Christian Representation in Public Policy

On January 3^rd, 2017, Pew Research Center (PRC) reported that “U.S. adults who describe themselves as Christians has been declining for decades, but the U.S. Congress is about as Christian today as it was in the early 1960s,” (PewResearch). Christian leadership is necessary because actors within bodies of government need a traditional system of values to limit their inherent depravity. Thus, secular representation does not assure honest public service. Moreover, Christians bear a mutual obligation to care for their neighbor—even their enemies. Christian politicians conduct no actions in private; for God lives inside us. Former Indiana Governor Robert Orr (1917–2004) declared it “obligatory,” for Christians to “stand up and articulate their views in the public square,” (Orr, R., p. 208). As Catholic theologian Grattan Brown reminds us “Conscience holds people accountable for their actions. It enables them to act morally and at the same time requires them to do so;” Brown concludes that “conscience literally means ‘to know along with another,” (Brown, G., p. 42).

Christian Leadership

        The benefits of Christian leadership are evident through the expectations and predictability of Congressmen. Orr opined “Christians who rely on scripture to guide belief, and on belief to guide behavior, often make a case for believers to discern public policy norms from scripture and thence for those believers to seek an influential voice in public policy,” (Orr, R.,  p. 200). Man requires knowledge that there exists an external observer in order for him to distinguish good or bad morality, but to self-regulate man from his own self-interests and vices. Christians bear an apparent conscience directly connected to His Holy Spirit. As Brown proclaims, Brown calls conscience “an inner voice that sounds during wakefulness, urging good actions and avoiding evil ones, and working out which is which. On the other hand, conscience is like the witness of another to one’s own actions.’” (Brown, G., p. 42). Brown adds the example that, “[h]ealth care begins as an act of conscience,” (Brown, G., p. 42).

Theologian Dann Farrelly adds that “[t]hose in leadership should not use their authority to be destructive, manipulative, or controlling, Matthew 25:25–28; 1 Peter 5:1–3; 1 Timothy 6:3–14; 3 John 9–11; 1 Corintheans 3:12–13;” (Farrelly, D., p. 273). Kris Vallotton, a senior pastor at Bethel Church; writes that “God Himself establishes all authority in the universe. Every leadership role on the planet is therefore a mission from God (see Romans 13:1). The presidential mantle gives these leaders the capacity to direct our country beyond their human ability. When their term is over and they leave the White House, however, the mantle stays with the mission so it can be passed on to the next president,” (Vallotton, K., p. 51).

Bill Johnson, the founder of Bethel Church; explains that as Christian leaders “[f]irst we rule to protect, and second we serve to empower. Peter gives us the following charge: ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right’ (1 Pet. 2:13–14),” (Johnson, B., p. 214). Bill adds the two main responsibilities of government are “[t]he punishment of evildoers” and the “praise of those who do right,” adding that “[t]he concept of ruling is offensive because of the abuses of power-hungry people. But abusive people do not illustrate or define God. They rule for their own benefit as they rule out of fear instead of love,” (Johnson, B., p. 214). Bill Johnson concludes that God “is the model for all government, displaying His two basic purposes—ruling and serving,” (Johnson, B., p. 214).

Partisan Religiosity

Observing partisan religiosity reveals an abundance of Christian representation; yet this reflects the moral character of each elected official—not their willingness to produce a theocratic utopia.As with Republicans in the general public, Republican members of Congress are overwhelmingly Christian (99%). Among U.S. adults who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, 82% are Christian. Although there exists an overrepresentation of Christian members of Congress, their position is not to convert America’s Constitution into a theocratic autocracy. Rather, a member of Congress’s religiosity is a defining characteristic of their own moral conduct and ability to self-regulate their actions. Christians are less likely to succumb to moral turpitude as they will face condemnation and distance from their personal relationship with His Holy Spirit Jesus Christ. Democratically, Christians represent just over half of incumbent pol; whereby Republicans are predominately Christian. This ratio represents those tasked with the obligation to comprise their own interests, to instead favor God when encountering a conflict between doctrines. Pluralism does not mean appealing to secular interests, but instead means upholding the dignity of one’s acclaimed beliefs and transforming that declaration into action. Congress exists to represent the best interests of the constituency, not their own; Christianity is a relationship with God, and a source to find solutions to encountered problems—not a call for theocracy. Non-Christians will source external entities to find alternative solutions, no matter their ethicality; Christians possess a reverence for God that enables them to overcome self-imposed limitations.

As Pew Research Center’s Aleksandra Sandstrom reports on  “[t]here are fewer Christian Democrats than Republicans, both among U.S. adults overall (63% of those who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party are Christian) and in Congress, where eight-in-ten Democrats identify as Christians,” (PewResearch). Moreover, “Democrats are less Protestant than Republicans by 25 percentage points.” Pew Research Center ascribes its cause to “the fact that the share of Catholics among Democrats in Congress exceeds the share of Catholics among Republicans in Congress by nearly 10 points,” (PewResearch).

Religiosity and Public Policy Debates

Religiosity affects public policy debates by guiding the legislative corpus to truth through granted provision given by His Holy Spirit (John 16:13). “In a pluralistic society, it is neither possible nor desirable for Christians to try to force their views on others,” (Orr, R., p. 208). We must be willing to live with ‘the will of the people.’ At the same time, we must not be intimidated into accepting the position that our voice is not valid because it has a religious basis,” (Orr, R., p. 208). Christians bear an inherent obligation to uphold their actions in His image; lest devolving back to the state of moral turpitude. Elected representatives who have picked up the cross signifies a hardship thence been overcome; thus, an indidivudal who has developed personal resilience—a desirable quality in Congress. He who relies on God to solve his problems, has a clearer capacity to engage in public policy; thereby placing his personal inequities and circumstantial inequalities unto the Lord.

As Grattan T. Brown opines, “[b]oth secular and Christian traditions have recognized that conscience is a sort of dialogue in which a person witnesses moral standards not ultimately defined by that individual,” (Brown, G., p. 41). As Ezekiel was declared a prophet, and was asked to eat the scroll of grievances, then speak to the people of Israel, (Ezekiel 2:1-9, 3:1-27); so must Christians consume the problems of the aggrieved, thereby contributing to their remedy. As it is written in Luke, “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say,” (Luke 12:11-12; NIV). His Holy Spirit adds assurance, “[b]ut make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves.  For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict,” (Luke 21:14-15; NIV). When man strives to defend his own principles, it is likely they originate in self-interest; thus the Christian role in public policy must strive to the contribution to His Kingdom and advance policy in His image.

The Christian Role in Public Policy

The Christian role in public policy includes five elements: (1) the consistent pursuit of virtue, (1 Cor 11:1); (2) a reverence for His Kingdom, (Rom 13:6); (3) a comprehensive understanding of morality, (4) willingness to obey eternal natural laws, (Luke 11:28; John 14:23; Rom 12:1); and (5) persuasive doctrinal rhetoric (Rom 12:2; Rev 2:7). According to Orr, “[w]e should try to persuade others using either prudential or moral arguments,” (Orr, R., p. 199). Christians can best contribute to public policy by being accountable, honest, and persuasive. The Great Commission precludes depravity, thus self-interest is mitigated by the obligation to live as Jesus did. The Christian presupposed self-regulation over self-interest, controlling and focusing their free will on the betterment of society; in His image—under the condition of plurality as our nation was founded. Christianity comes from within the individual; producing a guiding Light that can encourage those lost in darkness to follow. For the image of God is relevant to public policy in that it bears a predictable and eternal guarantee of morality that when adhered to, produces a revelatory change in the individual, as he seeks wisdom and guidance from God, not man. Confidence ought not to come from isolation, instead it must be sourced from eternal wealth, granted unto every believer who makes the decision to partner with His Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

Christians are tasked with the honor of delivering the message of Jesus Christ through their actions; yet must presuppose the plurality of their environment. Christian legislators must acknlowedged that faith cannot be force, thus must be drawn out from the individual by encountering His Holy Spirit. Statistically, it remains apparent that a greater level of Christian representation resides in Congress—though constituents must view this as a sign of adherence to predictable morality, rather than dwell on the potentiality of Christendom. Forcing faith is antichristian, thereby Christians are tasked with leading by example, especially in public policy, lest succumbing to the obscurity of factions. The decline is adults claiming to be Christian can be seen as the modern Commission; a chance to reform our iniquities in the image of God.

Bibliography

Farrelly, Dann. Kingdom Culture: Living the Values that Disciple Nations (p. 273). Bethel Media. Kindle Edition.

Grattan T. Brown, Discovery and Revelation: The Consciences of Christians, Public Policy, and Bioethics Debate, Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, Volume 18, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 41–58, https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbs003

Johnson, Bill. God is Good. Destiny Image, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

PewResearch. (Accessed on April 24^th, 2024). Faith on the Hill | Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/01/03/faith-on-the-hill-115/.

Robert D. Orr, The Role of Christian Belief in Public Policy, Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 199–209, https://doi.org/10.1093/13803600701473489

Vallotton, Kris. Heavy Rain. Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.