English
Korean
Spanish
It’s not easy being Switzerland. A quick survey of the nation’s efforts to remain neutral during the wars of the 20th century shows deployments of up to 400,000 troops to guard their borders, interment of more than 100,000 soldiers and airmen from belligerent countries, and accidental and intentional border incursions that had Swiss pilots shooting down (and being shot down by) both Allied and Axis planes during the last world war. Of course, it was ultimately far to the nation’s advantage to have not been leveled or plundered by the armies that repeatedly swept across Europe. Many will be surprised to learn that Swiss neutrality was a heavily armed neutrality. Switzerland avoided becoming part of the German Reich by fortifying its borders. The point here is that neutrality is a complex commitment, one not easily kept. Many Swiss citizens sympathized with the cause and aspirations of their Teutonic kin. National neutrality was controversial even within the country. After World War II, Switzerland faced decades of criticism for its policy toward political refugees and its suspected cooperation with those who hid plundered riches in Swiss banks.
It is with apologies to the lovely (and well-armed) alpine country that I say that I think of Switzerland when I see the tortured neutrality many in our society try to adopt when faced with most controversial issues. Many opinion makers, and thus many Americans, lack the moral courage to take sides on the most crucial issues of the day. The problem is that none of us are ultimately neutral about those issues that impact our lives each day.
The delusion that we can avoid the battle seems to grow out of three common tendencies of our cultural character.
Moral Equivalence—While not a new preference, our culture’s desire to gloss over differences between one thing and another has become a phenomenon. I do remember college professors during the Viet Nam War that spoke of the roles played by the United States and the Soviet Union in the world as a morally similar duality. If someone mentioned the millions of Soviet citizens killed and jailed by their own regime, our professors would remind us of how our nation once treated American Indians. In this day, the viewpoint we once considered silly and marginal is mainstream among our nation’s opinion makers. The humiliating treatment of Moslem prisoners by American soldiers or accidental burning of a Koran is somehow supposed to explain everything from ramming planes into skyscrapers to the murderous ambush of relief workers.
A biblical worldview is a bit more discerning, judgmental if you prefer. Some things are called bad and some things are called good by the God who gets to say what’s bad or good. He’s the God who orders things, distinguishes one sort of thing from another. Our tendency to avoid sounding harsh by softening evil and slandering the innocent is not a godly one.
Moral Disinterest—Our society is interested in the moral significance of some things, dog fighting and executive bonuses, to name a couple. But we trend toward impartial about some things that should matter to us very much.
All of us have a vested interest in the success of marriage as an institution, for one example. Yet, legally we pretend that divorce is very often preferable. Our nation is committed to no-fault divorce as a nearly national policy. In effect, we believe divorce is a palliative for any discomfort from boredom to disappointment. In doing so, we unconsciously endorse increased poverty, a larger prison population, and less effective public education. We prefer these things to choosing marriage over divorce.
Our communities also suffer negative effects from the rising rate of unwed mothers. Yet we speak without disapproval, even happily, of unmarried celebrities who bear children. In some places, pregnant high school students who follow the example of American royalty are given baby showers and receive other kinds of affirmation of their condition and the behavior behind it. We are a society committing suicide when we will no longer stigmatize behavior that harms both actor and audience.
Moral Blindness—When we will not call one thing more right or wrong than another; when we will not discourage destructive behavior, we must craft a moral code that makes our confusion sound reasonable. We encourage evil and call it good. The U.S. Senate recently upheld a rule that will require institutions like Southwestern Seminary to provide abortion-causing medicines to their employees. The 51 senators who voted for this did so partly in the name of compassion for women. Other examples include state endorsement of same-sex marriage and our culture’s growing antipathy toward the biblical practice of Christianity.
If Switzerland’s political neutrality is difficult to maintain when the battle begins, moral neutrality is nearly impossible to maintain. Take for example a decision last fall by U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz. Gen. Schwartz was concerned that some supervisors (that can be anybody above airman first class) were not maintaining “government neutrality regarding religion.” His answer was a memo that forbade the “actual or apparent use of their positions to promote their personal religious beliefs.” He further noted that while commanders are responsible for chaplaincy programs and that such programs are “vital to commanders’ support of individual Airmen’s needs,” commanders must “refrain from appearing to officially endorse religion generally or any particular religion.” Do you see the dilemma? This vital program cannot be endorsed by commanders because it appears to support religion generally. The memo pretty well says that by advising commanders to not even notify airmen of the programs offered by the chaplain corps.
This not neutrality; it is hostility, perhaps, unintended, toward the everyday holding and practice of personal faith. If the freedom of Air Force personnel to practice their own faith is important to morale, then that practice must be overtly approved by officers in addition to chaplains. Can a Christian supervisor keep a Bible on his desk or bookshelf? Can he attend services without it being an “apparent” endorsement of religion? Whatever reasonable answer the general might give to such questions will be different from the answers offered by various freedom from religion groups.
So neutrality is a bigger can of worms than many think. We might mean “undecided” or “nice” or even “ignorant” when we say that we don’t take sides, but I maintain that a brief examination will show that we do take sides. Our undecided stance may simply be a conviction to let someone else blow while we bend his way. A neutral person will not likely vote based on pro-life or pro-family convictions. Neither is he likely to disapprove of immoral behavior, or even categorize much behavior as immoral. He’s taken sides without any doubt but his set of convictions was decided at a meeting he chose not to attend.
And Switzerland? The Swiss did not want Hitler to rule all of Europe because that would include their own country. The very fact that the Swiss did not want to be part of a German empire, however they may have felt about the fate of other nations, means they were not morally neutral during the war. The Swiss also accepted tens of thousands of Jewish refugees during the war—not a morally neutral act.
They had a stake in the way things would turn out and surely by the last couple of years saw an Allied victory as preferable. It’s hard to imagine even Swiss political neutrality long surviving a final German victory.
So pick a side during this election year. Drop this “undecided” or “not taking sides” or “it doesn’t matter” nonsense. All candidates for offices ranging from sheriff to president are not the same. They don’t believe the same things and they won’t do the same things. You do have a series of choices to make, choices that reflect what you’re willing to call good or bad. Those choices get clearer as you learn more about the people and issues. Do a little homework. Sort through the noise of advocates and advertisements and listen to what these people have said and done. You have values even if you’re hesitant for others to know what they are. Vote based on what you believe because you surely do have a dog in this fight.
Passivity is not an option for Christians. Passivity turns into approval and approval fertilizes active evil. Romans 1:32 is a startling and compelling verse that comes after an escalating series of condemnations beginning with those who “merely” suppress the truth, growing into idolatry and blooming into all kinds of debasement. But the final condemnation of this fall is reserved for those who “not only do [such things as hate, slander, and ruthlessness] but give approval to those who practice them.” All kinds of harmful things can fairly be called the status quo in our culture. To sit out the battle is rightly interpreted as giving approval to however things turn out.
