Back in 1970 Canned Heat released the hit song, “Let’s Work Together.” It was rather a utopian and optimistic tune, but it did nonetheless contain some truth. There is a time and place where working with others is a good thing, and Christians need to understand this.
There are various purists out there – be they conservative or Christian or both – who simply refuse in any way to work with others if they do not basically fully agree on everything. They have their lengthy checklists, and if the other person does not tick all the boxes, then they are given the cold shoulder.
Now sometimes having clear lines of demarcation is vital. If you want to apply for a job with the Democratic National Committee in America, they will want to know where you stand politically. They will want to know if you are a Democrat.
But in many other situations, it does not matter all that much where someone is at. Especially in times of emergency, normal folks do not foolishly waste time checking out a person’s political or theological views. If your toddler gets hit by a car, and a person comes along saying he is a doctor, you do not care if he is a Republican or a Democrat, a Christian, a Hindu or an atheist.
When it comes to Christians working with others, it all depends on a few things. If a Presbyterian church is looking for a new pastor, they will want someone who believes the same way they do. They will want a Presbyterian in other words. If you run a Christian prolife centre, and are looking to hire a media spokesperson, you want someone who is prolife of course.
But it still can get a bit less black and white when it comes to some of these matters. My view, and that of many other believers, is that there is a place to work with others who may not be in the same ballpark as you – and may not even be Christians – in some key causes.
This is called cobelligerency. It entails working with people who hold different views on various things, but you can unite with them around a common goal or campaign, even if temporarily. I have already penned 30 pieces on this where I make my case in detail: https://billmuehlenberg.com/?s=belligerency
Consider the abortion issue for example. I am willing to join a prolife rally with those who may not be evangelical Christians as I am – or who may not even be a Christian at all. In order to achieve limited but important objectives, working with others is often the best way to proceed.
As I said in one article on abortion, Francis Schaeffer, and cobelligerency:
Schaeffer saw no problem whatsoever in working with, say, Catholics on the abortion issue, even though he of course had theological differences with them. As he told two British journalists, “I have two words which I would recommend to anybody . . . and they are ‘ally’ and ‘co-belligerent.’ An ally is a person who is a born-again Christian with whom I can go a long way down the road . . . now I don’t say to the very end, because I’m a Presbyterian and I might not be able to form a church with a strong Baptist . . . but we can go a long way down the road – and that’s an ally.
“A co-belligerent is a person who may not have any sufficient basis for taking the right position but takes the right position on a single issue. And I can join with him without any danger as long as I realize that he is not an ally and all we’re talking about is a single issue.” https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/30/8405/
But I still find some believers who get all bent out of shape if they are encouraged to work with others to achieve some vitally crucial outcomes, such as the prolife cause, or getting a terrible government voted out of office. Consider one more case that I wrote about.
When the Mormon Mitt Romney was running against Obama for President, many American Christians could not bring themselves to vote for him. That simply meant that Obama would get in – and he did. As I said back then:
My argument is simply this: to refuse to vote for Romney (if he indeed becomes the Republican challenger), or to not vote at all, will simply ensure that Obama gets back in. That it seems to me is a clear dereliction of Christian duty. Again, what is going to happen if we vote for Romney? Let me tell you what we will not be doing. We will not be voting on the following:
-to have a Mormon preach in your church;
-to have a Mormon teach in your Sunday School;
-to have a Mormon lecture in theology in your seminary;
-to have a Mormon change laws to line up with Mormon teaching;
-to have the Book of Mormon become mandatory reading for all Americans;
-to have Utah made the nation’s capital;
-to have Joseph Smith become a national hero;
-to have Mormon practices become official US policy and practice;
-to have Mormon faith and practice become the law of the land, etc.
We are simply voting on who will be President, which is a fairly constrained position, at least when it comes to theological outcomes. The truth is, Romney did not institute and enforce Mormon doctrines in the state of Massachusetts while Governor there. He was not in a position to do so, and he will not be in a position to do so as President if he is elected. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/05/17/on-mormon-presidents/
Sure, since that time Romney has become increasingly more liberal, increasingly more of a RINO. So that IS a good reason not to vote for him. But hopefully you get my point. At the time we were voting for a Commander in Chief, not a Theologian in Chief. The same divisions among believers occur today when it comes to Trump.
Some Christians just did not want to vote for him last November. Thankfully many more did, and the horrid Biden/Harris reign of error has come to a much-needed end. Although the election is now history, we still have some believers who claim Trump cannot be supported in any way.
I beg to differ. And to further make my case, I quote from three American Christians whom I greatly respect. The first is Allie Beth Stuckey who recently tweeted this:
Biden promoted the genital mutilation of gender-confused kids; Trump just banned it. Biden prosecuted pro-life protesters; Trump pardoned them. Biden harbored violent illegal aliens; Trump’s deporting them. The debate over which side Christians should be on really isn’t hard—and never was.
For those wanting more, I recently wrote two articles discussing her new book:
My second quote comes from Robert A. J. Gagnon. Here he responds to one leftist Christian who clearly still has issues with Trump:
A “stridency” charge is an ad hominem attack, not an argument. One person’s “stridency” is another person’s advocacy and correction.
You obviously haven’t read the link I provide above for the big difference between supporting the “liberal” agenda of Harris/Walz and the more moderate agenda of Trump/Vance.
This is what I have to assume from your seeing nothing wrong with this “liberal” manifesto:
Apparently you are in favor of state-sponsored child abuse where children are chemically castrated and surgically mutilated on the altar of the transgender cause, and where males participate in female sports and invade female private spaces, which endangers, humiliates, and perpetrates injustice against females; and where people in the workforce are required to use mandatory trans pronouns.
Apparently, too, you are in favor of virtually unlimited killing of innocent unborn human beings. That is what being “liberal” means in the Democratic Party today. Along with it comes politicized prosecution of opponents, appointment of hard-left jurists, perpetration of illegal-immigration fraud, and tapping down on free speech and free exercise of religion.
You also appear to have no concern for the fact of annual 2.5 trillion dollar deficits (the average under Biden), borrowing against future generations, and where just paying the interest on the national debt is the third highest expenditure of the federal government. So much for your “common sense.” What you are promoting is common nonsense.
My third witness for the defence is Jenna Ellis. Here she speaks to the matter of cobelligerency, without actually using the term:
You can disagree with the personal morality or theology of an individual while recognizing the good they are doing.
I am a Christian, so of course I disagree with Scott Pressler’s homosexuality. I also applaud that he is helping win more conservative races, which ultimately helps conservative Christian policy.
Likewise, I disagree with Paula White’s theology and calling herself a pastor. I applaud that she is helping advance religious freedom, which ultimately helps conservative Christian policy.
I am not recommending Scott for authority in the church, nor attending Paula’s church. But I am willing to work with them on a common cause in civil society, the same way I’m willing to work with feminists on women’s sports and RFK on MAHA. I would even work with Democrats if they were championing the right things in civil society.
Working with someone in a coalition on an issue (or even voting for them) is not an endorsement of their entire worldview.
Although I disagree theologically with Mike Lee (LDS), Tulsi (Hindu), Harmeet (Sikh), and even DeSantis (Roman Catholic), no one in the Protestant faith is suggesting we stop working with them in *civil government.*
The civil government is not the church.
Now, do I want the civil government to select and prefer solid theological Christians as our leaders? Absolutely. And I will consistently object to anything that appears to be an endorsement of sin or false theology or bad policy in broader conservatism or from the Republican Party.
I think we fail to keep the proper balance of coalition building on issues AND standing firmly on truth if we approach our colleagues in civil society with a “affirm everything they believe” or “ban them from MAGA” attitude. It’s also simply unrealistic. No one can force someone out of a movement or force others to affirm them. That’s a leftist tactic.
Ellis says similar things to what I have long been saying. Many issues are far too important for us to withdraw in our holy huddles, acting more like self-righteous Pharisees than concerned Christians seeking to be salt and light in the world.
Yes, on core Christian truths we must not compromise. But if I temporarily work with a cultist, say by attending a pro-marriage rally that is open to the general public, I have not abandoned my beliefs nor committed apostasy. If I am invited to speak at a meeting put on by non-Christian or aberrant religious groups, I will pray and consider if I should go or not.
In the past I have done both: I have refused some invitations, while accepting some others. And if a non-Christian like J. K. Rowling or a lesbian like Martina Navratilova strongly stand against the trans agenda and praise Trump while condemning the Dems, I WILL support them and, at the very least, share memes from them.
Do I wish both women would become Christians and leave things like lesbianism behind.? You bet I do. That is why I pray daily for folks like this. So too Trump and Musk and Peterson and Farage and so many others who are mostly on side but may not yet be real deal Christians.
So there clearly is a place for working with others, even if we differ theologically, religiously, and so on. Some matters are too important not to engage in, such as the battle for life. We can be a part of broad-based coalitions and the like, working to end the evil abortion industry.
That does not mean the Christian has sold his soul to the devil. It means after prayerful and careful consideration, the Christian has seen that being salt and light in a fallen world will mean that sometimes at least we need to become cobelligerents with others.
Oh, absolutely! Back in the United Kingdom when I was a member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, its leadership realised that Muslim social conservatives wanted to join the struggle for the right to life of the unborn child, so they established a Muslim Division, which is still thriving and doing well. Canada and Britain both had Muslim social conservatives opposed to challenging traditional marriage.
Mind you, it’s not just some evangelicals that have problems with co-belligerency. So do some ‘ultra-orthodox” Catholics who don’t recognise specific recent popes or their specific teachings. I’m told one such sect captured Operation Rescue in New Zealand in the 1990s and alienated mainstream Catholics and evangelicals from the cause. My response would be that sure, we may believe in the Virgin Birth, Atonement, Resurrection and Eternal Life Thereafter, and Muslims venerate their Prophet and his teachings as recorded in the Qu’ran. Jews follow rabbinical teachings more or less. We can disagree about doctrine, but in the case of abortion and euthanasia, at least, we each believe our faith requires us to stand up for the sanctity of human life.
Oh, absolutely! Back in the United Kingdom when I was a member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, its leadership realised that Muslim social conservatives wanted to join the struggle for the right to life of the unborn child, so they established a Muslim Division, which is still thriving and doing well. Canada and Britain both had Muslim social conservatives opposed to challenging traditional marriage.
Mind you, it’s not just some evangelicals that have problems with co-belligerency. So do some ‘ultra-orthodox” Catholics who don’t recognise specific recent popes or their specific teachings. I’m told one such sect captured Operation Rescue in New Zealand in the 1990s and alienated mainstream Catholics and evangelicals from the cause. My response would be that sure, we may believe in the Virgin Birth, Atonement, Resurrection and Eternal Life Thereafter, and Muslims venerate their Prophet and his teachings as recorded in the Qu’ran. Jews follow rabbinical teachings more or less. We can disagree about doctrine, but in the case of abortion and euthanasia, at least, we each believe our faith requires us to stand up for the sanctity of human life.