PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The question in the headline have occupied me for a number of years because I was both a Christian and involved in politics.

Those thoughts have become even prevalent over the last few days as all Americans have watched a travesty – actions by the Trump “Administration” to separate children from their immigrant parents at U.S. borders. Whatever you may think about immigration in general, the separation policy is unconscionable, even though it appears that Trump has stopped the most objectionable parts of the policy only, I add, to leave sequestration in place, at least for families.

When I served for about 12 years as the moderator (chair) of the Salem Alliance Church Board of Directors, I had the good fortune to work with an excellent senior pastor there, Morris Dirks. We were Christian brothers, as well as “almost” earthly brothers, which meant we were fast friends in managing a large church under God’s overall leadership.

One of our commitments was to avoid getting our local church wound up in political issues. We always believed that it would be better to call persons at church to a greater commitment to God’s leading than to try to persuade them to a particular, collective position on political issues.

After all, Christians are not supposed to have one, specific position. They are called to make their own decisions, even as, according to Scripture, they respect the idea of government.

In our church, our principles could be summarized as follows:

• Stay out of individual political issues
• Call Christians to uphold high scriptural standards
• Call Christians to live out those standards

We also adopted one additional aspect of this policy. It was that, if the senior pastor, who occupied the pulpit most of the time, felt led of God to deal with what could be described as an issue with political overtones, he should do so only after consulting with key members of the Governing Board, if not the full Board itself. That way he would have a collection of wise counsel before venturing into an area which would not be a normal priority for church teaching – politics.

As I reflected on this, I recently encountered two pieces of information that caused me to consider whether these church commitments were still effective – and I came to the conclusion that, yes, they are, even though, in retirement, I am no longer involved in leadership at Salem Alliance.

In one case, an eclectic group of pastors and other church leaders convened recently to counter what they feared – rightly, I add – the polarizing times in which we live with Donald Trump as president. The group produced this list of commitments, as it was put, “to reclaim Jesus.”

• Because we believe each human being is made in God’s image and likeness, we reject the resurgence of white nationalism and racism in our nation.

 

• Because, in Christ, we believe there is to be no oppression based on race, gender, identity or class, we reject misogyny, the mistreatment, violent abuse, sexual harassment and assault of women that has been revealed in our culture and politics.

 

• Because we believe how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick and the prisoner is how we treat Christ himself, we reject the language and policies of political leaders who would debase and abandon the most vulnerable of God’s children.

 

• Because we believe that truth is morally central to our personal and public lives, we reject the practice and pattern of lying that is invading our political and civil life.

 

• Because we believe that Christ’s way of leadership is servant-hood, not domination, we reject any moves toward autocratic political leadership and authoritarian rule.

For me, these commitments represent, not a guide for church insertion into politics, but rather a personal guide for how we, as individuals, should consider and live in our world.

Against this backdrop, I also read a column by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. Gerson, who often writes about religion, offered these words:

“Priests and pastors are generally not experts on immigration policy and should not pretend to be. Many of the debates surrounding this issue are prudential rather than moral. There is no specifically Christian position on, say, the building of a border wall. It may be stupid and wasteful, but it is not inherently unethical to make a partially walled border into a fully walled border.

“But religious leaders have a moral duty to oppose the dehumanization of migrants — something that violates the vision of human dignity and equality at the heart of the Christian faith (and other faiths as well). Human beings, in this view, are not merely arrogant hominids, programmed for sex and death. They bear God’s image — and, in the Christian view, their flesh somehow once clothed God himself. This means that cruelty, bullying and oppression are cosmic crimes.”

Gerson’s words are exactly on point.

I say it’s time for real Christians to uphold real scriptural roots – and to expect their leaders from a pulpit to oppose the dehumanization of “a people” – call them immigrants, if you will. Use Christian roots to assess political issues, including immigration, on an individual basis and call for a return to God’s principle that all people are created equal.

I do not argue for collective political activity through a church or on the basis of an individual’s Christian commitment. I do argue for relying individually on the important principles outlined above.

Side with God!