Christianity and Politics XII: On Entering the Political Arena
Editor’s note: This is the concluding article (Part 12) of this series. See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Part 11.
Introduction
If there is one main thing I’ve sought to do in this series of articles on Christianity and politics it has been to help Christians see that heavenly-mindedness and the attempt to wield earthly political power are not antithetical, or at least should not be. God redeems believers in Christ to live forever in perfect communion with him. That must always be the most important thing in the lives of Christians. But God also made a world for man to rule. Doing so, in fact, both before and after the fall, provides an earthly image of God’s own rule over the world. God’s people will always be tempted to place lesser, worldly goods (family, possessions, politics, etc.) above the ultimate good (Christ), but the way of fighting that temptation is not a form of ascetic renunciation of those worldly goods, but instead a right ordering of earthly and spiritual goods in our lives. Although he is writing about marriage and food, it doesn’t seem a stretch to apply what Paul writes in 1 Timothy 4:4–5 to all non-sinful worldly goods: “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.” This passage is in the same letter in which Paul urges Christians to pray for “kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2). Political power is an earthly good, meant by God to be employed for the establishment of blessing, peace, and security in one’s nation. Attempting to defend that claim and show some of its basis in Scripture and God’s natural revelation has been the goal of this series.
Now, in this final article, I will put forward a simple political approach that I see as a summation and distillation of the entire series. I will also explain several ways in which I see this approach as applicable to our world today, especially in America. My thesis can be stated simply: our political philosophy should recognize the Christian foundations of America’s political order and should be enacted in a prudent use of political power in our nation.
The Christian Foundations of the American Political Order
Politics is the art of living together in a nation. It is the attempt to come up with workable principles and structures that enable human beings to live in harmony in a specific community, to direct resources where needed for the good of the community, and to protect the community from harm, both internal and external. The Bible, on this understanding, is self-evidently not a handbook of politics. Its purpose is to explain to us who God is, what he requires of his creatures, and how we can have communion with him through Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, the Bible has much to teach us about the basic reason why God instituted political order in the world, even before the fall. Man was made to order and rule the world God made. The fall brought mankind into a state of misery and death, but it did not fundamentally change the fact that man was to rule over the world. We learn much about the divine purposes for human government in the Bible, especially in Proverbs, a book written by an earthly ruler (Solomon) so that the people of God could (among other things) come to “know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity.” Righteousness, justice, and equity are fundamentally political concepts, and the pursuit of all three is at the heart of good government.
God’s spiritual kingdom advances in the world through the preaching of the Gospel. It is a kingdom of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. But God also rules over the world he made through human political order, an order that must be administered justly by men according to God’s design. There are other basic principles in the Bible that are important for understanding how politics should function in the world, such as how the family serves as the bedrock of the nation and the obligations that citizens have toward their earthly rulers and that those rulers have toward their people. That said, many (perhaps even most) of the details about how nations should be organized politically God has left to man to discover in the world: through the conscience, through observation of the God’s created order, and through trial and error; in short, in the natural law.
Again, the Bible is not a manual of politics. It is relevant for our understanding of the political task, but that task is not the focus of God’s special revelation in Scripture. Accordingly, the development of the American political system is inexplicable unless we recognize these two truths, that Christian teaching undergirds the edifice of American politics, but that Christian teaching is rarely put forward as the explicit basis for any of our laws. The political philosopher Russell Kirk puts this dynamic well:
The law that judges mete out is the product of statute, convention, and precedent. Yet behind statute, convention, and precedent may be discerned, if mistily, the forms of Christian doctrines, by which statute and convention and precedent are much influenced—or once were so influenced.[1]
What are the Christian doctrines that have so greatly influenced American politics and law, even if indirectly? It would be things such as “the understanding that all true law comes from God, and that God is the source of order and justice,”[2] that “[c]ertain root principles of justice exist, arising from the nature which God has conferred upon man,”[3] and that government exists “to restrain human tendencies toward violence and fraud.”[4] In short, “[w]hat Christianity . . . confers is not a code of positive laws, but instead some general understanding of justice, the human condition being what it is.”[5]
That is to say: America’s political and legal order presupposes foundational Christian beliefs, even though neither our constitution nor our laws are explicitly based on those beliefs. The influence of Christianity is real, though indirect. Any conception that ignores the foundational Christian presuppositions of our political order is thus doomed to fail, because it is ultimately contrary to God’s creational design, as is any conception that attempts to treat the Bible as a comprehensive manual for politics.
Putting Politics into Practice
The approach to politics I’ve argued for in this series could be described as a politics built on Christian foundations, but one that is pragmatically oriented. I think the 18th century English politician and political writer Edmund Burke was right to insist that “all that wise men ever aim at is to keep things from coming to the worst. Those who expect perfect reformations, either deceive or are deceived miserably.”[6] Politics is about doing the best you can with what is available, not about insisting on impossible ideals. One should aspire to goodness, truth, and righteousness for one’s nation, but must recognize the limitations of politics in a fallen world. Utopianism, Christian or otherwise, has no place in politics. In fact, utopianism is not possible precisely because of what we know from the Bible about fallen human nature.
While the Bible has much to say about human nature, justice, and the purpose of government, it has little to say about the practical details of politics: what form of government is best (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, etc.), how government should be structured (division of powers, single or bicameral legislature, etc.), how elections should take place (direct vote, electoral college, etc.), and so on. Determining the practicalities of a political order has been left to us by God, to be determined in harmony with biblical wisdom, but also according to our own God-given reason as we reflect on his revelation in the created order.
I have argued in this series for a somewhat more minimalistic role of the state regarding the promotion of true religion than is found in many older Christian theories, including those of the Protestant Reformers. Contrary to the claims of many, however, the Reformers did not simply perpetuate medieval views unthinkingly, which is clear in the articulate arguments they presented for their positions. Nonetheless, I think there are a few matters in which their views could be tweaked. The main area in which this is the case, I would contend, is regarding their insistence that the state must enforce certain religious particulars. They were crystal clear that the state must not usurp the authority of the church in matters of church governance, preaching, and sacraments, but they also maintained, for example, that the civil magistrate should ensure that faithful teaching is maintained in churches, that heresy be suppressed, that there was pure worship in the churches, and even that the civil magistrate could call church councils.
The reason I take a different view is twofold. First, authority in matters of church doctrine, governance, and practice, is only granted in Scripture to the church. Second, there is the simple lesson of subsequent history. Protestant Christians, in agreement on many of the most central points of doctrine, have divided politically in the past, to point even of going to war against each other. A broadening of religious liberty to include (at the very least) all genuine Protestants would have avoided this. The English Civil Wars of the 1640s-60s are a case in point.[7] Initially Presbyterian and Independent Calvinists were united in seeking to put an end to the perceived tyranny of King Charles I, including his attempt to impose Anglican worship on all churches in England. As the two civil wars developed during this time the Presbyterians insisted on the imposition of Presbyterian church government and doctrine on all English churches. This inevitably led to conflict (eventually military conflict) with the Independents. This conflict, between extremely similar groups of Reformed Christians, was disastrous for the nation. It allowed radical elements to make significant advances in undermining the social order of the nation, and eventually led to a reestablishment of state-mandated Anglicanism in all churches in the country. Could not this have been avoided by a kind of pan-Protestant toleration? With the benefit of hindsight, I think the answer is yes. I would argue that ultimately the level of religious tolerance within a nation is a matter of political prudence, rather than of unbending principle. What matters most is a civil polity that seeks to rule justly according to basic Christian principles.
Classically Protestant Politics for Today
Even though I take a somewhat more minimalistic view of the role of the magistrate regarding certain matters, there are many things the Protestant politics of the past can teach us today. To keep this from being overly abstract I will use the American version of Chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a chapter on the civil magistrate. The nature of these revisions has been debated recently by Kevin DeYoung, Stephen Wolfe, and Aldo Leon. My own view is that when the American revision states that the civil magistrate may not “in the least, interfere in matters of faith” it was making a substantive change in the state’s power over religious matters on one specific point: the state, in the revised version, leaves matters of church governance to the church alone. That really is the only major change I can see.
What is the magistrate called to do in the revised version? Civil government exists for the “public good,” for which purpose magistrates are granted the “power of the sword,” as laid out in Romans 13 (WCF 23.1). To defend and encourage those who are good in a society, and to punish evildoers necessitates an understanding of what is good and evil, which means that the magistrate must rule according to God’s moral law. Similarly, the magistrate is also to “to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth” (WCF 23.2). Interestingly, that clause includes the phrase “maintain piety.” Taken in light of other portions of the revised confession, that phrase should be understood in a somewhat restricted sense, but the state nonetheless has an obligation to facilitate true piety (which means true Christian piety) within its own jurisdiction. This responsibility of magistrates “as nursing fathers” is defined in WCF 23.3 as “the duty . . . to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.” In other words, all true Christian churches and individual Christians must be protected from external harm in such a way that facilitates the free exercise of their religion. God requires this of civil magistrates.
Magistrates are to ensure that “no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever” (WCF 23.3). While the state is only called to protect true Christian churches in order to facilitate the flourishing of those churches, it must ensure that no one else takes it upon himself to attack others because they adhere to a false religion, or to no religion at all. It is one thing, however, to say that the state should prevent harm being done to non-Christians, and quite another thing to say that the state has a responsibility to support false religions in their own discharging of their religious practices. The confession does not argue for the latter.
Put more simply: the confession recognizes that the state is separate from the church, but insists that the state must be supportive of the work of the church. It does not grant similar support to false religion; it simply forbids personal attacks on such persons. There is no modern conception of unlimited religious liberty, even in the revised confession. Should a nation allow religious freedom to other religions? This is a matter of contemporary political prudence. There is no reason why a state could not tolerate some religions without tolerating all religions, since different religions have different impacts on national well-being.
Imagine some scenarios in which the principles stated above are applied in America today. Municipalities should be generous in granting zoning permission for churches. Tax breaks should (as they still are) be granted to churches and ministers. Extra security should be provided, as needed, and as municipal funding would allow, for all churches. Christian teaching should not be hindered or limited in appropriate venues.
Many other things might not be mandated in the confession, but are not in conflict with it either, including basic Christian teaching in public schools and universities, explicitly Christian public proclamations from our elected leaders (a common practice in America’s past), public days of fasting and prayer, and so on. One effect of such things would be to push back against what is in effect state-enforced atheism, which has been on the rise for some time in America. When the state insists that it must be “neutral” with regard to religion the effect is to convey that no religion is true, or can be known to be true. That is quite a far cry from the confession’s insistence that the state act as a nursing father to protect all true churches, or that it ensure that the church is helped in its own maintenance of piety, and protected in the free exercise of its divine calling. The state in its calendar, rituals, proclamations, and other such things exerts a profound influence on its citizens. It can, and should, exert this influence in a way that is a help, rather than a hindrance, to all Christian churches. The state should see itself as operating harmoniously with the church, while not attempting to interfere in the internal work of the church, “not assum[ing] to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfer[ing] in matters of faith” (WCF 23.3).
Conclusion
One can accept that the relationship between church and state is different in America’s history than it was in earlier periods of church history without accepting the modern absolute secularist claim that church and state must be radically separate. The radically secularist view seeks to drive a wedge between church and state, to prevent the state from even helping the church in its unique mission. The older Protestant view, even in its somewhat milder modern forms, does precisely the opposite: it sees church and state as distinct spheres of authority that nonetheless are intended by God to operate in harmony, the state “for [God’s] own glory, and the public good,” the church, which has been “given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world” (WCF 25.3).
The purpose of this entire series has been to show and explain the harmonious relationship between these two divine institutions, between church and state; thus also, between politics and Christian spirituality. The state is tasked with bringing earthly blessing to a nation and, as it were, getting out of the way so that the church—in reliance on God’s word and the work of the Holy Spirit—can advance the kingdom of God, bringing the blessing of eternal life to a lost world.
God’s people will not always get this balance perfectly, but they must strive to do the best they can in humble reliance on the Lord. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize every fallible attempt at Christian politics. In this regard, perhaps we can do no better than to end this series with the famous words of Theodore Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming . . .[8]
Or more briefly, from Edmund Burke: men are “rather to run the risk of falling into faults in a course which leads us to act with effect and energy, than to loiter out our days without blame and without use.”[9]
[1] Russell Kirk, “The Christian Postulates of English and American Law,” in Rights and Duties, 143.
[2] Russell Kirk, “X,” in Rights and Duties, 20.
[3] Russell Kirk, “X,” in Rights and Duties, 29.
[4] Russell Kirk, “X,” in Rights and Duties, 29.
[5] Russell Kirk, “The Christian Postulates of English and American Law,” in Rights and Duties, 142.
[6] Cited in Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, 381
[7] On which see the brief account in Blair Worden, The English Civil Wars: 1640-1660 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2009).
[8] Theodore Roosevelt, Address at the Sorbonne in Paris, France: “Citizenship in a Republic” (April 23, 1910).
[9] Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770) in Reflections on the Revolution in France and Other Writings (ed. Jesse Norman; London: Everyman’s, 2015), 139.
