The international religious freedom (IRF) community is a big tent. There are various Christian organizations as well as other groups, ranging from Baha’is to atheists. There are conservatives, moderates and—believe it or not—some liberals like me. So I imagine there are mixed views on how to approach the new Trump Administration. For Christians at least, our scriptures provide us several models through which we can approach this issue and engage with each other. As the IRF Summit—an annual meeting in which the IRF community raises awareness of religious persecution and calls for official action—concludes, it would be worth considering how these models will facilitate IRF advocacy.
The international religious freedom community
The IRF community is a loose network of activists, policy experts and religious organizations that advocate for greater attention to IRF in US foreign policy. I engaged with them when I ran the Pew Research Center Global Restrictions on Religion project, a quantitative study of government and social religious persecution started by Brian Grim. After leaving DC, I have continued to research international religious freedom and engage with the IRF community from afar.
The IRF community relies on institutional access. While the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act requires the President to appoint an ambassador at large for international religious freedom, administrations have varied in how long it took them to do this. And while the law requires the State Department to condemn violations of religious freedom, administrations sometimes place other priorities ahead of this human right. Thus, the ability of the IRF community to gain access to an administration and influence its policy is essential for the advancement of its cause. But institutional access is not an end in itself, so IRF advocates must decide whether an administration’s broader policies are in line with their beliefs. At the same time, we must recognize that nothing in this world is completely virtuous and not let that stop us from doing some good. It is for this reason IRF advocates should be weighing how best to engage with the new Administration. Thankfully, the Bible provides several models to weigh these conflicting views.
The Prophetic model
The first model approaches engagement with the Trump Administration in stark moral terms. In Jeremiah 17 there is a denunciation of those who follow immoral leaders: “cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord.” And in Isaiah 30 we find “woe to the obstinate children…who carry out plans that are not mine.”
Looking specifically at IRF, those policies by the Trump Administration that violate our conscience make any engagement impossible, and opposition to those policies should be the priority for our activism. It is more important to call out that which we find objectionable than to work with the administration to help people persecuted for their faith; indeed, doing so would corrupt our cause. For example, Trump’s infamous “Muslim travel ban” (Executive Order 13769) from his first term was clearly discriminatory on the basis of religion – can IRF advocates really be expected to work with such a leader?
There are strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Morality should always be at the center of anything we do. However, those following the prophetic model must be consistent; if you call out violations by the Trump Administration you must do so for Democratic administrations as well. There is also the risk that this is putting personal moral satisfaction ahead of helping others.
The Render unto Caesar model
The second model is wary of close attachments while also recognizing the need to work with the state on occasion. It is based on Jesus’ famous saying in Mark 12 to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” The extreme interpretation of this would suggest disengagement with any political actor. A more moderate interpretation suggests engaging constructively with political authorities when we can but not being their tools.
Following the moderate interpretation, the IRF community must work with the US government to advance its cause. IRF advocates need states for their outreach activities and to punish perpetrators of religious persecution. The IRF community should provide guidance to the Trump Administration’s IRF policies and amplify its successes if they occur. But the IRF community should not become a partisan defender of the Trump Administration.
This model allows for some engagement with the Trump Administration, but ensures the IRF community does not become politicized. Yet, as a moderate approach it risks leaving no one happy. Critics of the Trump Administration will be unsatisfied, seeing the IRF community as complicit. And fans of the Trump Administration will question the IRF community’s loyalty, undermining its effectiveness.
The Romans 13 model
The final model would involve full-throated cooperation with the Trump Administration as the authorized power in the United States. This approach is based on Paul’s message in Romans 13: “let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established….consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted.” As the Trump Administration is in charge of the United States the IRF community should not only work with it when it is convenient, but support it in its missions.
This would suggest the IRF community go beyond working with the Trump Administration to actively supporting it. The IRF community should avoid challenging the Trump Administration if its actions fall short of their ideals and be willing to defend its broader policies for the sake of ensuring progress on IRF.
The strengths and weaknesses mirror those of the Prophetic model. It would guarantee access to the Trump Administration and increase the likelihood of desired policies being adopted. Yet, there is no guarantee this access will translate to substantive improvements for persecuted peoples if the IRF community is unwilling to challenge the Trump Administration when it errs. Moreover, the IRF community risks ceasing to be a moral movement and becoming a political interest group.
A call for informed debate
I am not going to hide my views; I have been frustrated with what I believe is the IRF community’s unwillingness to challenge the Trump administration in favor of institutional access. That is, I think it relies too heavily on the Render unto Caesar model, verging on the Romans 13 model. Yet, I also know there are many principled IRF advocates who believe in the power of persuasion and engagement to produce good in the world. I also realize that my tendency towards the Prophetic model has accomplished little besides antagonizing people I respect.
So I am not going to suggest a model here. Instead, I am going to ask all Christian members of the IRF community to think and pray about which model they follow, and which model they want to follow. My hope, then, is that a common Biblical language informing our differing approaches to the Trump Administration will let us engage with each other and focus on what matters: helping people persecuted over their faith.