Church & Politics - The Church & The State
In last week’s blog post, I discussed the overlap of democracy and the Christian faith, and before we go any farther, I want to reiterate that I find there to be significant alignment between the two. The humanists who pioneered modern democracy were, generally speaking, not the secular humanists of today but were Christian humanists or, as Karl Barth put it, “God humanists.” Their pursuit of democracy was often inspired and influenced by their faith. They used the language and imagery of Scripture to give voice to their ideals, but more than mere words, their political ideology was often a product of their theology. They saw the way the God of Scripture viewed and treated people, and they endeavored to build a political system that did the same. Now, it's important to acknowledge that their execution of this Scriptural vision of human value and flourishing was deeply flawed. Though they used universal language (e.g. "All men are created equal."), they routinely failed to apply this vision universally to all humanity and instead actualized this vision only for the segment of humanity that looked and acted like them. In some ways, we still suffer from this dysfunctional and selective application of God's vision for all humankind. That said, in theory, if not always in application, democracy and the Christian faith share a good deal of values and goals.
However, they are not the same thing. My goal over the next few blog posts will be to point out some of the ways in which democracy and the Christian faith differ from one another. I don't do this to denigrate democracy. I hope you can tell, I deeply respect democracy and believe it to be the best form of governance available to us in this present age. And further, I believe that Christians should both participate in their own democracies and encourage (in ways that are in keeping with the Way of Jesus) democracy around the world. Having said that, I strongly believe that Christians must be careful to differentiate between their faith and democratic ideals. Though they overlap in meaningful ways and it is possible to participate in both, they also differ significantly, and we must diligent to maintain the distinctions between the two. If we are not, we run the risk of doing damage to the Church in the name of democracy. In fact, to strengthen the point, we run the risk of creating an idol of democracy that we then drag into our churches, sprinkle with holy water, and worship "in the name of Jesus."
Significantly, the framers of modern democracy shared this fear going the other direction. They correctly perceived the possibility that over-identifying Church with democracy and democracy with Church could also do damage to democracy. Many of the wars in world history were (are) caused by people (often Christians) attempting to force their religion on others. In fact, in the United States, many of the most treasured origin stories of our democracy involve courageous pioneers braving the Atlantic and the unknown dangers of the New World in the pursuit of religious freedom. So, this value, the separation of Church and state, that is to say, maintaining a distinction between the two became one of the hallmarks of modern democracy. A modern democracy is, by definition and necessity, a secular institution. It is not religiously totalitarian but seeks freedom of religion for all people. Such freedom is a cornerstone of democratic society and should be protected by all Christians.
Now, here's where things get interesting (that is to say, "messy"). In dignifying the rights of all people (in a manner that is consistent with the Bible's high view of humanity), Christians helped to create a democratic system which guaranteed freedom of religion and, therefore, necessitated a separation of Church and state. It's built into the U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
However, the separation of Church, that is, faith, from any other area of life is never the goal of authentic Christianity. Instead, it was Jesus' aim that our discipleship to him would be all-consuming, that it would encompass and transform every area of our existence, even our political engagement. We are to be distinctly Christian in our political lives. So, you can see the problem. The goal of democracy is the separation of faith and politics in order to protect politics from religious totalitarianism (and presumably to protect Church from the intrusive influence of politics) and to ensure the freedom of religion for all people, but the aim of authentic Christian faith is to bring every area of our existence under the lordship of Jesus. How do we resolve this apparent contradiction?
For a many Christians (particularly in what we have come to call the evangelical Church) the solution is less a matter of conscious choice and more an inherited methodology for political engagement that seeks to "keep politics out of the pulpit" while simultaneously endeavoring to make America into a Christian nation (or, in the language of many Christians, reclaim America's Christian identity). In other words, they install a unidirectional valve on the notion of separation of Church and state: they strive (often futilely) to prevent secular politics from entering into sacred spaces, to keep political ideology and dialogue out of religious spaces in order to preserve the integrity or purity of Christian worship free from the corrosive influence of politics. At the same time, they remove the barrier going the other direction in the hopes of bringing the full weight of their faith to bear on secular politics, thus creating a Christian democracy. Their desire for what they believe to be the Bible's vision of a universal Kingdom of God leads to efforts to create it through political means in their current context. While there is certainly something worthwhile in both these aims, taken to their extremes (as they all too often are) both are inconsistent with the Way of Jesus and can cause significant damage to democracy, Church, and far more tragically, to the reputation of our King.
In next week’s blog post, I'll explore the first of these aims, the impulse to wall off our spiritual lives from our political lives and the ramifications of doing so. More to come!
