Christian politicians

By David Heim

I doubt the religious right is “cracking up,” as David Kirkpatrick suggests in a recent New York Times article (“The Evangelical Crackup,” Oct. 28). At least it would take the results of a few election cycles to demonstrate it. But, like Kirkpatrick, I have been hearing some significant voices on the right that are disillusioned about political engagement.

For example, at a Yale Divinity School conference on religion and politics in October, David Kuo, former aide in the Bush White House, talked about the need for Christians to “fast from politics” for a few years. Conservative Christians helped Republicans get control of Congress and the White House, he said, but they didn’t accomplish that much for the country and, with their focus on partisan politics, they ended up diluting or distorting their own spiritual life.

Also speaking was Gregory Boyd, a dynamic pastor in Minnesota, who doubts that anything good comes from aligning oneself with Caesar (his words to describe Christians engaging in politics). He spoke eloquently about how the church is called to embody Christ’s self-sacrificing love in the world, not to take up the levers of power.

Skepticism about politics is always healthy. But it strikes me that Kuo’s and Boyd’s comments reflect a broad, unhelpful tendency in American Christianity to oscillate between two poles: either a fervent engagement in politics for the sake of the gospel and the world, or an equally fervent detachment for the sake of the purity of the gospel and the health of the church. Isn’t there something between the two poles?

It might help the discussion of religion and politics if we though not about the two poles of political engagement and detachment but about politics as a particular kind of vocation to which Christians are called in different ways depending on their gifts and their position in the church and society.

I’d be happy to stipulate, with Boyd, that the church as church is not called to be Caesar or even Caesar’s adviser. We don’t want bishops, pastors or church councils issuing statements on tax laws or free trade agreements or on which version of the SCHIP bill should be passed. Churches and church leaders have their particular vocation of proclamation, worship, prayer and sacramental ministry. Except in emergency situations, the church—here I mean the church as an official body—leaves the details of what public justice means to those who are called to the work of politics.

Meanwhile, however, individual Christians have their particular vocations. In a democracy, all people have the vocation of citizen and so are in some degree called to the work of politics. Beyond that, a certain number of individual Christians are called to a more specific vocation: to study, analyze or participate in the day-to-day workings of politics. They make arguments and pay attention to data. They look for affinities between the gospel and political philosophies and programs. They listen to what constituents say and arguments other people make. Their work is fallible, limited, pervaded by sin, always subject to revision—but so are lots of vocations.

Unless one takes a truly separatist view of the Christian life and wants to preclude anybody with political influence from being a member of the church, then one has to grant that some Christians have the specific vocation of working out the details of seeking justice in political life. This is not the only task of the Christian life, nor is it the primary task of the church. But it is a genuine vocation for Christians, one just as worthy as farming or schoolteaching. If we are clear about the distinct vocations to which Christians are called, there is no reason for Christians to fast from politics or apologize for their involvement in it.

Comments

[Rev. Ray Dubuque]

David,
I believe that you will find that we have a lot in common and perhaps some interestingly different points of view. heck out http://churchvstate.org/ .

And if you want to dig even deeper, check out
http://JesusNoRepublican.Org/ & http://JesusNoDemocrat.Org/

[Keith Herron]

The Kirkpatrick article was fascinating and the use of the phrase "cracking up" overstated. However, the line in the article by Gene Carlson, one of the Wichita pastors, "When you mix politics and religion, you get politics," is instructive.

The chaos in the Evangelical ranks is made obvious this year as we've seen Pat Robertson embrace Mayor Guiliani, a candidate who stands for none of the faith concerns that's been a point of concern in the past, while Mike Huckabee, one who espouses the evangelical view on these issues, has been dismissed as unelectable. Other Evangelical leaders have backed Mit Romney for similar reasons even though his dedication to these issues is questionable.

The power brokers of the Evangelical agenda illustrate Rev. Carlson's point well. They are not so much about biblical morality as they are about political power.

[Mark Pike]

I agree. Christians on the left, in the center and on the right should be involved in politics and the public square. I find it interesting that Boyd and Kuo are not railing against the Religious Left. We should not check our faith or our mind at the political door. Christians of every political persuasion should be engaged based on their convictions.

[Casey Taylor]

I'm not sure that we'll make much headway in our thinking about politics so long as we believe that "politics" is what politicians as members of specific parties do on our behalf. We must continue to push people to understand that you cannot NOT be political (Aristotle anyone?).

This is what gets me anytime someone argues, "Jesus was not political." I doubt many readers of The Christian Century need reminding that Jesus was political, that politics could not be separated out from everything else in Jesus' day. But the idea keeps popping up, even in popular literature. Take Donald Miller's "Blue Like Jazz," for example. This best-selling author repeatedly claims that Jesus was not political. It's irritatingly naive.

I wonder if Jesus ticked off such diverse groups precisely because he refused to leave the boundaries of discourse comfortably alone. He irritated not only the Pharisees but also the Herodians, the political fat-cats the Sadducees, and likely even the Zealots. We're now told to abandon the Religious Right for the Religious Left. American Christians continue to rally to one party or another, which only further distorts our real allegiance to a king who has sovereign rights over this world, yet says, "My kingdom is not of this world."

For more food for thought, check out Richard John Neuhaus' recent comments from a debate on this subject over at "On the Square," the blog of "First Things."

Casey Taylor
irregularchristian.blogspot.com

[real live preacher]

I like your distinctions. For me, the problem comes when any religious group attempts to use politics to enforce or support its own religious beliefs. Political power that attempts establish a religious view. That is, of course, unconstitutional, though the waters are murky and boundaries hard to keep.

But apart from that I ask the same question I think you are asking. Why wouldn't Christians be involved in politics like any other citizen?

[Tim L]

Once again, people stating what Greg Boyd "says" and stating it wrong or taking it out of context

He has NOT said to NOT be involved in politics. He has only said to not call this involvement Christian or as part of the Kingdom. Politics is ultimately (no matter how hard a person tries, power over people, while as Christians we are to only serve (power under).

So, be involved in politics all you want. Just don't call it Christian.

[jacobtertius]

Tim L's comment are helpful as a rule for language, so that we don't christen certain efforts as "Christian." As in "Here is my 'Christian' plan for health care reform." But on another level the distinction seems arbitrary. It seems to suggest that, say, when a church provides a medical clinic for the poor it is clearly acting for the Kingdom, but when Christians try to reform health care or get people elected who will reform health care so that more of the working poor will have access to health care, they are not. Why not say instead that both acts are political,and that both acts involve a (morally ambiguous) use of power?

[Monte Asbury]

Seems to me - in this season of Herod's murder of the innocents - that we who follow Christ will always be the opposition. Jesus word to wealth and power was "Woe." Modernity's Christendom still sees wealth and power as signs of God's blessing.