Jesus & Politics: Part 2
My previous post garnered some lively response, to say the least. Murray Vasser offered the most thoughtful and pointed critique. Since my response would not fit in a comment slot, I’ve posted it separately to contribute to the ongoing dialogue
Before you read what follows, please take the time to read the original post, along with Murray’s comments. [Disclaimer: This series of posts represents one professor’s opinion, not the position of Biola University or Talbot School of Theology.]
Murray:
You are not being impertinent at all. Those are legitimate challenges that help us all to think more carefully about our positions. I am, of course, properly rebuked by your questions, since I find myself answering in the affirmative in each case. Yet, as a historian, I cannot help but remain troubled by the inverse relationship I see, over the centuries, between the purity and power of God’s people, on the one hand, and the degree to which the church has had access to political power, on the other. Religious nationalism ultimately failed in OT Israel, and it has failed in most of Christian history, as well (Constantine and his successors, Charlemagne, the Crusaders). There are, of course, wonderful exceptions (e.g., Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands), but the point remains a valid one. I stand by much of what I wrote, in principle, at any rate.
So how do I harmonize an affirmative response to your questions with my convictions about Christians and American politics? Well, let me “think out loud” a bit here, hoping that further dialogue will help to sort this out.
First of all, it seems to me that much of the politicking that goes on in evangelical circles has a whole lot more to do with (a) “restoring” or somehow “re-Christianizing” America, than with (b) fighting against the oppression, marginalization, or murder of those who have no voice. The former endeavor, moreover, is consistently wed to a particular political party, carrying in tow all the polarization that currently characterizes partisan politics at both state and national levels.
I find it revealing, Murray, that each of the issues you raised relates directly to “b,” above, and only secondarily, if at all, to “a.” That is, I hear in your challenges a passion for people—not a passion for Christian nation. If I am hearing you correctly, we may have a bit more common than you think.
As I reflect on your comments, Murray, I find myself more than ready, for example, to encourage my church to champion the cause of the unborn, but much less inclined to jump on the “traditional marriage” bandwagon (Prop 8 here in CA), since the latter is so often tied up with the Constantinian project of “re-Christianizing” American culture—a project which, I remain convinced, is doomed to failure. My challenge as a pastor, then, is to help my people see the difference. This is not an easy task given the polarizing fervor among numbers of evangelicals (fueled by conservative talk radio) concerning the upcoming election.
Finally, Murray I suspect that defining issues like the ones you raised—where the church should speak in a unified voice to the culture—are rather rare. Your list (slavery–holocaust–civil rights) covers nearly two centuries. Some generations of Christians will likely not face situations like these at all.
So, I suppose I should qualify my original comments by applying them generally to the relationship between Christians and the political arena. The church’s involvement in such defining issues then becomes exceptional—rather than characteristic—where the relationship between “Jesus and politics” is concerned. If the church is to become politically active, we should save our efforts for key issues like the ones you raised, and eschew ongoing nationalistic agendas that are closely aligned to a particular political party.
Comments
Murray Vasser Jul. 5, 2012 at 7:30 PM
[Part I of 3]
Dr. Hellerman,
Thank you for your response. You are correct that I am concerned with category (b) and not category (a). I have no desire to “re-Christianize” America. Nations cannot be Christians, only people, and laws cannot make people Christians.
However, you are incorrect in your implicit claim that category (b) is not “consistently wed to a particular political party.”
This is the platform of the Democratic Party: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
This is the platform of the Republican Party: “Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
Tragically, this means that to be pro-life is to be partisan. I hope to see the day when this is no longer true, but that day has not yet come.
Murray Vasser Jul. 5, 2012 at 7:31 PM
[Part 2 of 3]
President Obama has remained a fanatical champion for abortion rights throughout his political career, though he often lies about his position to appear more moderate. As a state senator, he voted against a bill that would simply have prevented doctors from discarding newborn babies who survived abortion attempts, even though the bill contained this clause: “nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species Homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section.” When the Supreme Court upheld the ban on “partial-birth” abortion, Obama stated, “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling.” He has never at any time voted to support any restriction on any abortion procedure.
His four years in office have done inestimable damage to the pro-life movement, both in American and around the world. On his third day in office, he issued an executive order overturning the Mexico City Policy, which prevented US dollars from funding abortion oversees. His administration successfully lobbied in Kenya to expand abortion rights in that country’s new constitution. Planned Parenthood came under tremendous fire not long ago after the pro-life group Live Action released a series of undercover videos in which actors posing as sex workers entered Planned Parenthood clinics, where they received instructions on how to get secret abortions for the fourteen-year-old girls they were trafficking. Obama was unfazed by the videos, and casually dismissed the scandal in an interview. The videos sparked renewed efforts in congress to defund Planned Parenthood, but Obama came to the rescue and refused to sign a budget which did not include that funding, threatening to shut down the government. During his term, he appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, who will religiously uphold abortion rights. He recently voiced his opposition to a bill which would have banned sex-selective abortions, sparked by another round of undercover videos from Live Action. His massive healthcare reform has devastating implications for the pro-life movement, and if the Supreme Court upholds the HHS mandate, religious organizations will be required to directly fund abortion inducing drugs.
Murray Vasser Jul. 5, 2012 at 7:33 PM
[Part 3 of 3]
Another four years under Obama will without any doubt further entrench abortion rights in the American bureaucracy and legal system. No reasonable person can deny this.
Therefore, I believe Christians must vote in November, I believe they must vote for the pro-life candidates, and I believe pastors must preach this from the pulpit.
However, as a young evangelical, I am fully aware that this is an immensely unpopular position to hold. (I am speaking now to my fellow “young evangelicals,” Dr. Hellerman, so if the following critique does not fit you, please disregard it.) I am afraid the real issue is that we are desperate to be perceived as progressive. We would gladly embrace the glamour of martyrdom, but to stand in a picket line beside a soccer mom with a flag on her t-shirt, Sarah Palin on her bumper, and Rush Limbaugh on her radio is a shame that we simply cannot bear.
But this is abortion:
"Let's just say…we left the leg in the uterus just to dismember it. Well, we'd probably have to dismember it at several different levels because we don't have firm control over it, so we would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip. And…we typically know that the fetus is still alive because…we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps…It's not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first…prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise.” – Dr. Martin Haskell
Dr. Hellerman, you stated that “defining issues like the ones you raised—where the church should speak in a unified voice to the culture—are rather rare….Some generations of Christians will likely not face situations like these at all.”
Dr. Hellerman, you and I are not in one of those generations.
(If anyone is interested in learning more about abortion, please visit my blog at www.murrayvasser.blogspot.com.)
Samuel Jul. 6, 2012 at 6:18 AM
Mr. Murray,
Would you vote for a conservative that was anti-abortion but with exceptions (rape, incest, etc)?
John Goodrich Jul. 6, 2012 at 7:17 AM
This is a helpful follow up, so thanks to you both.
Ben von Bredow Jul. 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM
I thank all of you for your insightful comments.
Because this to be a continuation of the previous post's discussion, I think that it is important to bring up the issue of "legislating morality" again. It is wrong to say that we should not legislate morality. If we don't legislate morality, we simply cannot legislate, because all criminal law is a legislation of morality.
Let me explain: all laws express a fundamental value. Laws against murder are a statement of the society's moral value of the human person. Laws against theft are a statement of the society's moral value of someone's right to property. Fair commerce laws tell us about what our society thinks of equal opportunity and financial oppression. All of these laws appeal to a moral theory, even if that theory is utilitarianism. "Because it is wrong" is the basic defense of anyone who wants to ban anything. So, if morality is inextricably intertwined with law, shouldn't we make sure that we're using the right moral theory?
Now, I admit that I haven't sorted out the consequence of this belief entirely, but I still believe that what I said was sound. How then do I escape supporting laws against adultery or alcoholism? The best solution I have found is that, as a democratic society (I live in Canada, by the way - still democratic), we ought to "push the envelope" in the direction of moral correctness. In today's society, Christians would never get away with outlawing adultery, but perhaps we would have in 1650. In this way, it is most important that society, not government, be Christianised, so that morally right laws can reasonably imposed on that society. Still, I am uncomfortable about this solution. Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Murray Vasser Jul. 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Samuel,
It depends on whom the candidate was running against.
Dave Darjany Jul. 6, 2012 at 4:36 PM
This is a great exchange. I agree with Murray of the supreme importance of continuing to fight politically against abortion in our day and age. However, I think we as the church also need to act more practically in the mercy end of this debate. If the church could say "look our families have personally adopted all the children in the foster care system and orphanages, and we are ready to adopt any more unwanted children," we would have a much stronger platform to legislate banning abortion on.
However, I also agree with Joe, in regards to same-sex marriage, this is something it might be better for us to "get out of the way" of, not tell people who aren't Christians what they can and cannot do with their own sexuality, and instead (again), focus on strengthening our own marriages within the church so we can shine a light as a different alternative to what true Christian family looks like. Also, caring for suffering AIDS patients (for example) and fighting injustices against homosexual people, and growing in our ability to accept Christians who are struggling with homosexuality to be able to wrestle with that in church.
I actually just wrote an M.Div thesis at Talbot on this topic entitled Homosexuality: A Biblical Analysis and a Proper Christian Response. It should be available in the Biola Library very soon. My main argument on this topic is that we should not legislate personal morality unless someone's actions directly take away liberties from or hurt another person without their consent.
So I guess what I am saying is I don't think we should completely disengage from politics completely, Dr. Hellerman, but we should be more selective in what we fight for and how we do so.
Murray Vasser Jul. 7, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Dave,
Thanks for your comments! I agree that the church needs to act practically to help women facing crisis pregnancies. However, a few points need to be made:
1) Pro-lifers (mostly Christian) fund and staff an enormous network of crisis pregnancy centers all across the country, providing far more quality care for women than anyone else.
2) Pro-lifers have pushed for the "safe-haven" or "Baby Moses" law, stating that a woman can leave her newborn infant at any hospital, any police station, or any fire station with no questions asked and no paperwork required. Some form of this law has been passed in every single state.
3) Planned Parenthood still despises us.
There is always more that could be done, but this should never be an excuse for not voting. Furthermore, we should discard the naive assumption that if we just could do more nice things, the pro-choice crowd would eventually warm up to us.
Murray Vasser Jul. 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Dr. Hellerman and all,
As I review my previous comments in these threads, I’m afraid that I’ve spoken too sharply. I apologize. This issue gets me fired up, and I tend to get carried away in the argument. I really do appreciate all of the wisdom that has been shared here. Obviously, I am concerned that the church continues to fight for the legal protection of the unborn, but Dr. Hellerman is correct in recognizing the danger inherent in political power, and the various cautions which have been raised concerning the church’s involvement in the political process are valid and timely.
Skarsten Jul. 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Hello Dr. Hellerman,
It would help me understand your view if you could spell a little more how you see the distinction between "(a) as an American citizen with Christian values, who is participating in the political process, and who would like to see my daughters enjoy the same America I have enjoyed, but not (b) as a representative of the Christian community who is attempting to influence the broader culture with Christian morality." In practice, how does (b) look different from (a)? They look the same on the question of abortion, and (I take it) they come out different on the question of homosexual marriage. But why? Couldn't I still take myself to hold view (a) and not (b), while still voting against homosexual marriage?
If it's true that biblical principles are the best foundation for governance, shouldn't those principles motivate my political activity and decisions? And if so, it seems to me that (a) and (b) become really, really similar: I'm influencing culture through my activity based on my Christian morality, and I'm just a citizen with Christian values who's participating the political process.
Also, assuming that God calls different people to different work, could God be calling your brother from Oceanside Christian Fellowship to the work he's doing and also that God is not calling you to that same work?
Robert Aug. 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Skarsten makes a great point. I think the body needs Hellerman's and the "brother." I also think that Skarsten and others are correct to question Dr. Hellerman's equivocation of "legislating against homosexuality" with "legislating against homosexual marriage." There are also some assumptions that lead to straw men. For instance, that politically conservative believers are motivated to "Christianize" America. This is obviously a bad idea. But don't we have moral obligations that are particular to our citizenship? I think Dr. Hellerman would agree with me here, and might just argue that the ends political conservatives seek aren't in line with those obligations. As you've said, we shouldn't be legislating morality. I believe this needs to be unpacked more by Dr. Hellerman, but I agree with the general sentiment that laws are founded on values. Values exist. Therefore, if we have moral obligations to the state, then they are likely to subsist somewhere in the vicinity of pursuing/promoting the values that the State *should* enforce. State goods are distinct from church goods. Stated really simply, the church's end is glorification of God through the spiritual formation of people. The state's end is the protection of citizens from interference of pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
The passage of homosexual marriage is a legal stamp of approval on an ontology of human sexuality that is false. Also, and probably more importantly, it would introduce a whole host of limitations to freedom to churches and believers, and is therefore worthy of our time and effort. Third, and the most important, it would allow a class of citizens who prior to 1950's, were considered to be psychologically dysfunctional, protected status when applying for adoptions. There are consequences to evil legislation. Terms like "christianiazation" are a product of our proclivity toward sub-culture. I'd rather look to the scholastics, Catholic and Protestant, for a proper assessment of good and not-good in the different roles believers have; and then think deeply about the implications of what those goods look like in 2012 for an American believer.
Robert Aug. 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM
To clarify, our moral obligations will differ according to the type of government we're in. As citizens who "are the government", our obligations to the State will be different than a believer in Saudi Arabia. We have an obligation to affect policy and legislation in the most minimum way as we vote. There are more direct methods, but I believe these will be specific to each of our vocational perspectives and giftings (becoming a politician, judge, activist, etc.) Just a side note, if Dr. Hellerman is correct, the result is that believers in political roles will have policies that look no different than the non-believer. That certainly doesn't seem right. There is a legitimate parallel between the role and calling of a believer in politics, who because of that believer's obligations to his job and influential responsibility, motivates him/her to pursue legislative goods, and the believer who is "just" a citizen.
I also wanted to further clarify what I mean by "state goods." I take the role of State to be negative. It protects freedoms. If protecting the freedom to pursue happiness (or virtue or whatever telos we think the state should protect for its citizens) is the primary end of the state, and we have the opportunity to influence what laws the state passes, then we seem to have a moral obligation to vote for, and promote the passage of, laws that protect the freedom to achieve human telos. The error that Dr. Hellerman might be making (please correct me here if I'm getting it wrong), and many believers who make his argument, is in confusing "legislating morality,' which is normally defined as making laws that tell people how to be righteous, with the very good aim of "protecting the freedom to achieve human telos" that should shape the goals of all citizens in promoting specific types of legislation.
I believe that this clearly makes legislating against same-sex marriage a moral obligation for citizens. I recognize the other implicit argument that Dr. Hellerman is making; promoting these types of legislative goods is confusing to the populace. They think we're "legislating morality" and by doing so we alienate ourselves. This doesn't seem as important as achieving this particular good. One might argue, "but wait, doesn't this interfere with our aim to fulfill the 'good' of the gospel?" I think that would have to be addressed on a case by case basis. In the area of homosexual marriage, the alienation is rooted in Romans 1, not in our words or actions. By believing as Paul did, we alienate the person who thinks that homosexuality is as genetic as race. I do not accept that pursuing legislation and public goods cannot happen simultaneously alongside serving and loving individual homosexuals in the Spirit.
If that doesn't help clarify anything, feel free to ignore it. My first post was kind of hasty, so I thought I'd try to explain a bit more.