limited to the preacher speaking in private as a citizen? If Billy Graham spoke on a social issue, such as nuclear disarmament, it would have more of an impact as “the voice of the church” than almost any major church council resolution. When any Christian speaks, that is the voice of the church to the people who accept that Christian as a responsible spokesperson of Christianity. The clergyman in the pulpit, the layperson on the street, the church body in council, or the mother with her children—they are “the voice of the church” to those who look to them for spiritual guidance.
The Christian citizen should provide the primary fighting force for justice and mercy, and the church, through its leaders, should avoid partisan politics and work hard at creating truly Christian citizens and speaking to clearly biblical moral issues. But can morals be legislated? The idea that morals cannot be legislated is usually based on a cultural or ethical relativism that teaches that moral behavior depends entirely on the culture and that nothing is right or wrong for all cultures at all times. This is a difficult position to follow consistently because the culture of a street gang must be granted legitimacy just as much as the Supreme Court.
The truth of the matter is that there are no theoretical limits to the extent to which the law may move against immorality. The truth is that most legislation is based on morality. If morality cannot be legislated, nothing can be. Most sensible people would agree with this in general, though there would be sharp disagreement as to which are private morals and which are public. Homosexual conduct is held by most Americans to be wholly private. But is it? What impact will the beleaguered family sustain as children are indoctrinated in the notion that homosexual relationships are normal and beautiful? How does homosexuality impact the military? These are not exactly private issues. The same might be said of any moral issue.
If the government is representative or democratic, it cannot but reflect the judgment of the society as to what moral standards should be required of all its citizens. If such a society legislates morals that are not acceptable to the majority, or even to a large minority of its citizens, the law becomes unenforceable. It is a bad law because it promotes lawlessness. Therefore, if a Christian is interested in having morals legislated, he must not only ask what is right and what is good for society, he must also ask, what will this society accept? Of course, he may fight for a losing cause on principle. But if he actually intends to impose a minority standard on the majority, he should understand that the legal fabric would be weakened and in the end much more than the specific moral issue would be lost.
In order to fulfill our responsibility in seeking justice and mercy, the Christian should study the Scriptures to determine God’s view on any specific issue that arises. The Word of God must be our controlling authority.
The Christian must study the needs of the community—drugs, crime, slums, poverty, migrants, pornography, racism, family life, unemployment, housing, disease, mental health, unfair tax policy, discrimination, political corruption. What are the specific facts? What should we do about these problems? When do we begin, and how? What clearly biblical mandates concern you? How can you maximize your influence on individuals and on society in general?