Can the word “Christian” ever convey a positive connotation when used in conjunction with politics and government, or does it necessarily carry the negative baggage of past imperialisms? Is a phrase such as “Christian democracy,” for example, an oxymoron … or can it stand on its own with integrity?
Americans champion democracy, and many American Christians believe this is a Christian nation. … Yet the more we gain historical distance from the era of slavery, anti-Catholicism and male-dominated White-Anglo-Saxon Protestantism (WASP), the more it appears that “Christian America” is a holdover from “Christian Europe.”
Today, we repeatedly hear … warnings about the threat of the Religious Right to re-impose Christianity on American society. Religious “fundamentalism” of any kind is regularly associated, if not equated, with radical Islamism. Christianity may be … constructive if it remains confined to worship services and helping ministries to the poor and needy. But as soon as there is any sign of Christians pushing for political power, the warning flags go up.
There can be no doubt that Christians (and church institutions) have, in the name of Jesus Christ, used power unjustly to abuse and subordinate others (including other Christians). The first political act by Christians today, therefore, should be to repent of those practices and institutions of injustice that we and our ancestors have supported. Yet such an act does not by itself answer the question of the just use of political power. …
The question is whether Christianity, from its deepest roots, drives toward public justice for all citizens, including equal, public-legal treatment for people of all faiths.
This is the question that calls for serious examination today. And the place to start is with the Christian scriptures. For there is no evidence in the Bible that Jesus Christ and his apostles called on government to impose Christianity on the public at large or urged Christians to use political power to gain privileges for themselves. Jesus recognized the legitimacy of government and spoke of God as the one who sends rain and sunshine on the just and unjust alike. He also told his disciples it was not their responsibility to separate believers from unbelievers in the field of the world. Paul urged Christians to recognize and submit to governments as ministers appointed by God to encourage those who do good and to punish those who do wrong. And he admonished fellow believers to live at peace with everyone insofar as it depends on them.
Both the Old and the New Testaments speak of the accountability of governments to God directly and not via submission to the church. Israel, of course, had its own governments, and those in power were repeatedly called to account for not doing justice to the people or to the aliens within. The greatest body of biblical wisdom on government (in the historical books, Psalms, the prophets and the wisdom literature) focuses attention on government’s obligation to do justice to all, especially those who have little or no power, rather than on ways to keep believers in control of unbelievers. When Job speaks of the awe he inspired as a governing official, it was because “I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him . . . I was eyes to the blind and feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, I took up the case of the stranger” (29:12-16).
A phrase like “Christian democracy” should not be an oxymoron. In fact, … Christianity, properly mined, is the very fount of an open society offering equal treatment to people of all faiths, political participation and representation for all citizens, strong protections against the abuse of power by government and provisions to protect the rights of non-government organizations and institutions … .
A “Christian-democratic” approach to politics and government should carry a banner that says, “We will never claim that our deeds or policy proposals are God’s will, but only that they represent our humble human effort to respond to God’s call to do justice.” The will of God is God’s to reveal. If our modest efforts to promote justice in an open public square can mature into a multi-faceted program of just statecraft, then perhaps one day an explicitly Christian approach to politics will be respected both at home and abroad as an honorable and valuable part of the political process.
~ James W. Skillen is the former President of the Center for Public Justice.
Bill Gram-Reefer is Editor & Publisher of Halfway To Concord, founded in 2004. Halfway To Concord is the leading online source for community-driven political news, events, and opinion for Contra Costa County and the San Francisco East Bay.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Good point, Bruce, and what politician doesn’t end a speech with, “God bless America”?
I see these cynical throw away lines as vestigial relics to prominence of 18-19th century (vehemently anti-catholic) white protestantism.
Not to be confused with the European CD parties after WW2 dedicated to anti-communism, the roots of historic Christian Democratic traditions’ democratic approach are neither liberal nor conservative, but pluralistic, opening the way to a healthy regard for both social complexity and government’s responsibility to uphold political community.
The idea of layering slogans like “God Bless America” on top of a view held by left and right that the state is the plaything of whoever can win a plurality (not even 50%+1) is not biblical religion but a sham. Matthew 21:23-32 also points out the difference between those who say they follow the path of justice and those that actually do.
Has their ever been a Presidential Candidate who has not claimed to be a Christian?
As I recall Thomas Jefferson had what would be considered by todays standard a very ‘non-christian’ view of things. Additionally as I recall it was John Adams as president who signed a treaty specifically stating that America was NOT a Christian state.
Of course much of the current thrust of this article and the subject can only be examined if there is some consensus on what is a ‘Christian’ and who gets to issue establish what that is.
I think we can agree that America is not a Christian country despite those on the right that wrap the Bible in a flag in the name of free-market capitalism, imperialism, and other isms that become wasms. A Christian Democratic approach also agrees that the modern state ought to be secular in the sense of the first amendment with no establishment of either a secular or traditional religion, in order to safeguard free exercise; not only on Sunday, but 24x7x365; individually and communally; not only in private worship but also in the public square.
And despite the scientology analog of the Calcedon Society and Reconstructionism, based the absolute mess Rushdoony made of Dooyeweerd’s work in Christian legal theory of the state, there never was a need or good reason for theocracy. This is not to say that Christian Democratic principals cannot be a leaven to current political issues or the current crisis. In fact, these same principals are already embedded in events from electoral reform, charitable choice (Bush, Clinton, Obama), and issues around religious freedom and portions of ACA (Obamacare).
It does’t take much searching to find the leading discussions and work happening around the development around Christian Democratic principals, just check in with First Things, Mirror of Justice, CPJ, and a whole host of bodies and traditions actively engaged in bringing these ideas to bear. It’s not like these “definitions” are secrets and there is some confusion of terms as you imply.
And contrary to your insinuation, one certainly doesn’t have to be a Christian to vote for candidates or parties espousing serious reform that can break the stalemate of the left-right death struggle that is taking down America today.
That said, while mainstream Christianity in America has become more of a roll your own Gnosticism, there is great discussion going on following the work of N.T. Wright concerning a renewed understanding of ecclesiology and the role of the Christian community in relation to the State.
So Edi, despite your insistence that no discussion can take place until an ill-read perspective can get a grasp around the topic and basic definitions, I can assure you it’s not as difficult as you make it sound.