When I was a senior in college, I got to meet Dr. Cornel West, who had come to speak on my campus. During his talk, he said, “People ask me if I am a Democrat or a Republican, and I tell them I’m a Christian. They don’t know what to do with that.”
I have always found that to be a good line. But is it true? After all, whether he’s aligned with a party or not, it is not exactly hard to figure out which end of the political spectrum West comes from. It is also not hard to find other Christian leaders whose attempts to be faithful have led them to embrace the opposite form of politics.
My friend Bishop Dan Martins recently wrote about his reticence at seeing the General Convention of the Episcopal Church take up explicitly political matters, even when such things are framed as an inevitable outgrowth of the gospel’s call for justice. He says, “The missing component, it seems to me, the absence of which keeps these arguments from being airtight, is a failure to delineate between private behavior, which is voluntary, and public behavior, which, under any form of government, including democracy, is coercive.” Spending money and resources to aid the poor is a Christian imperative, but we live in a pluralistic society. It is not fair to ask atheists or followers of some other religion to give their tax dollars for the sake of meeting a Christian moral commitment.
I appreciate the point the bishop is making, but I think his reflection leads us to consider a more fundamental problem. The great divide is not between Christians who think we should help the poor and Christians who do not, nor is it between “traditional” and “progressive” understandings of Christian values. The real division lies in our understanding of what a government is.
John Locke saw government as a compromise, existing to secure health and property for its citizens but not capable of much more. Edmund Burke, on the other hand, believed that government existed for the sake of leading people to a more virtuous life. His 20th-century disciple, the conservative thinker Russell Kirk, put it this way: “Real progress consists in the movement of mankind toward the understanding of norms, and toward conformity to norms. Real decadence consists in the movement of mankind away from the understanding of norms, and away from obedience to norms.” Living as we do in a moment in which norms are constantly under fire or on fire, it is hard to imagine a view of government more antithetical to modern American sentiment.
The view of government held by Burke and Kirk is more common historically, though. In most places and times, government has not been understood primarily as a means of securing the health and wealth of its citizens so that they may do whatever they please. America, however, is a liberal society, in the philosophical sense. Regardless of where a modern American stands on the left/right political spectrum, just about everyone is a Lockean at heart. Government has no role in making us better people — in fact, to suggest such a thing is almost a kind of blasphemy — but it has every responsibility to make our lives better. Whether that means libertarianism for the sake of maximizing individual liberty and autonomy, or collectivism that creates social and economic equality through an expanding list of government projects, the understanding of government’s purpose remains the same.
There is a long history of Christian thought on all of this, particularly from Augustine onward, but it is beyond the scope of this short article and my meager knowledge to try to summarize it all. Nevertheless, even a cursory reading of Scripture reveals certain points. First, God is the ultimate source of government. Whether it be the judges and kings of Israel, or even foreign conquerors like Cyrus the Persian or Rome, “there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13:1).
Second, despite the previous point, not all government is good. When rulers push for things that are contrary to the Word of God, Christians must resist because “we must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).
Third, though government is established by God, it is not synonymous with the kingdom of God. Jesus refuses all efforts to draw him into a struggle for power because his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
Finally, Scripture talks repeatedly about the function of government being for the good of the governed. This includes things like punishing the wicked and praising the good (see, for example, 1 Pet. 2:13-17).
When it comes to whether churches today ought to wade into political matters, this last point is the most salient. The Bible does not outline for us the perfect political system, but it insists that government has a noble purpose: to promote and protect what Catholic social teaching refers to as the common good. Those who govern have a responsibility to see to it not merely that the citizens are fed, but that the citizens understand that feeding their neighbors is a good thing, while withholding food you could give to them is a bad thing. This responsibility is no less important when the government is pagan as when it is Christian. It is discovered in the natural law as apparently as in revelation.
I am not concerned about the state asking me or even my fellow citizens who are not Christian to do something that is for the common good. If that is coercive, so be it. I am, however, deeply concerned about the Church becoming just another agent of partisan politics, accepting from the state the grounds upon which the common good is to be established rather than allowing the gospel to set the terms.
The idea of a liberal state in which the Church is only one voice among many that may influence public policy is not going to change anytime soon. It is incumbent upon the Church, therefore, to act as a kind of conscience for the state, reminding secular leaders of their responsibility to lead people to what is right and good, regardless of whether it is popular. This is a tall order in contemporary American life, not only because our trust in government institutions is at an all-time low, but because Christians are themselves deeply divided about what constitutes the common good.
While Christian leaders should speak in a moral register that is above the fray of partisan politics, far too often the tail wags the dog. The problem is not that a particular church seems to favor the moral convictions of one party over the other, but that the origination point of those convictions is the secular culture that we live in rather than the calling of our Lord. Far too often, statements by American church bodies that are meant to “speak truth to power” read like they were written by the political parties themselves, with some religious language added as a varnish after the fact.
If as Christians we want to influence the state to act in positive ways — and I believe we should — then we must recover our moral credibility. While this will sometimes mean taking tough, unpopular stands and taking our lumps as a result, it primarily means that we must live out our faith consistently and humbly, while seeking to end the scandal of ecclesial division that plagues us. If we are to be the conscience of our nation, we need to ensure that we are well-formed, allowing the voice of God to speak through us clearly and without hindrance. We need to rid ourselves of the language of secular politics and build from the ground up a gospel-oriented politics. This will not be an easy task, but our duty as Christians demands it.
Well said, Father. I appreciate you jumping off from my thought. Especially this: “Far too often, statements by American church bodies that are meant to “speak truth to power” read like they were written by the political parties themselves, with some religious language added as a varnish after the fact. If as Christians we want to influence the state to act in positive ways — and I believe we should — then we must recover our moral credibility.”
Thank you, Bishop!
Good thoughts. But the problem seems more to me in our church, particularly, to be discerning the voice of God to speak through us, when there is such division. How can our church speak the voice of God when Canterbury says we now have 2 valid doctrines? How can we know God’s Word when this church apparently believes that a woman’s freedom to end the life of a fetus is God’s Word, and even funds a lobbyist to support this apparent belief. Yet, 50 years ago, and at all times before, this church believed God’s Word was that a human being and a soul began at conception , and many of us in this church still hold that belief and faith. What is God’s voice for us to share on lgbt etc issues in this church – I only hear one side being voiced as God’s Word from our church. Am I the one whose ears are itching? I don’t think so, but let me know if you think so.
Perhaps the problem arises when the Church’s pronouncements sound politically programmatic. We were once described as “the Republican Party at prayer.” Now we seem to have veered to the other extreme.
The problem is simple: sin. There is sinfulness in all our government policies and every political situation. Calvin was right about total depravity. The church ought to be calling toward repentance based on a biblical ethical system, rather than any sort of policy. The way to avoid complicity for sinful or partially-sinful policies is to avoid calling for policies at all. Call for repentance, and let those with the spiritual gift of administration or the vocation to civil service work out what the policy of a given government in a given culture in a given situation ought to do. We should be highly and quickly skeptical of the lure of political power and activism, because these things are worldly, and friendship with the world is enmity toward God. We should respond to injustice around by being holy ourselves, caring for the orphan and widow, etc.: direct action instead of virtue signaling. Are we concerned about “apartheid” in Palestine? Let us go there and suffer, sell all we have and give to the poor, join or strengthen monasteries there, etc. – all the while eschewing political power and economic influence. This is the way of the saints.