Making widows and orphans in a politcally-charged age - the examples of climate change and Donald Trump

Making widows and orphans in a politically-charged age – the examples of climate change and Donald Trump

The late Francis Schaeffer wrote that the church that weds itself to the philosophy of the age will find itself a widow in the next. The history of ancient and modern theology bears that out.

Schaeffer’s remark has other applications. These include civil politics. The church that weds itself to a particular political ideology is likely to find itself an orphan and widow. Wedding to one political ideology alienates those of other ideologies. As political ideologies and parties change in pursuit of their goals, the ideologically-aligned church can be left stranded. It’s just a dumb move to tie the Christian cause to a particular political agenda,

Progressive and liberal churches typically gravitate to the left of centre in politics. That means privileging parties and politicians that major on social justice for needy persons, refugee intake, gender equality, environmental care and such like. By contrast, churches of conservative theology typically gravitate to the political right. Preservation of personal freedoms; enshrining Christian values in laws around sexuality and family life, free-market economics, small government and such like feature in their agendas. Either way, those alignments obscure the gospel behind political alignments and alienate the other half of the population. They also blind both liberal and conservative Christians to the whole range of issues that may be on God’s horizon, as reflected in the scope of Old Testament law and New Testament ethics.

Two present examples illustrate the problem of churches being aligned to a political ideology of the age.

The first example is with respect to environmental issues.

I’ll put my cards on the table to say that, within the supremacy of Scripture, it’s my general rule to follow the science of the day when it comes to things that are properly within the domain of science. When science presumes to speak about metaphysics or ethics it is outside the domain of its methodology and I stop listening. However, when scientists make rigorous observations about the physical world and repeatedly test hypothesis arising from those observations I’ll cautiously go with the science – even though knowing that it is just the science of this day and may change tomorrow. In this sense, I am epistemically with A.A. Hodge in his remark about the links between knowledge gained from the book of God’s world and knowledge gained from the book of God’s word. And so, I heed what mainstream science says about the reality and importance of climate change, even while opposing the pantheist and monist metaphysics and catastrophising language of some environmental activists.

I notice some people of conservative theology gravitating to climate change scepticism as being the Christian position. I struggle to understand why. Is it because they mistrust any science; or because to acknowledge climate change will disturb a settled economic order; or because they see climate-change projections as contradicting their eschatology? Or is it because the people pushing climate-change agendas are often liberal progressives and naturalists and hence presumed opponents of Biblical Christianity – the fallacy of origins? Whatever the reasoning, this means that these theologically conservative Christians become allied to the political groups and ideologies associated with climate change scepticism. That’s a sure path to being marginalised orphans when it comes to connecting to the concerns of the age.

The second example is with respect to the American Presidential election. Again, my cards are on the table. I find that voting is a matter is a compromised choice resulting from a relative weighting between flawed options who are on a continuum. Who is the most preferred or least disliked? I oppose the progressive liberalism of the US Democrats (and their Australian equivalents) with its increasing intolerance of dissenting voices on issues like abortion, gender identity, homosexuality etc. On the other side of the aisle, I find Donald Trump personally obnoxious, amoral and a highly problematic President. He seems to feel that he is above all law and can run the nation in a manner reminiscent of the caricature of a nineteenth century business tycoon. He is reminiscent of the Biblical Nebuchadnezzar.

However, I notice some people of conservative theology who seem to feel that it is the Christian position to support and defend Trump and who read any critique of him as endorsement of his political opponents. Why is it a Christian agenda to defend Trump from any criticism and berate any who critique him? Why is it that objection to him is read as support for his opponents? The effect of locking in behind Trump is similar to aligning with climate change scepticism – it makes orphans out of the theologically conservative Christian cause and alienates about half the nation.

In observing this, I am not advocating that Christians abandon the public square and retreat to the sanctuary. Good theology refuses to leave the fallen world to itself and instead seeks to engage with it as salt and light. Good theology leads Christians to love God by seeking to make the world what he intended at creation and will re-make in the new creation. Love of neighbour leads people of sound theology to try and keep our neighbour from things that will harm them in this age and leave them liable to eternal judgement. We must be in the public square of today’s issues.

So, Christians should engage with the politics of their day in a way appropriate to circumstances. But we do well not to marry ourselves to any political ideology. The ’for better for worse’ part of that marriage vow is apt to end in tears.