There’s an excellent editorial in the July Christianity Today entitled “Worship as Higher Politics.” The CT editors remind us American Evangelicals that true hope for societal renewal lies in genuine worship manifest in the life of the Church. They boldly call some prominent Evangelical leaders to task for distorting history and equating the founding of the America with some kind of golden spiritual moment: “[t]he not-so-subtle equation of America’s founding wtih biblical Christianity,” they observe “has been shown time and again to be historically inaccurate.” Most importantly, they note that “[i]n the heat of partisan politics (out of which many of these overstatements and misunderstandings arise), we are tempted to forget that the most potent political act — the one act that deeply manifests and really empowers a ‘kind and noble society’ — is the worship of Jesus Christ.” This is exactly right. I hope the publication of pieces like this in CT signals a change in American Evangelicalism away from our political idolatry and towards a more robust and honest emphasis on worship.
Categories
11 replies on “I'm Not Crazy — George Bush Really Isn't Lord”
You mean, America isn’t the be-all and end-all of, well, everything? 😛
I found your blog through a comment link on http://www.deepsoil.com. Looks good, I’ll be back!
Heidi
http://www.livewithdesire.typepad.com
If we take seriously the idea of Christian politics, there could be a country founded on Christian political principles. The founding of such a country would then be a golden spiritual act and the return to such principle a return to the principles willed by God.
If we take seriously Christian politics, we would not say that the best hope for American lies in worship, but in worship that leads to political action in keeping with the principles of Christian politics.
CT’s excommunication of those who believe that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles is not really convinving to me. They appeal to the effect of the Enlightenment at just a point in time with the monolithic secular character of the Enlightenment is being disregarded as a myth. Nor is your broad equation of evangelical poltical activism with idolatry convincing. The belief that a country is founded on biblical principles is no more idolatrous than a belief that a particular church is founded on biblical principles. It is a judgment made about how to serve God.
Heid, thanks for the comment, I look forward to seeing you around.
Pensans — thanks again for stopping by. I don’t want to suggest that all Christian political activism is idolatrous, or that Christians should withdraw from the political sphere, nor does the CT editorial suggest that. I do think, however, that the notion that “there could be a nation founded on Christian principles” is problematic.
First, I think there’s a major definitional issue concerning what you mean by “Christian principles.” If you define that term very broadly — say, things like concern for the poor and for the value of the individual — sure, you can say a government is based at least in part on “Christian principles.” But this is only so in the sense that all moral principles, in the Christian worldview, ultimately derive from the nature of God. We could say that a republican democracy like the U.S. reflects some of these broad “Christian principles,” but we also could say a more socialist-leaning system like that in France does so as well. We have to go far beyond this vague sense of general “Christian principles,” in my view, to talk seriously about politics and policy.
Moreover, this broad notion of “Christian principles” is very different from what I think most “America-as-a-Christian-Nation” evangelicals mean when they use a phrase like a “nation based on Christian principles.” They have a very specific vision of a particular kind of republican form of democracy that owes more to neoconservative political theory than to any particular “Christian” principles. Again, it seems to me that the appeal to “Christian principles” often is a smokescreen that cuts off genuine debate about specific policy issues.
My bigger problem with the “nation founded on Christian principles,” however, is a theological one. What you are suggesting, it seems to me, is that the Kindgdom of God can be established by an earthly polis through the application of “Christian principles.” My understanding of human nature (and original sin), the role of the Church in society, the role of civil government before Christ’s return, and the “already-not-yet” nature of the Kindgom of God prior to Christ’s return, elide the notion that any civil state prior to the eschaton (or, when I’m feeling premillennial, prior to the millennium), will ever be thoroughly based on “Christian principles.” Some broad Christian principles may seep into a particular polis, but no polis prior to the full establishment of Christ’s Kingdom will be thoroughly based on such principles.
I’m not sure from your comments if you’re a reconstructionist, in which case you’ll certainly disagree with what I’ve said about the nature of civil government prior to the full estalishment of Christ’s Kingdom. I’d venture to say, however, that most evangelicals, including folks like Dobson and Kennedy, aren’t reconstructionists. In my view, much as I might otherwise respect some of these folks, their rhetoric is oblivious to these important theological distinctions.
I don’t think that we actually disagree very much. I object to CT’s editorial because I think it is patently unfair to claim that Foster etc ever claimed that the U.S. was the Kingdom of God on earth. (I agree with you that that would be objectionable — but I have never seen any evidence that any of them come close.)
Furthermore, I think it is clear that within the ambit of Christian orthodoxy, there is a well-established place for the view that a state can have a distinctive Christian character — stronger than mere “principles” and going to its associative character. I don’t think that CT or you leave room for the legitimate position in judging the good faith of those with whom you have policy disagreements.
I myself come much more from an Augustinian perspective where I am sceptical about the state in a much more fundamental way, but I would never pretend that such a view was the only one and I do believe that political communities can have a Christian character in their association. Since we share this view, I think, I wonder how you reconcile it with your very expansive view of the state’s proper role in society?
Where we really do disagree is this, I think that the Christian ethical principle of love toward the poor is directed to individuals not to the state. Also, I think that the Scriptures certainly contain a plausible foundation for arguing for limited government, for a polity that is focused on familial life rather than government. I think therefore that your geneology of evangelical political belief, rejecting as it does evangelicals’ claim to biblical foundation, is unfair. I see a tradition of this political attitude among Christians running clearly in the U.S. all along. I think that you would have to do a lot of work to show that the modern political ideals of evangelicals are really secular in substance with a facade of Christian rhetoric.
Warm regards,
Pensans, thanks again for the comments. Yes, it seems we probably do agree on many things, including something of an Augustinian view about the City of God / City of Man. Why do you think, though, that I have a “very expansive” view of the state? I think most “liberals” would find my view of the state too “conservative” for them. I guess many “conservatives” think I’m too “liberal.” This probably means I’m doing something right.
As to the role of the state in helping to care for the poor, it seems to me that the thrust of much of the OT literature about justice is directed at the Nation rather than at any individual person. I don’t read these broad statements about justice as limited to Israel in some hyper-dispensational way, so it seems to me there’s a substantial Biblical mandate to order society in a way that ensures the poor are cared for. I don’t think this necessarily requires an extensive welfare state, but I do believe it suggests that a primary focus of Christian politics ought to be concern for the poor. I don’t see that concern as primary to the Religious Right’s agenda — I think their concern is focused primarily on preserving their own perceived place in the world — and I think that’s dreadfully wrong.
How is it that you think the state does not have a significant role in ensuring care for the poor? What’s the Biblical / theological argument there? (I would acknowledge, of couse, Biblical passages like Romans 13 that suggest it is the state’s role is to restain evil, but I don’t see any Biblical warrant for claiming this is the state’s only or primary role.)
Ah, you see to me, your reading of the Law ironically confuses the state of Israel with the Kingdom of God — just as you charge the evangelical with confusing it with America.
When the prophets address the wickedness of Israel with respect to the poor, you assume that they are referring to the failures of the government. But, it seems clear to me, that they refer to the failures of the people in conformity with the law, which is not addressed to the government but to individuals, to be loving toward their neighbors. Indeed, I cannot think in the long chronology of the sins of the kings of Israel of one who was reproached for redistributive failures or otherwise failing to construct policies that specially advantage the poor.
Similarly, Jesus — The Prophet — never addresses a call for compassion to the state, but to the people in their duties to love one another. Under the law, the state’s only explicit duty with respect to the poor is to treat them equally with the rich (and, the law also makes explicit, to treat the rich equally with the poor).
So, to me, the idea that the state should primarily be concerned with the poor seems explicitly in tension with the state’s call to equal treatment of rich and poor.
Likewise, Romans 13 would be a strange passage indeed if it left out the “primary concern” of the state.
Finally, I say you have an expansive view of the state because you seem to assume that ethical duties addressed to men should be fulfillied by the state and you don’t seem to worry that state as an organized group seems to be worse than the unorganized veniality of men.
Warm regards,
Pensans — I guess I can’t agree with your reading of the Biblical prophetic literature. For example, Jeremiah 22:11-17, for example, contrasts Jehoiakim’s reign with Josiah’s. Of Josiah, it says “‘He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?’ declares the LORD. Of Jehoiakim, it says “‘But your eyes and your heart are st only on dishonest gain, on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion.” This is more than merely a contrast of individual righteousness, although it is that; it’s a contrast of how they governed.
Even more directly, Zechariah 7:8, the prophet responds to a delegation from Bethel as follows: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts, do not think evil of each other.” Again, the injunction is both personal and structural.
These are merely two small examples of a thread that runs throughout the prophetic literature. I’d also add that the same thread runs through the wisdom literature. In Proverbs 31:8-9, for example, records wise sayings King Lemuel received from his mother concerning the way a King should govern: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
It seems to me that the Biblical pattern is for personal and social ethics to overlap. There is no artificial division ethics in the personal, political and social spheres. We are to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God in our personal relationships and also in our public order.
This reading of the prophetic and wisdom literature isn’t, as you suggest, confusing the nation of Israel with any modern state. I would agree that there are promises and warnings given to the nation of Israel regarding national obedience to the Law that aren’t applicable to any nation outside Israel. But I’m not referring to any of those specific promises and warnings. I’m referring to general principles that are plainly evident in the text.
Finally, I’m not sure of what you mean by “the state’s call to equal treatment of the rich and poor.” I don’t see any such “call” in scripture, except perhaps in the principle that a ruler should judge disputes on their merits rather than on the basis of bribes or favoritism. Even with that principle, the prophetic and wisdom literature, as well as much of the NT literature, make clear that it is a particular duty of a ruler to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” and to “defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov. 31).
Thanks again for the good conversation.
Dear David,
We may just be misunderstanding our respective positions. I thought that you maintained that the “thrust” of the OT directed the state, “rather than any individual person” to provide material subsidies to the poor.
Originally, you indicated that Christian political principles equally supported “a more socialist-leaning system like that in France.” Socialism is not treating the rights of the poor equally; it involves the special provision of material support to the poor by means of state appropriation and control of wealth and production in the state.
In this context of providing socialized material subsidies for the poor, you indicated later that “as to the role of the state in helping to care for the poor, it seems to me that the thrust of much of the OT literature about justice is directed at the Nation rather than at any individual person.”
Now, with respect to the passages that you cite, none of them directs a government to engage in providing material support to the poor, much less the replacement of a political system based on private property to one based on socialized government ownership or government provision of subsidies to the poor. Each passage centers merely on the government’s obligation to enforce the rights of the poor equally with those of the rich.
If your position is that the OT directs the government to enforce the rights of the rich and the poor without partiality, we have no disagreement.
But I suspect there is something else going on as you seem to read even these passages in a way that calls for partiality to the poor. You noted: “I’m not sure of what you mean by “the state’s call to equal treatment of the rich and poor.”
Here are the scriptures that I have in mind:
Ex 23:2 “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Le 19:15 “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
De 1:17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.
All of the passages that you cite do no more than reaffirm this role of the government as a fair enforcer of competing rights – favoring neither rich nor poor. For example, Jeremiah 22:12, “He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? says the LORD.”
Yes, the one who refuses to defend the rights of the poor on even terms with the rich is a bad king – but this is grist for the mill of classical liberalism if anything, not socialism. Of course, the state should be involved in enforcing the rights of the poor – e.g., the murder of a poor man should be punished on the same terms as the rich, the theft of what is a poor man’s, like his wages, should be pursued with as much vigor as a theft from the rich. But this provides no support for socialism.
If you can find a single passage that directs the state to engage in the provision of materials socialist subsidies, I would be very interested in seeing it. This I thought was the original position that you maintained: namely that the state rather than individuals were the central focus of OT commands concerning giving to the poor.
You also said: “This reading of the prophetic and wisdom literature isn’t, as you suggest, confusing the nation of Israel with any modern state.” You misread me. I said that you attributed to the government of the ancient polity of Israel an element of the national covenant with God as King that is given to individuals. Thus, I noted that your interpretation of the OT read back precisely the same error that you (I think baselessly) attribute to modern evangelicals – i.e. confusing the government with the kingdom of God. The law does not direct the duties consonant with the fulfillment of the law to the State. Indeed, as Samuel explained, the desire to pawn off on government that which is directed to the people is an affront to God as it is a refusal of his direct kingship.
Thank you too for the wonderful conversation.
Pensans, I think we’re getting pretty far afield here. My mention of the French system wasn’t intended to endorse socialism. It was simply one example meant to point out that republican democracy isn’t the only system in which you can find elements of Biblical principles for governance. I’m not a socialist; in fact, I generally favor free markets and deregulation.
As for the passage I cited, I think you’re overlooking Prov. 31:8-9: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” It seems pretty clear from this passage that it is the ruler’s particular duty to safegaurd the rights of the poor.
As for the passages you cite, I agree that a judge should decide cases on the merits without preference based on wealth, social status, or lack thereof. But that’s a different question than that of what we should emphasize in public policy generally. I don’t think the passages you cite address the question we’re discussing.
Really there’s no way to address the question through proof-texting. The Bible doesn’t give specific instructions for how to prioritize public policy in a republican democracy. As to general principles, though, I’d continue to maintain that care for “the least of these” is the scriptural emphasis that must spill over into how we order our society and culture.
David, I didn’t mean to get far afield nor did I demand a proof text. You’re not a socialist: never claimed it.
But you have said and apparently still maintain that it is clear that Biblical political principles support socialism as much as more limited forms of government. You use this fact to criticize the politics of evangelicals in a way that I think is mistaken in that I think the Scriptures don’t support socialism at all but do support some forms of government more than others.
As Christians we are bound with special responsibilities to the poor. But I don’t see how it follows that the government is.
I find the standard evangelical interpretation of Scriptural political principles more compelling than yours because I don’t see any evidence in the Bible giving responsibility for wealth redistribution to government as you apparently do, despite your other reasons for mostly rejecting socialist policies.
Now you have said that much of the OT literature supporting “socialist” principles is “is directed at the Nation rather than at any individual person.” You cite Prov. 31:8-9, which contains no reference to the state redistribution of wealth, but to duties of law enforcement. I thought I had already indicated my agreement that the state has a duty to enforce laws, but that this is hardly indicative of any support for socialism.
There is no indication here that the king is to do anything other than the passages that I cited indicated: i.e. enforce the laws even for those who provide little earthly motivations for doing so.
Prov. 31:8-9 is to me a thin reed upon which to rest that claim that much of the OT literature supporting “socialist” principles is “is directed at the Nation rather than at any individual person” because, while it is arguably addressed to the state, it neither discusses wealth redistribution nor does it diverge in any way from the large number of passages commanding equal treatment of rich and poor in courts. Since equal treatment before the law is a staple of classical liberalism, not socialism, I still cannot find support for your position in this passage.
Despite what it may seem, I don’t mean to belabor this; so I will rest with the following observation: Of course, Christian care for the poor should spill over into society.
But the specific question at issue is whether government should be the agency of that spillage. Knowledge of the gospel should spill over into society but we don’t assume that government is to be the proper agent of that spillage. (Saul got in rather a lot of trouble for assuming that the government could handle duties that were assigned to others.)
In sum, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Scriptures’ systematic direction of the duties of charitable giving to individuals and only individuals, and never to kings or government, has a normative significance. It is much more difficult to assume that the use of the government to redistribute wealth finds any support whatsoever in the Scriptures.
Taciturnly, but still warmly yours henceforward
Pensans — you’re taking a very limited point I was trying to make and stretching it beyond the breaking point. My point was simply that there are broad Biblical principles that can be used to support various methods of governance. That’s all.
As to “wealth redistribution,” I never got so far as to suggest that, but now that you mention it, are you such a libertarian that you want to abolish taxes and eliminate any social saftey net or government involvement in health care or education? Even in a democracy we redistribute wealth to some degree through the tax system. Shouldn’t our tax and budgetary process in a a democracy reflect the mandate to stand up for the poor? Do you really think the neoconservative “trickle down” tax theory does that? Are the conservatives who are now in power setting budgetary priorities with a principal concern for the poor, or are they more about preserving the status of the wealthy?
Your loquacious but humble correspondent,
David