The "MLK Test" for Christian Politics

The following is adapted from the longform article, “Can the Church Talk about Politics?”

During an election year it’s common to hear Christians say things like: “The Bible is not political,” or “Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world,” or,“It’s not our job to influence culture; it’s just our job to evangelize and make disciples.”

But would these people have said the same to Martin Luther King, Jr. when he attempted to end racial segregation in his day? This is what I call “the MLK test,” and many Christians today would receive a failing grade.

Pietism in the Sky-etism, or How to Neuter the Christian Faith

Though they may not use the “pietist” label to describe themselves, Christians who speak in these ways are operating out of a pietistic framework, one that tends to focus on the spiritual and eternal to the almost complete neglect of the physical and temporal. Such an outlook almost invariably fosters political apathy, even in situations where Christian involvement could save lives, preserve godly liberty, and improve the ability of honest people to maintain their livelihoods (Prov. 29:2, 16; 1 Thes. 4:11; 1 Tim. 2:1–2).

Some do this because they do not see anything like a political theology in the pages of Scripture. This stems partly from a failure to account for the fact that the New Testament was written during a period of history when the average Roman citizen, much less the non-Roman subjects of the empire, had virtually no say in how their society was governed. Hence, Paul never says anything about voting because there was no voting to be had. But once the gospel took root in various societies around the world, Christians consistently encouraged the people of God to use the righteous means at their disposal for the stability and benefit of the places where they lived.

Others are sometimes inclined to think that the Bible expresses an anti-political theology that encourages Christians not to worry about earthly affairs (even if they can vote) and to keep their eyes exclusively fixed on heaven and the salvation of the lost. As justification for this way of thinking, people sometimes say, “This world is not my home; I’m just a passin’ through.”

There is a kernel of truth here. This world in its current state is not our home. But this world in its reconciled (Col. 1:20) and to-be-renewed form is our home indeed (Rev. 21:1–5). Without question, I confess that the ultimate responsibility (and authority and ability) to fix the world rests in God’s hands. No Christian denies this. But the Lord uses means, and some Christians selectively pretend that this is not so. For example, they will insist on the importance of preaching the gospel as the means to save the lost (cf. Rom. 10:14), while ignoring the place of means in the work of ordering society toward justice and the good life. This is where the MLK test comes in.

How (Not) to Fail the MLK Test

Most Christians, including pietists, laud the efforts of men like William Wilberforce in outlawing the slave trade in Britain. Others have even hosted panel discussions and whole conferences devoted to Martin Luther King Jr.’s role in ending segregation in America. But if you were to ask whether Christians today should make it their aim to make certain evils illegal in America, the pietist suddenly retreats to the singular work of saving souls. “Christ’s kingdom is not of this world,” he reminds us.

Never mind that scholars for centuries have pointed out that Christ’s words in John 18:36 concern the origin of his kingdom, not its divinely appointed destination, which is the earth (Matt. 6:13; Rev. 11:15). The real problem is the hypocrisy that celebrates Christian political action by some and demonizes it by others.

This hypocritical double-standard (which the Lord hates, see Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:25; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23) is precisely what the “MLK test” is designed to root out. Simply put, if it was good for Martin Luther King Jr. to help end segregation through preaching and political action—and not through preaching alone—then it would also be good for Christians to employ political means to end things like abortion, gay marriage, “Drag Queen Story Hours,” so-called sex reassignment surgeries, illegal immigration, and other social ills.

It’s also worth remembering that Martin Luther King Jr. justified his political action by invoking the Scriptures and the Christian tradition. For example, in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, King cites the words of Augustine, Aquinas, and the Protestant reformer Martin Luther, along with the words of Jesus and the apostle Paul, as justification for his political action.

Yet when faithful Christians attempt to do the same with the evils of our time, pietists claim that Christians have lost their focus. “We should preach Jesus, not worry about politics,” they say, before adding, “Laws can’t change hearts.” These folks fail the MLK test, applying one standard to him and another to Christians today who are engaging in political action on the same biblical basis. Namely, Jesus is Lord of all (Ps. 24:1), and it’s right for Christians to speak up for what God says is good (Isa. 1:17; Eph. 5:11). 

What Politics Can (Not) Do

At this point, many pietists will shift tactics. “But you can’t legislate morality,” they insist. “Laws can’t change hearts!”

Martin Luther King, Jr. can help us here again. He writes, “If the problem [of racial segregation] is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that… behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that is pretty important also” (Martin Luther King, Jr., “Social Justice,” an address given at Western Michigan University, December 18, 1963, emphasis added).

King’s statement reflects the biblical truth that law, by virtue of its threats of punishment (Deut. 13:11; Rom. 13:4), can and does restrain evil men from acting even worse than they might otherwise have done. To give a modern example, it’s true that outlawing the Orwellian-named “gender-affirming care” cannot change a person’s darkened heart—only the gospel can do that—but it can keep them from irreparably mutilating a child’s genitals, and I think that is pretty important also.

In other words, pietistic political apathy is not an option for Christians so long as our voice and our votes stand a real chance of influencing society toward what God says is good for everyone (Lev. 24:22; Rom. 13:3–4; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). And while it’s true we can’t “make America Christian again” by politics, that doesn’t mean that politics don’t matter at all. Just ask Martin Luther King, Jr.

_________________________________

As with all historical figures, the positive citation of Martin Luther King, Jr. on these particular points should not be taken as a holistic endorsement of all that he allegedly did or believed.