Also on the negative side of the ledger, it was primarily Christians who promoted the failed social experiment of prohibition by imposing their understanding of morality on society as a whole. Tragically, and to the modern mind paradoxically, there were “Christian voices” in the nineteenth century who supported slavery and in the twentieth century who wanted to preserve segregation. and other people of faith who began the political movement of desegration as a morally based correction for racial injustice and discrimination.Ĭhristian influence on social issues has not been smooth or easy, and it has not always been positive. The former approach is perhaps best exemplified in North America by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Though not a clear dichotomy, many Christians in the twentieth century continued to seek peace and justice while others decried this as “the social gospel” and chose instead to focus on evangelism. Smith describes what he calls “The Great Reversal” in the early twentieth century, especially in the decade following World War I, by which he means a separation between Christians who focused primarily on personal transformation and those more dedicated to social action (in Stott, 1984, p. From John Wesley and William Wilberforce in England to Charles Finney and Theodore Weld in North America, the nineteenth century saw amazing social reform initiated by Christian faith and adopted by secular society.
And historically, evangelism and social action often went hand in hand. It seems intuitive to the believer that God intended through instruction in the Law to define morality, intended to lead humankind to “the right and the good.” Further, God's love for humankind, exemplified by the incarnation, atonement, and teachings of Jesus, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, should lead to a better world. Based on a belief that human rights are endowed by God, and that civil government was established by God, Henry went on to view political involvement of believers as a service to God.
This attribution of the source of the right and the good to the Judeo-Christian God would suggest that this faith tradition trumps other moral views. He is the ultimate ground of law and morality” (1984). Henry, while acknowledging that modern society is not comparable to the ancient Hebrew theocracy, asserted that the God of the Jews and Christians is “the source, stipulator, and sanction of the right and good. In addition to scripture, how does Christian tradition and experience inform debate about acceptable behavior, especially behavior outside the church? What is the role of “the Christian ethic” in public policy today? Are other moral viewpoints equally valid? Even more pointedly, what is the role of the Christian's voice in public policy debates and in addressing bioethical issues at the bedside?Ĭhristians 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. But this admonition is clearly aimed at “the man of God.” Do the Hebrew scriptures to which the writer referred, and the Christian Bible into which this letter would subsequently be incorporated, offer instruction for everyone or just for those who believe?
In the second letter to Timothy we read that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (II Timothy 3:15–16, NASB).