Justice Without Partisanship: A Call To Iranian Christians
(OPINION) For many Christians today, politics appears to present only two choices. One is complete disengagement: Politics is not our business; Christians should only preach the Gospel and pray. The other is to transform churches, Christian television, and social media into platforms for political activism, where Christianity becomes intertwined with particular political agendas.
Neither approach reflects the richness of the Christian tradition.
There is a third way: Active citizenship and the pursuit of justice while maintaining clear boundaries between the church's spiritual mission and partisan political activity.
Real People. Real Reporting. Donate to Religion Unplugged now through August 17, and your gift will be doubled.
Silence is not neutrality
Many Iranian Christians insist that politics has nothing to do with faith. Yet this is difficult to sustain.
For decades, Christian thinkers have wrestled with the relationship between faith and public life. Especially after the Second World War, theologians debated whether churches should publicly address questions of social justice. While opinions differed, few argued that Christians could simply ignore injustice.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life remains one of the clearest examples of this conviction. His resistance to Nazism reminds Christians that silence in the face of injustice is never morally neutral.
For Iranian Christians, the question is even more pressing. Many who now say, "Politics is not our concern," are living in Europe or North America precisely because political decisions in Iran denied them religious freedom. Their ability to worship freely today exists because politics mattered.
This does not mean every Christian must become politically active. It does mean that Christians cannot pretend politics has no impact on their lives or on the freedom of others.
When Christianity becomes a political instrument
The opposite danger is equally real.
While some Iranian Christians retreat into political silence, others have moved to the opposite extreme. Churches, Christian television programs and social media increasingly become spaces where political identities overshadow Christian identity.
I have examined this development in greater detail elsewhere, arguing that some Iranian Christian communities have gradually blurred the distinction between faith and political ideology, allowing national symbols and partisan commitments to shape the church's witness more than the Gospel itself.
The problem is not that Christians care about justice or participate in public life. The problem arises when Christianity becomes a vehicle for advancing political agendas. At that point, the church risks becoming another political tribe rather than a community gathered around Christ.
Why does this happen?
Good intentions often play a significant role.
Iran’s rapidly changing political situation creates what ethicists sometimes call the tyranny of the urgent. When injustice intensifies, believers naturally feel compelled to speak, act and demonstrate solidarity with those who suffer.
Another reason is what René Girard described as mimetic desire. We often imitate the behavior of those around us. When every public figure feels compelled to comment on political events, churches experience the same pressure — not necessarily because doing so reflects their calling, but because everyone else is doing it.
A further danger is becoming trapped within our own intellectual and social ecosystem. In his famous commencement speech “This is Water,” the American writer David Foster Wallace tells the story of two young fish who meet an older fish.
“Morning, boys,” he says. “How’s the water?”
After swimming on, one young fish turns to the other and asks, “What the hell is water?”
Wallace’s point is that the realities most familiar to us are often the hardest to recognize. Churches can fall into the same trap. Surrounded by like-minded media, social networks and political conversations, Christian communities may gradually assume that everyone sees the world as they do. Without realizing it, they begin to confuse the assumptions of their own circle with the perspective of the Gospel itself.
Urgency and imitation are understandable. Neither, however, should determine the church's mission.
A third way: Boundaries and calling
The healthier alternative rests on two principles: Boundaries and calling.
Christians should absolutely participate in society as responsible citizens. They may vote, write articles, protest peacefully, defend human rights, advocate for prisoners of conscience or campaign for justice.
But churches should resist becoming platforms for partisan politics.
A Christian community is united not by identical political opinions but by faith in Christ and the command to love one's neighbor.
Churches inevitably include monarchists, republicans, reformists, liberals, conservatives and people who have no clear political identity at all. If political agreement becomes a condition for belonging, the church ceases to be centered on Christ and begins to resemble another political movement.
Calling is equally important.
Martin Luther emphasized that every vocation can serve God. Not every Christian is called to become a political commentator.
Pastors are called primarily to preach the Gospel, teach Scripture, administer the sacraments and care for souls. Unless they have developed expertise through serious study and experience, they should not assume the role of political analysts, journalists or public intellectuals simply because they have a pulpit.
Likewise, not every Christian activist is called to become a preacher.
Respecting different callings allows every member of the Christian community to contribute according to his or her gifts.
Different roles, one mission
The American Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King illustrates this principle well.
Not everyone participated in public demonstrations. Those who marched prepared themselves through training in nonviolent resistance, while many others contributed in equally essential ways: organizing logistics, preparing meals, raising funds, communicating with supporters, praying or caring for families.
Every role mattered.
Likewise, the Iranian Christian community does not need every believer to become a political activist. Some are called to legal advocacy, some to journalism, some to humanitarian work, some to scholarship, and many to prayer, hospitality, teaching, or pastoral care.
The body of Christ requires many different gifts.
Many Iranian Christians already embody this third way. During the "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement and the nationwide protests of 2026, numerous Christians participated alongside their fellow Iranians in demanding justice, freedom and human dignity. Some paid the ultimate price and were murdered by the regime. Yet many managed to distinguish between their civic engagement and the mission of the church, demonstrating that Christians can seek justice without turning churches into partisan platforms.
This balance is not new. Within Iran, church leaders such as Bishop Haik Hovsepian Mehr and Rev. Tateos Mikaelian courageously defended religious freedom, protested the persecution of Christians and sacrificed their lives. Their witness was public and costly, yet it was never attached to a political party or ideological movement. Their example reminds us that defending justice does not require turning the church into a political organization.
The challenge facing Iranian Christians is not whether to care about justice. The challenge is to pursue justice without turning the church into another political battlefield.
The church should encourage Christians to engage responsibly in society while remaining a spiritual home where believers with different political convictions can worship together.
Fred Petrossian is a European-based Iranian journalist, blogger and researcher.