The Christian Church is greatly divided by the political persuasions of her adherents. Popular political ideologies can be classified into two main categories: Right and Left. This is ironic, since even baboons can count to more than two. They can distinguish between one, two or many.
The present state of affairs can be traced back at least to the Enlightenment if not earlier. For hundreds of years the establishment, consisting of church and king/emperor, made the laws while the vast majority of citizens held little political power. Out of the latter group emerged "intellectuals" who agitated for a fairer distribution of power and wealth. In France a big clash occurred - their revolution in which the social order was radically amended. A similar pattern played out in Russia about a century later. Today the governance of church and aristocrats has been replaced by a state which wields enormous power over its citizens.
Christians have always been involved in politics. The laws of the Roman Empire and its successor, the Holy Roman Empire, were vastly shaped by Christian values. A century ago these laws were pretty much still applied in Western Society. But today there is universal suffrage, no-fault divorce and women in all spheres of influence. None of this was possible in the early twentieth century. Furthermore adultery and homosexuality are no more agains the law and in South Africa one cannot be jailed for bad debt. Whether any or all of these changes in law are good or bad is debatable, but two things have to be kept in mind in the debates: 1. Should the state legislate on all these issues?, and 2. Which ethical code must be used to draft the laws?
Lawmakers often invoke Judaeo-Christian values to justify their position but they normally do so by a one-sided emphasis of some passage in the Bible. They become driven by ideology rather than truth. In two-party systems the voting public is confronted by uncomfortable choices. For instance, if you vote against state sponsored abortions, you could find yourself voting for uncontrolled damage to the natural environment. It is important to note that the sanctity of life and the protection of the environment are both Judaeo-Christian values. Thus Christians are pitted against Christians in these debates.
In Europe the Reformation preceded the Enlightenment. The reformers fought, and some died, in their quest for personal freedoms. Two hundred and seventy one years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg the French revolutionaries were agitating under the banner of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. They had taken these values out of the original context of the Reformation and were applying them to all affairs of state. Today the meaning of Equality is the root of destructive disputes between "right" and "left". For Bible believing Christians Fraternity has little meaning apart from the fraternity of believers. How Liberty is to be pursued is also the topic of vicious debates.
Since the era of the early church Christians have cared for the vulnerable in society while the state has mostly ignored them. Some of the adherents of ideologies born of the Enlightenment like to claim that many of today's state sponsored benefits were pioneered by "enlightened" individuals. History proves that the initiatives were almost exclusively driven by Christians. Of course the laws could only be passed with majority vote. Many legislators were in agreement with laws that were more humane than the previous ones, even if they were not of the Christian persuasion. But today Christians are a minority in most Western legislatures. The values Liberty, Equality, Fraternity have been extended to areas most Christians cannot support. Radical lawmakers continually press for laws that "normalise" deviant behaviour, maybe because many of them have succumbed to depravity.
In the twentieth century Christians have been at the forefront of the rehabilitation of alcoholics, drug addicts and people with behaviours traditionally frowned on. The dilemma facing the Western Church today is the political pressure exerted on her to conform to values accepted by modern society but which clash with sound doctrine. We must be compassionate to the wayward but maintain doctrinal integrity. This pressure has caused many pastors to endorse one or other political party. There is no precedent for it in the New Testament. However, pastors are obliged to teach Biblical ethics, clearly spelling out what God regards as right and wrong.
