Give Peace A Chance? ANOTHER FABULOUS DISCUSSION BETWEEN SEAN McGINTY AND JENNIFER BELL

Sean: So our last discussion revolved around the popularity of zombies. Continuing with the theme of flesh-eating monsters, this time out we'll be talking about politicians! Joking, joking!

Jennifer, what are your thoughts on the relationship between politics and the Christian? My own feeling is that the American church has let itself become far too identified with the political system in general, but what's the appropriate relationship? Should churches as organizations take active roles in politics? Should even individual Christians do so?

Jennifer: Well, I have several initial thoughts. First, we’re all—by nature—“political” beings. Citizens. Under Authority. Desirous of Justice, Order, Ethics. (Hey, we see this in freakin’ “Walking Dead”). This is part of human nature. So, there’s that. Second, I think the popular understanding of political involvement—taking part in public affairs? Voicing policy opinions?—is ultimately a matter of integrity: saying what you mean, meaning what you say. Putting your money where your mouth is. That sort of thing? Integrity is the issue.

That said, is there an important distinction between a political Church and a political individual?

I think you should talk, though. Tell me why you think the church is overly political? Is that fair? Then, I’ll talk a little about how I think you may be right, though politics are inescapable too?

Sean: I'm not sure I'd describe the church as overly political per se, just that we've allowed ourselves to be too often viewed within the framework of politics. So, for example, I've thankfully never heard a sermon extolling the virtues of limited government, but the public perception is that most Christians hold to the Republican Party line on that issue. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with Christians holding to a view of limited government, but there is something wrong when the church's identity becomes blurred with a political party.

It's important to say here that there are times when political overlap is inevitable. When Scripture directly speaks to a particular topic that has become politicized, such as abortion or homosexuality, Christians must hold to the biblical position. This may cause us to be associated with a given party, but we should make it clear that we're not influenced by the party's opinion, only by the Word. (The danger here is that Christians might be played as pawns by politicians who give lip service to our concerns but have no real Christian conviction of their own. But that topic brings us down a deep rabbit hole . . .)

In areas that the Bible doesn't speak to, like a preferred form of government, I'm of the opinion that the church should not take a stand. Individual Christians might but, even here, it shouldn't be at the expense of spreading the Gospel.

I suppose my main concern is that Christians have been influenced by political parties to die on hills that we really, as Christians, have no vested interest in. A balanced budget may be a good thing, but it's not something that the Church should be concerned about. Of course, the whole thing becomes far more complicated when we look at the individual Christian's role in politics.

Jennifer:  I’m not entirely sure I’m following you. I might need some clarification. I do think I can agree with you on the problematic nature of the Church becoming too closely associated with a given political party. But, if possible, could you help me out on some things?

Can you give me an example of what you mean when you say that Christians might hold to a political position at the expense of spreading the Gospel? What does that mean? What does that look like?

And then what is this dying-on-hills thing, without our vested interests?

If you answer this, I might offer this pretty strong position: no political issue is neutral.

Sean: Well, when I’m talking about dying on hills, I’m referring to elevating an issue to a place of primary importance. Allowing it to become the thing that we’re willing to fight tooth and nail over.

Let’s use capitalism and socialism as examples. Scripture prescribes neither, although often, in the U.S., we’ve seen Christians giving the implicit impression that capitalism is the Christian system. I’m not saying here that Christians should or shouldn’t be Capitalists; I’m merely saying that, since Scripture doesn’t directly speak to the matter, it’s not appropriate to allow the system to become closely related to Christianity.

  

In terms of no political issue being neutral, I’d agree with you in the sense that, as Romans 14:23 states, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” So, yes, insofar as our political values are informed (or not informed) by our faith, they are not neutral. But does this mean that there is a Christian position for every political topic?

Jennifer: I actually think that there might be. Isn’t this part of dominion? Of taking dominion? How else are we to live in the world, but not be of the world? Maybe this all depends on one’s understanding of eschatology.

If we are to love our neighbors, care for widows and orphans, have dominion, take thoughts captive, etc., then maybe we are—by necessity—required to come to terms with every little nuance of the world, including limited government or balancing the budget.

That said, our affiliation isn’t with a political party but with the Kingdom of God. I’m not totally sure what that looks like, but I know that I’m not personally thrilled about being associated with the Right or the Left. I definitely agree with you on the problematic nature of Christianity being linked to particular political parties. For me, personally, it’s always been a little embarrassing. Sometimes, I really just want to distance myself from the scene, if you know what I mean.

So, let’s say you’re right. Now what? How should the Church respond to political realities? It becomes terribly messy to figure out how we should systematically handle public policy. Allow me to throw out some random, haphazardly put together questions for you.

Separation of Church and State: Realistic? Problematic? What are your thoughts?

Gun Control: Is the Bible silent on this?

What about feeding the poor, taking care of widows, pooling our funds: are we talking socialism?

Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby: yay or nay?

These questions are terribly unfair, but humor me. I think the ultimate question has to do with what should a Christian do—as opposed to what should a Christian not do. What do you think? How, then, do Christians behave politically?

Sean: Wow, that’s a lot of questions! I think how a person goes about answering them depends on one’s understanding of the relationship between the Church and the State. There are two major views a Christian is likely to come across. The first is the Two Kingdoms model, which holds that God has established two realms of authority (Church and State) with their own set of responsibilities and powers. The second is the Transformational model, which believes that believers help work out God’s redemption of creation through cultural and political vehicles. Both of these views, however, have various subcategories and nuances, so I don’t want to give the impression that either is monolithic. For example, both Luther and Calvin held to a Two Kingdoms model, but they each had different understandings of the details. Luther was largely okay with government involvement in the church, while Calvin was not.

I subscribe to a Two Kingdoms view, so when it comes to separation of Church and State, I think it’s realistic, necessary, and problematic. The Bible makes it fairly clear that living under the New Covenant means observing this division. This become troublesome in that, while we should hope that the State will be fair and just, we shouldn’t be surprised when it isn’t (living in a fallen word). Nevertheless, we’re still called to respect the authority of the state over matters that have been granted to it. Ultimately, I think the Two Kingdoms model better preserves the tension of the Christian life. We’re resurrected, but not yet. The Kingdom has come, but it hasn’t yet been fully consummated. We’re in the world, but not of it.

One of the outgrowths of the Two Kingdoms model is that there’s not a single Christian way to do politics. Let’s use social programs as an example. A Christian might argue for a larger government with a more expansive system in place to care for the needy, or he may feel that a smaller government system should exist to encourage individual independence in the recipients. In both cases, the Christian should be motivated by a love for his or her neighbor. In neither case is the Christian arguing for a method that is explicitly stated in Scripture. I can’t, therefore, say that the Christian model is to expand (or contract) Medicare coverage. What I can say is that, following the Lord’s instruction to love my neighbor, in this situation, I believe Option A is better than Option B.  In any case, the view should not be that the world is a little more redeemed because my preferred political program is in place. Rather, the concern should be to spread the Gospel and make disciples, who will subsequently perform their vocations (including politics) in a fair and just manner.

Jennifer: I do appreciate your Two Kingdom/Transformational response, which I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve never heard before. My gut response is that I’m probably of the Transformational School o’ Thought. This comes, my guess, from an eschatological stance, and my own background in International Relations. When I think of something like human rights or civil rights, my first thought is that, not only is there a required Christian response (to which you would probably agree), but there is also a best Christian response (to which you might not agree?)—and it is unequivocally our responsibility to figure out what that best Christian response is.

At the end of the day, we are responsible for properly responding to issues surrounding both gun control and Chick-Fil-A.

Sean: I'm pretty new to the concepts myself, so I'm right with you. I'm not sure if I'd deny that there's a "best Christian way." My feeling is more that the best way, when it comes to political engagement, isn't always clear, and that Christians have a lot of freedom to take different approaches. The question I keep coming back to is "would advocating for a particular political position qualify for church discipline?" In certain cases where we have clear biblical direction, such as with abortion, I think that would be appropriate. But for the vast majority of political issues, Scripture is fairly silent. In those cases, I think we need to be cautious in our affiliations. Again, that doesn't mean Christian shouldn't be politically involved, but it does mean that we should be hesitant to attach a political position to the name of Christianity.

Jennifer: Thank you, Sean, for your thought-provoking discussion! Please feel free to send us your comments!