Jesus & Politics: Ramping Up For November 2012
I am receiving an increasing number of e-mails from persons in my church championing this or that conservative political cause. One dear brother has become particularly persistent in his attempts to get his church leaders to jump on the political bandwagon. I recently responded in some detail:
Dear Oceanside Christian Fellowship Brother,
Thank you so very much for taking the time to forward these materials to me, but I must confess that I just do not have a burning desire to get involved with the political process.
If I vote in November (I say "If" because I find no biblical mandate to do so, though I generally have in the past), I will do so (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.
I will try to explain the difference by sharing a handful of convictions I hold:
- Jesus profoundly challenged religious nationalism. In fact, I wrote a whole book on the issue.
- Our calling as followers of Jesus is to build an alternative social reality—the Christian community—one that is radically distinct from the state. It is not our calling, as a Christian community, to legislate morality for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). (This does not mean that individual Christians are not to participate in the political process. I am writing here about our public stance as a people of God.)
- If we are determined to change the culture by legislating biblical morality, where do we draw the line? I don’t hear Christians who oppose legalizing homosexual marriage lobbying to outlaw adultery, or fornication, or obesity, or greed. These glaring inconsistencies leave an indelible stain on any attempt to ‘Christianize’ the moral contours of American society. And just whose ‘Christian’ morality do we legislate? Some Christians are convinced that consuming alcoholic beverages is a sin. Do we lobby to outlaw the sale of alcohol? History has certainly demonstrated the futility of Christians trying to influence broader societal values via the political process on that issue.
- A Christianity that expends its energies trying to fix the world by legislating morality—rather than serving the world through acts of justice and mercy—alienates unbelievers, because all they hear about is what we are against, rather than what we are for. This is why ministries like Sharefest (which mobilizes churches in Los Angeles to engage in work projects in the community) build bridges and make friends between believers and unbelievers, while "anti-this," "anti-that" Christian political agendas build fences and generate enmity. Please note that I am not advocating a gnostic-like, world-negating perspective vis-à-vis society-at-large. I am suggesting, instead, that we exchange what has become an adversarial political stance toward the broader culture for an aggressive program of community service, mercy ministry, and evangelistic outreach.
- I am not convinced that we could change the broader culture, even if we wanted to. This book, which articulates a Christian political philosophy similar to the one that I have held for quite some time, explains why.
- Even assuming that we could change the values of the dominant culture, to do so by wielding political power would be to engage in an ill-fated agenda that has, again and again, throughout church history, compromised the very message of the cross that we preach.
History, in fact, has much to teach us. When Constantine adopted Christianity, after several centuries of marginalization and decades of persecution, most Christians were delighted to have "their man in the White House." A century later, when the Goths sacked Rome, one Christian leader, Jerome, lamented, "Jerusalem has fallen, Jerusalem has fallen,” so easily had the church bought into the idea that the Constantinian empire was now a "Christian nation."
Jerome was wrong. There was/is no "Christian nation," post-Pentecost. The era of a national people of God ended with national Israel, with the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. Indeed, the Constantinian "marriage" of the early church to the Roman state proved to be disastrous for the integrity of the Christian project—a mess that we didn't even begin to untangle until the Protestant Reformation, centuries later.
A contemporary of Jerome's, Augustine, had a much more biblical vision of the relationship between the church and the Roman state. In response to the sack of Rome, Augustine notes, in the City of God, that the "city of man"—secular empires—come and go, while the City of God lasts forever.
The idea that it might be America's time to "go" is a sobering one, and I am not unaware of the potential cost of my perspective for life as we know it. Someday soon we will likely lose our tax write-off for charitable giving to our churches. Someday it will be illegal for Oceanside Christian Fellowship to discriminate by refusing to hire a homosexual pastor. And someday it may even be considered a hate-crime to preach against homosexuality in a public setting.
So be it. The church will have no tax write-off and no professional staff. And we will meet in homes, just like the early Christians, who, it seems to me, had a whole lot more genuine spiritual influence upon the dominant culture than we have had in America, in recent decades, at any rate.
This is why I disagree with the policies and goals of both the Christian right (James Dobson, Chuck Colson, et al) and the Christian left (Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis and the Sojourners crowd). When our kids were little, Joann and I learned so very much from Focus on the Family about parenting. But I pretty much turned Dobson off when he transitioned from family to politics a decade or so ago.
I imagine that hearing all this from one of your pastors disappoints you, brother, but I have worked through this in my own mind over the years, and I am quite settled in my position. Others will see things a whole lot differently, and I certainly respect those who take a contrary position. Your passion for Christ is to be applauded. I will always think very highly of you as a brother in Christ.
In Christ Our True Lord & King,
Pastor Joe
Comments
Octavio Esqueda Jun. 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Excellent article, Joe! Well said!
Dan Fitch Jun. 30, 2012 at 8:15 PM
Wow.... A powerful letter/blog! This view challenges the views I have held for many years...view which, alas, I have never took the time to thoroughly analyze. I plan on doing just that...
John Goodrich Jul. 1, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Dr. Hellerman,
A very learned perspective, thanks. A few years ago I began reading (though never finished!) the book Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson. While they do not oppose any and all political involvement by Christians, the authors advocate that true and long-lasting change must take place from the inside out, i.e., through conversion and personal transformation: "As we move toward that goal, legislation will be the natural consequence of ... moral transformation; it will never be the cause of moral transformation."
Ricard (Octavio's friend) Jul. 2, 2012 at 11:47 AM
I really enjoyed reading this article, since I know so many American fellow-believers that are really into politics as the main focus of their life.
Your Spanish Canadian neighbor.
Todd Jul. 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Actually if the Christian church did what Christ asked it to do, politics would not be so "front and center." Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Here's a compelling piece on giving and the church.If you're a Christian or not, I think you'll find much of this data to be interesting. Here we go.
More than one out of four American Protestants give away no money at all—"not even a token $5 per year," say sociologists Christian Smith, Michael Emerson, and Patricia Snell in a new study on Christian giving.
Of all Christian groups, evangelical Protestants score best: only 10 percent give nothing away. Evangelicals tend to be the most generous, but they do not outperform their peers enough to wear a badge of honor. Thirty-six percent report that they give away less than two percent of their income. Only about 27 percent tithe.
American Christians' lack of generosity might not be as shocking if it didn't contrast so starkly with their astounding wealth. Passing the Plate's researchers say committed American Christians—those who say their faith is very important to them and those who attend church at least twice a month—earn more than $2.5 trillion dollars every year. On their own, these Christians could be admitted to the G7, the group of the world's seven largest economies. Smith and his coauthors estimate that if these Christians gave away 10 percent of their after-tax earnings, they would add another $46 billion to ministry around the world.
Anyone feeling convicted yet? But wait, the amount that could be added is actually much more:
One early finding: That estimate of $46 billion in additional giving is unrealistic. Not because it's too big, but because it's too small. Estimating 10 percent giving for every committed Christian in the U.S. neglects two groups: those who truly can't afford to give 10 percent (due to illness or unemployment or similar reasons), and those who are already giving more than 10 percent. If you calculate that 10 percent of Christians can't give because of their financial limitations, most of the rest give 10 percent, and a handful of generous givers continue their current generous giving pattern, committed American Christians could realistically increase their giving by $85.5 billion each year.
I've often heard it said that if all Christians simply tithed that it would radically change the world. Far fewer people would go hungry, far fewer children would have to live without parents, far less would have to be spent on GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS to help the needy, and so on.
As I read this piece, I was depressed to think how many people of faith are putting their own desires ahead of those of others -- really, how selfish many of us are. I hope this article stirs people to consider how they give and challenges them to be more generous from here on out.
Steve Miller Jul. 2, 2012 at 2:13 PM
Dr. Hellerman,
I find many of your thoughts, references, etc., similar to ones I have thought of through the years as a Christian and a pastor. Having been turned off by the Moral Majority years ago and attracted to, but disappointed by Christian progressives like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis, I find nonetheless that the gospel does not call us to the wilderness of some supposed apolitical stance or the misguided notion that morality can't be legislated. Somebody's morality or amorality will be the basis for the laws of the land. I firmly believe we must equip our people for a more sophisticated translation of their faith into the political issues of our day. Catholic social teaching has done a far more commendable job of this then evangelicals I think. Perhaps you should start with Wayne Grudem's book, "Politics According to the Bible" or perhaps Michael Gerson's, "City of Man, Religion and Politics in a New Era." Your approach is not only disappointing but simply caves into the pressure of the secular culture that would make religion or faith simply a matter of one's private life. Where would William Wilberforce be today and what would he do? That is what I would urge you to ask yourself. Finally I don't think gospel ministry is opposed to engaging in culture's battles. The world will hate us anyway according to Jesus.
Respectfully,
Dr. Steve Miller
Redeemer Alliance Church
Fullerton, CA
Murray Vasser Jul. 2, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Dr. Hellerman,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important subject. Like you, I am disgusted with the way patriotism has been wed with Christianity in America. However, as a pro-life activist, I strongly disagree with the other conclusions you have drawn. I hope you will forgive me for using a little satire to explain why. It is not my intention to be disrespectful, but I do believe this is the most effective way for me to communicate my concerns. Consider this fictional letter from an Anglican minister to Thomas Clarkson, the great abolitionist:
Dear Thomas Clarkson,
Thank you so very much for taking the time to send me these materials concerning the slave trade, but I must confess that I just do not have a burning desire to get involved with the political process.
You ask me to preach against slavery from the pulpit, circulate your petition after services, and urge my congregation to boycott sugar. However, as a representative of the Christian community, I have no intention to influence the broader culture with Christian morality. It is not our calling, as a Christian community, to legislate morality for unbelievers. If we are determined to change the culture by legislating biblical morality, where do we draw the line? If we are to outlaw slavery, must we also outlaw cursing and drunkenness?
And just whose “Christian” morality do we legislate? For many years, only the eccentric Quakers opposed slavery. You are the first Anglican minister to publicly stand against the trade, and there are still very many in our community who find nothing wrong with slavery.
A Christianity that expends its energies trying to fix the world by legislating morality alienates unbelievers, because all they hear about is what we are against, rather than what we are for. As I am sure you have noticed, many people do not like William Wilberforce. He makes them angry, and has brought ridicule on the entire evangelical community. They speak of the “damnable doctrines of William Wilberforce and his hypocritical allies,” and many consider him a traitor to the crown.
Finally, I am not convinced that we could change the broader culture, even if we wanted to. For millennia, all cultures and all religions have accepted the institution of slavery, and the economy of the empire is dependent upon the trade. Furthermore, even assuming that we could change the values of the dominant culture, to do so by wielding political power would be to engage in an ill-fated agenda that has, again and again, throughout church history, compromised the very message of the cross that we preach.
Instead of petitioning parliament and boycotting sugar, why don’t you spend your time helping the poor and telling people about Jesus?
Joe Hellerman Jul. 2, 2012 at 7:31 PM
These are great comments, critiques, rebuttals, etc. Keep them coming. We all learn from the dialogue.
Murray Vasser Jul. 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Todd,
I appreciated your comment! I too am very concerned about Christian giving. (You can read about my views on the subject here, if you are interested: http://murrayvasser.blogspot.com/2012/05/in-pauls-idea-of-community-robert-banks.html). However, I do not understand why Christians cannot give to those in extreme poverty and fight legalized abortion at the same time. Theoretically, it seems possible.
Stephanie Jul. 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Is there a difference between legislating morality and "just" legislature? As I was reading the original post, I agreed completely that we cannot legislate morality and that often this is doing more harm than good because Christians become known by what they are against.
However, I feel like as Christian's we have a responsibility to work towards justice and mercy in all spheres and to speak for those who cannot be speak for themselves. Obviously, justice and mercy is going to be interpreted differently by different people but it seems like maybe this should drive our interaction with politics.
As corrupt and broken as human government is, I think as Christians in America we have been given a fair amount of power and voice. I think we do have a responsibility. Not to "moralize America" or get every Christian into a certain political ideology, but I think politics can be one of the tools that Christian's use to stand up for the most vulnerable in society or make sure people are not being marginalized. (Maybe that is the key -- politics is a "tool" among many, not the end all be all).
-brent Jul. 3, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Pastor Joe and others,
Interesting comments, as I started to read your article I thought you were going a different direction. It does seem that if we simply followed Jesus then we would all be better examples of the light that is supposed to shine from us. That changes the world better than a new law. I wasn't there for Prohibition; but it appears it didn't work out so well.
Yet, taking the bushel off your lamp in the Political Process does some good as well. I applaud those who serve to make our Government a better process, many times it is a thankless job.
- a Pastor and a politician
Bonnie Hickman Jul. 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM
I love the satirical letter written by Murray Vasser. I just keep thinking about the Holocaust monument at Dachau. Under the twisted metal forms of despised humans is written- "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."
I don't want our children's children to see a symbol like that about us because we refused to act because "I am not convinced that we could change the broader culture, even if we wanted to."
That seems like closing your eyes to what we CAN do--- small as that might be! Christ did not ignore the woman who sinned; He approached her with love and told her to sin no more!
Our pastor had a good way of stating this- it is not "Love the sinner; hate the sin", but instead it is "Love the sinner; hate YOUR OWN sin!"
Mike Brady Jul. 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Joe – In this country we have the freedom to influence what happens. We are the government. Is your approach like the person who buried his talents until the master returned? Our inaction results in the innocent dying. Take a look at this one-minute Video: http://www.prolifetraining.com/abortionvideo.asp
Murray Vasser Jul. 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Dr. Hellerman,
Thank you for taking the time to read my response to your post. I don’t mean to be impertinent, but would you mind answering a few direct questions?
If you had lived in England in the 1790’s, would you have urged the church to publicly join Thomas Clarkson in opposing the slave trade?
If you had lived in Germany in the 1930’s, would you have urged the church to publicly join Dietrich Bonhoeffer in opposing the Nazis?
If you had lived in Alabama in the 1960’s, would you have urged the church to publicly join Martin Luther King Jr. in opposing racial segregation?
You state that you have not found a biblical mandate to vote. I would suggest Proverbs 24:11-12:
Deliver those who are drawn toward death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, “Surely we did not know this,”
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?
Sam Loveall Jul. 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Dr. Hellerman:
I am generally in agreement with your position that the church should press its influence on a personal rather than a political level. However, in making your point, I think you have brought a serious flaw into your argument. You write, "I don’t hear Christians who oppose legalizing homosexual marriage lobbying to outlaw adultery, or fornication, or obesity, or greed. These glaring inconsistencies leave an indelible stain on any attempt to ‘Christianize’ the moral contours of American society."
In these two sentences, you conflate two entirely different kinds of issues. I don't mean that homosexuality is a different kind of issue from adultery, fornication, obesity, or greed. I mean that, in the same way that Christians aren't trying to outlaw those other things, no one in the larger argument is calling for the criminalization of homosexuality (with the exception of a few idiots who are then roundly castigated by everyone, including Christians). The argument isn't over whether homosexuality should be outlawed - - it's about whether the definition of marriage includes homosexual couples. There are miles of difference between the two ideas.
In fact, Christian ministers DO often speak against adultery, fornication, obesity (well, sometimes!) and greed, just as strongly as they speak against homosexuality -- but not in an effort to criminalize them, including homosexuality.
Whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry with the state's blessings - - that's something we can argue about all day. But it doesn't fit the analogy you offered.
Looking forward to reading part 2. Blessings on you today.
Sam
Murray Vasser Jul. 6, 2012 at 6:19 PM
This conversation has been continued on a new post here:
http://www.thegoodbookblog.com/2012/jul/05/jesus-politics-part-2/
T. Lefort Jul. 20, 2012 at 4:18 AM
Hi Pastor Joe,
I know I'm a little late on this one, but we had this play going on and you know how it is.
I was glad to read your statements about Constantine. When we studied world history this year my girls couldn't understand why legalizing christianity could be harmful. After a fun comparison to legalizing chocolate consumption with every meal and for all snacks, they saw how it had a very harmful impact on the Christian church as Christ had intended it to be. Please remember they are only 10 yrs and they understand chocolate easier than the not so complicated church as Christ intended. Thank you also for not turning the sermons into the political form. One fellow co-worker with my husband asked if HIS church was political? He told Kenny that he and his wife have now left two churches for just that reason. Kenny stated that he has yet to hear a political issue brought up. I keep praying they will come and check us out.
Thank you for all you do for us.
In His Love, T