I often speak and write about the danger of a too cozy relationship between the Church and political power, but this warning also begs a further question: What is the proper relationship between God and Politics? The various answers will fall on a continuum from one end of the spectrum that places the Church above earthly power feuds all the way to the other extreme which subjugates the Church to the dominion of temporal power structures. Some will respond to the 80's sitcom question, "Who's the Boss?" by emphasizing God's sovereignty (an idealist and/or Rationalist position) and others by accepting the limitations of life as we know it (a pragmatic and/or Empiricist position). Truth be told, when studying philosophy, I always preferred the logic based approach of Descartes or Kant to the observational style of Hume or Locke. I will focus upon three primary points on this continuum, feel free to carve out a place for others in between or at the ends of the spectrum, the goal is to spur discussion and contemplation, not to squelch it.
1. God < Politics = Principles are expendable
One option would be to merge Christian belief and practice INTO the current political goals of a party or system. This option would be much worse if the system were itself overtly evil, like the German Lutheran Church's acquiescence to Nazi rule, but it still contains pitfalls even if the political philosophy one merges into is not outwardly immoral. Why is that? If one's commitment to political goals/methods is greater than one's commitment to God, it will only be a matter of time until that political system goes astray from the principles of faith and requires one to abandon them. An example that might illuminate this type of arrangement is the 'deal' that Lando makes with Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back. Lando believes he has no choice, that a harsh reality requires him to compromise 'for the greater good', but soon realizes that his 'deal' can be altered at any point because he is subservient. If you prefer a more classical example, the deal that Dr. Faustus makes with the Devil is a parallel, it too trades temporary benefits for long-term destruction. While we might typically think of this choice as relevant to Christians living under oppressive regimes that try to force obedience upon them, for examples the Early Church when facing Rome, or Christians in China today, the real danger comes not from an aggressive and antagonistic power structure, but a welcoming one. The promise of wealth and power are far more dangerous to the Church than the threat of oppression. If power is more important than principle, where is the basis for criticism of the power structure? What is the role of the prophet when the Church has handed over authority to political masters?
2. God = Politics = Principles are negotiable
Option #1 only happens most clearly when dealing with a corrupt political leadership as when Henry VIII removed the Church of England from its relationship with Rome in order to allow himself to obtain a divorce. An arrangement more likely to occur in 'ordinary' times would be one in which the Church considers Politics to be a partnership, simply a means to an end that can be managed (after all, how often are we really dealing with a Vader?). In this case, Christian belief and practices are not merged INTO the system, but rather emphasized or minimized in accordance with the current political goals of the party (or a particular leader) that one chooses to partner with. Criticism isn't excluded, as in #1, but simply muted for the sake of Realpolitik. Principles and morality are not expendable, but they are negotiable, becoming a part of the game that must be played. The time will come when the Word of God is weighed against a bargain that must be made (to get legislation passed, or to win an election), and tossed aside. This arrangement it typified by the actions of Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, whose study of the power of Sauron convinces him that the best course of action is not to oppose him (for he sees no hope in victory), but to work with him. Gandalf, realizing that Saruman has traded morality for power, continues to fight on, even against hopeless odds. If the Church allows its principles to be dictated to it by popularity (for what is politics but a popularity contest? Even dictatorships require popularity among the ruling clique), it will forever shift with the needs of the moment. Most of Church History reflects this middle of the road, pragmatic, view. There will be times when this partnership seems to be beneficial to the Church, when it yields results, and may even advance worthy causes, but these victories will inevitably give way to setbacks and compromises.
3. God > Politics = Principles are foundational
But what if the Church chose to proclaim Christian belief and practice APART FROM the current political goals of any party? Such a Church would be beholden to none, would compromise its beliefs for no promise of power. The Church could then criticize whatever policies and proposals it saw as unjust or immoral, it could support those that align with biblical principles, supporting ideas that it judged to be moral, not politicians or parties. It could cooperate when politicians chose to align with the Church's goals, engage on its own terms, and do so for God's purpose. Is such a stance naive? Impossible in the 'real world'? Or have too many of the Church's leaders lacked the courage to stand their ground? The example that comes to mind here is the decision of Steve Rogers, Captain America, to refuse to sign the Sakovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War because he believed that giving up the ability to decide for himself the difference between right and wrong was a dangerous path. (Yeah, I'm Team Cap when watching that movie.) There are actually numerous biblical precedents for this stance: When the Prophet Nathan saw that King David had chosen an immoral path, he opposed that path and called the king to question. When the Prophet Elijah saw that King Ahab and Queen Jezebel had embraced the idolatry of Baal worship, he took it upon himself to oppose the prophets of Baal, earning himself a death sentence from the king and queen in the process. Likewise, John the Baptist did not consider Herod's role as king to make him exempt from the Law of God and rebuked him for his unlawful marriage (this opposition cost him his life). Fast forward to the situation described in option #1, that of the German Lutheran Church succumbing to Nazi control, and you see in opposition to this betrayal the faithful work of the Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who also lost his life because of this stand). The Church fulfills its relationship with earthly power most faithfully when it maintains its prophetic ministry of speaking Truth to the powerful, of opposing immorality wherever it originates.
Are there other options? The Amish have decided that they'd rather not be involved at all, withdrawing from society, as have the Jehovah's Witnesses (somewhat less dramatically). While this removal from the questions of power and politics removes the temptation to compromise, it also abdicates the responsibility given to the Church to stand for justice and protect the oppressed.
Isaiah 1:17 New International Version
Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.
Leviticus 19:15 New International Version
“‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Psalm 82:3 New International Version
Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
While it is true that the Church is not Israel, and we do not live (nor should we seek to) in a theocracy, the Church still has a role to play in upholding and advocating for morality in the societies and power structures that it finds itself a part of. What the Church has at times forgotten, especially when offered earthly power, is that God does not accept that the pathway to good can be paved with evil. (Romans 12:21 (NIV) Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.)
When I was eighteen I strongly considered majoring in political science and seeking to serve my country in the realm of politics. In the end, I rejected that path for two primary reasons: (1) I hated the idea of constantly asking for money, (2) I knew that I would be forced to choose between proclaiming what was True and Right and thus ending my career at some point when those things were opposed by the needs of the party, or muzzling my beliefs (or worse yet changing them) in order to move ahead. I don't doubt that thousands of Christian politicians from the local to the federal level struggle with what their faith demands of them, with the demand to compromise principles for the sake of politics. What if the Church supported them by not playing the political game? What if the Church offered these politicians an example of moral fortitude that might inspire them to stand for justice even when it wasn't convenient?
We've never truly seen what the Church could become if it took all of Jesus' teachings to heart. What would our world look like if Christ's followers really 'turned the other cheek' and 'repaid evil with good'? We fall short, we repent, we lean upon the Spirit and seek to imitate Christ-likeness better the next time. Imagine also if the Church truly believed the words of Paul, Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.
God is already sovereign, what if the Church started acting like it knew that to be true?
Philippians 4:8 New International Version
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
No comments:
Post a Comment