Barack Obama - U.S. Senator for Illinois
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Washington, DC
In this address to a Call to Renewal Conference, Illinois Senator Barack Obama presented what amounts to a personal testimony of his faith development and his developing thinking on the relationship between religion and politics. The heart of the speech expresses his conversion experience with these words: “I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.” This personal revelation should be seen as underlying everything else he says, and should also be seen as his invitation to be called into account with gentle questioning should he appear to waver from that course. Barack Obama wants to serve God and understand the truth. Rarely does one see such a clear declaration of one’s spiritual motivations in American politics today.
Obama explains that the motivation to develop the thoughts expressed in this speech came because he was not satisfied with his response to Alan Keyes‘ criticism of his stance on abortion and homosexuality in 2004. As a member of the Democratic Party, Obama supports their platform on abortion and gay rights. Keyes said, “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.” At that time, Obama responded “that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.”
Obama’s political advisors told him to ignore Keyes, who had no chance of winning; but he felt compelled to think through the question further. He explains, “I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.”
This speech represents where his thinking has led him to date. It represents the beginning of an attempt to articulate a philosophy of “the connection between religion and politics” in America. He discusses three main principles to capture his thoughts. I want to review and summarize what I think he is trying to get at; reword the three principles in a way that I find more satisfactory for a written format; and discuss the implications of some of these principles in more detail. Overall, I think Senator Obama has developed a helpful outline, and I have attempted to translate his message from the descriptive language of a speech into a prescriptive style more suitable for discussion.
We might call these Barack Obama’s rules for religion and politics.
Religion & Politics
Obama’s Rule # 1: FREE EXPRESSION
Summary: When people participate in public discussion and debate, they should be free to fully express their beliefs. Believers should be free to express their religious concerns. Likewise, those who do not identify themselves as religious should be free to express their beliefs as they see them.
Obama develops this principle in the roundabout way that works well in a speech and finally expresses it negatively as, “But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.” I have tried in the above “50 words or less” statement to summarize what he took a number of paragraphs to say in a discursive fashion. Obama spends much more time on this principle than on the other two.
Obama points out that our law is by definition a codification of morality that reflects our culture and will ultimately reflect the religious beliefs of those who comprise it. And as he explains, “the majority of great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity.”
In developing this first principle, Obama is largely presenting an argument against those who do not think there is a place for God in the public square. I have removed this principle from the debate context and reworded it as a global statement that reflects the thrust of his argument.
Religion & Politics
Obama’s Rule # 2: COMPROMISE
Summary: Although both religious and non-religious viewpoints should be heard and discussed, the goal of public discussion is to establish common agreement on value judgments in order to obtain the broadest possible base for legal action in a pluralistic, democratic society.
Obama presented this point in two stages -
“This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
“…Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences.”
In these two paragraphs Obama distinguishes two categories of thought: commonly shared values, and specific values or commands only acknowledged by particular groups. I think the way he explains what he means in the second quote above suggests that he is not necessarily referring to true “universals” when he uses that term in the first paragraph, but simply to principles broad enough to encompass the concerns of everyone in the discussion. He says our objective is to come together around “a common reality,” and that does not necessarily have to be the “universal” reality suggested in the first paragraph.
Obama seems to have a personal hope that there are universal principles “accessible to people of all faiths” and “no faith,” since he thinks religious people can translate their values into these universal statements, but this process is not essential to what he describes as the function of politics. He might be alluding to a belief in natural law; but for political functioning, the task requires nothing more than finding a shared “common reality” among the participants - something they can agree to live with - and this has nothing to do with seeking universal truth. Based on the historical record alone, we have every reason to be skeptical of any human effort to enunciate universal laws that have not been revealed by God. For example, although everyone might agree that “murder” is wrong, determining if and when abortion is “murder” involves one in an intricate set of arguments that are not readily resolved - if it was obvious, then there would be no significant social conflict over it. Although these kinds of discussions are unavoidable, seeking “truth” cannot be the ultimate goal in politics because no unity is possible in a pluralistic society - the inability to reach unity on fundamental issues is what makes us a pluralistic society. The need to govern does not always afford us the luxury of delaying decisions until we have reached consensus regarding the truth.
In my proposed summary, I have tried to avoid the philosophical implication of referring to “universals” as if one is looking for absolute principles that apply to every culture everywhere and always (which, in context, I do not think Obama means, since he has relegated the “absolute” to the area of religion), and emphasized instead what I am rewording as “areas of common agreement” (i.e. what he called common aims and common reality). Some of the common beliefs which are embodied in the beliefs of the people who are meeting together may well turn out to reflect what the participants believe to be “absolutes,” but that would be a coincidence rather than a necessary result. The goal of the political process is limited to finding enough agreement to work together to address felt needs.
Those with the most strongly held views end up making the greatest sacrifices in the political process. They might even be called to reduce their demands to what may seem to them to be the most basic of principles in order to obtain a compromise acceptable by enough people to serve the common good. It is conceivable that sometimes the best principle that might be attained is to allow everyone the freedom to choose their own controversial option - but even that is easier to agree to than to accomplish: there are ways to undermine freedom indirectly.
Gilbert Meilaender, who serves on the President’s Council on Bioethics, seems to agree with Obama’s approach. He argues “Against Consensus” and “for” pragmatic agreements based either on “compromise or majority vote.” By “consensus” he means the search for a universal principle or a least common denominator to describe social values. He quotes Augustine’s City of God to illustrate the principle of compromise we have been discussing above:
So also the earthly city, whose life is not based on faith, aims at an earthly peace, and it limits the harmonious agreement of citizens concerning the giving and obeying of orders to the establishment of a kind of compromise between human wills about the things relevant to mortal life.
Meilaender considers this “Augustine at his best” and goes on to say, “We have here a non-redemptive politics, not based on faith. But it does seek agreement ‘about the things relevant to this mortal life’.” This seems to be what Obama is getting at in his second principle.
This second principle is the least discussed of the three principles, yet it perhaps becomes the most important after one grants the need for the first principle. One should not presume, however, that the first principle may be taken for granted. Furthermore, to really hear what Obama is saying, one must envision all three principles in operation simultaneously.
Why talk about “absolutes” should be “witness”
and not “demand”
We should note that in Obama’s view, “religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible.” He believes that religion makes demands that will not always be embraced by a democratic majority, and he does not believe that anyone should have to compromise living out their beliefs, although they do still have to obey the law. But since the democratic process requires broad public support - it recognizes that government operates by the consent of the people - the religious beliefs of some cannot simply be imposed on everyone else.
The dilemma for those representing “absolute” values is a very old problem. The Book of Proverbs put it this way - “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” It is very difficult for people to communicate when they are speaking from different value orientations, particularly when one position derives from faith in the God who has revealed himself and his will through a book as ancient as the Bible. Does one party have to become like the other in order to really communicate, or is there a neutral position they can agree to? As we have already noted, many conflicts do not require philosophical agreement, but merely practical arrangements. And practical arrangements can be obtained by simple respect: As the Apostle Paul taught, “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” In their relationships with other people, Paul taught that Christians were to “Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” From a Christian perspective, negotiating peaceful relationships with unbelievers in the public square is viewed as an obligation and a goal to pursue. If conflicts arise, they should not be due to the actions of believers, who should be pursuing peace.
The inner conflict for Christians in representing counter-cultural views is how to do so in a socially acceptable way, yet in a way in which they feel their voice is being heard. The temptation is to assume the authority of God rather than to speak humbly as fellow citizens and as believers in the New Testament, which says, “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.” This kind of engagement can only be done at the interpersonal level, not at the level of civil politics. To attempt to force controversial moral laws onto a society is to engage in quarreling on a colossal scale. At the political level, the most we should do is represent our viewpoints. We may give our religious reasons for our viewpoints - that is, we bear witness to our faith; but we should not show disrespect for others by requiring that they accept those reasons. We do show disrespect, however if we insist that some proposal should be accepted because “God says so,” because we are saying to everyone else that there is no other possible interpretation of God’s will on that matter. We are telling them they must accept our interpretation of reality instead of allowing each person to become “fully convinced in their own mind” in their own relationship before God. We should follow the example of Jesus and the Apostles and challenge people to judge for themselves what is right.
We can discern this need for verbal modesty from the examples recorded in the Bible. The Old Testament permitted even false prophets to have their say, but they were not to claim that they are speaking God’s word - they are just giving their own opinion. Only those who have received a direct, personal revelation from God may claim to speak for God, and they will be known by the reliability of their message, an empirical test that invites critical response rather than unthinking submission. The New Testament teaches that when believers get together, those gathered may have their say; but that everyone else is to evaluate what they say, so it is understood that critical judgment is to be exercised. These precedents imply that we should not claim to speak as God’s exclusive mouthpiece, but should rather express our beliefs and then let others decide to what extent they think what we have to say is from God. It is up to them to decide whether they will obey God - it is not for us to try to force them to do so.
The advantage we have in a democracy is that we do not have to wait until we are asked about our beliefs, and we may share our beliefs on a wide range of subjects freely, in contrast to New Testament times when Christians were an isolated minority in an authoritative regime, which helps us better understand Peter’s instructions: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” It should be obvious that even though we may now be much more proactive in sharing our viewpoints, we still have an obligation to do so with gentleness and respect if we are going to properly represent Christ. It is difficult to see how some common political action techniques convey these sentiments.
What kind of laws should we seek?
Obama points out that, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” A more blunt way of putting it would be, “Whatever we once were, we are not now a Christian nation.” Some Christians disagree because they may confuse a general acceptance of God and religious themes as true Christianity; but Christianity features the central role of Jesus Christ as Lord over all of life, and by that standard we cannot claim that America is or ever was a Christian nation. Religious? Yes. Christian? No.
Some Christians have come to think that taking an uncompromising political stand to enforce Christian morality onto everyone is the only way to faithfully represent God. They think that Christians must do all they can to pass laws they believe reflect God’s revealed will. Rather than taking their stand publicly and saying what they believe is right and presenting it for public debate, they instead give the impression that what they are proposing as God’s will should become the law of the land whether people want it or not, and that there is really nothing to debate about it. But even the Bible recognizes that Christians will not agree on all practical matters; and based on the experience of the early church, it is often the more mature Christians who are more permissive. Much of the conflict within the early church had to do with creating an accepting environment where people could be at peace with their conscience without imposing their scruples on other Christians. And even today there is a wide range of belief among Christians regarding Christian social teachings. The biblical approach is that each person should first become “fully convinced in his own mind” as one who must “give an account of himself to God.”
However, once we are personally convinced that something is right, there seems to be a natural impulse to universalize it, to want everyone to benefit from our insight. We all know that we might be wrong, however, so we usually do not impose our viewpoints on others in an overbearing manner. However, when religious insight and the spiritual authority of the justice of our cause convince us, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that our role in a democracy is still just that of citizen. We can then lose our moral influence when we become too overbearing, either individually or collectively. Instead of taking overbearing approaches, we need to view ourselves as just one of the “multitude of counselors” that go into the collective decision making of the constitutional democratic process of our society. The influence of this role increases for those of us who become elected officials; but regardless of our level of involvement, we all constitute a collective conciliar body working together, not to advise a king as in Old Testament days, but to construct social and legal policy. That is the opportunity that democracy affords us.
I think what Jesus says about God’s approach to divorce under the Mosaic legal system is crucial to understanding how God views the proper use of law. Jesus said, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
So Jesus made a distinction between personal morality and formal legal morality. He specifically said that he did not come to change the law itself. The Mosaic Law authorized by God allowed for a practice that God hated. Jesus said his followers might obey the letter of that law and still sin. He called his followers to a higher standard. When we insist that our laws should reflect moral perfection, we are attempting to do what even God did not do when he instituted a civil government on earth.
CASE STUDY
Sodomy: how law can become overkill
Both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution may be seen as starting out with a similar proposition, that humans are granted the maximum liberty possible to fulfill the responsibility of self-government. Adam and Eve were assigned to govern the earth, and restrictions on their behavior were minimal.
The U.S. Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Principles of procedure were set up which were designed to allow for the maximum amount of liberty within a union of states. Only the right “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States” were granted to the government. It was expected that federal laws would be limited to the purposes specified in the Constitution and that the controlling purpose of the “Powers” granted by the Constitution was to preserve liberty, justice, peace, etc.
After some time in the ancient world, the formalized Mosaic Law clarified that homosexual relationships were not in keeping with God’s plan for creation or for the nation of Israel, which God had called to be a witness to the other nations to demonstrate how God’s plan should work out in daily practice:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13;18:22)
We may be shocked at the severity of the punishment and the fact that this law only focuses on male behavior; but we would do well to begin with the assumption that this made sense to them in their culture. Those who think the focus on the male had only to do with the life-transmitting semen (as if female homosexuality was permitted because of the lack of semen) forget that sex during menstrual bleeding was treated equally severely and was also punishable by death (due to the sacredness of blood, a parallel bodily emission in the female) yet there is no law outlawing sex between a menstruating and non-menstruating female, which suggests that lesbianism was unknown among the Hebrews at that time.
It is most likely that homosexuality of all types was basically unknown among the Israelites except possibly as associated with temple prostitution by males, and therefore forbidden along with other practices that were associated with the other nations that did not follow God’s ways. This law had the effect of ensuring that homosexuality would not become an accepted practice among the Israelites, which was the apparent intention of God’s will, and this effect is easily recognized in the rest of the Bible.
Following inherited European traditions which developed based on Christian theology, however, U.S. law has often taken a non-biblical approach, and taken it in a way that attempts excessive control and fosters prejudicial attitudes, as can be seen in the state laws against sodomy, which have been summarized as follows…
The proscription of sodomy in the English tradition began in 1533 when King Henry VIII adopted contemporary church doctrine into a system of laws at the time of the English withdrawal from the Catholic Church. Sodomy became both a sin and a crime, since ecclesiastical law recognizes no distinction between the concepts of “sin” and “crime.” Sodomy included any form of non-procreative acts including masturbation, oral and anal sex.
The original thirteen American colonies derived their laws from the English common law and continued the legal tradition in which sodomy carried the penalty of death.
The 1683 Pennsylvania law called sodomy an “unnatural sin” and the East New Jersey law listed it among the “Offenses against God.”
Every state adopted some form of a sodomy law as it joined the United States, either in acceptance of an unwritten common law or in formal codification. A slow modernization of laws away from a religious doctrine into a secular system reduced penalties over time in a piece meal fashion. All states had laws against sodomy by 1960.
The first statutory exemption for married couples occurred in New York when it adopted a new criminal code just six weeks after Griswold was decided. Rather than start a marital exemption stampede, only four states since have followed its lead.
The U.S. Supreme Court… in 2003 with Lawrence et al. v. Texas… struck down the 16 remaining sodomy laws in the nation.
In contrast to the U.S. sodomy laws, which detail specific sexual activities that even men and women may not engage in with each other, the biblical law almost looks more like a general moral principle. We want our laws to specify precisely defined actions and behaviors.
One might be tempted to focus on the harshness of the biblical sanction against male homosexual practice and menstrual intercourse, but we do not have space to discuss that side issue here. The issue here is the degree of control that these legal systems are attempting to exercise. The biblical law basically allows all forms of sexual expression except male homosexuality and menstrual intercourse. U.S. laws (as a result of Christian influence) at one time or another have tended to attempt to restrict all forms of non-procreative sexual activity, even by married couples. It is only increasing secularization (perhaps, in part, a justifiable backlash against Christian legalism) that has loosened the grip of these excessive laws and resulted in a movement for increasing gay rights.
Rather than learning from legal history, Christians (mostly) countered by complaining bitterly about unjust judges and have attempted to push through a Federal Marriage Amendment, which everyone can see is primarily targeted against homosexuals, despite supporters’ claims that they simply want to “protect” the institution of marriage. Their bias is quite clear, in part, because the very Christians who criticize Obama and the Democratic Party for standing up for the needs of homosexuals do not make alternative proposals to help them, but in effect denounce Obama as not being faithful to Christ. They choose a warfare model for political engagement, rather than the “city on a hill” model of witnessing to God’s will and demonstrating God’s love in the world. But the Apostle John teaches, “let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” We should not be encouraging society to make laws restricting gay rights unless we make ensure their needs are met in one way or another, if we cannot accept same-sex marriage. So regarding Obama and these critics, we might reword the question Jesus asks as, in effect, “Which of these do you think is a neighbor to the homosexual?”
Some argue on the basis of Romans 13:3 that laws such as the sodomy laws are needed for their restraining influence on society. But actually it is the enforcement of laws that produces the governmental role in restraint, not the laws themselves. The existence of some controversial laws just serves to promote skepticism and schism. There is also the very necessary role of the private citizen to contribute to the community in a way that promotes its welfare. Laws need to be widely accepted by the populace in order to be effective. Getting a morally based initiative passed by a slim majority is not an indicator for a positive moral outcome in society.
The biblical approach to political lawmaking, which we see illustrated in the Old Testament, provided broad guidelines and allowed maximum freedom for human choices, even morally wrong choices. An important moral function of the law seemed to be to clearly identify the most unacceptable behavior. But supplementary moral guidance was needed to actually live a moral life; and the priests, prophets, and judges supplied this guidance.
Attempts to impose moral imperatives through the rule of law on unwilling citizens would have been foreign to the biblical concept of the Mosaic covenant, which was voluntarily accepted initially, and presumably reaccepted in the reenactment of the Passover and other ritual ceremonies in each annual cycle. Jesus made a distinction between the Mosaic Law and the additions to it that were imposed on everyone by the leaders in his day. Have you ever wondered what would have happened if 45% of the Israelites yelled “Nay” when God proposed the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai? Would the “Ayes” have carried the day anyway? In order for a legal moral code to effectively support a society, it must be based on a social consensus.
Religion & Politics
Obama’s Rule # 3: GOOD WILL
Summary: Recognize the limits of the political process: accept that significant change comes slowly; speak fair-mindedly about the issues; presume the best from each other
This is the least polished of the three principles, although Obama develops it in a discursive fashion as he does the first principle. The way Obama begins to word it is as follows, “Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.” By proportionality he indicates that some issues are more important than others, which suggests that some important issues might not get addressed because some even more important issues need to be addressed first.
He explains this need briefly with a few illustrations and concludes, “We all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate.” And he emphasizes the need to be “willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words,” and to “extend the same presumption of good faith to others.”
What he is proposing here is the ultimate counter-cultural challenge. He wants us to fight politely. His is another call for civility. That’s what we all want from everyone else. It’s easiest to promote it when you are already getting your own way, and hardest to practice when you’re not. Sometimes I wonder if we might better understand Jesus if we would just consider everyone our enemy - love your enemy, do good to those who hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for those who persecute you, come to terms quickly with your adversary, give without hope of personal gain. If we treat our enemies that way, how much better would we treat our friends and fellow citizens? That seems to be the kind of logic Jesus used in other areas. Can you image public political debate carried on in this kind of social atmosphere?
Our political system at its root is based on distrust. That is why checks and balances on power are built into the Constitution. Aggravating this problem even further nowadays, our society is so large that we typically must have issues spelled out in bold, graphic, and contrasting terms in order to communicate to most levels of society, which is how politicians attempt to relate to the media. Every issue must be reduced to a sound bite. We do not handle subtlety and complexity very well. As for putting limits on our freedom, we want the “rule of law” rather than allowing the personal judgment of civil servants to exercise any authority over us. But on the other hand, we really distrust law because laws tend to have so many unintended consequences.
What this boils down to is we don’t trust our civil leaders, so we want only precise laws that govern specific external behaviors, so that leaders have little leeway for interpretation; but since we value our freedom, we want very few laws. When we see the need for laws we become nervous because that creates the problem of making “perfect” laws, which is probably impossible and borders on the religious - laws that will work for the good of society without humans needing to use judgment in applying them. I think this is part of the dilemma of American society, which by virtue of its very size and complexity requires hundreds of new laws every year, often just at the federal level. Philip K. Howard gives an explanation of how this problem affects us in his book, THE DEATH OF COMMON SENSE.
We not only have information overload. We have legal overload, and we are gradually making life ever more complicated at the level of average daily living. Getting people more involved in politics is mostly a losing proposition simply because it makes life even more complicated. I suspect that, except for impending financial distress, most Americans only get really aroused about political platforms that strike strong moral responses, which for many people are rooted in their religious beliefs. Tapping into this motivation allows religious leaders to influence political outcomes and political leaders to manipulate the loyalties of the religious segment of the population. This motivation is like fire, however. It can be used for good or for evil. And even when used with good intentions it can get out of control.
Rather than using the tools of political power to engineer controls over an unwilling public, we would be better advised in our roles that Jesus described as “salt and light” simply to seek to influence the lawmaking process of our society to accept the most reasonable moral positions that are deemed reasonable to most people. We should come to the task with humility, not in the quest for power. We are called to pursue justice in a way that is sensitive to everyone and attempts to maintain peace with everyone. And because of this unconventional approach to social ethics, we may be misunderstood and criticized. This way of life by his followers results in what Jesus called a city on a hill - a corporate social witness reflecting God’s character being expressed through his people in the world.
There may be times when a struggle will be involved to convince hearts and minds through prolonged dialogue and debate. The social role of religion in general is primarily to motivate people to moral behavior. The goal of Christian witness is even more particularistic in seeking to lead individuals to loyalty to God through Christ. By recognizing that their role is primarily invitational rather than making compulsory demands, Christian leaders will better equip society with morally sensitive citizens, regardless of their religious persuasion, who will make the compromises required to maintain a country where everyone is free to live out their beliefs as much as possible. We are called to live at peace with everyone, to be winsome and not contentious, and to focus on using our own freedom to serve God and others. If we believe we know the truth that brings true freedom to the human heart, then it is our duty to model it and to share it, not to impose it on others.
