Christians who read disturbing reports of “sectarian slaughters” in Syria cannot dismiss the reports as another country’s problem, because we owe a “pre-political obligation” to persecuted Christians in whatever country they reside, argued Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on “Washington Watch” Monday. Unfortunately, doubts about that obligation are growing on America’s political right.

“There are some speaking into this president and this administration that think America should just not be involved anywhere, and that we should only care for ourselves,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. But “Christians are being persecuted. They’re being targeted by HTS [Hayat Tahrir al-Sham] in Syria. … Christians need to work through this.”

A Christian’s First Loyalty

But Christians cannot work through this simply by following contemporary intellectuals, Republican politicians, or conservative movement leaders. Such figures do not necessarily have the same fundamental allegiance or worldview. “‘Christian’ and ‘conservative’ are not the same. ‘Libertarian’ and [‘Christian’] are not the same,” Perkins reiterated.

A Christian’s most fundamental loyalty is to the Lord Jesus Christ, who declared, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Instead, Jesus Christ takes members “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7:9) and grants them citizenship in a heavenly kingdom (Philippians 3:20). He supernaturally transforms “strangers and aliens” to one another into “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19).

This means that “God has so composed the body … that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together” (1 Corinthians 12:24-26).

Thus, “it’s a pre-political obligation for Christians to contend for Christians and to work for the safety of Christians in other parts of the world suffering persecution,” argued Mohler. “We don’t have to look to a contemporary authority for that. We have the Book of Acts. We have the New Testament.”

International Religious Freedom

In America, this concern for persecuted Christians abroad has often motivated Christian efforts to promote international religious freedom, an ecumenical, prudential concept that can win broader support because of its broader application. But Christians who support international religious freedom do so primarily on behalf of their fellow Christians abroad (and I suspect that members of other religions do likewise).

As Mohler put it, “We’ve got to contend for not just the freedom of religion. We have to contend for the lives and liberties of our Christian brothers and sisters, wherever they may be found, all over the world.”

Perkins, who formerly served as chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), agreed that Christians should go “a step further” than merely endorsing religious freedom. “We shouldn’t hesitate to advocate for Christians — who, by the way, happen to be the most targeted, persecuted group around the world,” he insisted. “To differentiate between Christians and others should not be a hesitation coming from Christians.”

Some Christians may recoil from this claim as selfish or parochial, but they need not worry because this principle is based in Scripture itself. Paul instructed the Galatians, “as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10). Doing good to everyone does not preclude Christians from placing a priority on doing good to their fellow Christians.

Extent of Christian Duty

In fact, a Christian’s obligation to fellow believers facing persecution extends beyond religious sentiment to include practical, even self-sacrificial aid. “We not only pray for our brothers and sisters suffering persecution, but we’re called to do whatever we can to try to prevent and alleviate that persecution,” Mohler argued.

Paul himself devoted years of his ministry to collecting financial contributions from around the eastern Mediterranean to succor poor, persecuted believers in Judea in a journey that led to his eventual imprisonment. In one letter, he praised the Macedonian churches “for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means” (2 Corinthians 8:2-3).

America’s Role

Beyond a Christian’s individual duty, it’s worth considering whether the United States should play a role in protecting Christians internationally. This is a prudential question, because Scripture does not compel government engagement on behalf of people in far-off countries.

But that doesn’t mean that the United States government has no role to play — even if it remains rightly focused on its own interest. “America First does not mean America Only,” Perkins suggested. In fact, “even the people who say that will call for intervention in another situation the day after they make the first statement,” said Mohler. “It is impossible for the United States to fail to intervene where it wills to intervene.”

The real question is not whether the U.S. will intervene in international affairs, but “where should we seek the U.S. to direct its attention and intervention?” Mohler asked. “The persecution of believers around the world is a place where we need to be right there in the front ranks.”

“The United States has a particular burden on this,” he continued. “For one thing, we’re one of the few forces of good in the world that can make a difference speaking into these issues.” From Nigeria to China to the U.K., Christians are the most persecuted group in the world, and few countries will publicly speak up to defend them.

Furthermore, prioritizing religious freedom is a thematically appropriate focus of U.S. foreign policy because “freedom of religion is a hallmark, it is a defining element of America,” Perkins argued. “Among America’s obligations should be the defense of what our nation’s Founders identified as the first freedom — the freedom of religion in particular — that we should, as a nation, founded on Christian principles and biblical truth. We should advocate for Christians around the globe when they are persecuted by tyrants and terrorists.”

The Scope of American Action

Of course, this doesn’t mean that American troops should rush in, guns ablaze, to any country with a problematic religious freedom record. “Involvement does not mean military,” contended Perkins. “I don’t believe we should be sending our troops everywhere. But, as you pointed out, there are other means.”

“I would be in the front line of arguing that the neoliberal interventionism that had so possessed the United States over the course of the last 40 or 50 years — it has proved itself to be unworkable,” Mohler granted. “Our massive investments of blood and treasure all over the world, in causes that we declared won, only to have them lost again, are a grave warning against believing that we can just make our will [happen] wherever we want it around the world.”

But “the corrective of that is not total withdrawal from the world scene, as if that could happen,” he added. A more appropriate measure the U.S. government could take to advocate for religious freedom internationally is by making it “an issue of conditionality for American support and American aid and, furthermore, a matter of threat for American action in terms of holding regimes accountable for their treatment of Christians,” suggested Mohler.

Indeed, the threat of American action was “part of the leverage that the United States has used to protect Christians under the Assad regime,” Perkins chimed in. “He was a bad dictator, but he pretty much left the Christians alone because he knew that was a red line for the United States.” But Assad is gone, and his ISIS-affiliated successors seem far less concerned about American sanctions.

“We need to have a list of the good guys and the bad guys,” Mohler elaborated. “The list of the nice nations and the naughty nations ought to be more than just a matter of publicity. It ought to be a matter of guiding foreign policy.”

One reason for this is that many countries where Christians are persecuted most intensely are also countries which are opposed to the United States. “I think we need to be honest. In the last 100 years, the main energies behind the persecution of Christians have been, number one, communism and communist regimes [that] continue to be fully represented in North Korea and China, and then [number two], Islam. Islamic dominated nations tend to be extremely, extremely dangerous for Christian witness,” analyzed Mohler.

Conclusion

There is no one right way for governments to fortify international religious freedom, and the U.S. government should have the latitude to protect religious freedom abroad in accordance with America’s interests. But it would be a travesty if America, the most powerful defender of religious freedom, suddenly withdrew from the world stage.

“Christians shouldn’t be reluctant — especially Christians in the United States — to speak out and call our government to be an agent for the protection of believers around the world,” Mohler urged. This advocacy is motivated by our own close association with persecuted believers, and our obligations to them as fellow members of the church universal, the one and only body of Christ.