I am usually uneasy when a clergyman or a denomination spends a lot of time advocating a particular political view: to do so inevitably seems to lead to the Gospel becoming subservient to politics. I believe this tendency is worse on the political left than the right: mainline churches in North America – notably Anglican and United – have, for the most part, replaced the Gospel with politics. The obfuscating strategy of calling their political manoeuvring “the gospel” fools no-one.
But what should be the relationship between Christianity and politics? Christians have been squabbling over this since Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
Two former aids to President Bush have written a book called City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era; there is an interview with the authors here. They have this to say about the Christian right:
In important respects, the old model, as embodied in the religious right, is passing away. Some of its key figures — people such as D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell — have literally passed from the scene. Others, like Pat Robertson and James Dobson, are less influential than they were. So there is a generational shift that’s occurring.
But we also know from survey data that many Christians who are politically and theologically conservative have turned against the brand of politics practiced by religious-right leaders. Many conservative Christians are looking for a new model of social engagement; they want their leaders to display a lighter touch, a less desperate and anxious spirit, and a more gracious tone.
About St. Paul:
More than any other New Testament figure, he laid out a Christian view of the purpose of government — to restrain evil and promote justice. Rulers are God’s servants, St. Paul wrote; civil government itself was established by God. Christ Himself did not lay out a political philosophy per se; it was left to St. Paul, among others, to interpret Christian ideals in the context of his time, which of course was during the reign of the Roman empire. As a Christian you cannot engage the issue of politics and the role of government without dealing with St. Paul’s thinking.
On Bush, they say:
President Bush showed deep human sympathy for those suffering and in need — and he used the power of his office to do something about it. I think history will say about Bush that he liberated millions of people in foreign lands and, through his AIDS and malaria initiatives, saved millions of lives. As president, he respected different religious faiths and understood their power to do good even as he was deeply committed to pluralism and tolerance. He showed that in the aftermath of 9/11, with his outreach to Muslim Americans. And George W. Bush is also a man of grace. When a senior aide left the White House and later wrote a book that was a betrayal, the president pulled aside his key advisers and told them to show grace, not retribution, for this particular person. Not many presidents — in fact, not many individuals — would have done such a thing.
Pingback: A few good links | eChurch Christian Blog
Politics replacing the good news may be a left wing thing in Canada. I don’t think it is in the United States. I got banned from a leading American Anglican Christian for daring to suggest that left wing politics and real Christianity aren’t mutually exclusive. I also don’t think they get biblical teacing on government correct. Paul didn’t have a “political philosophy” that went much further than obey the law.
I agree – they’re not.
I think he went further than that in Romans 13: the state is an institution established by God; it is there to punish wrongdoers, restrain evil, maintain civil order and protect the innocent.
The above should read “Anglican Christian blog”.
As a temporary resident of the US, I work with those on the political conservative right during the work week, and go to church with many on the relgious right on Sunday (a senior vice president with Focus on the Family is part of my church community group). Although I’m very interested in how the “right” sees the world and often ponder why my views as a Canadian are so different than those around me, I admit that there is much I don’t understand. I do know, however, that there are profound, yet difficult to define, differences between Canadians and Americans – differences that are easy to ignore unless you are immersed in the culture. My conversations with other Canadians in the same situation as I suggest that they share a veery similar perspective.
Although I agree that the “old model” religious right may be passing away, I’m far from convinced that what is replacing it has a “lighter touch”. Depending on what I’m reading or listening to, I often get the impression that it is meaner, nastier and less willing to listen to any other perspective than it has ever been.
How do you get that out of Romans 13? All it says is that civil authorities are there to punish the wrongdoer, ie the one who breaks the law. Perhaps the rest is implied, but I think the US religious right takes Romans 13 as a limit on what government should be permitted to do, and I don’t think that’s right. You could just as easily make Acts 2 affirm political socialism.
Yes.
Possibly, and I don’t think that that is entirely invalid; there are also other convincing reasons to limit the state that are in harmony with a Christian perspective.
You could, and some do, but Acts 2 isn’t talking about the state whereas Rom 13 is.
I’m interested in what other reasons for limiting the state you see as in harmony with the Christian perspective. All that Romans 13 directly says is “obey the law”; – and even that doesn’t apply in some circumstances. If I lived in China, I would certainly be attending an illegal house church, for instance.
If you go back and read Romans 12, I think that the context of 13 is how Christians are to live in society, not the limiting of the political state.
Briefly, man is innately sinful and will tend to act badly in almost any circumstance given half a chance. A lot of power is concentrated in the state, so, unrestricted, it provides a convenient setting for those in its employment to behave badly. It is very much restricted, of course, by democracy; tyrannies that have given unfettered power to 1 or a few people tend to be extremely evil. So limiting the power of the state is good.
Private companies are also full of people who tend to do evil if not restrained. I think the checks and balances of free enterprise are a restraining influence; those of a socialist disposition would probably disagree, and I can partly see their point because capitalism robbed of an underpinning morality – and for us in the West that is a Judeo-Christian morality – can be pretty bad too; not as bad as an unrestrained state in my opinion.
Ultimately, the loss of Christian underpinnings will be the downfall of the West regardless of where it is on the socialist to capitalist spectrum.
I’m not arguing for an unrestricted state, of course. Anybody who knows their history knows what a disaster that can be. I do think that restricting what the government can do too much can also cause major problems. (Look at the economic crisis – even Stephen Harper said that the American banking regulations are totally inadequate).