I think that Christians are called to be advocates of justice in society

Dear Editor,

Christians in Guyana should evaluate whether their identity and affiliation reside in a political party, and ascertain their role in the present political instability. Admittedly, it is no easy task given that religious affiliation often influences political support; however, much can be realised if a Christian considers the question: Should a Christian fully identify with any particular political party and unreservedly defend its propaganda? Here, I offer my thoughts.

I think that the salvific message of Jesus Christ transcends the political. The fullest meaning of the Christian message is that of healing and restoration of every individual in society and not the division of people along political lines. Christianity holds to an exclusive “one-kingdom” view. This is why the early church father and theologian, Tertullian, advocated that Christians should seek to insulate themselves from the corrupting political influences around them. After all, Jesus himself said during Pilate’s interrogation, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest…” (John 18:36, NIV). It appears, then, that no one fought to prevent Jesus’ arrest because he didn’t lead a political movement as his early disciples wanted of him. He knew that most governments would fall short of justice and he pointed them to a better reality.

Also recognising that most governments would fall short of justice, the great western theologian, Augustine, drew a sharp distinction between the “City of God” and the “City of Man”. The “City of God” is a trans-political reality and something to which Christians should be ordered as their ultimate end. Following the thoughts of Plato and the classical tradition of political philosophy, Augustine believed that it was necessary to ask what the best government would be. Yet, he also agreed with Plato that such a perfect government is impossible to create in this life and that attempting to bring it about would destroy actual governments. I think, then, that it is in their best interests—and of others—that Christians should be cautious about placing too much at stake in any political party or government.

In fact, the positions of some (if not all) political parties do not line up with biblical teachings. This does not mean that Christians can never speak on social, economic, and political situations because the Bible often does. To speak out against egregious violations of moral and legal imperatives in society is not optional; however, for a Christian to be fully identified with any particular political party and unreservedly protest in their defence is problematic simply because the church’s reputation as a nonpartisan and neutral voice for social and civil stability will be tarnished.

Furthermore, it is also problematic because political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you do not embrace all of their approved positions. This is what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics,” remarking that one’s political identity runs deeper than mere party affiliation. He notes that, “it works at a socio-political level in a way that makes left and right the most determinative markers of identity [and] polarization on that level grows even stronger than partisan fissuring.” The emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics especially when historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into political alignments. Take, for example, racism in Guyana and its persistent presence due to the political divide. Racism and politics have always been two sides of the same coin in the history of Guyana. I observe, then, that Christians are pushed toward two extremes: one is to withdraw from political affiliation while the other is to assimilate and fully adopt a party’s whole package—be it of the APNU+AFC or PPP/C political parties.

I think that Christians are called to be advocates of justice in society. The entire corpus of Old Testament literature asserts that justice involves the restoration of that which is good and right and the retribution for the wrongs committed in society. The ancient Jews saw themselves as active participants in creating a just society for all people, minority groups included. And when they failed to uphold justice, advocates for social and civil reform (such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah) reminded them of the standard of justice and their responsibility to uphold it.

The famous and often quoted verse from the Old Testament resonates with this. Here is my translation of it: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good. And what does Yahweh require of you?” (Micah 6.8a). And what is this requirement? It answers, “to do justice (mišpāt), and to love loyalty (ḥěsěd), and to behave prudently (háṣnēa)” (Micah 6.8b). I ascertain that “to do justice” refers to an approach to justice in which one of the responses to a breach or offence in the law is through restoring the proper function of the law and seeking the retribution of the offender(s) for the crime committed.

Moreover, “to love loyalty” and “to behave prudently” refers to one’s respect and commitment to the rule of law, and one’s wise and judicious behaviour in practical affairs. As a democratic society, we create codes by which we choose to live and which embody the vision of rightness by which we ought to live. If Christians wish to live in a just society, then their commitment to these three requirements given by God will help forge a path towards such a society for all. They are called to respect the joint-obligation (another meaning of ḥěsěd) to the law, which they share with others in our society and to exemplify the standard of righteousness (another meaning of mišpāt) which their Scripture claims to embody. And since Christianity has as its foundation the entire corpus of Old Testament literature, it is incumbent upon all Christians to live according to these requirements.

Thus, Christians should be guided by the gospel and its biblical mandates. Even though the Christian and culture must coexist, Christians must transcend the present cultural reality. The Christian’s role, then, is primarily that of critique—evaluating political policies from the framework of the gospel—and of judicious involvement in social and civil issues without compromising the gospel priorities. In this way, the Christian maintains his/her integrity amid political instability, social upheaval, ethnic tensions, and even election crises while being agents of healing, restoration, and peace.

Therefore, Christians in Guyana must evaluate how they measure up in light of the above considerations. Without wanting to throw all of them under the proverbial bus, I do not think they measure up well. In fact, our election crisis reveals much to be desired of them. The political opinions, which are so ingrained in their in-group thinking and the vileness with which they defend their views display a lack of sound judgment and morals. I urge them to remove their veneer of political attire, put away their party slogans and banners, and advocate for peace, justice and the rule of law in Guyana.

Sincerely,
Ronald N. Emanuel